wilderness.ordvac.com - User contributions [en]

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2023-03-05T21:26:51Z

Admin:

* navigation
** mainpage|mainpage-description
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges
* SEARCH
* TOOLBOX
* LANGUAGES

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2023-03-05T21:25:59Z

Admin: Created page with " * navigation ** mainpage|mainpage-description ** recentchanges-url|recentchanges ** randompage-url|randompage * SEARCH * TOOLBOX * LANGUAGES"

* navigation
** mainpage|mainpage-description
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges
** randompage-url|randompage
* SEARCH
* TOOLBOX
* LANGUAGES

Measures Considered But Not Used

2023-03-05T20:51:16Z

Admin:

References

2023-03-05T20:50:22Z

Admin:

Glossary

2023-03-05T20:49:58Z

Admin:

Other Features of Value Quality Indicators

2023-03-05T20:49:35Z

Admin:

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality Indicators

2023-03-05T20:49:10Z

Admin:

Undeveloped Quality Indicators

2023-03-05T20:48:37Z

Admin:

[[Category:USFS]]
<div class="noautonum" style="float:right;width:30%;margin-left:15px;">
<div class="toc">
<div class="center">[[USFS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide]]</div>
[[File:Wilderness character monitoring technical guide - rmrs gtr406.pdf.png|200px|thumb|center]]
<div class="center">
'''4 {{ PAGENAME }}'''
</div>
</div>
<br>
__TOC__
</div>

Monitoring the Undeveloped Quality assesses how physical developments as well as motorized and mechanized use within wilderness are trending over time. Key indicators and measures monitor authorized developments, inholdings, and various types of motorized and mechanized use. This section provides detailed guidance for monitoring the following indicators and measures:

: 4.2 Indicator: Presence of Non-Recreational Structures, Installations, and Developments
:: 4.2.1 Measure: Index of Authorized Non-Recreational Physical Development
: 4.3 Indicator: Presence of Inholdings
:: 4.3.1 Measure: Acres of Inholdings
: 4.4 Indicator: Use of Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport
:: 4.4.1 Measure: Index of Administrative Authorizations to Use Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport
:: 4.4.2 Measure: Percent of Emergency Incidents Using Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport
:: 4.4.3 Measure: Index of Special Provision Authorizations to Use Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport

== 4.2 Indicator: Presence of Non-Recreational Structures, Installations, and Developments ==

This indicator focuses on the physical evidence of human occupation and modification. There is one required measure for this indicator.

=== 4.2.1 Measure: Index of Authorized Non-Recreational Physical Development ===

This measure is an index that assesses selected elements for each type, or component, of non-recreational physical development. Data are compiled from a variety of local and national data sources and entered in various NRM applications. NRM-WCM calculates the measure value. Table 2.4.1 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.4.1—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Authorized Non-Recreational Physical Development.".png|thumb|Table 2.4.1—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Authorized Non-Recreational Physical Development."]]

==== Protocol ====

Individual developments monitored under this measure are categorized under seven distinct measure components:

# Buildings
# Dams and other instream structures
# Roads
# Fixed instrumentation sites
# Utility infrastructure
# Mines
# Grazing infrastructure

For this measure, the protocol first provides a general description of the required steps (1–4), followed by detailed instructions on completing steps 1–3 for each component.

'''Step 1: Ensure users understand what developments and elements are counted under each measure component.''' First, it is important to note that only developments categorized under the seven measure components are monitored here. While the measure components are not exhaustive, they do assess the most common occurrences of non-recreational developments and should reliably track changes in the measure. Second, for this measure all relevant developments are counted regardless of their length or size. For example, a short 0.1 mile road would still be included in this measure; it would not be rounded down to 0 miles and discounted. Other general guidelines that apply to all measure components are described below.

''Exclude recreational developments''

* Developments intended to support recreational use, such as system trails and bridges, as well as administratively provided infrastructure such as hitching posts, bear poles, and shelters are not included under this measure. Instead, they are evaluated in the measure Number of Authorized Constructed Recreation Features (section 5.4.2 in part 2) under the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality to avoid double counting.

Include all infrastructure authorized by the Forest Service and exclude unauthorized developments

* This measure includes developments managed directly by the Forest Service as well as those installed or maintained by permittees or cooperators under current agreements.
* Some developments may be installed by other governmental entities, such as Forest Service Research or affiliated federal, state, or local government agencies, without the prior knowledge or approval of NFS staff or line officers. When discovered, this protocol assumes either these developments will be put under a valid permit or agreement and subsequently assessed under this measure, or they will be removed from a wilderness.
* Additionally, there are other types of recent, unauthorized developments typically installed by the general public, such as squatters' huts and infrastructure related to marijuana plantations. While these items may also affect the Undeveloped Quality, they are typically removed when discovered as a general management practice. Therefore, these generally "ephemeral" types of developments are not counted in this measure.

''Include some types of abandoned or historical developments''

* Many wildernesses contained abandoned or unauthorized developments that predate the area's designation as wilderness. In general, abandoned developments are rarely included in this measure, and only if they are considered to be significant or large enough to warrant practicable data collection. For example, small abandoned developments, such as trash dumps, building foundations, or the remnants of former structures are not included under this measure. Larger abandoned developments, such as cars and planes, and military infrastructure are similarly not tracked under this measure.
* Regardless of their size or significance, abandoned mines are always included in this measure until they are fully rehabilitated and no longer observable.
* Developments determined to have historical value may be included in this measure if they are considered to be significant or large enough and if adequate data exist. For example, '''buildings of historical value''' are usually counted under this measure while historical utility infrastructure may not be. Historical developments may also be included in the measure Condition Index for Integral Cultural Features (section 6.2.1 in part 2) under the Other Features of Value Quality. Double counting is not a concern in such cases because the Undeveloped Quality tracks the presence and impact of the development (e.g., the type and size of a historical building) as a degradation to wilderness character while the Other Features of Value Quality tracks the condition of the feature (e.g., the integrity and lack of disturbance) as having a positive effect on wilderness character.

''Exclude temporary developments''

* This measure avoids tracking temporary developments, but does track permanent or long-term features. Long-term features are those that occur in a wilderness for a cumulative period of 12 months or longer during a 5-year time span (not necessarily in sequential time).

''Exclude developments on inholdings''

* Developments located on private inholdings and other non-NFS lands within wilderness are not included under this measure.

'''Step 2: Retrieve the data for each of the measure components; evaluate and update the data as necessary.''' Most, but not all, of the relevant data for developments counted under this protocol should already reside in various NRM applications. For developments that are not currently tracked in NRM, new records must be added using local knowledge and other available data sources. The central data analyst can assist local units in compiling national data and entering new records in NRM-WCM. All new or existing records must also be validated by local units and linked to the specific wilderness in which they are located. While these linkages are automatically established for NRM applications with spatial data (such as NRM-Roads), for non-spatial NRM applications these connections must be made manually through the use of database tables. In such cases, the association between a development and a wilderness is managed through various linking features provided in NRM (such as the "Feature x Land Unit Link" form). Over time this approach will become obsolete and all linkages will be made automatically through spatial analysis.

Consult a specialist familiar with the appropriate NRM application for assistance with any of the measure components, if necessary. For each component, units must complete the following three basic tasks to retrieve, evaluate, and update the data:

# Retrieve the existing data from NRM by running a report in NRM-WCM that displays all features of interest linked to a particular wilderness. If additional non-NRM data sources are described for a measure component, retrieve the existing data from those sources as well. The central data analyst can assist local units in compiling data from any regional or national databases and entering new records in NRM-WCM.
# Review the existing data for accuracy and completeness with local wilderness staff and other relevant resource specialists (e.g., range specialists for grazing infrastructure, facility engineers for buildings). The purpose of this review is to identify whether any individual developments are missing from NRM, and to determine whether any existing records contain incorrect or incomplete attribute information or are not linked to a wilderness.
# Work with relevant local staff to compile missing and corrected data. For developments with data already tracked in NRM, update existing records and link features to the appropriate wilderness as necessary. For developments that are not currently tracked in NRM, enter new records in the relevant NRM application. Data in NRM may be updated using any available data sources or professional judgment. If professional judgment is used, include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who provided the information and the basis for their determination.

'''Step 3: Calculate individual development ratings and measure component scores.''' Individual development ratings are numerical values for each feature monitored under this measure (e.g., the rating for one specific dam). Measure component scores are the numerical values for each measure component, derived by summing the individual development ratings for all features monitored under a component (e.g., the measure component score for all dams and other instream structures inside wilderness). The NRM-WCM application will calculate the individual development ratings and the component scores. Table 2.4.2 summarizes the scoring rules for all the measure components in this index and these calculations are described in detail under the section for each measure component.

[[File:Table 2.4.2—Summary table of the scoring rules for all seven measure components..png|thumb]]
[[File:Table 2.4.2—Summary table2 of the scoring rules for all seven measure components..png|thumb|Table 2.4.2—Summary table of the scoring rules for all seven measure components. NID = National Inventory of Dams.]]

Local units must review and validate the individual development ratings and component scores, and correct them in the original NRM application as necessary. As part of validating the component scores, it is important to verify that individual features are only tracked under a single measure component and are not double counted. For example, while a water impoundment used by livestock could reasonably be tracked under either the grazing infrastructure component or the dams and other instream structures component, for this measure it must only be counted under one of those components, not both. If the same feature has multiple records under different components, ensure that it is not double-counted by deselecting the record for the less relevant component in NRM-WCM. Local units may use their discretion to determine which component is less relevant. Deselected records will still appear in NRM-WCM reports, but will not be included in calculations for the component scores. Local units may also deselect records automatically retrieved by NRM-WCM if they are inaccurate or represent features that no longer exist on the ground. If a feature is deselected, include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the decision and why.

'''Step 4: Calculate the overall development index value and enter data in the WCMD.''' The NRM-WCM application will also calculate the final index value by summing the component scores (table 2.4.3). Local units must validate the index value generated by NRM-WCM. Once validated, enter the overall development index value in the WCMD. The measure value is the index value.

[[File:Table 2.4.3—An example of how to calculate the development index value for a wilderness..png|thumb|Table 2.4.3—An example of how to calculate the development index value for a wilderness.]]

The following sections provide detailed instructions on how to complete steps 1–3 for each measure component.

===== Measure Component: Buildings =====

This component tracks two elements for buildings: type and size. Local data are compiled and periodically entered in NRM-Buildings or NRM-Features. NRM-WCM calculates the component score.

'''Step 1: Ensure users understand what developments and elements are counted under the buildings measure component.''' A building is defined as "a structure to support, shelter, or enclose persons, animals, or property of any kind" (FSH 6509.11k, section 56.05 and 7309.11, section 05). Historical buildings are included under this measure component, but buildings on inholdings or other non-NFS lands are not. The two elements used to calculate individual development ratings for buildings are type and size.

The type element is categorized by the amount of time a structure serves to house people. 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. The following categories are used to assess the type element:

* Unoccupied, abandoned, or '''non-residential'''—buildings that are not occupied by people. This includes non-residential buildings that are designed and built to support functions other than human habitation, such as storage sheds, as well as residential buildings that were occupied in the past but no longer are, such as repurposed or abandoned structures. Examples of residential buildings that would be counted under this category include: a cabin originally built for human occupation that has now been repurposed as an administrative storage unit, a historical lookout preserved by heritage staff but restricted from visitor entry or occupation, and a dilapidated cabin that is still standing but is no longer maintained and unsafe to enter.
* '''Part-time residential (seasonal)'''—buildings occupied by people for a cumulative total of 6 months or less each year, such as functioning fire lookouts.
* '''Full-time residential (year-round)'''—buildings occupied by people for a cumulative total of more than 6 months each year, such as certain crew quarters.

The size element is categorized by the gross area of a structure. The larger the building, the greater the impact on a visitor's sense of the undeveloped nature of wilderness character (to key off the phrase "substantially unnoticeable" in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act). The following categories are used to assess the size element:

* Small—buildings with a gross area less than 500 square feet.
* Moderate—buildings with a gross area between 500 and 1,000 square feet.
* Large—buildings with a gross area greater than 1,000 square feet.

'''Step 2: Retrieve the data for the buildings measure component; evaluate and update the data as necessary.''' Data on buildings are currently stored in NRM-Buildings and NRM-Features; however, the completeness of these existing data is likely to vary considerably from wilderness to wilderness. For example, buildings with existing records in NRM may not be linked to a wilderness or may be missing critical attribute information, while other buildings may not be recorded in NRM at all. Any building that is not currently tracked in NRM-Buildings and NRM-Features must be manually entered in that application. For the measure baseline year, it is especially important to follow the steps described below to ensure all non-recreational wilderness buildings have accurate records in NRM. In subsequent years, less work will be required as local units will only need to update records if buildings have been added, altered, or removed since the previous monitoring cycle. Complete the following steps in NRM:

# Retrieve existing data by running a report in NRM-WCM that displays all features of interest for the buildings measure component that are linked to a particular wilderness. (Data for this report are pulled from existing records in NRM-Buildings and NRM-Features.) The following attributes will be displayed for all buildings:
* Building name
* Building ID
* Category (e.g., family housing, storage)
* Sub-category
* Gross square feet
* Status (e.g., existing-active)
* Building use (select recreational or non-recreational)
* Building type
# Enter the new "Building use" and "Building type" attributes in NRM-WCM— these attributes cannot be entered in NRM-Buildings. For "Building use," select whether each building is "recreational" or "non-recreational." For "Building type," select the amount of time each structure is used to house people based on the categories for the type element described in step 1. Use the "Category" and "Sub-category" attributes as well as local knowledge to make these determinations.
# Review the results of the NRM-WCM report for accuracy and completeness by working with local wilderness staff and facilities specialists.
* Determine if any attributes are incomplete or incorrect for an individual building.
* Determine if any known non-recreational wilderness buildings are missing from the NRM-WCM report. If buildings are missing, there are two possible explanations: (1) records exist in NRM-Buildings or NRM-Features but have not been linked to the wilderness, or (2) records have never been entered in NRM. To rule out the first explanation, consult specialists with access to NRM-Buildings and NRM-Features to identify and retrieve any existing records for missing buildings that have not yet been linked to the wilderness.
# Update the data in NRM-Buildings and NRM-Features as necessary. Records in NRM-Buildings and NRM-Features can only be edited or added by specialists with access to that application. Consult specialists with access to NRM-Buildings and NRM-Features, as well as wilderness staff and facilities specialists, to complete this step
* If any incomplete or incorrect attributes were found, update the existing records in NRM-Buildings or NRM-Features using local knowledge or any other available data sources.
* If any missing buildings were identified that have existing records in NRMBuildings or NRM-Features but are not yet linked to the wilderness, link those records through the "Feature x Land Unit Link" form ("Link type" should be "Overlay"). This linking step can be accomplished by any user with access to the NRM-Wilderness application and does not require specialist involvement.
* If any missing buildings were identified that are not currently included in NRM, create new records in NRM-Buildings or NRM-Features using local knowledge or any other available data sources. Be sure to link new records to the wilderness (see step 4b, immediately above). Note that local staff will not be able to create new records in NRM-WCM for this component; if, for any reason, specialists cannot add new records in NRM-Buildings or NRM-Features for missing buildings, those developments will not be included in the measure value calculation.
# Re-run the NRM-WCM report for the buildings measure component once all necessary updates have been made and validate the results (i.e., repeat steps 1–4 above until all information is correct and up to date). Note that certain attributes must be assigned a value for this component and cannot be left blank; if information for a required attribute is unknown, estimate the value using professional judgment and include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who provided the information and the basis for their estimation.

'''Step 3: Calculate individual development ratings and the buildings measure component score.''' The NRM-WCM application will automatically calculate the measure component score for buildings. Local units must review and validate component score generated by NRM-WCM and correct as necessary. The method NRM-WCM uses to calculate these values is described below for reference.

For each building marked as "Non-recreational" under the "Building use" attribute, NRM-WCM assigns categories for the two elements tracked under this component— type and size—using the categories described in step 1 (summarized below in table 2.4.4). The category for the type element is determined using the "Building type" attribute, and the category for the size element is determined using the "Gross square feet" attribute. For both elements, each category is associated with a numerical value. To calculate the individual development rating for each non-recreational building, NRM-WCM multiplies the numerical value assigned for the type element by the numerical value assigned for the size element (table 2.4.4).

NRM-WCM calculates the measure component score by summing the individual development ratings for all non-recreational buildings in a wilderness.

[[File:Table 2.4.4—Element categories and numerical values used to calculate individual development ratings for features tracked under the buildings measure component..png|thumb|Table 2.4.4—Element categories and numerical values used to calculate individual development ratings for features tracked under the buildings measure component.]]

===== Measure Component: Dams and Other Instream Structures =====

This component tracks two elements: size and materials. Data are compiled from local and national databases and periodically entered in NRM-WCM; data from NRM-Dams are automatically compiled via the EDW and entered in NRM-WCM. NRM-WCM calculates the component score.

'''Step 1: Ensure users understand what developments and elements are counted under the dams and other instream structures measure component.''' Dams are defined as "any artificial barrier… which impounds or diverts water" (Forest Service Manual 7505). Other instream structures include constructed features found within a river channel, such as diversions, fish ladders, weirs, gaging stations, gates, water intake/ outflow structures, canals/ditches, flumes, levees, and spillways. Some impoundments are constructed and maintained to support livestock use, and could reasonably be tracked under either this measure component or the grazing infrastructure component; to avoid double counting such features, only include them under a single component. Typically, if such a feature is included in NRM-Dams it should be tracked exclusively under this component, even if it is also included in NRM-Features as a range feature. The two elements used to calculate individual development ratings for dams and instream structures are size and materials.

The size element is categorized by the type and scale of dams or instream structures. Instream structures that are not dams are generally smaller in scale and do not have as great an impact on the Undeveloped Quality. Dams are further categorized by whether they meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Inventory of Dams (NID). The NID contains information on large dams that either: (1) equal or exceed 25 feet in height and exceed 15 acre-feet in storage, (2) equal or exceed 50 acre-feet of storage and exceed 6 feet in height, or (3) are considered a significant hazard if they were to fail. Inclusion in the NID is used as a surrogate for the general impact of a dam on the Undeveloped Quality of wilderness character. The following categories are used to assess the size element:

* Instream structures—instream structures that are not dams, including: diversions, fish ladders, weirs, gaging stations, gates, water intake/outflow structures, canals/ditches, flumes, levees, spillways, etc.
* Dams not meeting NID criteria—smaller dams that are not included in the NID.
* Dams meeting NID criteria—larger dams that are included in the NID.

The materials element is categorized by whether features are constructed from native or non-native materials. The following categories are used to assess the materials element:

* Native—dams or instream structures constructed from native materials, such as earthen dams or features built of natural stone.
* Non-native—dams or instream structures constructed from non-native materials, such as more developed concrete or masonry features.

'''Step 2: Retrieve the data for the dams and other instream structures measure component; evaluate and update the data as necessary.''' Data on dams are currently stored in NRM-Dams. This dataset is linked to spatial data and retrieved by NRM-WCM through the EDW.

The completeness of the existing dam data is likely to vary considerably from wilderness to wilderness. For example, dams with existing records in NRM may not be linked to a wilderness or may be missing critical attribute information, while other features may not be recorded at all. Any dam that is not currently tracked must be manually entered in NRM-Dams or NRM-WCM.

In contrast to data on dams, data on instream features are unlikely to be stored in NRM-Dams and instead will need to be compiled manually. Contact local wilderness staff, hydrologists, and other relevant resource specialists to retrieve data on instream structures in wilderness. Data on instream structures may also be stored in the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). All compiled data on wilderness instream structures will need to be manually entered in NRM-WCM for the measure baseline year. The central data analyst can assist local units in compiling national instream structure data and entering new records in NRM-WCM.

For the measure baseline year, it is especially important to follow the steps described below to ensure all wilderness dams and instream structures have accurate records in NRM. In subsequent years, less work will be required as local units will only need to update records if dams or instream structures have been added, altered, or removed since the previous monitoring cycle. Complete the following steps in NRM:

# Create new records in NRM-WCM for all identified instream structures within wilderness for the measure baseline year. Work with local wilderness staff, hydrologists, and other relevant resource specialists, and use any available data sources, to assign an appropriate value for the "Construction material" attribute. For this attribute, select whether each instream structure is made of native or non-native materials based on the categories for the materials element in step 1. The material may be estimated using the most accurate means available: the NHD, any other available data sources, or local knowledge. Once baseline records are entered in NRM-WCM for all known wilderness instream structures, this step will not need to be completed in subsequent monitoring periods unless instream structures have been added, altered, or removed.
# Retrieve existing data by running a report in NRM-WCM that displays all features of interest for the dams and other instream structures measure component that are linked to a particular wilderness. The following attributes will be displayed for dams automatically retrieved by NRM-WCM from the EDW:
* Dam name
* Dam ID
* NID ID (only retrieved when applicable for large dams)
* Construction material (select native or non-native)
* Size
The following attributes will be displayed for dams originally entered in NRM-WCM:
* Dam name
* Dam ID NID ID (only retrieved when applicable for large dams)
* Construction material (select native or non-native)
* Size
The following attributes will be displayed for instream structures originally entered in NRM-WCM:
* Structure ID
* Event Type
* Construction material (select native or non-native)
# Enter the new "Construction material" and "Size" attributes in NRM-WCM— these attributes cannot be entered in NRM-Dams or the EDW. For "Construction material," select whether each dam or instream structure is made of native or non-native materials based on the categories for the materials element in step 1. For "Size," manually select whether each dam meets or does not meet NID criteria based on the categories for the size element described in step 1. Use the "NID ID" attribute and local knowledge to make these determinations. Instream structures originally entered in NRM-WCM do not have an associated "Size" attribute because NRM-WCM automatically assigns them to the "instream structures" category under the "size" element
# Identify superfluous records and ensure only one record per feature is selected in NRM-WCM. This report displays records for all individual features, and may include separate records for closely related features. For example, a dam and an associated gaging station may be tracked as separate records in NRM-Dams and the EDW, however, because of their close association and co-location, both sites would be considered part of the same dam or instream structure for this measure component, and should not be double counted. In addition, errors in the spatial data—such as duplicate records—may be replicated in NRM. To avoid double counting duplicate or closely related records, work with local wilderness staff, hydrologists, and other relevant resource specialists to identify such features and ensure that only one record per dam or instream structure is selected in NRM-WCM. Deselected records will still appear in NRM-WCM reports, but will not be included in calculations for the component score.
# Review the results of the NRM-WCM report for accuracy and completeness by working with local wilderness staff, hydrologists, and other relevant resource specialists.
## Determine if any attributes are incomplete or incorrect for an individual feature.
## Determine if any known dams or instream structures are missing from the NRM-WCM report. If features are missing, there are two possible explanations: (1) records exist in NRM-Dams but have not been linked to the wilderness, or (2) records have never been entered in NRM. Records in NRM-Dams are already linked to spatial data and retrieved through the EDW and do not need to be manually linked to the wilderness; therefore, only the second explanation is likely for this component.

Update the data in NRM-Dams and NRM-WCM as necessary. Records in NRM-Dams can only be edited or added by specialists with access to that application. Consult specialists with access to NRM-Dams, as well as wilderness staff, hydrologists, and other relevant resource specialists, to complete this step. If data cannot be updated via NRM and instead need to be corrected in the EDW, contact the EDW team (https://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/cio/mission-support-systems/ediscovery-enterprise-content-management/enterprise-data-warehouse-edw).

## If any incomplete or incorrect attributes were found, update the existing records in NRM-Dams or NRM-WCM using local knowledge or any other available data sources.
## If any missing features were identified that are not currently included in NRM, create new records in NRM-Dams or NRM-WCM using local knowledge or any other available data sources. NRM-Dams is generally the preferred option for adding new dam records, but NRM-WCM may be used if NRM-Dams is decommissioned or otherwise unavailable for data entry. NRM-WCM is the preferred option for adding new instream structure records.
# Re-run the NRM-WCM report for the dams and other instream structures measure component once all necessary updates have been made and validate the results (i.e., repeat steps 2–6 above until all information is correct and up to date). Note that certain attributes must be assigned a value for this component and cannot be left blank; if information for a required attribute is unknown, estimate the value using professional judgment and include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who provided the information and the basis for their estimation.

'''Step 3: Calculate individual development ratings and the dams and other instream structures measure component score.''' The NRM-WCM application will automatically calculate individual development ratings and the measure component score for dams and other instream structures. Local units must review and validate the ratings and component score generated by NRM-WCM and correct them as necessary. It is especially important to verify that individual dams and instream structures are only counted once for this measure component, and that those included in multiple data sources or in closely-related records are not double counted. Similarly, be sure to verify that livestock-related water impoundments are only counted under one measure component, and not double counted under both this component and the grazing infrastructure component. The method NRM-WCM uses to calculate these values is described below for reference.

For each dam or instream structure, NRM-WCM assigns categories for the two elements tracked under this component—size and materials—using the categories described in step 1 (summarized below in table 2.4.5). The category for the size element is determined using the "Size" attribute (or is automatically assigned for instream structures originally entered in NRM-WCM), and the category for the materials element is determined using the "Construction material" attribute. For both elements, each category is associated with a numerical value. To calculate the individual development rating for each dam or instream structure, NRM-WCM multiplies the numerical value assigned for the size element by the numerical value assigned for the materials element (table 2.4.5). NRM-WCM calculates the measure component score by summing the individual development ratings for all dams and instream structures in a wilderness.

[[File:Table 2.4.5—Element categories and numerical values used to calculate individual development ratings for features tracked under the dams and other instream structures measure component..png|thumb|Table 2.4.5—Element categories and numerical values used to calculate individual development ratings for features tracked under the dams and other instream structures measure component. NID = National Inventory of Dams.]]

===== Measure Component: Roads =====

This component tracks two elements for roads: status and length. Local data are compiled and periodically entered in NRM-Roads, NRM-SUDS (Special Uses Database System), or NRM-WCM; data from the EDW are automatically compiled and entered in NRM-Roads. NRM-WCM calculates the component score.

'''Step 1: Ensure users understand what developments and elements are counted under the roads measure component.''' Roads are defined as "a motor vehicle travel way over 50 inches, unless classified and managed as a trail." (36 Code of Federal Regulations 212.1). Typically, these roads are an acknowledged responsibility of the Forest Service, and as such, will appear in NRM-Roads as being either currently maintained or purposefully decommissioned. Decommissioned roads are included in this measure unless they have been converted to a system trail (in which case they are considered recreational and not counted here). '''Non-system roads''' are also tracked under this measure and may include ghost roads, user-created roads, and any road not considered part of the '''NFS road''' system. The two elements used to calculate individual development ratings for roads are status and length.

The status element is categorized by the degree to which a road is currently maintained. For system roads, this is determined using the '''operational maintenance level'''—"the maintenance level currently assigned to a road considering today's needs, road condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns" (FSH 7709.59, sec. 62.3). Operational maintenance levels range from level 1 (least maintained), to level 5 (highest degree of maintenance), with lower levels corresponding with a smaller impact on the Undeveloped Quality. The following categories are used to assess the status element:

* Non-system roads, decommissioned roads, and existing system roads with level 1 operational maintenance—roads that are not officially maintained, such as non-system roads (including ghost roads and user-created roads) and decommissioned roads, or system roads with level 1 operational maintenance. Level 1 is assigned to roads not currently in use but receiving basic custodial maintenance to prevent damage to adjacent resources and to perpetuate the road for future resource management needs (FSH 7709.59, sec. 62.32).
* Existing system roads with level 2 operational maintenance—roads with level 2 operational maintenance. Level 2 is assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles (FSH 7709.59, sec. 62.32).
* Existing system roads with level 3+ operational maintenance—roads with level 3–5 operational maintenance. Levels 3–5 are assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a standard passenger car with increasing levels of user comfort and convenience (FSH 7709.59, sec. 62.32).

The length element is categorized by the miles of road within wilderness. This element is scaled conservatively to emphasize the impact of roads on the Undeveloped Quality of wilderness character. The following categories are used to assess the length element:

* Short—roads less than ¼ mile in length.
* Medium—roads between ¼ and 1 mile in length.
* Long—roads more than 1 mile in length.

'''Step 2: Retrieve the data for the roads measure component; evaluate and update the data as necessary.''' Data on roads are currently stored in two primary datasets:

* NRM-Roads—this dataset is georeferenced and linked to national spatial transportation data stored in the EDW. These data primarily consist of system roads.
* NRM-SUDS—this dataset only includes "permitted roads" that are reserved for exclusive use by permittees, are not available for administrative use, and are not maintained by the Forest Service.

The completeness of the existing data is likely to vary considerably from wilderness to wilderness. For example, roads with existing records in NRM may not be linked to a wilderness or may be missing critical attribute information, while other roads may not be recorded in NRM at all. Any road that is not currently tracked in NRM-Roads or NRM-SUDS must be manually entered in NRM-Roads, NRM-SUDS, or NRM-WCM (depending on feature ownership). For the measure baseline year, it is especially important to follow the steps described below to ensure all wilderness roads have accurate records in NRM. In subsequent years, less work will be required as local units will only need to update records if roads have been added, altered, or removed since the previous monitoring cycle. Complete the following steps in NRM:

1. Retrieve existing data by running a report in NRM-WCM that displays all features of interest for the roads measure component that are linked to a particular wilderness. (Data for this report are pulled from existing records in NRM-Roads, NRM-SUDS, and NRM-WCM; the first time this report is run, no records will be available from NRM-WCM as data will not have been entered yet.) The following attributes will be displayed for roads originally entered in NRM-Roads:

* Road name
* Road ID
* System (e.g., NFS road)
* Length
* Linear event—route status (e.g., existing, decommissioned, or converted)
* Operational maintenance level

The following attributes will be displayed for roads originally entered in NRM-SUDS:

* Authorization ID
* Length category
* Use name

The following attributes will be displayed for roads originally entered in NRM-WCM:

* Road name
* Length category

2. Enter the new "Length category" attribute in NRM-WCM for records retrieved from NRM-SUDS—this attribute cannot be entered in NRM-SUDS. (Confusingly, there is a different text-based "Length" attribute that can be added in NRM-SUDS; however, because this text-based NRM-SUDS "Length" attribute may not provide sufficient detail to determine the road mileage, it is not retrieved for this measure component.) For the new "Length category" attribute, select the mileage of each road based on the categories for the length element described in step 1. "Length category" values may be estimated using the most accurate means available: local spatial data, aerial imagery, any other available data sources, or local knowledge. (Note that the NRM-WCM "Length category" attribute only needs to be entered for roads originally recorded in NRM-SUDS or new roads entered in NRM-WCM; records in NRM-Roads already contain a viable "Length" attribute that NRM-WCM will retrieve and use.)
3. Identify superfluous records and ensure only one record per feature is selected in NRM-WCM. Records retrieved from NRM-Roads are linked to the national spatial transportation data, and errors in the spatial data—such as duplicate records—may be replicated in NRM. To avoid double counting multiple records for the same road, work with local wilderness staff and other relevant resource specialists to identify duplicate records from NRM-Roads and ensure that only one record per road is selected in NRM-WCM. Deselected records will still appear in NRM-WCM reports, but will not be included in calculations for the component score.
4. Assess the accuracy of roads included in this report against actual conditions. If roads are no longer evident on the landscape, their associated records may be deselected in NRM-WCM if local units decide it is appropriate to do so. Deselected records will still appear in NRM-WCM reports, but will not be included in calculations for the component score. Use observations and local knowledge of field conditions to determine if roads are still evident on the landscape. If available, aerial imagery may also be used to make this determination as evidence of roads can vary depending on the context of the view—patterns may show up on imagery that cannot be seen on the ground and vice versa. Decisions to deselect roads in NRM-WCM are judgment calls that should be made consistently over the years in accordance with the guidelines in this technical guide. If a road is deselected, include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the decision to exclude the road and why. For the measure baseline year, it is recommended that all roads be included as a reference point for change over time.
5. Review the results of the NRM-WCM report for accuracy and completeness by working with local wilderness staff and other relevant resource specialists.
## Determine if any duplicate records for the same feature have been entered in both NRM-Roads and NRM-SUDS. Duplicate records are expected to be unlikely.
## Determine if any attributes are incomplete or incorrect for an individual road.
## Determine if any known roads in wilderness are missing from the NRM-WCM report. If roads are missing, there are two possible explanations: (1) records exist in NRM but have not been linked to the wilderness, or (2) records have never been entered in NRM (for example, non-system ghost roads may not be included in either NRM-Roads or NRM-SUDS). To rule out the first explanation, consult specialists with access to NRM-SUDS to identify and retrieve any existing records for missing roads that have not yet been linked to the wilderness (records in NRM-Roads are already linked to spatial data stored in the EDW and do not need to be manually linked to the wilderness).

6. Update the data in NRM-Roads, NRM-SUDS, and NRM-WCM as necessary. Records in NRM-Roads and NRM-SUDS can only be edited or added by specialists with access to those applications. Consult specialists with access to NRM-Roads and NRM-SUDS, as well as wilderness staff and other relevant resource specialists, to complete this step.
## If any duplicate records were identified, ensure they are not double counted by updating records in NRM-Roads and/or NRM-SUDS to eliminate the repetition.
## If any incomplete or incorrect attributes were found, update the existing records in NRM-Roads, NRM-SUDS, or NRM-WCM using local spatial data, local knowledge, or any other available data sources.
## If any missing features were identified that have existing records in NRMSUDS but are not yet linked to the wilderness, link those records through the "Accomplishment Instrument x Land Unit Link" form ("Link type" should be "Overlay").
## If any missing features were identified that are not currently included in NRM, create new records in NRM-Roads (for system roads), NRM-SUDS (for permitted roads), or NRM-WCM (for ghost roads or other non-system roads)—consult relevant specialists to determine which application is most appropriate—using local spatial data, local knowledge, or any other available data sources. Be sure to link new records in NRM-SUDS to the wilderness (see step 6c, immediately above).

7. Re-run the NRM-WCM report for the roads measure component once all necessary updates have been made and validate the results (i.e., repeat steps 1–6 above until all information is correct and up to date). Note that certain attributes must be assigned a value for this component and cannot be left blank; if information for a required attribute is unknown, estimate the value using professional judgment and include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who provided the information and the basis for their estimation.

'''Step 3: Calculate individual development ratings and the roads measure component score.''' The NRM-WCM application will automatically calculate individual development ratings and the measure component score for roads. Local units must review and validate the ratings and component score generated by NRM-WCM and correct them as necessary. It is especially important to verify that individual roads are only counted once for this measure component, and that those included in multiple data sources are not double counted. The method NRM-WCM uses to calculate these values is described below for reference.

For each road, NRM-WCM assigns categories for the two elements tracked under this component—status and length—using the categories described in step 1 (summarized below in table 2.4.6). The category for the status element is determined using various attributes including "System," "Linear event-route status," and "Operational maintenance level" (NRM-WCM automatically counts permitted roads tracked in NRM-SUDS and ghost roads or other records entered in NRM-WCM as non-system roads). The category for the length element is determined using the "Length" or "Length category" attributes (the "Length" attribute is used for features tracked in NRM-Roads, and the "Length category" attribute is used for features tracked in NRM=SUDS or entered in NRM-WCM). For both elements, each category is associated with a numerical value. To calculate the individual development rating for each road, NRM-WCM multiplies the numerical value assigned for the status element by the numerical value assigned for the length element (table 2.4.6). NRM-WCM calculates the measure component score by summing the individual development ratings for all roads in a wilderness.

[[File:Table 2.4.6—Element categories and numerical values used to calculate individual development ratings for features tracked under the roads measure component..png|thumb|Table 2.4.6—Element categories and numerical values used to calculate individual development ratings for features tracked under the roads measure component.]]

===== Measure Component: Fixed Instrumentation Sites =====

This component counts the number of fixed instrumentation sites. Local data are compiled and periodically entered in NRM-Features or NRM-SUDS. NRM-WCM calculates the component score.

'''Step 1: Ensure users understand what developments and elements are counted under the fixed instrumentation sites measure component.''' This protocol defines fixed instrumentation sites as unattended measurement devices left in place for at least one year. These sites typically contain measuring equipment, a data logger, and a power source. Some of these devices transmit data offsite for storage and analysis. Many types of instrumentation, such as trail counters for recreation use or automated cameras for wildlife, may be temporarily installed at various locations around a wilderness for days, weeks, or in some cases, months. Such temporary installations do not have the same ability to affect the Undeveloped Quality due to their generally smaller scale and lack of permanence. For this component, only long-term fixed instrumentation sites in place for 12 months or more during the previous 5-year period are tracked. This time span covers instrumentation in place for an entire year, as well as recurring short-term instrumentation that is re-installed seasonally for a cumulative total that meets or exceeds 12 months. For example, trail counters installed for three months each year, or 15 months in a 5-year period, would be counted here.

This measure component does not assess any elements; instead, the component score is a simple count of the number of fixed instrumentation sites within a wilderness. A site is counted a single time regardless of the number of different measurement devices that may be co-located. Local units may use their discretion to determine what proximity between devices constitutes co-location; as a general guideline, devices within 100 feet of one another may be considered a single fixed instrumentation site.

'''Step 2: Retrieve the data for the fixed instrumentation sites measure component; evaluate and update the data as necessary.''' Data on fixed instrumentation sites are currently stored in two datasets:
* NRM-Features—this application tracks long-term fixed instrumentation sites that are owned by the Forest Service.
* NRM-SUDS—this application tracks long-term fixed instrumentation sites that are owned by cooperators or permittees and managed under SUPs with the Forest Service.

The completeness of these existing data is likely to vary considerably from wilderness to wilderness. For example, sites with existing records in NRM may not be linked to a wilderness or may be missing critical attribute information, while other sites may not be recorded in NRM at all. Any fixed instrumentation site that is not currently tracked in NRM-Features or NRM-SUDS must be manually entered in one of those applications (depending on feature ownership). For the measure baseline year, it is especially important to follow the steps described below to ensure all long-term wilderness fixed instrumentation sites have accurate records in NRM. In subsequent years, less work will be required as local units will only need to update records if fixed instrumentation sites have been added, altered, or removed since the previous monitoring cycle. Complete the following steps in NRM:

# Identify all relevant records and manually link them to the wilderness for the measure baseline year. It is likely that most fixed instrumentation sites in NRM-Features are not currently linked (and therefore cannot be retrieved automatically by NRM-WCM). The linking process for records in NRM-Features must be completed in NRM-Wilderness—it cannot be completed in NRM-Features. Consult specialists with access to NRM-Wilderness and NRM-Features to complete the following.
## Compile a list of all relevant records in NRM-Features by querying the "Feature type" attribute for "Recording site." The results of this query will show all existing NRM-Features records for fixed instrumentation sites, but will not distinguish wilderness features from non-wilderness features. Work with wilderness staff and other relevant resource specialists to identify which of the "Recording site" records are inside wilderness. Note the "Feature ID" for all wilderness features.
## Enter the NRM-Wilderness application and click the "link" icon on the toolbar to navigate to the NRM-Features page. For each wilderness feature, select "Recording site" from the "Type" dropdown menu, enter the individual "Feature ID" number under "ID," and select the "Link type." Once all features have been linked, click save.
This step is most critical for the measure baseline year. Once existing records in NRM-Features have been linked to a particular wilderness, NRM-WCM will be able to retrieve them automatically and this step will not need to be completed in subsequent monitoring periods unless new records are added to NRM-Features.
# Retrieve existing data by running a report in NRM-WCM that displays all features of interest for the fixed instrumentation sites measure component that are linked to a particular wilderness. (Data for this report are pulled from existing records in NRM-Features and NRM-SUDS.) The following attributes will be displayed for features originally entered in NRM-Features:
* Feature type (e.g., recording site)
* Feature category (e.g., MS air quality)
* Feature ID
* Feature name
* Ownership
The following attributes will be displayed for features originally entered in NRM-SUDS:
* SUDS feature
* Authorization ID
* Use name
# Identify superfluous records and ensure only one record per feature is selected in NRM-WCM. This report displays records for individual measurement devices, regardless of whether devices are co-located in the same fixed instrumentation site. For example, a snow gauge and a seismological measurement device would be tracked as two separate records in NRM, even if they were co-located in a single site that should only be counted once under this protocol. To avoid double counting sites with multiple devices, work with local wilderness staff and other relevant resource specialists to identify colocated devices and ensure that only one device per fixed instrumentation site is selected in NRM-WCM. (It does not matter which device is selected as long as it is only one device per site.) Deselected records will still appear in NRM-WCM reports, but will not be included in calculations for the component score.
# Review the results of the NRM-WCM report for accuracy and completeness by working with local wilderness staff and other relevant resource specialists.
## Determine if any inappropriate records are included. This may include records for short-term features in place in wilderness for less than 12 months of cumulative time during the previous 5 years, or duplicate records for the same feature that have been entered in both NRM-Features and NRM-SUDS. Inappropriate records are expected to be unlikely.
## Determine if any attributes are incomplete or incorrect for an individual feature.
## Determine if any known long-term fixed instrumentation sites in wilderness are missing from the NRM-WCM report. If sites are missing, there are two possible explanations: (1) records exist in NRM-Features or NRM-SUDS but have not been linked to the wilderness, or (2) records have never been entered in NRM. To rule out the first explanation, consult specialists with access to NRM-Features and NRM-SUDS to identify and retrieve any existing records for missing features that have not yet been linked to the wilderness. (Relevant records in NRM-Features should already have been identified and linked to the wilderness in step 1; therefore, only the second explanation is likely for that application.)
# Update the data in NRM-Features and NRM-SUDS as necessary. Records in NRM-Features and NRM-SUDS can only be edited or added by specialists with access to those applications. Consult specialists with access to NRM-Features and NRM-SUDS, as well as wilderness staff and other relevant resource specialists, to complete this step.
## If any inappropriate records for short-term features were identified, deselect them from NRM-WCM to ensure they are not counted for this component. Deselected records will still appear in NRM-WCM reports, but will not be included in calculations for the component score. If any duplicate records were identified, update records in NRM-Features and/or NRM-SUDS to eliminate the repetition.
## If any incomplete or incorrect attributes were found, update the existing records in NRM-Features or NRM-SUDS using local knowledge or any other available data sources.
## If any missing features were identified that have existing records in NRM-Features but are not yet linked to the wilderness, link those records through NRM-Wilderness (see step 1, above). Similarly, if any missing features were identified that have existing records in NRM-SUDS but are not yet linked to the wilderness, link those records through the "Accomplishment Instrument x Land Unit Link" form ("Link type" should be "Overlay").
## If any missing features were identified that are not currently included in NRM, create new records in NRM-Features (for features owned by the Forest Service) or NRM-SUDS (for features owned by cooperators or permittees and managed under SUPs with the Forest Service) using local knowledge or any other available data sources. Be sure to link new records to the wilderness (see step 1 for NRM-Features and step 5c for NRM-SUDS). Note that local staff will not be able to create new records in NRM-WCM for this component; if, for any reason, specialists cannot add new records in NRM-Feature or NRM-SUDS for missing features, those developments will not be included in the measure value calculation.
# Re-run the NRM-WCM report for the fixed instrumentation site measure component once all necessary updates have been made and validate the results (i.e., repeat steps 2–5 above until all information is correct and up to date).

'''Step 3: Calculate individual development ratings and the fixed instrumentation sites measure component score.''' The NRM-WCM application will automatically calculate individual development ratings and the measure component score for fixed instrumentation sites. Local units must review and validate the ratings and component score generated by NRM-WCM and correct them as necessary. It is especially important to verify that individual sites are only counted once for this measure component, and that co-located devices with multiple records or features included in multiple data sources are not double counted. The method NRM-WCM uses to calculate these values is described below for reference.

To calculate the individual development rating for each fixed instrumentation site, NRM-WCM counts each permanent or long-term site (i.e., each record selected in the NRM-WCM report) as one point. NRM-WCM calculates the measure component score by summing the individual development ratings for all fixed instrumentation sites in a wilderness.

===== Measure Component: Utility Infrastructure =====

This component tracks a single element: scale. Local data are compiled and periodically entered in NRM-Features or NRM-SUDS. NRM-WCM calculates the component score.

'''Step 1: Ensure users understand what developments and elements are counted under the utility infrastructure measure component.''' Utility infrastructure consists of two main types: point sites (e.g., repeater sites and telecommunication facilities) and linear features (e.g., water pipelines and telephone lines). This measure component only includes utility infrastructure that is in place on a permanent basis (i.e., 12 months or more of cumulative time over a 5-year period), and does not include infrastructure installed temporarily, such as repeaters installed to support fire management activities for a specific incident. Historical utility infrastructure, such as old water pipes and phone lines that are no longer in service, may be included in this protocol at the discretion of the unit. These data are not routinely tracked in NRM and an initial inventory may be time consuming and costly; therefore, historical infrastructure is generally only included when adequate data already exist. The single element used to calculate the component score for utility infrastructure is scale.

The scale element is categorized by the area and length of utility infrastructure to differentiate between the impacts of a small point site and a long utility corridor. The following categories are used to assess the scale element:

* Small—utility infrastructure that consists of an individual site occupying less than one acre in total size, such as a repeater site.
* Moderate—utility infrastructure that either: (1) consists of an individual site that equals or exceeds 1 acre, or (2) requires an above-ground linear corridor that is typically less than a ½ mile in length.
* Large—utility infrastructure that requires an above-ground linear corridor that is typically equal to or greater than a ½ mile in length.

'''Step 2: Retrieve the data for the utility infrastructure measure component; evaluate and update the data as necessary.''' Data on utility infrastructure are currently stored in two datasets:

* NRM-Features—this application tracks long-term utility infrastructure that is owned by the Forest Service.
* NRM-SUDS—this application tracks long-term utility infrastructure that is owned by cooperators or permittees and managed under SUPs with the Forest Service.

The completeness of these existing data is likely to vary considerably from wilderness to wilderness. For example, features with existing records in NRM may not be linked to a wilderness or may be missing critical attribute information, while other features may not be recorded in NRM at all. Any utility infrastructure that is not currently tracked in NRM-Features or NRM-SUDS must be manually entered in one of those applications (depending on feature ownership). For the measure baseline year, it is especially important to follow the steps described below to ensure all long-term wilderness utility infrastructure has accurate records in NRM. In subsequent years, less work will be required as local units will only need to update records if utility infrastructure has been added, altered, or removed since the previous monitoring cycle. Complete the following steps in NRM:

# Identify all relevant records and manually link them to the wilderness for the measure baseline year. It is likely that most utility infrastructure in NRM-Features is not currently linked (and therefore cannot be retrieved automatically by NRM-WCM). The linking process for records in NRM-Features must be completed in NRM-Wilderness—it cannot be completed in NRM-Features. Consult specialists with access to NRM-Wilderness and NRM-Features to complete the following.
## Compile a list of all relevant records in NRM-Features by querying the "Feature type" attribute for: "Communication system," "Other utility," "Power system," "Wastewater system," and "Water system." The results of this query will show all existing NRM-Features records for utility infrastructure, but will not distinguish wilderness features from non-wilderness features. Work with wilderness staff and other relevant resource specialists to identify which of the queried records are inside wilderness. Note the "Feature ID" for all wilderness features.
## Enter the NRM-Wilderness application and click the "link" icon on the toolbar to navigate to the NRM-Features page. For each wilderness feature, select the relevant "Feature type" from the "Type" dropdown menu, enter the individual "Feature ID" number under "ID," and select the "Link type." Once all features have been linked, click save.
This step is most critical for the measure baseline year. Once existing records in NRM-Features have been linked to a particular wilderness, NRM-WCM will be able to retrieve them automatically and this step will not need to be completed in subsequent monitoring periods unless new records are added to NRM-Features.
# Retrieve existing data by running a report in NRM-WCM that displays all features of interest for the utility infrastructure measure component that are linked to a particular wilderness. (Data for this report are pulled from existing records in NRM-Features and NRM-SUDS.) The following attributes will be displayed for features originally entered in NRM-Features:
* Feature type (e.g., communications system, power system, wastewater system, water system, or other utility)
* Feature category
* Feature ID
* Feature name
* Property type
* Size
The following attributes will be displayed for features originally entered in NRM-SUDS:
* Authorization ID
* Status
* Use code/name
* Use acres
* Size
# Enter the new "Size" attribute in NRM-WCM—this attribute cannot be entered in NRM-Features or NRM-SUDS. Select the acreage or mileage of each feature based on the categories for the scale element described in step 1. Use local knowledge, as well as the "Use acres" attribute for records in NRM-SUDS, to make these determinations.
# Review the results of the NRM-WCM report for accuracy and completeness by working with local wilderness staff and other relevant resource specialists.
## Determine if any inappropriate records are included. This may include records for short-term features in place in wilderness for less than 12 months of cumulative time during the previous 5 years, or duplicate records for the same feature that have been entered in both NRM-Features and NRM-SUDS. Inappropriate records are expected to be unlikely.
## Determine if any attributes are incomplete or incorrect for an individual feature.
## Determine if any known long-term utility infrastructure features in wilderness are missing from the NRM-WCM report. If sites are missing, there are two possible explanations: (1) records exist in NRM-Features or NRM-SUDS but have not been linked to the wilderness, or (2) records have never been entered in NRM. To rule out the first explanation, consult specialists with access to NRM-Features and NRM-SUDS to identify and retrieve any existing records for missing features that have not yet been linked to the wilderness. (Relevant records in NRM-Features should already have been identified and linked to the wilderness in step 1; therefore, only the second explanation is likely for that application.)
# Update the data in NRM-Features and NRM-SUDS as necessary. Records in NRM-Features and NRM-SUDS can only be edited or added by specialists with access to those applications. Consult specialists with access to NRM-Features and NRM-SUDS, as well as wilderness staff and other relevant resource specialists, to complete this step.
## If any inappropriate records for short-term features were identified, deselect them from NRM-WCM to ensure they are not counted for this component. Deselected records will still appear in NRM-WCM reports, but will not be included in calculations for the component score. If any duplicate records were identified, update records in NRM-Features and/or NRM-SUDS to eliminate the repetition.
## If any incomplete or incorrect attributes were found, update the existing records in NRM-Features or NRM-SUDS using local knowledge or any other available data sources.
## If any missing features were identified that have existing records in NRM-Features but are not yet linked to the wilderness, link those records through NRM-Wilderness (see step 1, above). Similarly, if any missing features were identified that have existing records in NRM-SUDS but are not yet linked to the wilderness, link those records through the "Accomplishment Instrument x Land Unit Link" form ("Link type" should be "Overlay").
## If any missing features were identified that are not currently included in NRM, create new records in NRM-Features (for features owned by the Forest Service) or NRM-SUDS (for features owned by cooperators or permittees and managed under SUPs with the Forest Service) using local knowledge or any other available data sources. Be sure to link new records to the wilderness (see step 1 for NRM-Features and step 5c for NRM-SUDS). Note that local staff will not be able to create new records in NRM-WCM for this component; if, for any reason, specialists cannot add new records in NRM-Feature or NRM-SUDS for missing features, those developments will not be included in the measure value calculation.
# Re-run the NRM-WCM report for the utility infrastructure measure component once all necessary updates have been made and validate the results (i.e., repeat steps 2–5 above until all information is correct and up to date). Note that certain attributes must be assigned a value for this component and cannot be left blank; if information for a required attribute is unknown, estimate the value using professional judgment and include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who provided the information and the basis for their estimation.

'''Step 3: Calculate individual development ratings and the utility infrastructure measure component score.''' The NRM-WCM application will automatically calculate individual development ratings and the measure component score for utility infrastructure. Local units must review and validate the ratings and component score generated by NRM-WCM and correct them as necessary. It is especially important to verify that individual features are only counted once for this measure component, and that those included in multiple data sources are not double counted. The method NRM-WCM uses to calculate these values is described below for reference.

For each permanent or long-term feature, NRM-WCM assigns a category for the single element tracked under this component—scale—using the categories described in step 1 (summarized below in table 2.4.7). The category for the scale element is determined using the "Size" attribute for features stored in NRM-Features and NRM-SUDS. For the single element tracked under this component, each category is associated with a numerical value. NRM-WCM uses the numerical value as the individual development rating for each feature (table 2.4.7). NRM-WCM calculates the measure component score by summing the individual development ratings for all utility infrastructure in a wilderness.

[[File:Table 2.4.7—Element categories and numerical values used to calculate individual development ratings for features tracked under the utility infrastructure measure component..png|thumb|Table 2.4.7—Element categories and numerical values used to calculate individual development ratings for features tracked under the utility infrastructure measure component.]]

===== Measure Component: Mines =====

This component tracks two elements: scale and status. Data are compiled from local, state, or BLM databases and periodically entered in NRM-WCM. NRM-WCM calculates the component score.

'''Step 1: Ensure users understand what developments and elements are counted under the mines measure component.''' Mines are only counted under this protocol if they are discernible. Once mines are fully rehabilitated, are no longer observable, and natural recovery has occurred, they are dropped from scoring. The two elements used to calculate individual development ratings for mines are scale and status.

The scale element is categorized by the area of all above-surface disturbance associated with a mine. The following categories are used to assess the scale element:

* Small—mines with an above-surface disturbance area less than 1,000 square feet.
* Moderate—mines with an above-surface disturbance area between 1,000 square feet and 1 acre.
* Large—mines with an above-surface disturbance area greater than 1 acre.

The status element is categorized by whether a mine is active or inactive. Active mines on NFS lands are extremely rare in wilderness; instead, most active mines interior to wilderness are on patented mining claims that are not NFS lands. Only mines on NFS lands (not patented mining claims) are counted under this measure. Much more commonly, mining activities inside wilderness occurred prior to the area's designation and have long since been abandoned. Where these inactive mines do exist, they can be an intrusive presence, often consisting of pits, tailing piles, and various other constructed features associated with mineral extraction. The following categories are used to assess the status element:

* Active—mines with visible evidence of mining or current reclamation activities.
* Inactive—mines that are no longer actively being reclaimed or rehabilitated.

'''Step 2: Retrieve the data for the mines measure component; evaluate and update the data as necessary.''' Contact local geological resource specialists to retrieve data on wilderness mines, including site location, operational status, and scale (area). Potential data sources may include local, state, or BLM mining databases. (While Forest Service data on mines have previously been stored in NRM-Abandoned Mine Lands [AML], this application is being decommissioned and will not be available in the future.)

All compiled data on wilderness mines will need to be manually entered in NRM-WCM for the measure baseline year. The central data analyst can assist local units in compiling regional or national mine data and entering new records in NRM-WCM. For the measure baseline year, it is especially important to follow the steps described below to ensure all wilderness mines have accurate records entered in NRM. In subsequent years, less work will be required as local units will only need to update records if mines have been added, altered in scale or status, remediated, or naturally recovered since the previous monitoring cycle. Complete the following steps in NRM:

# Create new records in NRM-WCM for all identified mines within wilderness for the measure baseline year. Work with local wilderness staff and geological resource specialists, and use any available data sources, to assign appropriate values for the "Area" and "Operational status" attributes. For "Area," select the above-ground surface disturbance area for each mine based on the categories for the scale element described in step 1. "Area" values may be estimated using the most accurate means available: local, state, or BLM mining databases, any other available data sources, or local knowledge. For "Operational status," select whether each feature is active or inactive based on the categories for the status element described in step 1. Once baseline records are entered in NRM-WCM for all known wilderness mines, this step will not need to be completed in subsequent monitoring periods unless mines have been added, altered, remediated, or naturally recovered.
# Retrieve existing data by running a report in NRM-WCM that displays all features of interest for the mines measure component that are linked to a particular wilderness. (Data for this report are pulled from existing records in NRM-WCM; the first time this report is run, no records will be available as data will not have been entered yet.) The following attributes will be displayed for all mines:
* Site ID
* Site name
* Area
* Operational status
# Review the results of the NRM-WCM report for accuracy and completeness by working with local wilderness staff and geological resource specialists.
## Determine if any attributes are incomplete or incorrect for an individual mine.
## Determine if any known wilderness mines are missing from the NRM-WCM report.
# Update the data in NRM-WCM as necessary. Consult wilderness staff and geological resource specialists to complete this step.
## If any incomplete or incorrect attributes were found, update the existing records in NRM-WCM using local knowledge or any other available data sources.
## If any missing mines were identified that are not currently included in NRM, create new records in NRM-WCM using local knowledge or any other available data sources.
# Re-run the NRM-WCM report for the mines measure component once all necessary updates have been made and validate the results (i.e., repeat steps 2–4 above until all information is correct and up to date). Note that certain attributes must be assigned a value for this component and cannot be left blank; if information for a required attribute is unknown, estimate the value using professional judgment and include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who provided the information and the basis for their estimation.

'''Step 3: Calculate individual development ratings and the mines measure component score.''' The NRM-WCM application will automatically calculate individual development ratings and the measure component score for mines. Local units must review and validate the ratings and component score generated by NRM-WCM and correct them as necessary. The method NRM-WCM uses to calculate these values is described below for reference.

For each mine, NRM-WCM assigns categories for the two elements tracked under this component—scale and status—using the categories described in step 1 (summarized below in table 2.4.8). The category for the scale element is determined using the "Area" attribute and the category for the status element is determined using the "Operational status" attribute. For both elements, each category is associated with a numerical value. To calculate the individual development rating for each mine, NRM-WCM multiplies the numerical value assigned for the scale element by the numerical value assigned for the status element (table 2.4.8). NRM-WCM calculates the measure component score by summing the individual development ratings for all mines in a wilderness.

[[File:Table 2.4.8—Element categories and numerical values used to calculate individual development ratings for features tracked under the mines measure component..png|thumb|Table 2.4.8—Element categories and numerical values used to calculate individual development ratings for features tracked under the mines measure component.]]

===== Measure Component: Grazing Infrastructure =====

This component tracks two elements: scale and materials. Local data are compiled and periodically entered in NRM-Features. NRM-WCM calculates the component score.

'''Step 1: Ensure users understand what developments and elements are counted under the grazing infrastructure measure component.''' Commercial grazing is associated with certain developments, known as improvements, which are needed to support the transport and management of livestock. The most common improvements include fences, handling facilities, and water systems. Water impoundments previously tracked under the dams and other instream structures measure component should not be double-counted here, even if they are also included in NRM-Features as a range feature. The two elements used to calculate individual development ratings for grazing infrastructure are scale and materials.

The scale element is categorized by whether the grazing infrastructure is a point or line feature. The scale of grazing infrastructure varies greatly from a single site, such as a water tank, to miles of fence line. The following categories are used to assess the scale element:

* Point site—a non-linear range improvement, such as a stock tank or a handling facility.
* Linear feature—a range improvement that is a line, most typically a fence.

The materials element is categorized by whether features are made from native or nonnative materials. The following categories are used to assess the materials element:

* Primitive—'''primitive grazing related infrastructure''' constructed of native materials or native materials and wire.
* Non-primitive—'''non-primitive grazing related infrastructure''' constructed predominantly of non-native materials, such as metal or treated wood posts.

'''Step 2: Retrieve the data for the grazing infrastructure measure component; evaluate and update the data as necessary.''' Data on grazing infrastructure are currently stored in NRM-Features; however, the completeness of these existing data is likely to vary considerably from wilderness to wilderness. For example, features with existing records in NRM may not be linked to a wilderness or may be missing critical attribute information, while other features may not be recorded in NRM at all. Any grazing infrastructure that is not currently tracked in NRM-Features must be manually entered in that application. For the measure baseline year, it is especially important to follow the steps described below to ensure all wilderness grazing infrastructure has accurate records in NRM. In subsequent years, less work will be required as local units will only need to update records if grazing infrastructure has been added, altered, or removed since the previous monitoring cycle. Complete the following steps in NRM:

# Identify all relevant records and manually link them to the wilderness for the measure baseline year. It is likely that most grazing infrastructure in NRM-Features is not currently linked (and therefore cannot be retrieved automatically by NRM-WCM). The linking process for records in NRM-Features must be completed in NRM-Wilderness—it cannot be completed in NRM-Features. Consult specialists with access to NRM-Wilderness and NRM-Features to complete this step.
## Compile a list of all relevant records in NRM-Features by querying the "Feature type" attribute for: "Handling facility," "Water system range," or "Fence." The results of this query will show all existing NRM-Features records for grazing infrastructure, but will not distinguish wilderness features from non-wilderness features. Work with wilderness and range specialists to identify which of the queried records are inside wilderness. (To narrow the list of possibly relevant features, it may be helpful to query NRM-Range for the same "Feature types" listed above and compare them with allotment boundaries. However, because grazing features that appear in NRM-Range are linked to and retrieved from original records in NRM-Features, errors in linking to NRM-Range may cause records to be missed using this method.) Note the "Feature ID" for all wilderness features.
## Enter the NRM-Wilderness application and click the "link" icon on the toolbar to navigate to the "Features" page. For each wilderness feature, select the relevant "Feature type" from the "Type" dropdown menu, enter the individual "Feature ID" number under "ID," and select the "Link type." Once all features have been linked, click save.
This step is most critical for the measure baseline year. Once existing records in NRM-Features have been linked to a particular wilderness, NRM-WCM will be able to retrieve them automatically and this step will not need to be completed in subsequent monitoring periods unless new records are added to NRM-Features.
# Retrieve existing data by running a report in NRM-WCM that displays all features of interest for the grazing infrastructure measure component that are linked to a particular wilderness. (Data for this report are pulled from existing records in NRM-Features.) The following attributes will be displayed for all features:
* Range Management Unit ID
* Improvement ID
* Improvement name
* Feature type (e.g., handling facility, water system range, or fence)
* Length (only retrieved for the fence feature type)
* Materials detail
* Materials (select primitive or non-primitive)
# Enter the new "Materials" attribute in NRM-WCM—this attribute cannot be entered in NRM-Features. Select whether each feature is made predominantly of native or non-native materials based on the categories for the materials element described in step 1. Use the "Materials detail" attribute, as well as local knowledge, to make these determinations.
# Identify superfluous records and ensure only one record per feature is selected in NRM-WCM. This report displays records for all individual grazing features, and may include separate records for closely related features. For example, a handling facility and an associated fence may be tracked as two separate features in NRM-Features. However, because these types of fences are typically of a short length, for this protocol they are considered to be included as part of their associated point site's individual development rating, and should not be double counted as a separate linear feature. To avoid double counting closely related records, work with local wilderness and range specialists to identify such features and ensure that only the point site, and not the linear feature, is selected in NRM-WCM. Deselected records will still appear in NRM-WCM reports, but will not be included in calculations for the component score.
# Review the results of the NRM-WCM report for accuracy and completeness by working with local wilderness and range specialists.
## Determine if any attributes are incomplete or incorrect for an individual feature.
## Determine if any known wilderness grazing infrastructure is missing from the NRM-WCM report. If features are missing, there are two possible explanations: (1) records exist in NRM-Features but have not been linked to the wilderness, or (2) records have never been entered in NRM. (Relevant records in NRM-Features should already have been identified and linked to the wilderness in step 1; therefore, only the second explanation is likely for that application.)
# Update the data in NRM-Features as necessary. Records in NRM-Features can only be edited or added by specialists with access to that application. Consult specialists with access to NRM-Features, as well as wilderness staff and range specialists, to complete this step.
# If any incomplete or incorrect attributes were found, update the existing records in NRM-Features using local knowledge or any other available data sources.
## If any missing features were identified that have existing records in NRM-Features but are not yet linked to the wilderness, link those records through NRM-Wilderness (see step 1, above).
## If any missing features were identified that are not currently included in NRM, create new records in NRM-Features using local knowledge or any other available data sources. Be sure to link new records to the wilderness (see step 1, above). Note that local staff will not be able to create new records in NRM-WCM for this component; if, for any reason, specialists cannot add new records in NRM-Features for missing features, those developments will not be included in the measure value calculation.
# Re-run the NRM-WCM report for the grazing infrastructure measure component once all necessary updates have been made and validate the results (i.e., repeat steps 2–6 above until all information is correct and up to date). Note that certain attributes must be assigned a value for this component and cannot be left blank; if information for a required attribute is unknown, estimate the value using professional judgment and include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who provided the information and the basis for their estimation.

'''Step 3: Calculate individual development ratings and the grazing infrastructure measure component score.''' The NRM-WCM application will automatically calculate individual development ratings and the measure component score for grazing infrastructure. Local units must review and validate the ratings and component score generated by NRM-WCM and correct them as necessary. It is especially important to verify that individual grazing features are only counted once for this measure component, and that closely related records are not double counted. Similarly, be sure to verify that livestock-related water impoundments are only counted under one measure component, and not double counted under both this component and the dams and other instream structures component. The method NRM-WCM uses to calculate these values is described below for reference.

For each feature, NRM-WCM assigns categories for the two elements tracked under this component—scale and materials—using the categories described in step 1 (summarized below in table 2.4.9). The category for the scale element is determined using the "Feature type" attribute (point sites are listed as "Handling facility" or "Water system range," while linear features are listed as "Fence"). The category for the materials element is determined using the "Materials" attribute. For both elements, each category is associated with a numerical value (for the scale element, the numerical value for linear features is determined using the "Length" attribute, with linear features shorter than 0.5 miles rounded up to 1). To calculate the individual development rating for each feature, NRM-WCM multiplies the numerical value assigned for the scale element by the numerical value assigned for the materials element (table 2.4.9). NRM-WCM calculates the measure component score by summing the individual development ratings for all grazing infrastructure in a wilderness.

[[File:Table 2.4.9—Element categories and numerical values used to calculate individual development ratings for features tracked under the grazing infrastructure measure component..png|thumb|Table 2.4.9—Element categories and numerical values used to calculate individual development ratings for features tracked under the grazing infrastructure measure component.]]

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

This measure relies heavily on NRM data that are validated and supplemented by local knowledge. It should not be assumed that the data currently recorded in NRM are sufficient; instead, units should use the implementation of this protocol as an opportunity to validate, clean, and improve these datasets.

==== Data Adequacy ====

Data adequacy is difficult to evaluate accurately for this measure because of the number of components and different datasets, but it is generally rated medium. In general, data quantity is rated as partial because there is a moderate degree of confidence in the data for each of the measure components. Data quality is generally rated as moderate because these data are typically of average accuracy and reliability. Because the quantity and quality of the data will vary considerably from wilderness to wilderness, data adequacy must be verified locally.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, changes to the components of the development index are assessed, the component scores and total index value are calculated, and the index value is then entered in the WCMD.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is a 3-percent change in the development measure value. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis. A decrease in the development measure value beyond the threshold for meaningful change results in an improving trend in this measure.

== 4.3 Indicator: Presence of Inholdings ==

This indicator focuses on wilderness inholdings. There is one required measure for this indicator.
=== 4.3.1 Measure: Acres of Inholdings ===

This measure assesses the acres of inholdings in a wilderness, even if the existence of the inholding is imperceptible to an observer. Data from the Land Status Record System (LSRS) are automatically compiled via the EDW and entered in NRM-WCM. NRM-WCM calculates the measure value. Table 2.4.10 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.4.10—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Acres of Inholdings.".png|thumb|Table 2.4.10—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Acres of Inholdings."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Retrieve and validate data on inholding acres from NRM.''' Inholdings are defined as non-federal land within the boundary of a wilderness and encompass private lands, state lands, and patented mining claims. Unpatented mining claims are not considered inholdings because the Federal Government retains surface ownership. Partially enclosed lands, such as cherry-stemmed roads, are not considered inholdings.

Retrieve data for this measure by running a report in NRM-WCM that displays the acres of inholdings in wilderness. Spatial data on inholdings are uploaded to NRM-WCM automatically from the Land Status Record System (LSRS), also available at https://www.fs.fed.us/land/ALPLandStatusandEncumbrance/. NRM-WCM will display the data using the following attributes:

* Ownership
* Acres in wilderness

NRM-WCM does not display data for individual inholding parcels, but instead records the total acres of wilderness inholdings for each national forest. A wilderness administered by multiple national forests may therefore have more than one entry for inholdings, which NRM-WCM will sum to derive the total inholding acreage for the wilderness. Local wilderness staff must review and validate the inholding acreages retrieved through NRM-WCM for accuracy and completeness. If inholding data are incorrect, work with lands and realty specialists to correct the original spatial data in the LSRS.

In subsequent monitoring periods, estimates of inholding acres can change for two reasons: (1) a new method or assumptions were used in the calculation of the estimate; or (2) the number of acres can change due to various land transactions, such as acquisition, exchange, or donation. Local units need to verify if the acres have changed since the last assessment, and if so, determine if the difference is due to the particular calculation method used or an actual change on the ground. This determination is best made in conversation with the forest or regional land status staff. Document any change in acres and the cause of that change.

'''Step 2: Enter data in the WCMD.''' NRM-WCM will automatically calculate the total acres of inholdings from the validated data. Enter the total acres in the WCMD. The measure value is the number of acres.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

Any change in the acres of inholdings should be confirmed with the local land status staff to ensure the change was due to a land action and not simply a recalculation of acres, which occurs periodically.

==== Data Adequacy ====

The data quantity is rated as complete and data quality is good because of the high degree of confidence that the Lands Program can accurately determine the acres inside wilderness that are not managed by the Forest Service. This results in an overall high data adequacy. Data adequacy must be verified locally for each wilderness.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, the total acres of inholdings are calculated and then entered in the WCMD.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is any change in the number of inholding acres. A decrease in the total number of acres results in an improving trend in this measure.

== 4.4 Indicator: Use of Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport ==

This indicator focuses on the use of the three forms of mechanization discussed in Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act: (1) motor vehicles, (2) motorized equipment, and (3) mechanical transport. There are three measures under this indicator: one required measure on administrative use, and two optional measures on other types of uses.

=== 4.4.1 Measure: Index of Administrative Authorizations to Use Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport ===

This measure assesses the 3-year rolling average of a use-level index evaluating administrative authorizations to use motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport, based on the type and number of pieces of equipment and the days of use. Local data are compiled and entered in NRM-Wilderness annually. NRM-WCM calculates the annual value, and the WCMD then calculates the 3-year rolling average (the measure value). Table 2.4.11 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.4.11.png|thumb|Table 2.4.11—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Administrative Authorizations to Use Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Ensure users understand what types of administrative authorizations to use motorized equipment or mechanical transport are counted under this measure and retrieve data from NRM.''' Administrative use is defined as use authorized by the Forest Service that is considered to be necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area. This includes administrative motorized and mechanized uses conducted by agency staff, as well as by other individuals as authorized under current permits or agreements with the Forest Service. It excludes authorized uses that are of an emergency nature or are related to special provisions as provided by statute, both of which may be evaluated under separate, optional measures (see sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 in part 2, respectively).

This measure is designed to take advantage of currently collected and reported data. Data on administrative use authorizations (or rather, data on actual administrative use) are already reported through NRM-Wilderness by local units during annual upward reporting. Run a report in NRM-WCM to display relevant data for this measure at the end of each fiscal year. (Data for this report are pulled from existing records entered in the NRM-Wilderness Profile module); only records with an "Authorization type" of "Administrative" are retrieved.) Local units must validate the data displayed in NRM-WCM and, if necessary, correct records in NRM-Wilderness.

The following attributes will be displayed for each authorized administrative use:

* Fiscal year
* Authorization ID
* Authorization name
* Equipment type
* Number of pieces of equipment
* Number of days of use
* Inherent weight

The "Inherent weight" attribute is automatically assigned in NRM-WCM based on the "Equipment type" attribute. "Inherent weights" represents the relative impact of motorized equipment or mechanized transport, and are used in recognition that not all equipment types have the same impact level on the Undeveloped Quality. For example, a wheelbarrow has a significantly different impact level than a bulldozer. To account for these differences, each type of equipment is associated with an "Inherent weight" from 1 (low impact) to 4 (high impact) based on its perceived impact to social and biophysical resources inside wilderness (determined subjectively by a sampling of Forest Service wilderness managers). Table 2.4.12 describes the "Inherent weights" used by NRM-WCM for this measure. If the "Equipment type" attribute is expanded in the future to include additional types of motorized equipment and mechanical transport, associated "Inherent weight" values will also be assigned at the same time.

[[File:Table 2.4.12—Inherent weights of different types of motorized equipment and mechanical transport used in wilderness..png|thumb|Table 2.4.12—Inherent weights of different types of motorized equipment and mechanical transport used in wilderness.]]

'''Step 2: Calculate the index value.''' The index used for this measure combines values for the type, amount, and duration of administrative motorized use or mechanized transport. The NRM-WCM application will automatically calculate the index value for this measure. Local units must review and validate the value generated by NRM-WCM and correct records as necessary. The method NRM-WCM uses to calculate these values is described below for reference. In addition to assigning inherent weights based on the "Equipment type" attribute, NRM-WCM will also use the "Number of pieces of equipment" and "Number of days of use" attributes directly to assess the extent of each administrative use. NRM-WCM calculates a component score for each administrative use authorization using the following formula:

:Number of pieces of equipment × Number of days of use × Inherent weight = Component score

The NRM-WCM application will sum the component scores for all administrative use authorizations to provide a single total use-level index value for this measure. Table 2.4.13 illustrates an example of how to calculate the use-level index value. Note that each administrative authorization is counted for the fiscal year in which the equipment was used. If the period of actual use spans two fiscal years, NRM-WCM will prorate the number of days of use across each fiscal year.

[[File:Table 2.4.13—Example of use-level index calculation for administrative motor vehicle, motorized equipment, and mechanical transport..png|thumb|Table 2.4.13—Example of use-level index calculation for administrative motor vehicle, motorized equipment, and mechanical transport.]]

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' Validate the use-level index value generated by NRM-WCM for the fiscal year and correct records in NRM-Wilderness as necessary. Once validated, enter the annual index value in the WCMD. The WCMD automatically calculates 3-year rolling averages based on the annual index values. Due to the availability of legacy data for this measure, a 3-year rolling average can likely be calculated the first year this protocol is implemented. The measure value is the 3-year rolling average index value.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

When deciding which specific 3 years of data to include to calculate the rolling average for this measure, always defer to the highest data adequacy available (section 1.2.3 in part 2). Ideally the data with the highest degree of adequacy will also be the most recent data collected, but this might not always be the case.

==== Data Adequacy ====

Data quantity is rated as complete. Administration authorizations are not as frequent as those for emergency purposes and the agency has the ability to track them closely. Data quality is rated as good. Because of the discretionary control the agency has over these authorizations, and the level of analysis documented through the MRA process, there is a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of the number of pieces of equipment and number of days of use. This results in a high data adequacy. Data adequacy must be verified locally for each wilderness.

==== Frequency ====

Data are compiled, analyzed, and entered into the WCMD annually due to the variable nature of administrative authorizations.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is any change in the 3-year rolling average measure value. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis. A decrease in the 3-year rolling average beyond the threshold for meaningful change results in an improving trend in this measure.

=== 4.4.2 Measure: Percent of Emergency Incidents Using Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport ===

This measure assesses the 3-year rolling average of the percentage of emergency incidents resulting in a motorized or mechanized response. Local data are compiled and entered in NRM-Wilderness and NRM-WCM annually. NRM-WCM calculates the annual value, and the WCMD then calculates the 3-year rolling average (the measure value). Table 2.4.14 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.4.14—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Percent of Emergency Incidents Using Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport.".png|thumb|Table 2.4.14—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Percent of Emergency Incidents Using Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Ensure users understand what types of emergency incidents and responses are counted under this measure and retrieve data from NRM.''' For the purposes of this protocol, an emergency incident is defined as an event relating to public health and safety that may require a response from emergency personnel, and of which an emergency responder is aware. Emergency incidents fall into the following six "Authorization subtypes":

# Aircraft accident investigation
# Fire
# Law enforcement
# Other natural disaster
# Removal of deceased persons
# Search and rescue

Emergency incidents occurring inside wilderness, such as a fire start or a law infraction, will be counted even if the response of emergency personnel occurred outside the boundary. In the case of search and rescue or law enforcement actions taken by other federal, state, or local organizations as authorized through a previous agreement such as a Memorandum of Understanding, this measure only counts authorized responses that are consistent with the agreement. Actions taken by these entities outside of existing agreements are considered to be unauthorized and typically are not included under this measure.

This measure is designed to take advantage of currently collected and reported data. Data on emergency use authorizations (or rather, data on actual emergency use) are already reported through NRM-Wilderness by local units during annual upward reporting. Run a report in NRM-WCM to display relevant data for this measure at the end of each fiscal year. (Data for this report are pulled from existing records entered in NRM-Wilderness; only records with one the six "Authorization subtypes" listed above are retrieved.) The following attributes will be displayed for each authorized emergency use:

* Fiscal year
* Authorization subtype
* Number of mechanized responses
* Number of non-mechanized responses
* Total number of responses

Local units must validate the "Number of mechanized responses" displayed in NRM-WCM and, if necessary, correct records in NRM-Wilderness. NRM-WCM will only display the number of incidents for each "Authorization subtype," and will not include details about specific emergencies; therefore, it may be necessary to check records in NRM-Wilderness directly to ensure that all emergencies with mechanized responses have been counted.

The "Number of non-mechanized responses" attribute is new and must be entered in NRM-WCM—it cannot be entered in NRM-Wilderness. For this attribute, enter the number of emergency incidents that did not receive a motorized or mechanized response for a specific fiscal year. To determine the number of non-mechanized emergency incidents, consult agency staff that respond to emergencies, such as law enforcement, search and rescue, and fire suppression. Note that this number should include not only those incidents that received a non-mechanized response from the Forest Service, but also those involving other federal, state, or local organizations, such as county search and rescue. Use the same six "Authorization subtypes" to help identify all emergency incidents that might have occurred. Once the "Number of non-mechanized responses" has been entered, NRM-WCM will automatically sum the numbers non-mechanized and mechanized responses to calculate the "Total responses."

'''Step 2: Calculate the percentage of emergency incidents resulting in authorized use.''' The NRM-WCM application will automatically calculate the percentage of emergency incidents that resulted in authorized motorized use or mechanized transport for this measure. Local units must review and validate the annual value generated by NRM-WCM and correct records as necessary. The method NRM-WCM uses to calculate these values is described below for reference. NRM-WCM application calculates the total percentage for the fiscal year by using the following formula:

:Number of emergency Percentage of emergency incidents with an ÷ Total number of x 100 = incidents with an authorized motorized or emergency incidents authorized motorized or mechanized response mechanized response

Table 2.4.15 illustrates an example of how the NRM-WCM application will calculate the fiscal year percentage of emergency incidents with an authorized motorized or mechanized response. If no emergency incidents occur in a fiscal year, the application will display a 0 for the total number of responses. In that case, the annual percentage of incidents with a mechanized response should be recorded as a null value, not as 0 percent.

[[File:Table 2.4.15—Summary of emergency authorizations for a wilderness in a single fiscal year..png|thumb|Table 2.4.15—Summary of emergency authorizations for a wilderness in a single fiscal year.]]

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' Validate the percentage calculated by NRM-WCM for emergency incidents in a fiscal year that received a motorized or mechanized response, and correct records in NRM-Wilderness or NRM-WCM as necessary. Once validated, enter the annual percentage in the WCMD. The WCMD automatically calculates 3-year rolling averages based on the fiscal year percentages. The measure value is the 3-year rolling average percentage of mechanized responses.

Although legacy data will be available for some emergency incidents (i.e. those that received a motorized or mechanized response and were included in annual reporting), unless the total number of emergency incidents in previous years is known, the baseline 3-year rolling average for this measure likely won't be calculated until 3 years after this protocol is implemented.

If a null value (i.e., no emergency incidents) is recorded for a certain fiscal year (i.e., no emergency incidents occurred—the total number of responses is 0), include documentation of the null value but do not enter data for that year in the WCMD. This will create some challenges with determining the 3-year rolling average as 3 years with data will be required to determine this value, requiring an additional year, or perhaps more, before this calculation can be made. If this is a frequent occurrence, the selection of this optional measure should be re-evaluated.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

To accurately record the number of emergency incidents, it is imperative that units have close working relationships with local emergency response agencies. The adequacy of the data improves over time as local law enforcement and search and rescue entities are made aware of this monitoring requirement. Reporting and notification specifications should be included in Memorandums of Understanding, if not already present.

When the measure baseline 3-year rolling average is low, a greater than 5-percent change is often going to be any change at all, especially if the average number of emergency incidents per year continues to be low. Therefore, incidental changes and variability in the data are likely to be the norm until wildernesses have at least five measure values to be able to use regression analysis.

When deciding which specific 3 years of data to include to calculate the rolling average for this measure, always defer to the highest data adequacy available (section 1.2.3 in part 2). Ideally the data with the highest degree of adequacy will also be the most recent data collected, but this might not always be the case.

==== Data Adequacy ====

Data quantity is rated as partial. While the Forest Service should be aware of emergency incidents with which they were involved, it is not uncommon for external partner agencies, such as county search and rescue, to conduct an emergency response in wilderness without notifying the local unit. Therefore, the total number of emergency incidents may not be known with a high degree of confidence. The completeness of the data often varies based on the relationship with external emergency personnel. Data quality is rated as good. For the known responses, data should be accurate and reliable. This results in a medium data adequacy. Data adequacy must be verified locally for each wilderness.

==== Frequency ====

Data are compiled, analyzed, and entered into the WCMD annually due to the variable nature of emergency authorizations.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is a 5-percent change in the 3-year rolling average of the percentage of emergency incidents resulting in a motorized or mechanized response. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis. A decrease in the 3-year rolling average beyond the threshold for meaningful change results in an improving trend in this measure.

=== 4.4.3 Measure: Index of Special Provision Authorizations to Use Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport ===

This measure assesses the 3-year rolling average of a use-level index evaluating special provision authorizations to use motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport, based on the type and number of pieces of equipment and the days of use. Local data are compiled and entered in NRM-Wilderness annually. NRM-WCM calculates the annual value, and the WCMD then calculates the 3-year rolling average (the measure value). Table 2.4.16 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.4.16.png|thumb|Table 2.4.16—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Special Provision Authorizations to Use Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Ensure users understand what types of special provision authorizations to use motorized equipment or mechanical transport are counted under this measure and retrieve data from NRM.''' For the purposes of the protocol, special provision use is defined as use authorized by statute, such as the use of remote landing strips or maintenance of wilderness dams. The special provision authorizations tracked in NRM are those mechanized uses undertaken by agency employees, or those authorized to do so through existing permits or agreements with the Forest Service, excluding those uses authorized through specific statutes that allow the general public to use motorized equipment. More general use, such as motorboat use allowed in certain lakes in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, is not tracked at the level needed to support this index calculation. Though certain motorized uses authorized by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) require an annual permit and are tracked in NRM (e.g., use of a motorized winch to harvest game), they are factored out of the calculation for this measure because the actual use levels are not known.

This measure is designed to take advantage of currently collected and reported data. Data on special provision use authorizations (or rather, data on actual special provision use) are already reported through NRM-Wilderness by local units during annual upward reporting. Run a report in NRM-WCM to display relevant data for this measure at the end of each fiscal year. (Data for this report are pulled from existing records entered in the NRM-Wilderness; only records with an "Authorization type" of "Special provisions," where the "Authorization subtype" is not "ANILCA," are retrieved.) Local units must validate the data displayed in NRM-WCM and, if necessary, correct records in NRM-Wilderness. The following attributes will be displayed for each authorized special provision use:

* Fiscal year
* Authorization ID
* Authorization name
* Equipment type
* Number of pieces of equipment
* Number of days of use
* Inherent weight

The "Inherent weight" attribute is automatically assigned in NRM-WCM based on the "Equipment type" attribute. "Inherent weights" represents the relative impact of motorized equipment or mechanized transport, and are used in recognition that not all equipment types have the same impact level on the Undeveloped Quality. For example, a wheelbarrow has a significantly different impact level than a bulldozer. To account for these differences, each type of equipment is associated with an "Inherent weight" from 1 (low impact) to 4 (high impact) based on its perceived impact to social and biophysical resources inside wilderness (determined subjectively by a sampling of Forest Service wilderness managers). Table 2.4.17 describes the "Inherent weights" used by NRM-WCM for this measure. If the "Equipment type" attribute is expanded in the future to include additional types of motorized equipment and mechanical transport, associated "Inherent weight" values will also be assigned at the same time.

[[File:Table 2.4.17—Inherent weights of different types of motorized equipment and mechanical transport used in wilderness..png|thumb|Table 2.4.17—Inherent weights of different types of motorized equipment and mechanical transport used in wilderness.]]
[[File:Table 2.4.17—Inherent weights of different types of motorized equipment and mechanical transport used in wilderness2..png|thumb|Table 2.4.17—Inherent weights of different types of motorized equipment and mechanical transport used in wilderness.]]

'''Step 2: Calculate the index value.''' The index used for this measure combines values for the type, amount, and duration of special provision motorized use or mechanized transport. The NRM-WCM application will automatically calculate the index value for this measure. Local units must review and validate the value generated by NRM-WCM and correct records as necessary. The method NRM-WCM uses to calculate these values is described below for reference. In addition to assigning inherent weights based on the "Equipment type" attribute, NRM-WCM will also use the "Number of pieces of equipment" and "Number of days of use" attributes directly to assess the extent of each special provision use. NRM-WCM calculates a component score for each special provision use authorization using the following formula:

:Number of pieces of equipment × Number of days of use × Inherent weight = Component score

The NRM-WCM application will sum the component scores for all special provision uses to provide a single total use-level index value for this measure. Table 2.4.18 illustrates an example of how to calculate the use-level index value. Note that each special provision use is counted for the fiscal year in which the equipment was used. If the period of actual use spans two fiscal years, NRM-WCM will prorate the number of days of use across each fiscal year.

[[File:Table 2.4.18—Example of use-level index calculation for special provision authorizations..png|thumb|Table 2.4.18—Example of use-level index calculation for special provision authorizations.]]

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' Validate the use-level index value generated by NRM-WCM for the fiscal year and correct records in NRM-Wilderness as necessary. Once validated, enter the annual index value in the WCMD. The WCMD automatically calculates 3-year rolling averages based on the annual values. Due to the availability of legacy data for this measure, a 3-year rolling average can likely be calculated the first year this protocol is implemented. The measure value is the 3-year rolling average index value.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

When deciding which specific 3 years of data to include to calculate the rolling average for this measure, always defer to the highest data adequacy available (section 1.2.3 in part 2). Ideally the data with the highest degree of adequacy will also be the most recent data collected, but this might not always be the case.

==== Data Adequacy ====

Data quantity is rated as complete. Units should generally be aware of all of the motorized equipment and mechanical transport uses to support legislated special provisions in a particular wilderness. These provisions, such as use of remote landing strips and maintenance of wilderness dams, are well known. Data quality, however, is rated as moderate. The reality is, while such provisions are well known, the actual use levels conducted by cooperators and partners are often not monitored very closely, particularly those authorizations of a more routine nature, such as commercial grazing allotment management. Local data adequacy may vary depending on how well actual use levels are known in a given wilderness. This results in a medium data adequacy. Data adequacy must be verified locally for each wilderness.

==== Frequency ====

Data are compiled, analyzed, and entered into the WCMD annually due to the variable nature of special provision authorizations.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is a 5-percent change in the 3-year rolling average measure value. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis. A decrease in the 3-year rolling average beyond the threshold for meaningful change results in an improving trend in this measure.

Natural Quality Indicators

2023-03-05T20:48:17Z

Admin:

[[Category:USFS]]
<div class="noautonum" style="float:right;width:30%;margin-left:15px;">
<div class="toc">
<div class="center">[[USFS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide]]</div>
[[File:Wilderness character monitoring technical guide - rmrs gtr406.pdf.png|200px|thumb|center]]
<div class="center">
'''3 {{ PAGENAME }}'''
</div>
</div>
<br>
__TOC__
</div>

Monitoring the Natural Quality assesses how human-caused change affects ecological systems. Key indicators and measures monitor plants, animals, air and water, and ecological processes. This section provides detailed guidance for monitoring the following indicators and measures:

: 3.2 Indicator: Plants
:: 3.2.1 Measure: Acres of Nonindigenous Plant Species
: 3.3 Indicator: Animals
:: 3.3.1 Measure: Index of Nonindigenous Terrestrial Animal Species
:: 3.3.2 Measure: Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species
: 3.4 Indicator: Air and Water
:: 3.4.1 Measure: Concentration of Ambient Ozone
:: 3.4.2 Measure: Deposition of Nitrogen
:: 3.4.3 Measure: Deposition of Sulfur
:: 3.4.4 Measure: Amount of Haze
:: 3.4.5 Measure: Index of Sensitive Lichen Species
:: 3.4.6 Measure: Extent of Waterbodies With Impaired Water Quality
: 3.5 Indicator: Ecological Processes
:: 3.5.1 Measure: Watershed Condition Class
:: 3.5.1 Measure: Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use

Section 3.6, Selecting Measures for the Natural Quality, provides recommendations for identifying and establishing locally developed measures in the Natural Quality. It discusses the general considerations for developing these measures, explains why certain types of measures are problematic, offers examples to clarify what are and are not appropriate measures, and provides a flowchart outlining the general process.

== 3.2 Indicator: Plants ==

This indicator focuses on threats to indigenous plant species and communities. There is one required measure for this indicator.

=== 3.2.1 Measure: Acres of Nonindigenous Plant Species ===

This measure assesses the total number of acres, or the estimated percentage of acres, occupied by selected nonindigenous plant species in wilderness. Local units may select the appropriate protocol option as described in step 2 below. Data are compiled from a variety of local, state, regional, and national data sources. Local staff calculate the measure value. Table 2.3.1 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:T2.3.1.pdf.png|thumb|Table 2.3.1—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Acres of Nonindigenous Plant Species."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Develop a list of known nonindigenous plants in the wilderness and select species for monitoring.''' There may be many nonindigenous plants within a wilderness, but for practical reasons, it is recommended that local units select up to five species that pose the greatest ecological risk to native plant communities for use in this measure. Local units, however, may select as many species as they want but will need to balance practicality with the number of species selected considering the quality and availability of inventory data for the selected species. Selecting these species should consider the invasiveness or ability to spread and occupy new habitat, the amount of habitat at risk, and the potential impact of these species on indigenous plants and animals. If there is certainty that only natural vectors enabled a nonindigenous plant species to become established in a wilderness (i.e., via natural range expansion or movement), then that species would not be included. If, however, there is ambiguity about how the species was introduced (whether natural or human-caused), then the species would be included. Nonindigenous plant species that were present at the time of wilderness designation should be included for consideration in this measure. Consult the local botanist, invasive species program manager, ecologist, range conservationist, or other local sources of knowledge on nonindigenous plants to select species for this measure. Over time, new species can be added to the list of selected species, and species already on the list can be replaced with different species; any modification of the list of selected species should be considered carefully as changes in the acreage occupied by selected nonindigenous plant species may affect the trend in this measure.

'''Step 2: Determine the wilderness acreage currently occupied by each selected species and calculate the total number of acres, or the estimated percentage of acres, for all species.''' A variety of data sources may be necessary for this measure, and data sources may vary by species. Acreage data for each selected species can be based on actual surveys, observation, or professional knowledge. Current and past nonindigenous plant data are available from the NRM application for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants, and Invasive Species (NRM-TESP-IS). To retrieve spatial data on selected species from NRM for this measure, consult a specialist familiar with the NRM application and GIS to perform the necessary queries. Examples of other sources of data concerning nonindigenous plant species for a particular area include the following:

* Forest Service resource specialist on the local unit where a wilderness is located (i.e., forest botanist, range specialist ecologist, or invasive species coordinator).
* Individual state Department of Natural Resources invasive species program.
* The Natural Heritage Program.
* Local weed associations by state or county.
* Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)

Data adequacy for all data sources likely varies greatly depending on the wilderness and the species of interest. It is strongly recommended that local natural resource specialists, such as forest botanists, ecologists, or invasive species coordinators, be consulted to validate the data, especially if national datasets are used. If the determination of species extent is based partially or entirely on professional judgment, include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the assessment and their basis for the estimation.

To accommodate the reality that data may not be available for a wilderness, or that data adequacy may be insufficient to accurately assess the total number of acres for one or more selected species, the following section describes three protocol options for using this measure in order of decreasing data adequacy.

Protocol Option 1—Total Acres. The first protocol option assesses the total number of acres occupied by the selected species (e.g., 10 acres). Use this protocol option if the acreage of all selected species can be determined with sufficient data adequacy. Calculate the total number of wilderness acres occupied by one or more selected nonindigenous species to attain the measure value; do not double count acres if more than one of the species occur in the same location. For example, if there are four selected species that each occupy 10 acres and the distribution of all four species does not overlap, the total area reported would be 40 acres (10 for species a + 10 for species b + 10 for species c + 10 for species d). If the distribution of two of these species completely overlapped, the total area reported would be 30 acres (10 for species a + 10 for species b + 10 for the overlapped distribution of species c and species d).

Protocol Option 2—Categories Based Partially on Data. The second protocol option assesses the estimated percentage of acres occupied by selected nonindigenous plant species, using set "percent occupied" categories. Use this protocol option if data exist but there are concerns about how recent the data are, or about the quality or spatial coverage of the data. Similarly, if data adequacy is variable for different species, it may be appropriate to use this protocol option. For this protocol option, resource specialists must estimate the percentage of wilderness acres occupied by the selected nonindigenous plant species based on existing data as well as supplementary professional knowledge. Assign the applicable "percent occupied" amount from the seven categories described in the list below. These categories are scaled conservatively to emphasize the impact on the Natural Quality of wilderness character.

* None—0% of total wilderness acreage.
* Very Low—less than 1 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* Low—1 to 5 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* Moderate—6 to 20 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* High—21 to 35 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* Very high—36 to 50 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* Extreme—greater than 50 percent of the total wilderness acreage.

Protocol Option 3—Categories Based on Professional Judgment: The third protocol option also assesses the estimated percentage of acres occupied by selected species, but uses broader "percent occupied" categories than the previous option. Use this protocol option when there are little or no data on which to base an estimate of the acreage of selected species and there is lower confidence in the estimate. Resource specialists must estimate the percentage of wilderness acres occupied by the selected nonindigenous plant species based on professional knowledge. Assign the applicable "percent occupied" amount from the following four categories:

* None—less than 1 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* Low—1 to 5 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* Moderate—6 to 20 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* High—greater than 20 percent of the total wilderness acreage.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' If protocol option 1 was selected, enter the total number of acres; if protocol options 2 or 3 were selected, enter the applicable "percent occupied" category of the estimated percentage of acres. The measure value is either the number of acres or the "percent occupied" category.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

Comprehensive and systematic surveys in wilderness for nonindigenous terrestrial plants are typically lacking, with data coming from sporadic and infrequent visits from resource specialists who have the knowledge to identify these species. Wildernesses are typically remote and often viewed as not needing basic resource inventories to guide management so even if a systematic survey has been conducted, it may not be repeated. If either the second or third protocol option based on categories is used, resource specialists should note in a narrative if there are particular species that currently occur across less than 1 percent of the wilderness acreage but have the potential for significant spread and adverse impacts if environmental or other conditions change.

==== Data Adequacy ====

Data adequacy varies depending on the protocol option used. For the first protocol option that relies on existing data, overall data adequacy is generally considered medium or high; data quality is generally good (e.g., ground level inventory) or moderate (e.g., data from regional or national databases), and data quantity is partial or complete as there are likely data on selected species for most or all of a wilderness. For the second protocol option that relies on a combination of existing data and professional judgment, data adequacy is generally considered medium or low because data quality is likely moderate or poor and data quantity is likely partial or insufficient. For the third protocol option that relies extensively on professional knowledge, data adequacy is likely low because data quality is poor and data quantity is likely insufficient or partial. Data adequacy must be verified locally for all protocol options.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, the spatial extent of selected nonindigenous plant species is assessed and the total number of acres (protocol option 1), or the applicable "percent occupied" category of the estimated percentage of acres (protocol options 2 and 3), is entered in the WCMD.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change differs depending on the protocol option used. If the first protocol option is used, the threshold is a 5-percent change in the total number of acres occupied by selected nonindigenous plant species. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis. If either the second or third protocol option is used, the threshold is any change in categories. Either a decrease in the total acreage beyond the 5-percent threshold for meaningful change, or a change to a lower "percent occupied" category, results in an improving trend in the measure.

== 3.3 Indicator: Animals ==

This indicator focuses on threats to indigenous animal species and communities. There are two measures for this indicator and units are required to select at least one.

=== 3.3.1 Measure: Index of Nonindigenous Terrestrial Animal Species ===

This measure is an index that assesses the geographic distribution and estimated impact of selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species. Data are compiled from a variety of local, state, regional, and national data sources. The WCMD calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.2 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:T2.3.2.pdf.png|thumb|Table 2.3.2—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Nonindigenous Terrestrial Animal Species."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Develop a list of known nonindigenous terrestrial animals in the wilderness and select species for monitoring.''' This includes all nonindigenous terrestrial animal species, and domestic (and feral) livestock, swine, horses, and burros; terrestrial insects such as Asian long-horned beetle, emerald ash borer, gypsy moth, and hemlock woolly adelgid; and terrestrial pathogens and diseases such as sudden oak death, chronic wasting disease, and white-nose syndrome. For some terrestrial animal species, distribution can vary seasonally and if the species occurs within a wilderness at any time, it could be included in this list. If there is certainty that only natural vectors enabled a nonindigenous animal species to become established in wilderness (i.e., via natural range expansion or movement), then that species would not be included; however, if there is ambiguity about how the species was introduced (whether natural or human-caused), then the species would be included. Nonindigenous animal species that were present at the time of wilderness designation should be included for consideration in this measure. Consult the local wildlife biologist, invasive species program manager, ecologist, or other local sources of knowledge to first identify nonindigenous terrestrial animals in a wilderness and then select species for inclusion in this measure.

As not all nonindigenous species have the same degree of ecological impact on wilderness, select species to monitor based on their potential to displace '''native species''' or do ecological harm to a wilderness environment. For practical reasons, local units may choose to limit the number of species selected based on their impact and data adequacy. Over time, new species can be added to the list of selected species, and species already on the list can be replaced with different species; any modification of the list of selected species should be considered carefully as changes in the index may affect the trend in this measure.

'''Step 2: Determine the distribution and impact of each selected species.''' The index used for this measure combines the numerical ratings for distribution and impact that are assigned for each selected species. These numerical ratings are based on defined distribution and impact categories, described below. If the determination of distribution or impact categories for any species is based partially or entirely on professional judgment, include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the assessment and their basis for the estimation. Both distribution and impact must be reassessed for all selected species each monitoring cycle.

Distribution is the known or estimated geographic extent inside wilderness of each selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species. For this measure, distribution is measured as the percentage of the total wilderness occupied by each selected species that permanently resides in a wilderness, or the maximum geographic extent of each selected species that occurs seasonally in a wilderness. A variety of data sources, including national and local data sources as well as professional knowledge, may be necessary for determining distribution, and data sources may vary by species. In order of priority, use surveys, observations, or professional knowledge to assess species distribution. A primary data source for this measure is the Forest Service Natural Resource Information System (NRIS). This application is a good starting place if data are available. Other relevant databases are NRM-Wildlife and NRM-TESP-IS. Examples of additional sources of data concerning nonindigenous terrestrial animal species include:

* Forest Service resource specialist on the local unit where a wilderness is located (i.e., wildlife biologist, ecologist, or invasive species coordinator).
* Individual state Department of Natural Resources invasive species program.
* NatureServe Explorer database (https://explorer.natureserve.org/) and its state Natural Heritage Program members.
* Local invasive species programs by county or city.
* Forest Service and BLM wild horse and burro herd data (http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/ecology/wildhorseburro/territories/index.shtml and https://www.blm.gov/programs/wild-horse-and-burro/herd-management).
* Forest Service Forest Health Protection mapping and reporting tools (https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/).

Data adequacy for all data sources likely varies greatly depending on the wilderness and the species of interest. It is strongly recommended that local natural resource specialists, such as biologists, ecologists, or invasive species coordinators, be consulted to validate the data, especially for datasets that extend beyond a wilderness boundary.

Assign one of the following '''distribution categories''' for each selected species based on the known or estimated percent distribution over the entire wilderness:

* Trace—the species occupies less than 1 percent of a wilderness.
* Sparse—the species occupies 1 to 5 percent of a wilderness.
* Moderate—the species occupies 6 to 25 percent of a wilderness.
* Wide—the species occupies more than 25 percent of a wilderness.

These distribution categories are scaled conservatively to emphasize the ecological effects of increased distribution of nonindigenous species. Once the distribution category has been assigned for each selected species, note the associated numerical rating according to the following table 2.3.3.

[[File:Table 2.3.3.png|thumb|Table 2.3.3—Numerical ratings for the distribution of terrestrial nonindigenous animal species.]]

Impact is the estimated relative effect of each selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species on the Natural Quality of wilderness character. Impact may change over time due to a variety of changing ecological circumstances. Consult the local wildlife biologist, invasive species program manager, ecologist, or other local sources of knowledge to determine the impact of each species. Resource specialists should base their impact assessments for each species on the scientific literature or their professional observation or knowledge. Assign one of the following '''impact categories''' for each species:

* Low—the species has a relatively small or localized impact on the natural ecosystems and plant and animal communities.
* Moderate—the species has a noticeable effect on plant or animal communities or natural ecosystems and eradication efforts may or may not be in place because of uncertainty about impact.
* High—the species has a large or significant effect on plant or animal communities or natural ecosystems and plans for eradication or reduction are likely in place because of the known large impact of the species. Once the impact category has been assigned, note the associated numerical rating according to the following table 2.3.4.

[[File:Table 2.3.4—Numerical ratings for the impact category of nonindigenous terrestrial animal species..png|thumb|Table 2.3.4—Numerical ratings for the impact category of nonindigenous terrestrial animal species.]]

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' The final measure value is derived through an index combining all selected species' numerical ratings for distribution and impact. While this index is described for reference, users will not be responsible for calculating the measure value themselves; instead, users will enter the assigned numerical distribution and impact ratings for each species in the WCMD, and the WCMD will calculate the measure value automatically. The measure value is the index value.

In calculating the index value for this measure, there are two basic steps. First, generate a component score for each selected species by multiplying the numerical rating for distribution by the numerical rating for impact. Second, sum the component scores for all species to produce the final index value. Table 2.3.5 provides an example showing how to calculate the index value for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.5—An example of how to calculate the index value for selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species..png|thumb|Table 2.3.5—An example of how to calculate the index value for selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species.]]

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

Comprehensive and systematic surveys in wilderness for nonindigenous terrestrial animals are typically lacking, with data coming from sporadic and infrequent visits from resource specialists who have the knowledge to identify these species. Even if a systematic survey is conducted, it may not be repeated.

==== Data Adequacy ====

Data quantity varies depending on the geographic area and the species of interest, and is generally expected to be insufficient to partial. Data quality also varies considerably across wildernesses because surveys and comprehensive, statistically robust inventories of nonindigenous terrestrial animal species in wildernesses are often lacking; data quality is therefore generally expected to be poor to moderate. Combining these two aspects yields an estimated low to medium data adequacy. Because of high variability, local units must verify these determinations for each data source used; for example, national data sources may have high data adequacy while evaluations based on professional judgment will often have low data adequacy.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, assess the geographic distribution and estimated impact of selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species. Enter the assigned distribution and impact ratings for each species into the WCMD. The measure value is automatically calculated by the WCMD based on the entered data.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is a 5-percent change in the measure value for all selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis. A decrease in the measure value beyond the threshold for meaningful change results in an improving trend in this measure.

=== 3.3.2 Measure: Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species ===

This measure is an index that assesses the geographic distribution and estimated impact of selected nonindigenous aquatic species (NAS), including amphibians, fish, crustaceans, mollusks, gastropods, aquatic insects, and aquatic pathogens and diseases. Data are compiled from a variety of local, state, regional, and national data sources. The WCMD calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.6 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.6—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species.".png|thumb|Table 2.3.6—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Develop a list of known nonindigenous aquatic animals in the wilderness and select species for monitoring.''' This includes all NAS and water-borne pathogens and diseases such as whirling disease, iridoviruses, and chytrid fungus. Locally or regionally '''indigenous species''' introduced in fishless waters would also be included in this list. Stocking of indigenous species into waters where they may already occur, or introducing indigenous fish species into waters that already have other fish species, are unlikely to have a measurable effect on the Natural Quality and are therefore not included under this measure. If there is certainty that only natural vectors enabled a NAS to become established in a wilderness (i.e., via natural range expansion or movement), then that species would not be included; however, if there is ambiguity about how the species was introduced (whether natural or human-caused), then the species would be included. Nonindigenous aquatic animal species that were present at the time of wilderness designation should be included for consideration in this measure. Consult with forest and district resource specialists to first identify known NAS in a wilderness and then select species for inclusion in this measure.

As NAS have varying degrees of ecological impact on wilderness, select species to monitor based on their potential to displace native species or do ecological harm to the wilderness environment. For practical reasons, local units may choose to limit the number of species selected based on their impact and data adequacy. Over time, new species can be added to the list of selected species, and species already on the list can be replaced with different species; any modification of the list of selected species should be considered carefully as changes in the index will likely affect the trend for this measure.

'''Step 2: Determine the distribution and impact of each selected species.''' The index used for this measure combines the numerical ratings for distribution and impact that are assigned for each selected species. These numerical ratings are based on defined distribution and impact categories, described below. If the determination of distribution or impact categories for any species is based partially or entirely on professional judgment, include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the assessment and their basis for the estimation. Both distribution and impact must be reassessed for all selected species each monitoring cycle.

Distribution is the known or estimated geographic extent inside wilderness of each selected NAS. For this measure, distribution is measured as the percentage of the total wilderness waterbodies occupied by each selected species that resides in a wilderness or the maximum geographic extent of each selected species that seasonally occurs in a wilderness.

A variety of data sources, including national and local data sources and professional knowledge, may be necessary for determining distribution, and data sources may vary by species. In order of priority, use surveys, observations, or professional knowledge to assess species distribution. Data adequacy for all data sources may vary greatly depending on the wilderness and the species of interest. Consult with local natural resource specialists, such as fisheries biologists, ecologists, or invasive species coordinators to validate the data, especially for datasets that extend beyond a wilderness boundary.

A useful source of data for this measure is the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) national database for NAS, located at the Southeast Ecological Science Center and available at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/. This site is a central repository for accurate, spatially referenced biogeographic accounts of NAS in the United States. It provides detailed records, collection locations, and dates, and can searched by state, county, or watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 2 to HUC 8) for nonindigenous aquatic groups, taxa, and species. The Southeast Ecological Science Center can also be contacted to run specific queries for watersheds associated with an individual wilderness. After navigating to the website (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/), follow these steps to retrieve data:

# Go to "Database & Queries" (top of home page).
# Select "Search by Drainage Area [HUC 8]."
# Select appropriate state from map of the U.S.
# Select "All" groups and sort by "Taxonomic Group."
# Select desired HUC 8 sub basin and records will be displayed.
# Select "Collection Information" under the "More Information" column heading for each species listed.
# Assess the distribution of each species using these results, especially the information in the "Locality" and "Year" columns. For additional details on a given collection or sighting, select "Specimen ID." This provides information on the collection date and accuracy, pathway, status, and any references that are available.

Examples of additional sources of data concerning nonindigenous aquatic animal species are listed below.

* Forest Service resource specialist on the unit where a wilderness is located (i.e., fisheries biologist, hydrologist, or invasive species coordinator).
* Forest Service NRM-TESP-IS.
* Forest Service regional aquatic invasive species databases (e.g., Region 4's database available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r4/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_016101).
* Individual state Department of Natural Resources invasive species program, or state fish and game agencies (especially useful for obtaining fish stocking or fish assessment records).
* Regional, state, or local invasive aquatic species programs (e.g., the Portland State University Center for Lakes and Reservoirs has excellent data for the state of Oregon—Center for Lakes and Reservoirs - Portland State University; Michigan State University's Midwest Invasive Species Information Network [MISIN] has similar data for the Midwest—Midwest Invasive Species Information Network [MISIN]).

Assign one of the following distribution categories for each selected species based on the known or estimated percent distribution over the entire wilderness:

* Low—the species occupies 10 percent or less of the waterbodies in a wilderness.
* Moderate—the species occupies 11 to 20 percent of the waterbodies in a wilderness.
* Wide—the species occupies more than 20 percent of the waterbodies in a wilderness.

Once the distribution category has been assigned for each selected species, note the associated numerical rating shown in table 2.3.7.

[[File:Table 2.3.7—Numerical ratings for the distribution category of nonindigenous aquatic animal species..png|thumb|Table 2.3.7—Numerical ratings for the distribution category of nonindigenous aquatic animal species.]]

Impact is the estimated relative effect of each selected nonindigenous aquatic animal species on the Natural Quality of wilderness character. Impact may change over time due to a variety of changing ecological circumstances. Assign one of the following an impact categories for each species:

* Low—the species has a relatively small or localized impact on the natural ecosystems and plant and animal communities.
* Moderate—the species has a noticeable effect on plant or animal communities or natural ecosystems and eradication efforts may or may not be in place because of uncertainty about impact.
* High—the species has a large or significant effect on plant or animal communities or natural ecosystems and plans for eradication or reduction are likely in place because of the known large impact of the species.

Once the impact category has been assigned, note the associated numerical rating according to the following, table 2.3.8.

[[File:Table 2.3.8—Numerical ratings for the impact category of nonindigenous aquatic animal species..png|thumb|Table 2.3.8—Numerical ratings for the impact category of nonindigenous aquatic animal species.]]

These recommended impact categories and numerical ratings are assigned to reflect relative impacts. The setting (location, climate, other species) plays a key role in influencing the relative impact of an individual NAS. As a general rule, nonindigenous fish should likely receive the highest impact rating because they are often the top predator in aquatic systems and can have significant and lasting effects on the character and function of aquatic systems. Indigenous fish introduced into fishless waters should be considered nonindigenous and assigned a rating of 3. Aquatic invasive species (including invasive nonindigenous aquatic pathogens) would generally be assigned the second highest rating due to their potential to increase in numbers and distribution relatively quickly and have significant impacts on indigenous species by direct competition for limited resources such as water, nutrients, food, and shelter (Office of Technology Assessment 1993). Low impact species would often include certain, nonindigenous aquatic organisms that are found at the current extreme edge of their range of conditions for survival where the stress of the environment limits their productivity and competitiveness. (Jim Capurso, U.S. Forest Service, R6 Fish Program Leader and Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator, personal communication, December 1, 2016).

The general categories and ratings presented in table 2.3.8 may not fit local conditions or the specific circumstances found in an individual wilderness. Units are encouraged to adjust these ratings based on local information and professional knowledge. For example, the availability of a risk assessment for a particular invasive species, such as New Zealand mud snails or zebra mussels, could allow a local office to increase the impact rating to the maximum level of 3. Although there is no national database that provides relative risk ratings for invasive aquatic animals, such ratings may be available on a local, state, or regional level and could provide a basis for increasing the ratings for individual invasive species. Document the rationale for these adjustments.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' The final measure value is derived through an index combining all selected species' numerical ratings for distribution and impact. While this index is described for reference, users will not be responsible for calculating the measure value themselves; instead, users will enter the assigned numerical distribution and impact ratings for each species in the WCMD, and the WCMD will then calculate the measure value automatically. The measure value is the index value. In calculating the index value for this measure, there are two basic steps. First, generate a component score for each selected species by multiplying the numerical rating for distribution by the numerical rating for impact. Second, sum the component scores for all species to produce the final index value. Table 2.3.9 provides an example showing how to calculate the index value for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.9—An example of how to calculate the index value for selected nonindigenous aquatic animal species..png|thumb|Table 2.3.9—An example of how to calculate the index value for selected nonindigenous aquatic animal species.]]

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

Currently, comprehensive surveys for NAS, in both lakes and streams, are generally lacking, especially in wilderness. Where they do exist, data often are not entered into a national NAS database, but may be available in a local database. Also, there is often a lack of periodic follow-up sampling. Although progress has been made in the last few years, lack of data on NAS for many water bodies makes treatment, protection, and management extremely difficult. It also puts a premium on coordinated data gathering and data sharing among management, research interests, and users in general.

==== Data Adequacy ====

For data used in the NAS index, there is a fair degree of variability depending on a given geographic area and species of interest. Data quantity for the measure ranges from complete (e.g., fish stocking records) to insufficient (e.g., estimates and professional judgment), and is given an overall rating of partial. Data quality similarly ranges from high (e.g., fish stocking records) to low (e.g., estimates and professional judgment), resulting in an average moderate rating. This provides an overall data adequacy rating of medium. Because of high variability, local units must verify these determinations for each data source used.

==== Frequency ====

At least every 5 years, assess the geographic distribution and estimated impact of selected nonindigenous aquatic animal species. Enter the distribution and impact ratings for each species into the WCMD. The measure value is automatically calculated by the WCMD based on the entered data.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is a 5-percent change in the measure value for all selected nonindigenous aquatic animal species. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis. A decrease in the measure value beyond the threshold for meaningful change results in an improving trend in this measure.

== 3.4 Indicator: Air and Water ==

This indicator focuses on threats to air and water quality. There are six measures for this indicator: five measures on air quality from which units are required to select at least one, and one required measure on water quality.

==== Guidance for Selecting Air Quality Measures ====

Section 3.4 describes the five air quality measures:

# Measure: Concentration of Ambient Ozone
# Measure: Deposition of Nitrogen
# Measure: Deposition of Sulfur
# Measure: Amount of Haze
# Measure: Index of Sensitive Lichens

Local units are required to select at least one of these air quality measures, or may select multiple measures if relevant to the individual wilderness. For all five measures, the central data analyst will complete the protocols by retrieving data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program or other national monitoring networks. The purpose of this section is to provide additional guidance for local units to consider when selecting air quality measures because some measures are more appropriate for certain geographic regions of the U.S., and available data may vary by geographic region.

Air quality measures are selected based on their relevancy to the local wilderness. Contact local or regional air resource specialists for assistance in determining which air quality measure(s) is/are most appropriate and feasible to monitor for each wilderness. Factors to consider include the availability of data as well as the relative impacts of various pollutants in a wilderness. Air quality monitoring plans for the forest or local unit may also identify the pollutant(s) most likely affecting a wilderness. The following general guidelines for each air quality measure may help guide the selection process.

* Concentration of Ambient Ozone—This measure will be particularly important for wildernesses located within or near areas that are exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. Fortunately, these also are wildernesses most likely to have access to the data necessary to use this measure. There is limited data availability for the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
* Deposition of Nitrogen—This measure will be of more interest to local units located west of the Mississippi River and in areas of the East where nitrogen deposition is of greater concern than sulfur deposition.
* Deposition of Sulfur—This measure will be of most interest for Forest Service Regions 8 and 9 in the eastern U.S. This is especially true for New England and the Appalachian Mountain range where sulfur has accumulated over decades of high deposition and continues to be released into, and negatively affect, watersheds and aquatic systems.
* Amount of Haze—This measure will be of interest to local units with noticeable haze or other impacts to visibility. Almost all wildernesses (except those in Alaska and Puerto Rico) have representative visibility data.
* Index of Sensitive Lichen Species—This measure is primarily for wildernesses where air pollution monitoring stations are limited or not available. It will be especially useful in Alaska where air quality monitoring equipment is very limited, and in Forest Service regions 1, 4, and 6 where lichen monitoring data are readily available. Use of this measure is limited to wildernesses with forested habitats. At this time, nitrogen and sulfur are the only pollutants modeled for lichen sensitivity.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 2.3.10: Recommended air measures for Forest Service regions. A dash (-) in the column generally means not relevant or not recommended.
|-
! Region !! Concentration of ambient ozone !! Deposition of nitrogen !! Deposition of sulfur !! Amount of haze !! Index of sensitive lichen species
|-
| 1 || - || Yes || - || Yes || Yes
|-
| 2 || Yes || Yes || - || Yes || -
|-
| 3 || Yes || Yes || - || Yes || -
|-
| 4 || Yes || Yes || - || Yes || Yes
|-
| 5 || Yes || Yes || - || Yes || -
|-
| 6 || - || - || - || Yes || Yes
|-
| 8 || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes || -
|-
| 9 || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes || -
|-
| 10 || - || - || - || - || Yes
|}

Table 2.3.10 shows the air quality measures that may be most relevant for each Forest Service region (Regions 1–10). While this table may help narrow the selection process, it should not replace recommendations of local or regional air resource specialists. In this table, the protocol options mentioned under nitrogen and sulfur are discussed in sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3, respectively.

=== 3.4.1 Measure: Concentration of Ambient Ozone ===

This measure assesses the 3-year rolling average of ozone concentration (fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration) based on the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program's annual analyses of national ozone monitoring data. Unless stated otherwise, the protocol steps are intended to be completed by the central data analyst. Data are compiled from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program NAAQS website. The central data analyst calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.11 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.11—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Concentration of Ambient Ozone..png|thumb|Table 2.3.11—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Concentration of Ambient Ozone.]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Determine the ozone monitor that is representative of air quality for the wilderness.''' Although ozone data are available for all 50 states and Puerto Rico, not all wildernesses have a monitoring site located near them. Monitoring data from sites located within 25 miles of a wilderness boundary are generally considered representative (see Caveats and Cautions). If confronted with multiple viable monitors, a large disparity in elevation either between the monitoring site and a wilderness or across a wilderness, or any other questionable situations, contact an air resource specialist for assistance in selecting the single most representative site. If an air resource specialist confirms that there are no representative ozone monitors for a specific wilderness, do not use this measure and refer back to the local unit to select one of the other air quality measures.

In addition to consulting with air resource specialists, the central data analyst has the following two tools available to locate monitoring sites:

# NRM-Air—This NRM application contains spatial layers for ozone monitoring sites (called fixed equipment sites) and wilderness boundaries. Use these layers within the Geospatial Interface (GI) ArcMap extension to buffer a wilderness and identify monitoring sites within 25 miles. Consult a GIS specialist or a specialist familiar with the application for assistance if necessary.
# Forest Service Air Resource Management Program mapping tool—This tool is available online at https://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/maps/index.php and displays locations of ozone monitors as dots on the map.

Figure 2.3.1 is a screen capture from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program online tool showing ozone monitoring site locations. When the user zooms in on the map, forest and wilderness boundaries and scale are revealed. Information is available for all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The tool allows users to select the area of interest to see whether any ozone monitoring sites are located within approximately 25 miles of a wilderness boundary.

[[File:Figure 2.3.1.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.1—Screen capture from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program online tool showing ozone monitoring site locations for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.]]

Once a representative monitoring site is identified for a wilderness, record the last five digits of the monitor ID as well as the state and county it is located in.

'''Step 2: Retrieve ozone data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program.''' Navigate to the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program NAAQS website (http://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/graphs/o3calc/health.php) to access ozone summary data (shown in fig. 2.3.2). In the boxes under "Select a New Location" (found in the upper right hand corner of the page), enter the state, county, and monitor ID for the selected monitoring site; ignore the check box for "Class 1 only" and click "Load Data."

[[File:Figure 2.3.2.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.2—An example of a summary graph for the 3-year average ozone statistic from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website.]]

The first graph in the summary report depicts the NAAQS for ozone: the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 calendar years. The 3-year averages are calculated using values from the current and previous two years of data (e.g., the 3-year average for 2018 combines data from 2016, 2017, and 2018), and are represented in the graph by red triangles. Note that there may be up to a year delay in posting data. To retrieve the data depicted in the graph, click on "NAAQS Results" to the right of the graph. The data appear in columns, with each row representing a single year. To identify which column contains the 3-year rolling averages, click on the "Readme" (metadata) file (located below "NAAQS Results").

Record the "3-year average (parts per million [ppm])" data for all relevant years since the year of wilderness designation. For example, for a wilderness designated in 2000, the first 3-year average to record would be from 2002 (combining data from 2000— the year of designation, 2001, and 2002). Not all ozone monitoring sites have legacy data dating from the year of designation, in which case begin recording the ozone data when monitoring began. Only ozone data from 1990 forward are considered valid for this measure, even though some monitoring sites may have data from earlier years. Since the ozone monitoring network was expanded and became more stable around 1990, using data from that year forward minimizes the amount of missing data that could adversely affect the trend analysis. For wildernesses designated from 1964 to 1989, therefore, the first 3-year average to record should be from 1992 at the earliest (combining data from 1990, 1991, and 1992).

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' Enter the 3-year average fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration, rounded to the nearest tenth (i.e., 0.1), for all recorded years. If a null value is recorded for a certain year (i.e., a value of "-999" indicating missing annual data), include documentation of the null value but do not enter data for that year in the WCMD. The measure value is the 3-year average ozone statistic.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

One problem with this measure is that ozone monitors are frequently located near urban areas, and not all Forest Service wildernesses have a representative monitor. Wildernesses without a representative monitor will not be able to use this measure.

There are cases when a monitor located more than 25 miles away may be considered representative of a wilderness. Many factors determine how broad an area a single ozone monitor can represent, including topography, elevation, and distance to major pollution sources. Ozone monitors located further than 25 miles from a wilderness may still be representative if the air mass is similar to that over a wilderness, or if the terrain is relatively flat and the monitor is located at a similar elevation and downwind distance from major air pollution sources.

It is acceptable to use ozone data from a monitor that may represent only a portion of a wilderness, a situation that may arise for very large wildernesses and those with highly complex terrain. Ozone data from one monitor may not accurately evaluate ozone levels in all areas of a wilderness, but the data from one well-managed monitor should provide a representative ozone trend for a wilderness. The goal of this measure is to evaluate the trend in ozone concentration over time, not to establish exact ozone concentrations for a particular location in a wilderness.

If there is any question about the representativeness of a monitoring site, consult an air resource specialist to help identify the most representative monitor to use for this measure. Finally, the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website does not have up to date ozone data or graphics. Until the lapse in maintenance ends, annual ozone concentration data are sourced from EPA [https://aqs.epa.gov/aqsweb/airdata/download_files.html] and trends are calculated by the WCM Central Team using the protocol described above.

==== Data Adequacy ====

The ozone data used in this measure comes from a network of permanent monitoring sites managed by the EPA and other federal, state, tribal, and local air quality agencies (including some national forests that participate in cooperative ozone monitoring with state or local air regulatory agencies). The data collected from these monitoring sites receive rigorous quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) review before being entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database, from which the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program pulls and analyzes the data. The method of analysis used by the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program follows national protocols from the EPA and state and local air regulators.

Data adequacy must be verified for each wilderness individually. While data quality is considered good for all ozone monitoring sites, data quantity may vary and this will affect the data adequacy rating. Data quantity is considered complete only if there is a continuous data record. If there are data gaps of more than 2 years, data quality is moderate. Ozone monitoring sites with complete data will have a high data adequacy rating. Sites with partial data will have a medium data adequacy rating.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, obtain the most current ozone data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program (that draws the data from the EPA) and enter these data in the WCMD. Although the data are released annually, data compilation, analysis, and entry of all new years may take place on a 5-year interval rather than annually (i.e., rather than retrieving, analyzing, and entering data every year, the central data analyst may retrieve, analyze, and enter 5 years of data at a time). There can be up to a year delay in ozone data being available (e.g., 2014 data may not be available until the end of 2015) and the central data analyst should plan to compile data for this measure just prior to the reporting interval.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is statistical significance as determined by regression analysis. A statistically significant decreasing trend in the 3-year rolling average of the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentration results in an improving trend in the measure.

=== 3.4.2 Measure: Deposition of Nitrogen ===

This measure assesses the amount of nitrogen deposition in a wilderness by using either the average total deposition (based on nationally modeled or measured spatial data) or the trend in wet deposition (based on the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program's annual analyses of spatially interpolated data). Local units may select the appropriate protocol option as described in step 1 below. Unless stated otherwise, the protocol steps are intended to be completed by the central data analyst. Data are compiled from either the NADP website, the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website, or other local or regional databases. The central data analyst calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.12 describes key features for this measure.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 2.3.12—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Deposition of Nitrogen."
|-
! Measure type !! Protocol options !! Local tasks !! National tasks !! Frequency
|-
| Required to select at least one of the five air quality measures
|| Protocol Option 1: Total Deposition
Protocol Option 2: Wet Deposition
|| Validate the nationally selected protocol option.
|| Step 1: Determine which protocol option is appropriate for the wilderness.
Step 2: Retrieve and process the deposition data.

Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.
|| 5 years
|}

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Determine which protocol option is appropriate for the wilderness.''' The two protocol options for this measure are described below. Consult with an air resource specialist to confirm which protocol option is most appropriate. While the central data analyst may make a preliminary recommendation, local units must validate and approve the selected protocol option, and may choose to use local or regional deposition data if available and appropriate.

Protocol Option 1—Total Deposition. This protocol option uses modeled spatial data to assess the average total nitrogen deposition in a wilderness. These data are available for wildernesses in the lower 48 states. Use this protocol option unless more accurate, regionally refined deposition information is available.

Protocol Option 2—Wet Deposition. This protocol option uses spatially interpolated data to assess the trend in wet deposition of nitrogen. The wet deposition data used for this protocol option are interpolated at a finer resolution than for protocol option 1, and therefore better reflect variation in deposition across the landscape and provide a more accurate average deposition value. These data are only available for eastern wildernesses in the continental U.S. where wet deposition trends mirror total deposition trends.

In addition to the two protocol options described in this technical guide, other local or regional nitrogen deposition data may be available for a given wilderness. For example, El Toro Wilderness in Puerto Rico is not covered by the data described in protocol option 1 or 2, however there is a National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) monitoring site (PR20) located near the wilderness and those data could be used to describe wet deposition trends. An air resource specialist should be consulted to assist with this analysis. Similarly, forests in Regions 1, 4, 6, and 10 have access to a regionally specific alternative to the protocol options described in this section: nitrogen deposition estimates based on lichen sampling and elemental analysis of lichen tissue. These are considered the best nitrogen deposition data for the Pacific Northwest and Alaska where deposition-monitoring sites are scarce and the extremely complex (i.e., mountainous) terrain located adjacent to the ocean makes air quality modeling difficult. Wilderness-specific nitrogen deposition trends based on lichen elemental analyses are available for units in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Alaska on the Forest Service National Lichens and Air Quality Database and Clearinghouse at http://gis.nacse.org/lichenair/. Local Forest Service units in Regions 6 and 10 should consider using these nitrogen deposition trends as well as the air pollution scores described in the measure Index of Sensitive Lichens (section 3.4.5 in part 2) to monitor wilderness air quality.

Other local or regional deposition data sources might be preferred for a wilderness if they are available at a finer spatial resolution, especially in areas of mountainous terrain. If a local unit is considering using regionally refined deposition data other than those described in protocol options 1 and 2, consult with an air resource specialist to ensure that the data are relevant and used appropriately.

'''Step 2: Retrieve and process the deposition data.''' This step is described below for each protocol option.

Protocol Option 1—Total Deposition. The best total nitrogen deposition values available nationally are the result of a hybrid approach that combines measured and modeled deposition into spatial coverages (Schwede and Lear 2014). This approach combines monitoring data with output from the Community Multiscale Air Quality modeling system, giving priority to measurement data near the location of the monitor and priority to modeled data in areas where monitoring data are not available. The Total Deposition (TDEP) Science Committee of the NADP http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/committees/tdep/ creates these deposition values. Although TDEP products include values for many components of deposition, this protocol option uses only the annual total nitrogen data. Annual nitrogen deposition data are available from 2000 forward. GIS analysis will be required to calculate annual total nitrogen deposition within each wilderness for each year of interest.

If protocol option 1 is selected, TDEP data are obtained from the NADP through the website: http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/committees/tdep/tdepmaps/. To retrieve data, navigate to the website and follow these steps:

# Open the "README file for data" (found on the bottom of the page) and record the TDEP version number. The version number consists of a 4-digit year and a 2-digit release number (e.g., 2016.01), and can be found in the lower left corner of the ReadMe file. It is critical to document which TDEP version is used because each subsequent release updates all of the previous years to reflect modifications and enhancements in the underlying model.
# Return to the bottom of the main page and click "Download Grids." Next, click on the folder labeled "n_tw" that contains the total wet and dry deposition data. Other similarly named folders contain different nitrogen statistics, so it is important to use the "n_tw" folder and no other.
# Download the zip files for all years of interest. The first time data are compiled for this measure, and every time a new version is released, all available years of data since the year of wilderness designation must be downloaded and analyzed. If the version number has not changed since the previous data compilation, only new years of data must be downloaded. Be advised that the most recent years posted will usually be 1 to 2 years behind the current date.

Consult with a GIS specialist to analyze the downloaded spatial data. Once the files have been unzipped and imported from the .e00 extension, each will show a gridded coverage of the modeled estimates of total nitrogen deposition for the calendar year, at a resolution of 12 kilometers by 12 kilometers. The GIS specialist will need to buffer the wilderness boundary by 12 kilometers before clipping the data.

Because the total deposition estimates are in 12 kilometer squares (approximately 35,600 acres), there likely will be a significant number of wildernesses that are entirely encompassed in a single square (e.g., many of the 270 Forest Service wildernesses smaller than 35,600 acres). For wildernesses contained within a single square, use that value as the wilderness average. For wildernesses that take up more than one square, however, the average TDEP value for a wilderness will need to be calculated. Record the wilderness average total deposition for all years of downloaded data.

Protocol Option 2—Wet Deposition. If protocol option 2 is selected, wet deposition data are obtained through the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website at http://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/graphs/dep/ (see fig. 2.3.3). In the boxes under "Select a New Location," enter the state, national forest, and wilderness, and click "Load Data" (ignore the check box for "Class 1 only").

[[File:Figure 2.3.3.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.3—An example of a summary for wet total nitrogen deposition from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website.]]

Relevant information for this measure is found in the second section of the summary titled "Wet Total Nitrogen," which includes both a graphic presentation of the data and an explanatory narrative. (In this case, total refers to the sources of nitrogen, rather than the type of deposition.) The graph depicts the average total wet deposition for a wilderness (in kilograms per hectare) for each calendar year, and contains either a red regression estimate line or a blue historical mean line. Note that there may be up to a year delay in posting data.

Determine whether wet nitrogen deposition has increased, decreased, or remained stable over time by using both the graph and the explanatory narrative. A blue line on the graph indicates a stable (not statistically significant) trend in the data. A red regression line on the graph indicates a statistically significant trend in the data, either increasing or decreasing. Look at the first sentence in the narrative to confirm the direction of the data; this sentence will read: "Deposition has decreased on average..." or "Deposition has increased on average…." Be aware that these analyses are based upon the entire data record, whereas WCM determines trend comparing the most recent measure value with the baseline measure value. As a result, the central data analyst will need to consult with an air resource specialist to determine whether it is more appropriate to use the narrative description or estimate the trend from the year of designation to the present day. Assign the applicable trend category from the options described in the following list. For the measure baseline year, the stable wet deposition of nitrogen category should be selected. If there is any question about which category to assign, contact an air resource specialist for assistance in interpreting the graph and narrative.

* Decreasing wet deposition of nitrogen—there is a statistically significant decreasing trend in the average annual wet deposition.
* Stable wet deposition of nitrogen—there is no statistically significant trend in the average annual wet deposition.
* Increasing wet deposition of nitrogen—there is a statistically significant increasing trend in the average annual wet deposition.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' For protocol option 1, enter the wilderness average total deposition values, rounded to the nearest tenth (i.e., 0.1), for all years that were assessed. For protocol option 2, enter the assigned trend category for wilderness wet deposition. The measure value is either the average total deposition or the trend category for wet deposition.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

The Forest Service will soon be able to use exceedance of identified critical loads (CL) to monitor the trend in nitrogen deposition. A CL is the amount of pollutant loading, below which negative impacts to sensitive resources do not occur. In other words, a CL is a threshold for air pollution effects. By comparing a CL to total deposition (and determining whether the CL has been exceeded) it is possible to directly address effects of pollution on natural resources within a wilderness and not just the pollution trend, as is used currently. Use of total deposition estimates from TDEP, as outlined in protocol option 1 of the current guidance, sets the stage for an easy transition to using CL exceedance in the future when units have identified CLs for nitrogen. For more information on CLs, see the Forest Service Air Portal, available at http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/airqualityportal/critical_loads/index.php, and the EPA Global Change Impacts & Adaptation CLs Mapper (currently in beta version and regularly updated), available at https://clmapper.epa.gov/.

==== Data Adequacy ====

For protocol option 1, data quantity is considered complete and data quality is considered good, resulting in a high data adequacy rating. TDEP is considered the best available approach for estimating total deposition of nitrogen, in part because it maximizes the use of measured data from nationally recognized monitoring networks. The included monitoring networks produce high quality measurements following documented protocols for monitor site selection, equipment maintenance, sample collection and handling, sample analysis, data processing, and data reporting.

For protocol option 2, data quantity is considered complete and data quality is considered good, resulting in a high data adequacy rating for the continental eastern U.S. The regionally refined spatial interpolations of wet deposition created by Grimm and Lynch (2004) are considered the best available approach for tracking deposition in the eastern U.S. This approach uses measured deposition data (similar to what is described for TDEP), measured precipitation, and topography to model wet deposition. The resulting product has a finer resolution than TDEP estimates, which better reflects variation in deposition across the landscape and provides a more accurate average deposition value for each wilderness.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, the amount of nitrogen deposition is assessed and the total deposition annual averages (protocol option 1) or applicable trend category (protocol option 2) are entered in the WCMD. For protocol option 1, although the data are released annually, data compilation, analysis, and entry of all new years may take place on a 5-year interval rather than annually (i.e., rather than retrieving, analyzing, and entering data every year, the central data analyst may retrieve, analyze, and enter 5 years of data at a time). The central data analyst should plan to compile data for either protocol option of this measure just prior to the 5-year trend reporting interval because there can be up to a year delay in posting national air quality data to websites (e.g., 2014 data may not be available until the end of 2015).

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change differs depending on the protocol option used. For protocol option 1, the threshold is statistical significance as determined by regression analysis. For protocol option 2, the threshold is any change in categories. A statistically significant decreasing trend in the data, or a change in categories towards decreasing deposition, results in an improving trend in the measure.

=== 3.4.3 Measure: Deposition of Sulfur ===

This measure assesses the amount of sulfur deposition in a wilderness by using either the trend in wet deposition (based on the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program's annual analyses of spatially interpolated data) or the average total deposition (based on nationally modeled spatial data). Local units may select the appropriate protocol option as described in step 1 below. Unless stated otherwise, the protocol steps are intended to be completed by the central data analyst. Data are compiled from either the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website, the NADP website, or other local or regional databases. The central data analyst calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.13 describes key features for this measure.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 2.3.13—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Deposition of Sulfur."
|-
! Measure type !! Protocol options !! Local tasks !! National tasks !! Frequency
|-
| Required to select at least one of the five air quality measures
|| Protocol Option 1: Wet Deposition
Protocol Option 2: Total Deposition
|| Validate the nationally selected protocol option.
|| Step 1: Determine which protocol option is appropriate for the wilderness.
Step 2: Retrieve and process the deposition data.

Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.
|| 5 years
|}

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Determine which protocol option is appropriate for the wilderness.''' The two protocol options for this measure are described below. Protocol Option 1—Wet Deposition, applies to the eastern U.S. (the area most likely to select this measure), while Protocol Option 2—Total Deposition, applies to the rest of the continental U.S. Consult with an air resource specialist to confirm which protocol option is most appropriate. While the central data analyst may make a preliminary recommendation, local units must validate and approve the selected protocol option, and may choose to use local or regional deposition data if available and appropriate.

Protocol Option 1—Wet Deposition. This protocol option uses spatially interpolated data to assess the trend in wet deposition of sulfur. The wet deposition data used for this protocol option are interpolated at a finer resolution than data for Protocol Option 2–Total Deposition, and therefore better reflect variation in deposition across the landscape and provide a more accurate average deposition value. These data are only available for eastern wildernesses in the continental U.S. where wet deposition trends mirror total deposition trends. Wildernesses in Forest Service Regions 8 and 9 (excluding Puerto Rico) should strongly consider using this protocol option.

Protocol Option 2—Total Deposition. This protocol option uses modeled spatial data to assess the average total sulfur deposition in a wilderness. These data are available for wildernesses in the lower 48 states. Use this protocol option unless more accurate, regionally refined deposition information is available.

In addition to the two protocol options described in this technical guide, other local or regional sulfur deposition data may be available for a given wilderness. For example, sulfur deposition trends at El Toro Wilderness is Puerto Rico are not covered by protocol options 1 or 2 but could be described using data from the nearby NADP wet deposition monitoring site (PR20). Other local or regional deposition data sources might be preferred if they are available at a finer spatial resolution, especially in areas of mountainous terrain. If a local unit is considering using regionally refined deposition data other than those described here, consult with an air resource specialist to ensure that the data are relevant and used appropriately.

'''Step 2: Retrieve and process the deposition data.''' This step is described for each protocol option.

Protocol Option 1—Wet Deposition. If the first protocol option is selected, wet deposition data are obtained through the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website at http://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/graphs/dep/ (shown in fig. 2.3.4). In the boxes under "Select a New Location," enter the state, national forest, and wilderness, and click "Load Data" (ignore the check box for "Class 1 only").

[[File:Figure 2.3.3.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.4—An example of a summary for wet sulfate deposition from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website.]]

Relevant information for this measure is found in the second section of the summary titled "Wet Sulfate," which includes both a graphic presentation of the data and an explanatory narrative. The graph depicts the average total wet deposition for a wilderness (in kilograms per hectare) for each calendar year, and contains either a red regression estimate line or a blue historical mean line. Note that there may be up to a year delay in posting data.

Determine whether wet sulfate deposition has increased, decreased, or remained stable over time by using both the graph and the explanatory narrative. A blue line on the graph indicates a stable (not statistically significant) trend in the data. A red regression line on the graph indicates a statistically significant trend in the data, either increasing or decreasing. Look at the first sentence in the narrative to confirm the direction of the data; this sentence will read: "Deposition has decreased on average..." or "Deposition has increased on average…." Be aware that these analyses are based upon the entire data record, whereas WCM determines trend comparing the most recent measure value with the baseline measure value. As a result, the central data analyst will need to consult with an air resource specialist to determine whether it is more appropriate to use the narrative description or estimate the trend from the year of designation to the present day. Assign the applicable trend category from the options described in the following list. For the measure baseline year, the stable wet deposition of sulfur category should be selected. If there is any question about which category to assign, contact an air resource specialist for assistance in interpreting the graph and narrative.

* Decreasing wet deposition of sulfur—there is a statistically significant decreasing trend in the average annual wet deposition.
* Stable wet deposition of sulfur—there is no statistically significant trend in the average annual wet deposition.
* Increasing wet deposition of sulfur—there is a statistically significant increasing trend in the average annual wet deposition.

Protocol Option 2—Total Deposition. If the second protocol option is selected, TDEP data are obtained from the NADP through the website http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/committees/tdep/tdepmaps/. To retrieve data, navigate to the website and follow these steps:

# Open the "README file for data" (found on the bottom of the page) and record the TDEP version number. The version number consists of a 4-digit year and a 2-digit release number (e.g., 2016.01), and can be found in the lower left corner of the ReadMe file. It is critical to document which TDEP version is used because each subsequent release updates all of the previous years to reflect modifications and enhancements in the underlying model.
# Return to the bottom of the main page and click "Download Grids." Next, click on the folder labeled "s_tw" that contains the total (wet and dry) sulfur deposition data. Other similarly named folders contain different sulfur statistics, so it is very important to use the "s_tw" folder and no other.
# Download the zip files for all years of interest. The first time data are compiled for this measure, and every time a new version is released, all available years of data since the year of wilderness designation must be downloaded and analyzed. If the version number has not changed since the previous data compilation, only new years of data must be downloaded. Be advised that the most recent years posted will usually be 1 to 2 years behind the current date.

Consult with a GIS specialist to analyze the downloaded spatial data. Once the files have been unzipped and imported from the .e00 extension, each will show a gridded coverage of the modeled estimates of total sulfur deposition for the calendar year, at a resolution of 12 kilometers by 12 kilometers. The GIS specialist will need to buffer the wilderness boundary by 12 kilometers before clipping the data.

Because the total deposition estimates are in 12 kilometer squares (approximately 35,600 acres), there likely will be a significant number of wildernesses that are entirely encompassed in a single square (e.g., many of the 270 Forest Service wildernesses smaller than 35,600 acres). For wildernesses contained within a single square, use that value as the wilderness average. For wildernesses that take up more than one square, however, the average TDEP value for a wilderness will need to be calculated. Record the wilderness average total deposition for all years of downloaded data.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' For protocol option 1, enter the assigned trend category for wilderness wet deposition. For protocol option 2, enter the wilderness average total deposition values, rounded to the nearest tenth (i.e., 0.1), for all years that were assessed. The measure value is either the trend category for wet deposition or the average total deposition.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

The Forest Service will soon be able to use exceedance of identified CLs to monitor the trend in sulfur deposition. By comparing a CL to total deposition (and determining whether the CL has been exceeded) it is possible to directly address effects of pollution on natural resources within wilderness and not just the pollution trend, as is used currently. This is especially important for areas where pollution trends are decreasing but resources continue to be negatively affected by accumulated pollutants. A prime example can be found in the southern Appalachians, where sulfur emissions and deposition have decreased dramatically since 2006, but the accumulated sulfur in some watersheds slows recovery from acidification. Therefore, even with decreasing trends in sulfur deposition, sensitive resources may still show negative effects from acidification. Use of total deposition estimates from TDEP, as outlined in protocol option 2 of the current guidance, sets the stage for an easy transition to using CL exceedance in the future when units have identified CLs for sulfur. See the Forest Service Air Portal for more information on CLs, available at http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/airqualityportal/critical_loads/index.php.

==== Data Adequacy ====

For the protocol option 1, data quantity is considered complete and data quality is considered good, resulting in a high data adequacy rating for the continental eastern U.S. The regionally refined spatial interpolations of wet deposition created by Grimm and Lynch (2004) are considered the best available approach for tracking deposition in the eastern U.S.

For the protocol option 2, data quantity is considered complete and data quality is considered good, resulting in a high data adequacy rating. TDEP is considered the best available approach for estimating total deposition of sulfur, in part because it maximizes the use of measured data from nationally recognized monitoring networks.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, the amount of sulfur deposition is assessed and the applicable trend category (protocol option 1) or total deposition annual averages (protocol option 2) are then entered in the WCMD. For protocol option 2, although the data are released annually, data compilation, analysis, and entry of all new years may take place on a 5-year interval rather than annually (i.e., rather than retrieving, analyzing, and entering data every year, the central data analyst may retrieve, analyze, and enter 5 years of data at a time). The central data analyst should plan to compile data for either protocol option of this measure just prior to the 5-year trend reporting interval because there can be up to a year delay in posting national air quality data to websites (e.g., 2014 data may not be available until the end of 2015).

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change differs depending on the protocol option used. For protocol option 1, the threshold is any change in categories. For protocol option 2, the threshold is statistical significance as determined by regression analysis. A change in categories towards decreasing deposition, or a statistically significant decreasing trend in the data, results in an improving trend in the measure.

=== 3.4.4 Measure: Amount of Haze ===

This measure assesses the trend in average deciview for the 20 percent most impaired days, based on the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program's annual analyses of national visibility monitoring data. Unless stated otherwise, the protocol steps are intended to be completed by the central data analyst. Data are compiled from the Forest Service Wilderness Air Quality website. The central data analyst calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.14 describes key features for this measure.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 2.3.12—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Deposition of Nitrogen."
|-
! Measure type !! Protocol options !! Local tasks !! National tasks !! Frequency
|-
| Required to select at least one of the five air quality measures
|| None
|| None
|| Step 1: Retrieve visibility data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program.

Step 2: Enter data in the WCMD.
|| 5 years
|}

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Retrieve visibility data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program.''' The visibility data used for this measure are collected through the IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments) program and analyzed by staff in the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program. Data will be uploaded to the Forest Service Wilderness Air Quality website (http://www.fs.fed.us/air/wilderness_monitoring.htm) once development of this site is completed. Each wilderness with a representative monitoring site will be listed with a link to the summary of visibility data from that monitor.

Relevant information for this measure will be found in the visibility graph (shown in fig. 2.3.5). The graph depicts IMPROVE data of the average deciview for the 20 percent most impaired days within a calendar year, averaged over 5 years. Deciview is a measurement of the amount of haze, with higher values of deciview indicating increased haze and greater levels of visibility impairment. Five year averages are calculated using values from the current and previous four years of data (e.g., the 5-year average for 2015 combines data from 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015), and are represented in the graph by blue dots. Note that there may be up to a year delay in posting data.

The Forest Service Air Resource Management Program conducts a statistical analysis of the IMPROVE 5-year averages using a non-parametric regression technique: the '''Theil-Sen slope'''. This technique minimizes the influence of data outliers (e.g., so that a 5 year period with very favorable weather conditions for sulfate aerosol formation does not unduly affect the trend calculation). The statistical analysis is based on the available data record since the year of wilderness designation. For example, for a wilderness designated in 2000, the first 5-year average to be included in the statistical analysis would be from 2004 (combining data from 2000—the year of designation, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004). Not all IMPROVE monitoring sites will have legacy data dating from the year of wilderness designation, in which case the statistical analysis would use the entire data record available.

[[File:Figure 2.3.5.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.5—Visibility trends for the Bridger Wilderness, 2000–2015.]]

For this measure, a p-value less than 0.10 indicates a statistically significant trend in the data. The p-value from the most recent statistical analysis is shown on the graph. If the p-value is less than 0.10, use the trend line on the graph (the blue dotted line) to determine if average deciview has increased or decreased over time. For example, in figure 2.3.5, the low p-value and downward trend line indicate a statistically significant decreasing trend in deciview. Assign the applicable trend category from the options described in the following list. For the measure baseline year, the stable deciview category should be selected. If there is any question about which category to assign, contact an air resource specialist for assistance in interpreting the graph.

* Decreasing deciview—there is a statistically significant decreasing trend in the 5-year average deciview for the 20 percent most impaired days.
* Stable deciview—there is no statistically significant trend in the 5-year average deciview for the 20 percent most impaired days.
* Increasing deciview—there is a statistically significant increasing trend in the 5-year average deciview for the 20 percent most impaired days.

'''Step 2: Enter data in the WCMD.''' Enter the assigned trend category for the average deciview in the WCMD for this measure. The measure value is the trend category for deciview.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

Representative IMPROVE sites were assigned to each Class I wildernesses based on distance and elevation criteria established by the IMPROVE Steering Committee. Subsequent studies of the spatial variability in IMPROVE data and model results suggest that most Class I wildernesses are well represented by their regulatorily assigned IMPROVE site. Based on the same criteria, most Class II wildernesses are also well represented by an IMPROVE site, but there are several, especially in southeast Alaska, which cannot be reasonably represented by IMPROVE data. Wildernesses without a representative monitor will not be able to use this measure.

IMPROVE sites that represent Class I areas are likely to remain operational in some capacity until 2064. However, a small number of other sites will most likely move or be shut down over time, in which case wildernesses will be evaluated for representativeness at a different IMPROVE monitor site. Gaps in the data record should not affect the regression.

While higher haze values indicate a less natural air quality condition, the EPA's Regional Haze Rule is designed to make steady progress towards natural conditions by 2064. As a result, the trend is a more important measure for WCM than the absolute impairment value.

Complete visibility data were not available on the Forest Service Wilderness Air Quality website during the initial implementation years of WCM, so visibility trends were calculated by the Central Team from tabular data provided by the IMPROVE coordinator. Because the website was still under development when this technical guide was published, there may need to be some reconciliation between the protocol currently described here for retrieving the haze data and the approach used once the website is finalized.

==== Data Adequacy ====

Visibility data are routinely collected and reported through the IMPROVE program. QA of the data is extensive. The number of observations per site is quite high, and the data record is generally greater than 10 years. In addition, data completeness for each site and year is determined as part of the calculation of the 5-year rolling average deciview, and site-years that do not meet standard completeness criteria are removed from the statistical analysis. For wildernesses with representative IMPROVE sites, data quantity is considered complete and data quality is considered good, resulting in a high data adequacy rating.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, the trend in the 5-year average deciview for the 20 percent most impaired days is assessed and the applicable trend category is then entered in the WCMD. The central data analyst should plan to compile data for this measure just prior to the 5-year trend reporting interval because there can be up to a year delay in posting data to the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website (e.g., 2014 data may not be available until the end of 2015).

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is any change in categories. A change towards decreasing deciview results in an improving trend in the measure.

=== 3.4.5 Measure: Index of Sensitive Lichen Species ===

This measure assesses the trend in air pollution scores for nitrogen and sulfur derived from the presence and abundance of sensitive lichen species, based on the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program's analyses of local biomonitoring data. Unless stated otherwise, the protocol steps are intended to be completed by the central data analyst. Data are compiled from the Forest Service National Lichens and Air Quality database. The central data analyst calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.15 describes key features for this measure.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 2.3.15—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Sensitive Lichen Species."
|-
! Measure type !! Protocol options !! Local tasks !! National tasks !! Frequency
|-
| Required to select at least one of the five air quality measures
|| None
|| None
|| tep 1: Retrieve lichen data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program.
Step 2: Conduct a statistical analysis to determine the trend in the data.

Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.
|| 5 years
|}

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Retrieve lichen data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program.''' Navigate to the Forest Service National Lichens and Air Quality database (http://gis.nacse.org/lichenair/index.php) and follow these steps:

# Go to "Database Queries" on the left and click on "Lichen Plot Data." Select the desired wilderness from the list in the rightmost box (fig. 2.3.6) and click "Minimize." [[File:Figure 2.3.6.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.6—Example of lichen plot data from the National Lichens and Air Quality Database.]]
# Scroll down to the section titled "Select Database Fields to Include in Query." Check the boxes for "Field collection date," "Plot name" and "Air pollution score" (fig. 2.3.7), then click "Retrieve Tabular Data." [[File:Figure 2.3.7.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.7—An example of the database fields included in the query for this measure.]]
# Record relevant air pollution scores. In the table that appears, each row records a different plot number (fig. 2.3.8). The three fields selected for the query are found as columns on the far right of the table. Air pollution scores for nitrogen and sulfur are derived from an analysis of the lichen community and lichen abundances. Higher (more positive) scores indicate that more pollution (i.e., nitrogen and sulfur) is impacting the lichens on the plot. Plots without an air pollution score have not yet had their data analyzed; they will be updated in 2017 to reflect the most up to date information available. Sulfur air scores will also be calculated and uploaded here so that forests in the western U.S. and eastern U.S. have two scores. Click on the title of the "Plot name" column to sort the plots alphabetically, and identify which plots have been sampled more than once by comparing the plot name and field collection date. For example, in the figure 2.3.8, Plot 1142184 was sampled in 1995 and 2005 (first two rows) while Plot 1140188 has only been sampled once in 1996 (third row). Record the air pollution scores for all plots that have multiple field collection dates (table 2.3.16); ignore plots that have only been sampled once.

[[File:Figure 2.3.8.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.8—An example of the tabular summary of lichen plot data.]]

'''Step 2: Conduct a statistical analysis to determine the trend in the data.''' Consult a statistician or an air resource specialist for assistance with this step to determine if the number of sites is adequate and if the use of these statistical methods is appropriate. Use a two-tailed, paired t-test with an alpha level of 0.05 to determine if the air pollution scores are significantly different from one year to another. The earliest field collection date after the year of wilderness designation should be compared to the most recent field collection date to complete this analysis. There may be instances where a wilderness has multiple sampling dates across a period of up to 10 years (e.g., in fig. 2.3.8 the first year of sampling for each plot varies from 1995 to 1997). These wilderness areas may compare values from the earliest 10-year period to the most recent 10-year period. For example, in table 2.3.14, air pollution scores from 1990–1999 could be compared to air pollution scores from 2000–2010 for the three sites with more than 1 year of sampling. A p-value greater than 0.05 (as in the example in table 2.3.16) indicates that air pollution scores have not changed significantly over time, while a p-value less than or equal to 0.05 would be reasonable statistical evidence that the air pollution scores from the most recent field collection date are significantly different than those from the earliest field collection date. If a statistically significant difference is found, determine whether the air pollution scores are increasing or decreasing over time by comparing the mean air pollution score for the first field collection year with the mean score for the most recent year.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 2.3.16—An example of data retrieved from the tabular summary of lichen plot data placed into a period of the decade the data were collected.
|-
!colspan="3"| Air pollution scores—Badger Creek Wilderness
|-
! Plot number !! 1990–1999 !! 2000–2010
|-
| Plot 1142184 || -0.2678 || -0.4108
|-
| Plot 1140180 || -0.244 || -0.5537
|-
| Plot 1140176 || -1.154 || -0.0884
|-
| Average || -0.5553 || -0.2920
|-
| p-value || colspan="2"| 0.6461
|}

Assign the applicable trend category from the options described in the list below. For the measure baseline year—that is, the first period of data collection after the year of wilderness designation (e.g., 1990–1999 in the table above)—the stable air pollution category should be selected. If there is any question about which category to assign, contact an air resource specialist for assistance in interpreting the air pollution scores.

* Decreasing air pollution—there is a statistically significant decreasing trend in the air pollution scores.
* Stable air pollution—there is no statistically significant trend in the air pollution scores.
* Increasing air pollution—there is a statistically significant increasing trend in the air pollution scores.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' Enter the assigned trend category for air pollution in the WCMD for this measure. The measure value is the trend category for air pollution.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

Sensitive lichen species respond to both air pollutants as well as changes in climatic conditions, such as prolonged drought. Consult with an air resource specialist to understand if changes in sensitive lichen species are a response to changes in air pollution, climate, or both.

The data collection rate, or the amount of time between field collection dates, may be a concern for this measure. Plots are generally sampled on a 10-year monitoring cycle, and the data may not be updated on the same timeline as needed for WCM. In many wildernesses in the western U.S., lichen air plots are co-located with FIA plots, which are evenly spaced across a sampling grid that covers the country. Larger wildernesses may have more lichen biomonitoring plots because there are more FIA plots. Units may choose to locate more lichen biomonitoring plots in a wilderness to fill in the data gaps if threats due to air pollution are detected. For the Pacific Northwest, the goal is to establish one plot per 20,000 acres of wilderness, and a minimum of three plots in wildernesses under 40,000 acres.

In 2019, data will be uploaded that will result in two air pollution scores: one for nitrogen and one for sulfur. When this transition occurs, local units will need to select the metric that best describes the air condition of their forest based on individual wilderness air concerns. In general, nitrogen is more of a concern in the western U.S. whereas sulfur is a greater concern in the eastern U.S., but local conditions may vary greatly. Consult an air resource specialist for assistance in selecting which metric to use.

==== Data Adequacy ====

Data quantity for this measure is considered to be partial with a moderate degree of confidence that all data records have been gathered. Data quality is considered to be good due to a high degree of confidence that the quality of the data can reliably access trends in the measure. These ratings indicate that overall data adequacy is medium for this measure. Some wildernesses may have more lichen biomonitoring plots than others, and some plots are monitored more frequently than others based on when they were first established, funding cycles, and accessibility. Ideally, there would be one lichen biomonitoring plot per 20,000 wilderness acres even though in many cases this standard will not be met. As expected, more plots and more frequent plot remeasurments will mean that air pollution trends from a particular area will be more representative of the air conditions. Data adequacy of the lichen biomonitoring plots should be verified with the appropriate air quality specialist.

==== Frequency ====

Every 10 years, lichen data are analyzed and the applicable trend category is then entered in the WCMD. Be aware that this is the only measure based on a 10-year monitoring cycle. If this measure is selected, trends in wilderness character will not be determined until 10 years after the WCM baseline year. If deteriorating air pollution trends are detected, the frequency could be shortened to every 5 years. Consult with an air resource specialist to determine if a 5-year frequency may be appropriate.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is any change in categories. A change towards decreasing air pollution results in an improving trend in the measure.

=== 3.4.6 Measure: Extent of Waterbodies With Impaired Water Quality ===

This measure assesses the miles of streams or number of lakes inside wilderness with impaired water quality, based on national or state 303(d) list of impaired water bodies or local monitoring data. Local units may select the appropriate protocol options as described in step 1 below. Data are compiled from national or state 303(d) databases, or other local, state, regional, or national data sources. Local staff calculate the measure value. Table 2.3.17 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.17—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Extent of Waterbodies with Impaired Water Quality.”.png|thumb|Table 2.3.17—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Extent of Waterbodies with Impaired Water Quality."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Determine which protocol option is appropriate for the wilderness.''' The two protocol options for this measure are described below:

:Protocol Option 1—Miles of Streams. Assesses the miles of streams with impaired water quality within wilderness.

:Protocol Option 2—Number of Lakes. Assesses the number of lakes with impaired water quality within wilderness.

Local units should select the protocol option that is most relevant for a wilderness. Wildernesses with both streams and lakes should also consider the quality and availability of impairment data (see step 2) when selecting which protocol option to use. If there is any question about which protocol option to select, local units should consult with a hydrologist, fishery biologist, or other water resource specialist to help identify which is most relevant for a wilderness.

'''Step 2: Determine which wilderness streams or lakes are impaired.''' All levels of impairment are counted equally for this measure—waterbodies are either impaired or not impaired. Impaired streams and lakes that are only partially inside wilderness also are included in this measure. Given the variability in threats to water quality for each wilderness, units are encouraged to identify locally relevant water quality impairment metrics and data sources. For example, for Protocol Option 2— Number of Lakes, units could use local data on mercury levels in fish to determine whether lakes are impaired. The type of local metric and the data source(s) should be determined by a hydrologist, fishery biologist, or other water resource specialist based on both relevancy and data adequacy.

In lieu of a locally-specific impairment metric, the simplest way to assess impaired waters is by using 303(d) listings. The 303(d) refers to the section of the Clean Water Act that requires the listing of impaired waters, including streams and lakes. The central data analyst can assist local units in compiling and processing 303(d) impairment data. Methods for retrieving these data are described below:

* Spatial 303(d) data can be downloaded from the EPA's website (https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geospatial-data-downloads, select ESRI 10.x File Geodatabase under the "303(d) Listed Impaired Waters" heading). A "rad_303d.mxd" ARCMAP project contains the relevant feature classes:
** rad_303d_a—depicts impaired lakes (the "a" is for area).
** rad_303d_l—depicts impaired streams (the "l" is for line).
** rad_303d_p—depicts impaired points (the "p" is for point); for example, fish sampling may yield impaired points if pollutants are found in fish tissue. Impaired points are expected to be rare but may be relevant for either the miles of streams or number of lakes protocol options. If there are impaired points inside a wilderness, consult a hydrologist, fishery biologist, or other water resource specialist to determine whether and how those points should be included in counting the mileage of impaired streams or number of impaired lakes.
* An interactive map of the 303(d) data is also available through the EPA's "How's My Waterway" website (http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mywaterway/map.html). This website is recommended for quick initial assessments of how many streams or lakes are impaired, but it may be difficult to extract impairment data for further analysis. Detailed information on each waterbody, such as the cause of impairment, can be found through the list view by clicking on the name of the waterbody and selecting "Technical Report(s)." Note that some records may include multiple waterbodies, and the same waterbody may be included under multiple records; make sure to note the waterbody ID if there is any confusion.
* Many states have their own websites with 303(d) data. State websites will usually provide similar information as the EPA websites listed above, but may be more up to date and may contain additional references to segment-specific reports or other data.

In many cases the 303(d) listings will be sufficient to determine which waterbodies are impaired; if necessary, however, they may be supplemented with other water quality data. Consult a hydrologist, fishery biologist, or other water quality specialist to validate the national or state 303(d) data and determine whether any other water quality data are necessary, appropriate, and available to supplement those data. Examples of other sources of water quality data include the following:

* Considerable information on lake and stream impairment may be available from local unit staff, NEPA documents, wilderness plans, and various reports, publications, and university and private sector databases. Many Forest Service regions and national forests also have extensive monitoring databases for wilderness lakes.
* Forest Service monitoring data and reports for wilderness lake chemistry can be retrieved from the Federal Land Manager Environmental Database at http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/.
* Other national or regional water quality data may also be available with monitoring sites near wilderness areas (e.g., the USGS maintains a water quality data mapping tool at http://maps.waterdata.usgs.gov/mapper/index.html). Because instrumentation within wilderness is limited, water quality data for streams are often collected downstream from a wilderness boundary. Consult a hydrologist, fishery biologist, or other water quality specialist to help interpret what impairment of streams adjacent to a wilderness area (upstream or downstream) means for water quality impairment inside a wilderness.
* If there are limited or no data on water quality for a wilderness, a local hydrologist, fishery biologist, or other water quality specialist may use their professional knowledge to determine which waterbodies are impaired.

To ensure confidence in tracking trends, impairment data must be tracked consistently over time. Given the amount of variability in data sources and protocol options for this measure, it is essential that local units document the data compilation strategy for each wilderness (including the metric of impairment, primary data source including the date accessed, and any supplemental data sources). If professional judgment is used, additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the assessment and their basis for the determination should also be included. Documentation may be stored locally, on shared drives, or uploaded to the WCMD.

'''Step 3: Assess the miles of impaired streams or number of impaired lakes in the wilderness.''' This is described below for each protocol option. Wildernesses with no impaired streams or lakes may skip this step and proceed to step 4.

Protocol Option 1—Miles of Streams. Calculate the total miles of impaired streams inside wilderness, as determined from the data sources described above. For impaired streams that continue beyond a wilderness boundary, only the mileage inside wilderness should be counted for this measure. Where impaired streams flow through lakes, the mileage distance through the lake should not be counted. Each monitoring cycle, document which streams were counted as impaired. Table 2.3.18 provides an example summary of how the impaired miles of streams could be documented for the wilderness. The measure value is the total miles of impaired streams inside wilderness.

[[File:Table 2.3.18—An example summary of impaired miles of streams..png|thumb|Table 2.3.18—An example summary of impaired miles of streams.]]

Regardless of the metric or data source(s) used to determine impairment, a spatial analysis is likely to be the simplest way to assess the total miles of impaired streams. Consult a GIS specialist for assistance with the spatial analysis if necessary. The central data analyst can also assist local units in analyzing the national or state 303(d) impairment data. The following steps provide an example of how to complete the spatial analysis using the spatial 303(d) data downloaded from the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geospatial-data-downloads.

# Intersect the wilderness boundary (available from the Enterprise Data Warehouse [EDW]) and the rad_303d_l (i.e., impaired streams) feature classes.
# Remove impaired stream segments flowing through lakes, if necessary, by erasing the rad_303d_a (i.e., impaired lakes) feature class from the intersect output.
# Add a "Miles" field and calculate the mileage of each stream segment using the calculate geometry tool.
# Copy the records to a spreadsheet similar to table 2.3.16 and sum results to derive the total miles of impaired streams inside wilderness.

Protocol Option 2—Number of Lakes. Count the total number of wilderness lakes with impaired water quality, as determined from the data sources described in step 2. A lake partially inside wilderness is counted as one lake, it is not assessed proportionally based on the percentage of area inside wilderness. Each monitoring cycle, document which lakes were counted as impaired. Table 2.3.19 provides an example summary of how the impaired number of lakes could be documented for the wilderness. The measure value is the total number of impaired lakes.

[[File:Table 2.3.19—An example summary of the number of lakes with impaired water quality..png|thumb|Table 2.3.19—An example summary of the number of lakes with impaired water quality.]]

'''Step 4: Enter data in the WCMD.''' For protocol option 1, enter the total mileage of impaired streams. For protocol option 2, enter the total number of impaired lakes. If there are no streams or lakes with impaired water quality in a wilderness, enter zero in the WCMD. The measure value is either the miles of streams or the number of lakes.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

Although some wildernesses only have a small number of lakes, or a small number of impaired lakes, they may still select protocol option 2 if that is considered to be most relevant for a wilderness. For wildernesses that have a measure baseline value of 20 or fewer impaired lakes, it may be helpful to note that the 5-percent threshold for change effectively means that any change in the number of impaired lakes is considered meaningful change. For example, if a wilderness has a measure baseline value of 10 impaired lakes, a 5-percent change would be equal to 0.5 lakes; because an increase or decrease of just a single impaired lake would exceed 0.5 lakes, any change in the total number of impaired lakes would therefore result in a change in trend for the measure.

==== Data Adequacy ====

The 303(d) assessment procedures are fairly rigorous in most states so the impaired databases are generally good. However, the data adequacy varies greatly by state, and consideration of 303(d) status on NFS lands is not necessarily thorough, particularly for wildernesses where assessment information is limited. Some of the data sources for assessment information are old and should be reviewed by a local specialist for current applicability. The EPA and states are working constantly to improve the accuracy of 303(d) lists and to prepare and implement Total Maximum Daily Load plans for rehabilitation work, which will ultimately allow removal of some of the impaired waterbodies from listing. Data quantity is considered to be partial and data quality is considered to be moderate, resulting in a medium data adequacy rating for 303(d) listings.

Data adequacy for other data sources varies widely. Professional judgment typically has low data adequacy. In many cases, historical water quality data and reports are dated and of limited use. For other sources, the water quality protocols, analytical methods, and data QC may not be well documented. In a few cases, such as a proposed mining operation near a wilderness, extensive recent water quality data may have been collected. Because of this high variability, the data adequacy of all data sources must be assessed for each wilderness individually.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, assess water quality impairment in wilderness streams or lakes, and enter the total mileage of impaired streams or the total number of impaired lakes in the WCMD.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is a 5-percent change in either the total mileage of impaired streams or the total number of impaired lakes. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis for both protocol options. A decrease in the amount of impaired waterbodies beyond the threshold for meaningful change results in an improving trend in this measure.

== 3.5 Indicator: Ecological Processes ==

This indicator focuses on threats to ecological processes that affect biotic and abiotic components of wilderness ecological systems. There are two measures for this indicator and units are required to select at least one.

=== 3.5.1 Measure: Watershed Condition Class ===

This measure assesses the average wilderness watershed condition class, based on Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification (WCC) data. Unless stated otherwise, the protocol steps are intended to be completed by the central data analyst. Data are compiled from the Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework website and validated locally. The WCMD calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.20 summarizes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.20—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Watershed Condition Class.”.png|thumb|Table 2.3.20—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Watershed Condition Class."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Identify wilderness watersheds.''' The most efficient way to determine which watersheds are inside wilderness is to use GIS to overlay a wilderness boundary over a watershed layer. Watershed and wilderness layers are available on the Forest Service T drive (T:\FS\Reference\GIS drive). Watershed layers can also be downloaded from http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/watershed/condition_framework.html by clicking on the link to "download a shapefile with WCC and Prioritization information." Make sure to use the 6th code HUC (HUC 12) watershed layer rather than a different HUC level. For each watershed partially or entirely within wilderness, determine the acreage inside wilderness. Consult a GIS specialist for assistance with the spatial analysis if necessary. Record the watershed names/codes and area inside wilderness for all watersheds that are partially or entirely within wilderness.

'''Step 2: Retrieve watershed condition class data from the Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) website.''' The WCF website (http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/watershed/condition_framework.html) provides several methods for accessing watershed condition information: an interactive map, tabular data, and spatial data. The links to the following methods are on the website:

* Interactive map—The USDA Forest Service Watershed Condition and Prioritization Interactive map (fig. 2.3.9) can be accessed at https://apps.fs.usda.gov/wcatt/.
* Tabular data—Download a table containing the WCC and prioritization information for the entire NFS summarizing watershed class, watershed score, and metric (attribute) and watershed class scores (fig. 2.3.10) at http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/maps/USDAFS-WCF2011.htm.
* Spatial data—For GIS application, users can download a shapefile with WCC and Prioritization information. (This is the same link described in step 1 to download watershed layers.)

[[File:Figure 2.3.9—A screenshot of the Forest Service watershed condition and prioritization interactive map for portions of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington..png|thumb|Figure 2.3.9—A screenshot of the Forest Service watershed condition and prioritization interactive map for portions of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.]]

[[File:Figure 2.3.10—Example WCC table with watershed condition ratings for several national forests..png|thumb|Figure 2.3.10—Example WCC table with watershed condition ratings for several national forests.]]

All three links provide information at the 6th code HUC (HUC 12) watershed level, for all national forests and grasslands. Use whatever method is easiest to obtain the condition class data. Condition class may be described or titled differently for each method; for example, the table uses the heading "Watershed_Condition_FS_Area" while the spreadsheet uses "Watershed_Class_FS_Land." There are only three viable watershed condition classes: 1, 2, or 3. Equivalent descriptions for these three condition classes are displayed in table 2.3.21.

[[File:Table 2.3.21—Equivalent watershed condition class descriptions..png|thumb|Table 2.3.21—Equivalent watershed condition class descriptions.]]

The listed condition class is based on an assessment of the entire watershed. As watershed boundaries often extend beyond a wilderness boundary, a watershed may therefore be classified as "functioning at risk" or "impaired function" based on conditions outside wilderness. For watersheds that are only partially within a wilderness, a local hydrologist or other water resource specialist must validate that the listed condition class is appropriate for the portion of a watershed inside wilderness. Hydrologists or other water resource specialists may use professional judgment or the best available data to assess the listed condition class for these partial wilderness watersheds. If a water resource specialist determines that the wilderness portion of a watershed should be assigned a different condition class than the whole watershed, they may modify the condition class for that watershed. Additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the assessment and their basis for the determination should be included if a condition class is modified.

Once the data have been validated locally and any changes have been documented, the information is sent back to the central data analyst for data entry. Record the watershed condition class (using whole numbers 1, 2, or 3) for all wilderness watersheds identified in step 1.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' Enter each watershed's name, area inside wilderness, and condition class in the WCMD, and the WCMD will then calculate the average wilderness condition class automatically. Local units are not responsible for calculating the average condition class themselves, but the formula is described below for reference. The measure value is the average wilderness watershed condition class.

The calculation for the average wilderness watershed condition class consists of two basic steps. First, the WCMD multiplies the wilderness acreage in each watershed by the condition class rating for that watershed. Second, the WCMD sums these calculated values and divides the result by the total number of wilderness acres. Table 2.3.22 provides a hypothetical example of how to calculate the average wilderness watershed condition class.

[[File:Table 2.3.22—An example of how to calculate the average wilderness condition class..png|thumb|Table 2.3.22—An example of how to calculate the average wilderness condition class.]]

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

As stated above, the watershed condition class is for an entire 6th code HUC (HUC 12). As watersheds often extend beyond a wilderness boundary, conditions outside a wilderness may drive the condition class listed for a watershed. Local knowledge and professional judgment must be applied to determine if the listed condition class is appropriate for the wilderness portion of a watershed.

==== Data Adequacy ====

The WCC database provides a complete dataset for all national forests and grasslands using consistent rating protocols with nationwide maps and data tables. Local units periodically update the database, with nationwide updates conducted at 5-year intervals. While the WCC condition class ratings are moderately subjective, the quality of data should improve with future updates. Data adequacy is complete for data quantity and moderate for data quality for an overall data adequacy rating of medium. If professional judgment or other data sources are used to modify a watershed condition class, additional subjectivity is added to the data quality. Data adequacy must therefore be verified locally for each wilderness.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, watershed condition class is assessed, and the condition class for each wilderness watershed is then entered in the WCMD.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is any change in the average wilderness watershed condition class. A decrease in the average condition class score results in an improving trend in this measure.

=== 3.5.2 Measure: Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use ===

This measure assesses the 3-year rolling average of commercial livestock use, based on an annual count of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) within a wilderness. Local data are compiled and entered in NRM-Range annually and are automatically retrieved by NRM-WCM. NRM-WCM calculates the annual value. The WCMD calculates the annual value and the 3-year rolling average (the measure value). Table 2.3.23 summarizes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.23—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for the measure "Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use.".png|thumb|Table 2.3.23—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for the measure "Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Retrieve and validate data on annual count of AUMs within wilderness from NRM.''' Livestock use is evaluated by monitoring the number of permitted AUMs of livestock grazing that are authorized for allotments located entirely or partially within wilderness. AUMs – the quantity of forage required by one mature cow and her calf (or the equivalent in sheep or horses) for 1 month – are the preferred unit of measurement rather than head months.

Retrieve data for this measure in NRM-WCM by accessing the "commercial livestock" option under the "Natural" quality in the "Navigator" tab. This will display the annual count of AUMs for the wilderness. The following attributes are automatically uploaded to NRM-WCM from NRM-Range:

* Range Management Unit Name
* Range Management Unit ID
* Total Allotment Acres
* Acres in Wilderness
* Percent in Wilderness
* Authorized AUM
* Wilderness AUM

NRM-WCM will display each of these attributes for every allotment on record in NRM-Range. Each allotment listed in NRM-WCM has an "Include" option, in which allotments can be unselected if they no longer are active. NRM-WCM also contains a "Remarks" tab in order to record specific details about each range management unit (i.e. allotment A was in non-use this year). The Local wilderness staff must review and validate all of the information pulled for each of these attributes for accuracy and completeness. If data are incorrect, work with range specialists to correct the original data in NRM-Range.

'''Step 2: Calculate the annual value.''' The NRM-WCM application will automatically calculate the annual count of AUMs within wilderness. The method NRM-WCM uses to calculate these values is described below for reference.

The calculation for the annual number of authorized wilderness AUMs consists of three basic steps. First, NRM-WCM determines which allotments are completely within the wilderness boundary and which allotments extend outside the wilderness boundary. For the allotments that extend outside the wilderness boundary NRM-WCM determines the percentage of allotment acres located inside wilderness. Next, NRM-WCM calculates the wilderness AUMs for each allotment by multiplying the number of authorized AUMs by the percentage of the allotment inside wilderness. Lastly, NRM-WCM sums the number of wilderness AUMs for all allotments to produce the total amount of authorized livestock use in wilderness for the fiscal year. Table 2.3.24 provides a hypothetical example of how to calculate the annual number of authorized wilderness AUMs.

[[File:Table 2.3.24—Example of how to calculate the total number of authorized wilderness animal unit months (AUMs)..png|thumb|Table 2.3.24—Example of how to calculate the total number of authorized wilderness animal unit months (AUMs).]]

If NRM-WCM cannot be used to retrieve data on authorized AUMs, the data may be determined by a range specialist evaluating range allotment maps, range annual operating instructions, or actual use reports. This type of evaluation relies on estimation and is less accurate, but can provide data to determine the trend in the measure if used consistently over time. Additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the assessment and their basis for the determination should be included if data are compiled this way. If local units only track head months, they should convert those units to AUMs using factors relating to days of use, livestock kind, and class. Consult a range specialist for assistance with this conversion if necessary.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' Enter each allotment's name, percentage inside wilderness, and number of authorized AUMs retrieved from NRM-WCM in the WCMD. The WCMD will also automatically calculate the total number of wilderness AUMs authorized for the fiscal year. Make sure this calculation matches the NRM-WCM calculation. The WCMD will also automatically calculate 3-year rolling averages based on these annual values. The measure value is the 3-year rolling average number of authorized wilderness AUMs.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

This measure does not directly monitor the ecological impacts of livestock grazing in wilderness; however, for the purposes of this measure and WCM, the number of AUMs is considered a good proxy for assessing impacts to the Natural Quality from livestock use. In addition, the protocol for determining the number of wilderness AUMs may or may not accurately reflect actual wilderness use. Assessing wilderness use as a simple proportion of the total allotment use, and using authorized AUMs rather than actual use, may not capture on-the-ground wilderness use due to a variety of factors, including rotational grazing programs, seasonality, difficult terrain, and lack of forage.

==== Data Adequacy ====

The data quantity for this measure is generally considered to be complete, as the data are available for all Forest Service grazing allotments. The data quality is considered to be moderate due to some uncertainty of actual use inside wilderness on an annual basis. As the overall use on the allotment is apportioned based on acres of wilderness in the allotment, actual use may vary from year to year and is difficult to ascertain. Therefore, the overall data adequacy is considered to be medium. If locally stored data or professional judgment are used in lieu of data from NRM-Range, and NRM-WCM data adequacy is likely to be lower. Data adequacy must be verified locally for each wilderness.

==== Frequency ====

Each year, data are compiled and calculated on the amount of authorized livestock use in NRM-WCM. The percentage of allotment acres inside wilderness and the number of authorized AUMs for each wilderness allotment are then entered in the WCMD.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is a 5-percent change in the 3-year rolling average number of authorized wilderness AUMs. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis. A decrease in the 3-year rolling average beyond the threshold for meaningful change results in an improving trend in this measure.

== 3.6 Selecting Measures for the Natural Quality ==

This section provides recommendations for selecting locally developed measures for the Natural Quality, based on Keeping It Wild 2 (Landres et al. 2015). It discusses the general considerations for selecting these measures, explains why certain types of measures are problematic, offers examples to clarify what are and are not appropriate measures, and provides a flowchart outlining the general selection process.

The essential requirement for all measures in WCM is the ability to assign a degrading, improving, or stable trend based on changes in their condition. Applying this seemingly straightforward idea to the Natural Quality can be fraught because ecological conditions typically do not have a single natural state from which a trend can be assigned. Instead, ecological systems are complex. Individuals of a species tend to move around, and ecological conditions and processes vary over time from one location to another (e.g., species come and go, some years are warm and some are cold, snowfields and glaciers expand and melt).

Natural change over time and from one place to another is a fundamental aspect of ecological systems, and is an essential aspect of the Natural Quality of wilderness character. To allow for this change, the Natural Quality should not be used to recreate historical conditions from an arbitrary point in time (e.g., pre-European settlement or the date of wilderness designation), target a subjective set of desired conditions (e.g., a specific game species population), or otherwise maintain unchanging ecological conditions. When combined with the Untrammeled Quality, the basic legal and philosophical tenet in wilderness is to watch what happens and not direct this change. This tenet means that there is no target for the species that occur there, or for abiotic conditions such as temperature or precipitation.

Given this principle, the most direct and simple measures in the Natural Quality are those that quantify known direct threats to the ecological system. For example, air pollutants or nonindigenous species are known threats that generally have good reference information. Even these threats, however, require sufficient understanding of whether changes are primarily natural or anthropogenic (e.g., separating the effects of volcanic air pollutants from human-caused pollutants, or the natural dispersal of nonindigenous species from human-caused spread). Today, many changes in the Natural Quality are due to the interacting effects of natural variation and humancaused threats, and our ability to distinguish between the two is frequently lacking. Moreover, even if these interactions are understood on a global or regional scale, this knowledge may be lacking for the smaller spatial scale of a wilderness. Therefore, measures of threats should be selected only if they are determined (either by data or professional judgment) to be primarily anthropogenic and if they can show meaningful change within the timeframe that is appropriate for WCM (i.e., 5–10 years) as opposed to requiring decades or centuries of data collection.

The Forest Service currently collects much natural resource information, and in some cases this information may be directly used in WCM. The data collected from resource programs provide valuable insight into regional and local ecosystems, but may not be appropriate or feasible to include in WCM. Importantly, not all threats or features of the natural environment important to wilderness character need to be included as measures in WCM if other resource programs already monitor these threats or features. In such cases, only those measures that are appropriate and the highest priority would be included, typically selected because they quantify threats to features that are truly integral to and representative of the area's wilderness character.

There are some cases in which a measure is inappropriate to monitor under the Natural Quality but is clearly integral to wilderness character. For example, the return of extirpated bears and wolves to wildernesses may be, from a wilderness perspective, a significant improvement in the Natural Quality. Counting populations of naturally occurring species, however, does not monitor a human-caused threat, nor can a trend in the measure be assigned without assuming a target ecological state. For such cases, the importance of the measure that was not selected should be acknowledged in the Wilderness Character Narrative (required under the WSP Wilderness Character Baseline element) or by including it in other monitoring programs.

Occasionally, a measure may be included under the Other Features of Value Quality instead of the Natural Quality. For example, the Other Features of Value Quality may include measures related to iconic features (e.g., glaciers) or species (e.g., wolves) that define how people think about wilderness or are specifically identified in the enabling legislation. This can be appropriate because trends in measures under the Other Features of Value Quality may be defined by human values (e.g., the presence of the feature or the species within a wilderness), whereas trends in measures under the Natural Quality are defined by the more stringent criterion of whether the ecological system is free from the effects of modern civilization.

==== Examples of Appropriate and Inappropriate Measures ====

The following examples show how measures are and are not appropriate, based on the guidelines presented in this section.

'''Appropriate Measures'''

Appropriate measures are those that meet four criteria: (1) they are current or potential threats to the ecological systems in wilderness, (2) they are primarily human-caused, (3) they do not rely on a static or target ecological state to make an assessment about trend, and (4) they can show change within 5–10 years. The discussion below describes two example measures and includes a brief explanation of why each measure is appropriate for use in WCM.

# Example Measure: Index of Nonindigenous Terrestrial Animal Species.
## Nonindigenous species are a direct and significant threat to ecological systems in wilderness.
## Nonindigenous species are most commonly introduced or spread in wilderness by humans. Even populations of nonindigenous invasive species that are spreading naturally into a wilderness were likely initially introduced outside of a wilderness by humans. In most cases, therefore, changes in the data result primarily from human agency.
## This measure monitors an effect of modern civilization and does not reference a specific ecological state (any ecological state is natural so long as it is substantially unaffected by human-caused introductions of nonindigenous invasive species). A trend can be assigned for the measure such that increasing distribution or impact of nonindigenous species degrades the Natural Quality and decreasing distribution or impact improves it.
## A meaningful trend in the measure value can be observed in a short timeframe.
# Example Measure: Concentration of Ambient Ozone.
## Ozone in the lower atmosphere is a pollutant formed primarily from reactions involving emissions from cars, industrial facilities, power plants, and other types of combustion. It can have a significant effect on ecological components, structures, and functions and is therefore a threat to the Natural Quality.
## Air pollutants such as ozone are a by-product of modern civilization and changes in the data result primarily from human agency.
## This measure monitors an effect of modern civilization and does not reference a specific ecological state (any ecological state is natural so long as it is substantially unaffected by human-caused air pollution). A trend can be assigned for the measure such that an increasing concentration of ozone degrades the Natural Quality and decreasing concentration improves it.
## A meaningful trend in the data can be observed in a short timeframe.

'''Inappropriate Measures'''

Inappropriate measures are those that do not meet the criteria described above for appropriate measures. The discussion below describes two example measures and includes a brief explanation of why the measure is inappropriate for use in WCM.
# Example Measure: Average Annual Summer or Winter Temperature (related to climate change).
## Temperature naturally varies within a wilderness from year to year without necessarily degrading wilderness character. Although changes in global temperature reflect human agency, making that determination for local change—especially in the short term—may not be feasible.
## Changing average temperature simply represents change, and cannot be considered to improve or degrade wilderness character. To state that any change in average temperature would degrade the Natural Quality sets a static target for what "natural" is in a wilderness.
## If data are not already being collected in close proximity to a wilderness, a long-time scale would be required before a meaningful trend in the data could be observed.
## Established climatology monitoring programs already exist within wilderness managing agencies and other federal agencies. This science is complex, nuanced, time-consuming, and already conducted by specialists at a much higher level than is generally possible for an individual wilderness. WCM should not duplicate or create new monitoring programs.
# Example Measure: Index of Animal (or Plant) Species of Concern (primarily state or federally listed threatened or endangered species).
## Monitoring a listed species does not directly monitor the threat to the Natural Quality. A species may be listed because of threats occurring outside a wilderness, and change in the abundance or distribution of such species in a wilderness may not be indicative of a threat inside a wilderness.
## Measures that quantify the loss of an indigenous species must be able to determine that the change in species abundance or distribution is due primarily to anthropogenic impacts and not to natural variation. Few wildernesses have adequate historical or current data to make this determination.
## Change in a population of an indigenous species does not necessarily improve or degrade the Natural Quality of wilderness character because populations change naturally over time. Identifying a trend in the measure would require setting a static historical, current, or desired abundance and distribution as a target state, which is inappropriate in wilderness.
## Determining if there is a change in species abundance and distribution would require sampling over periodic intervals and over a large area, which may be difficult to accomplish for a wilderness. The sampling protocol would also need to account for annual and seasonal migrations and probable immigration-emigration dispersal patterns.

==== Flowchart ====

The flowchart depicted in figure 2.3.11 provides general guidelines, using a series of questions, for selecting measures for the Natural Quality. The first question is whether the measure is a threat to the Natural Quality, with threat defined as human agency in directly or indirectly causing a significant change to the composition, structure, and functioning of ecological systems in wilderness (Landres et al. 2009). The second question is whether the measure will provide an interpretable trend. This question, based on the discussion above, can be summarized as asking the following: (1) whether the measure holds a wilderness to a static or target ecological state, (2) if changes can be primarily attributed to human agency, and (3) if there is sufficient information or data to make a reasonable assessment of trend within approximately 5–10 years. For this flowchart, it is assumed that all measures being considered have already been determined to be integral to wilderness character, significant or meaningful to understanding change in the indicator of the Natural Quality, and vulnerable to human-caused threats. It also is assumed that measures are able to be reliably monitored with a high degree of confidence in the data, and can feasibly be monitored into the future.

[[File:Figure 2.3.11—Flowchart for selecting measures for the Natural Quality..png|thumb|Figure 2.3.11—Flowchart for selecting measures for the Natural Quality.]]

Untrammeled Quality Indicators

2023-03-05T20:47:54Z

Admin:

Monitoring Protocols

2023-03-05T20:47:39Z

Admin:

Monitoring Protocols

2023-03-05T20:47:16Z

Admin:

Other Features of Value Quality

2023-03-05T20:46:52Z

Admin:

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality

2023-03-05T20:18:31Z

Admin:

Undeveloped Quality

2023-03-05T20:18:11Z

Admin:

Wilderness Character Monitoring in the Forest Service

2023-03-05T20:17:35Z

Admin:

[[Category:USFS]]
<div class="noautonum" style="float:right;width:30%;margin-left:15px;">
<div class="toc">
<div class="center">[[USFS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide]]</div>
[[File:Wilderness character monitoring technical guide - rmrs gtr406.pdf.png|200px|thumb|center]]
<div class="center">
'''1 {{ PAGENAME }}'''
</div>
</div>
<br>
__TOC__
</div>

The Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), manages 154 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and 1 national prairie. These 193 million acres (78 million hectares) of federal land in the National Forest System (NFS) represent a broad diversity of landscapes and ecosystems across the nation. Since the Wilderness Act of 1964 was signed into law, Congress has designated 37 million acres (approximately 15 million hectares) of NFS land as '''wilderness'''<ref>Terms and phrases in bold text are defined in the glossary at the end of part 2 of this technical guide.</ref>, about 19 percent of all the land managed by the Forest Service.

The central mandate of the Wilderness Act is to preserve '''wilderness character'''. This affirmative legal obligation applies to all federal wildernesses across the entire National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), including all Forest Service wildernesses. This legal mandate and Forest Service wilderness policy (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2330) raise the simple question: are we preserving wilderness character?

The Forest Service can answer this question only by monitoring and assessing the '''trend in wilderness character''' over time. This technical guide provides the Forest Service a strategy and methodology for monitoring trends in wilderness character that is consistent with the revised interagency '''wilderness character monitoring''' (WCM) strategy published in Keeping It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System (hereafter, Keeping It Wild 2; Landres et al. 2015) and endorsed in 2015 by the Interagency Wilderness Policy Council. The '''protocols''' in this technical guide are designed to be practical and cost effective, and allow the Forest Service to demonstrate accountability for the legal and policy mandates to preserve wilderness character. This updated technical guide supersedes the 2009 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character (Landres et al. 2009) and incorporates the '''best available scientific information''' and best practices for monitoring wilderness character.

For wilderness managers and line officers, part 1 of this technical guide provides extensive background information on wilderness character and the Forest Service approach to monitoring and assessing trends in wilderness character. Part 2 of this guide provides detailed protocols for gathering, analyzing, and interpreting WCM data. This technical guide includes the following major sections:

* Part 1 describes essential concepts for understanding the Forest Service nationwide approach to monitoring and assessing trends in wilderness character, defines each of the five qualities of wilderness character (Untrammeled, Natural, Undeveloped, Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation, and Other Features of Value) and briefly describes each of the measures used in this monitoring along with their relevance to Forest Service WCM. Part 1 is the what and the why of the Forest Service approach to WCM.
* Part 2 describes how this Forest Service WCM will be implemented, with an overview of implementation concepts followed by detailed, step-by-step guidance for every measure in all five qualities.
* Appendices 1 and 2 provide a summary of all the key attributes for implementing WCM for every measure in table form and a description of measures that were considered but not used, respectively.

== 1.1 Purpose and Scope ==

The purpose of this technical guide is to provide Forest Service protocols on how to monitor and assess trends in wilderness character. This monitoring will provide information to show how agency stewardship makes a difference on the ground, and ensure accountability for upholding the legal and policy mandates of preserving wilderness character (Landres et al. 2012). This monitoring will provide information to help answer two key questions about the outcomes of '''wilderness stewardship''':

# How is agency stewardship affecting wilderness character?
# Is wilderness character changing over time within a wilderness and across all wildernesses administered by the Forest Service? If so, how and why is it changing?

This technical guide provides detailed protocols for implementing WCM on NFS lands. These protocols establish consistency in WCM across NFS units and with the other wilderness management agencies, increase the credibility of the information collected, and improve the efficiency of the Forest Service WCM. This national consistency allows for determining the trend in wilderness character in a single wilderness, as well as the collective trend in wilderness character across all NFS wildernesses.

The Forest Service WCM strategy is currently being implemented across the NFS and adjustments are anticipated in the future as a result of these activities. For this reason, this technical guide and appendices are being published online to allow the Forest Service to update content that reflects changes or improvements to information and protocols that occur during implementation (e.g., changes in roles and responsibilities for monitoring and evaluating WCM described in section 1.6 or adjustments to the '''change management process''' described in section 1.8). The target audience for this guide is local Forest Service unit (national forest or grassland, or ranger district) staff charged with managing wilderness consistent with agency policy; the guide is intended to help them implement WCM. Information derived from this monitoring may also be of use to regional and national staff charged with developing wilderness policy and assessing its effectiveness towards meeting the Wilderness Act's legal mandate to preserve wilderness character. The results of this monitoring will provide both groups information to improve wilderness stewardship and wilderness policy.

Line officers may use WCM information to assess the effects of past management decisions on wilderness character and to help inform decisions about future actions. Monitoring by itself does not provide guidance for what to do if the trend in wilderness character is degrading; instead, monitoring can signal the need for follow-up actions or decisions, and can ensure that line officers understand the trade-offs associated with actions or decisions.

Attributes that are integral to the area's wilderness character, but that are not directly under the jurisdiction of managers, also are included in this monitoring. An example of such an attribute would be air quality. Monitoring these attributes provides a more comprehensive understanding of how wilderness character is changing over time and whether those changes are due to factors within or beyond the agency's jurisdiction. Such a holistic view of wilderness character informs our understanding of broad-scale, regional, and cumulative impacts to wilderness character.

The scope of this technical guide is intentionally limited in several ways because wilderness character is a complex concept with tangible, intangible, ethical, societal, legal, personal, local, and national dimensions. From its outset, the WCM strategy described in this technical guide was designed to create a pragmatic and effective way to assess trends in wilderness character. To practically limit its scope, this WCM strategy:

* Applies to all areas in which the Forest Service has been directed by Congress to "preserve the wilderness character" of the area. This includes all designated wildernesses and congressionally designated Wilderness Study Areas mandated to preserve wilderness character in their authorizing legislation. The strategy does not apply to other types of protected areas outside the mandate of the Wilderness Act or subsequent wilderness legislation, including lands recommended as wilderness through the forest planning process and congressionally designated Wilderness Study Areas lacking specific direction to preserve wilderness character. WCM may still be useful for assessing on-the ground changes and informing stewardship in areas with future potential for wilderness designation.
* Monitors tangible attributes of the five qualities of wilderness character derived from the Definition of Wilderness, Section 2(c) in the Wilderness Act. This monitoring does not directly monitor the intangible, symbolic, societal, or personal values, meanings, and benefits of wilderness character, although the tangible attributes that are monitored do contribute to these.
* Assesses the trend in wilderness character over time for an entire wilderness, and does not assess how wilderness character is changing in specific locations within a wilderness, or how wilderness character compares across different wildernesses.
* Supports minimum requirements and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses by helping staff organize information on the effects of proposed projects, but does not determine the significance of effects or replace agency decision processes.
* Does not fulfill all the monitoring requirements needed to manage an individual wilderness, such as monitoring for specific projects or compliance monitoring for special use permits (SUPs).
* Monitors the outcomes of stewardship, as well as selected outside forces acting on wilderness, and does not monitor the management actions or processes that occur in wilderness (see section 1.3.1 Wilderness Stewardship Performance for discussion about these differences).

== 1.2 Overview of Forest Service Wilderness Character Monitoring ==

This Forest Service WCM strategy is based on the interagency strategy described in Keeping It Wild 2, and is organized around a hierarchical framework (see section 1.5.1) that divides wilderness character into successively finer elements of qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures (tables 1.1.1–1.1.5). The '''qualities''', '''monitoring questions''', and '''indicators''' used here are consistent with the interagency strategy, whereas the measures are unique to the Forest Service. This technical guide identifies measures required by all wildernesses administered by the Forest Service, these required measures are analogous to the "national core" measures in other Forest Service monitoring protocols. Besides these agency-required measures, locally developed measures to meet wilderness-specific information needs may also be used. The Forest Service WCM strategy is structured as follows:

* The Forest Service uses Keeping It Wild 2's organizational framework of qualities, monitoring questions, and indicators to ensure interagency consistency (tables 1.1.1–1.1.5).
* At least one measure must be used for each indicator. For each indicator, this technical guide describes a required measure, or a set of measures from which at least one must be used (tables 1.1.1–1.1.5).
* In addition to the required measures, optional measures described in this technical guide may be chosen for a wilderness if they are highly relevant. Additional locally developed measures may be used for a wilderness, and are encouraged to more fully describe trend in wilderness character, as long as they adhere to the guidelines described in section 1.5.3.
* Data are gathered or compiled for each measure by using the best available information.
* Once there are at least two data points per measure, a trend (improving, stable, or degrading<ref>Note that the Forest Service uses the terms improving and degrading even though Keeping It Wild 2 uses the terms upward
and downward, respectively.</ref>) is determined based on agency established rules, or locally developed rules for locally developed measures. Trends in each measure are reported at 5-year intervals even though data for some measures may need to be gathered annually. See section 1.0 in part 2 for details on determining trend.
* If there is more than one measure within an indicator, trends in these measures are compiled by using consistent rules (see section 1.5.4) to determine the trend in the indicator. Only the trends in the measures, not the data, are compiled. These same rules are then used to determine the trend in each monitoring question, each quality, and ultimately the overall trend in wilderness character.
* Wilderness character is considered "preserved" (i.e., as required by law and Forest Service policy) when there is a stable or improving trend. Once the trend in wilderness character for each wilderness is determined, the percentage of wildernesses with a stable or improving trend in wilderness character within a region and across the entire Forest Service can be derived.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.1—Summary of the monitoring question, indicators, measures, and measure type used to monitor trend in the Untrammeled Quality of wilderness character.
|-
! colspan="4" | Untrammeled Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="2" | What are the trends in actions that intentionally control or manipulate the "earth and its community of life" inside wilderness? || Actions authorized by the Federal land manager that intentionally manipulate the biophysical environment || Number of authorized actions and persistent structures designed to manipulate plants, animals, pathogens, soil, water, or fire || Required
|-
| Actions not authorized by the Federal land manager that intentionally manipulate the biophysical environment || Number of unauthorized actions and persistent structures by agencies, organizations, or individuals that manipulate plants, animals, pathogens, soil, water, or fire || Required
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.2—Summary of the monitoring question, indicators, measures, and measure types used to monitor trend in the Natural Quality of wilderness character
|-
! colspan="4"| Natural Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="11"| What are the trends in the natural environment from human-caused change? || Plants || Acres of nonindigenous plant species || Required
|-
| rowspan="2"| Animals || Index of nonindigenous terrestrial animal species || rowspan="2"| Required to select at least one
|-
| Index of nonindigenous aquatic animal species
|-
| rowspan="6"| Air and water || Concentration of ambient ozone || rowspan="5"| Required to select at least one
|-
| Deposition of nitrogen
|-
| Deposition of sulfur
|-
| Amount of haze
|-
| Index of sensitive lichen species
|-
| Extent of waterbodies with impaired water quality || Required
|-
| rowspan="2"| Ecological processes || Watershed condition class || rowspan="2"| Required to select at least one
|-
| Number of animal unit months of commercial livestock use
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.3—Summary of the monitoring questions, indicators, measures, and measure types used tomonitor trend in the Undeveloped Quality of wilderness character.
|-
! colspan="4"| Undeveloped Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="2"| What are the trends in physical evidence of development inside wilderness? || Presence of non-recreational structures, installations, and development || Index of authorized non-recreational physical development || Required
|-
| Presence of inholdings || Acres of inholdings || Required
|-
| rowspan="3"| What are the trends in mechanization? || rowspan="3"| Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport || Index of administrative authorizations to use motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport || Required
|-
| Percent of emergency incidents using motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport || Optional
|-
| Index of special provision authorizations to use motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport || Optional
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.4—Summary of the monitoring questions, indicators, measures, and measure types used to monitor trend in the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality of wilderness character.
|-
! colspan="4"| Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="5"| What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for solitude? || rowspan="4" | Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity inside wilderness || Index of encounters || Required
|-
| Index of recreation sites within primary use areas || rowspan="3" | Required to select at least one
|-
| Acres of wilderness away from access and travel routes and developments inside wilderness
|-
| Miles of unauthorized trails
|-
| Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity outside the wilderness || Acres of wilderness away from adjacent travel routes and developments outside the wilderness || Required
|-
| rowspan="3"| What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation? || rowspan="2"| Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation || Index of NFS developed trails || rowspan="2"| Required to select at least one
|-
| Index of authorized constructed recreation features
|-
| Management restrictions on visitor behavior || Index of visitor management restrictions || Required
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.5—Summary of the monitoring questions, indicators, measures, and measure types used to monitor trend in the Other Features of Value Quality of wilderness character.
|-
! colspan="4" | Other Features of Value Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="2" | What are the trends in the unique features that are tangible and integral to wilderness character? || Deterioration or loss of integral cultural features || Condition index for integral cultural features || Required if relevant
|-
| Deterioration or loss of other integral site-specific features of value || Condition index for other features || Required if relevant
|}

=== 1.2.1 Relationship to Interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring ===

The Forest Service, the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) use Keeping It Wild 2 as a framework to develop agency-specific WCM programs. All four agencies use the same definition of wilderness character and the same qualities, monitoring questions, and indicators. Each agency also uses the same process for compiling trends across measures to derive a trend in each indicator, monitoring question, quality, and ultimately wilderness character. Use of this nationally consistent interagency framework will allow all four agencies to pool their resulting data to assess trends in wilderness character across the entire NWPS.

Keeping It Wild 2 provides an interagency monitoring strategy, but does not define agency-specific responsibilities for implementing that strategy, ensuring quality control, and fostering interagency consistency into the future. Given their different authorities, policies, and cultures, each agency is responsible for developing its own procedures to ensure implementation of the interagency strategy. This includes determining agency-specific monitoring protocols and processes for training, oversight, use of the online interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring Database (WCMD) reporting, sharing results with the other agencies, and working across all agencies to provide a comprehensive WCM program for the entire NWPS (see section 1.7.3).

The Forest Service currently shares management responsibility for 32 wildernesses (28 with the BLM, 1 with the FWS, and 3 with the NPS). In some cases, the Forest Service manages the majority of the acreage for a wilderness, while in others the agency manages only a small fraction. To implement WCM in an interagency wilderness, the administering agencies may either: (1) each monitor their own portion of the wilderness with agency-specific measures, or (2) agree to follow a single agency's WCM protocols and share a single set of measures. Under either alternative, interagency wildernesses will report the trend in wilderness character for the entire wilderness. Before implementing the WCM strategy described in this technical guide, in all 32 cases, Forest Service wilderness mangers will need to work with their local counterparts in the other managing agency to determine which alternative is most appropriate. If the local units decide to share a single set of measures for the wilderness, consider developing an interagency memorandum of understanding that outlines respective roles and responsibilities and states which agency's WCM protocols will be followed. For example, a wilderness could use the measures from the agency that has the majority of the acreage for a wilderness or another arrangement could be developed. Whichever alternative is selected for an interagency wilderness, include documentation of the decision and its rationale as a reference for future managers.

== 1.3 Relationship to Forest Service Programs, Monitoring, and Policies ==

This effort to monitor trends in wilderness character integrates with other Forest Service wilderness programs, agency-wide monitoring efforts, as well as laws, regulations, and policies.

=== 1.3.1 Wilderness Stewardship Performance ===

The Wilderness Program's performance measure Number of Wildernesses Meeting Baseline Performance for Preserving Wilderness Character, commonly known as Wilderness Stewardship Performance (WSP), tracks the stewardship actions undertaken by the agency to fulfill the Wilderness Act's mandate to "preserve wilderness character." It feeds into the geo-enabled Performance Accountability System (gPAS), which annually reports metrics of agency performance to the Department of Agriculture, Congress, and the public. The lead Forest Service unit for a wilderness selects 10 elements, from a possible set of 20, that most closely reflect local stewardship priorities, within prescribed rules. Each element is worth 10 points, and a wilderness is deemed to be managed to an acceptable standard within WSP if it scores 60 points or higher.

The business rules around the selection of elements reinforce the linkages between agency stewardship actions and wilderness character. The elements in WSP are arrayed beneath categories that conform to the five qualities of wilderness character. While local units have some flexibility in the selection of these elements, they must select as least one element for each quality. Not all of the elements under the qualities of wilderness character in WSP track with the placement of measures for wilderness character monitoring because some decisions were made on the organization of WSP prior to the completion of Keeping It Wild 2. Most notably, '''trails''' and user-developed sites are under the Undeveloped Quality in WSP and under the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality in WCM.

There also are two additional categories of elements (Special Provisions and Administration) that do not track directly with wilderness character monitoring but do help evaluate the agency's ability to steward the wilderness resource. Additionally, one mandatory element focuses exclusively on wilderness character: Wilderness Character Baseline. In two-point increments, this element tracks the completion of the steps needed to establish a baseline for wilderness character and then evaluates trends over time. This element also includes writing a Wilderness Character Narrative to provide a qualitative and holistic description of the tangible and intangible aspects of an area's wilderness character.

There is a natural and obvious overlap between WSP and WCM. WSP tracks the stewardship actions taken by the agency, whereas WCM monitors the outcomes of those actions, as well as selected outside forces acting on wilderness. Figure 1.1.1 depicts the relationship between WSP and WCM.

[[File:Figure 1.1.1.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.1—Relationship between Wilderness Stewardship Performance and WCM.]]

For example, WSP tracks whether or not a local unit has developed an '''invasive species''' management plan, conducted an inventory, and taken appropriate management actions, whereas WCM evaluates the trend in the acres of nonindigenous plant species. The two work well together to provide a powerful tool to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the Forest Service's wilderness stewardship program.

=== 1.3.2 Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment ===

The Forest Service Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment (IM&A) Strategy (hereafter IM&A Strategy; USDA Forest Service 2013a) is an agency-wide strategy to improve data and information used to support implementation of the agency mission. As a requirement for sound stewardship of natural resources, the IM&A Strategy places an emphasis on high-quality information resulting from improved IM&A activities. Forest Service WCM follows the principles outlined in the IM&A Strategy and is designed to answer critical management questions at the field level, support collaboration with partners, and provide aggregated data to inform decisions at multiple levels.

This technical guide gathers as much data as possible from well-established and scientifically credible national monitoring programs within and outside the Forest Service. Inside the Forest Service, this technical guide draws as much data as is appropriate and possible from Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), Natural Resource Manager (NRM), and terrestrial, aquatic, wildlife, and social monitoring programs that are currently being developed and tested. Data from outside the Forest Service used in this technical guide includes data on air pollutants from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) and data on 303(d) listed streams from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states.

Forest Service inventory and monitoring data are collected by using a variety of methods and systems. A current list of standard protocols and methods for different resource areas is published and maintained on a Forest Service website at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/rig/protocols/master.shtml (also referred to as the Forest Service "master list" of protocols).

Effective collaboration with states, other federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations will result in selection of programs or protocols that reflect general consensus about the most effective methods to meet WCM objectives. Collaboration will also result in more cost effective WCM. Understanding the data provided by these outside monitoring and assessment programs, as well as their basic structures, will minimize duplication of effort and cost and enhance collaboration to monitor and preserve wilderness character.

=== 1.3.3 Laws, Regulations, and Policies ===

Several laws, regulations, and policies relate directly to the protection of wilderness character and to the IM&A of wilderness resources.

==== Relevant Laws ====

While many laws affect the administration of wilderness in NFS lands, the following principal laws bear directly on the mandate to preserve wilderness character and this technical guide. Laws are listed chronologically by the date of enactment:

* The General Mining Act (1872) declared public lands free and open to mineral exploration and purchase, and decreed all lands with valuable mineral deposits open for occupancy. It also established the procedures for mining claims and operations. While mining claims filed prior to wilderness establishment are considered to be valid existing rights, development of these claims affects wilderness character.
* The Antiquities Act (1906), the National Historic Preservation Act (1966), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979) provide the statutory basis for protecting and managing heritage resources on federal lands. Policies derived from these legal directions seek to balance the need for protecting heritage resources with the need for wilderness to be without permanent developments (as directed in the Wilderness Act).
* The Clean Water Act (1948, 1972, 1977, and 1987) establishes guidelines for protecting water quality and a shift to holistic watershed-based protection strategies. Under the watershed approach, equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring '''impaired watersheds'''. Water quality and quantity are vital to natural systems and processes within wilderness.
* The Clean Air Act (1963), as amended, directs the Forest Service to protect Class I air quality standards in certain wildernesses and Class II standards in the remaining wildernesses. It designated all wildernesses larger than 5,000 acres that were in existence as of August 7, 1977, as '''Class I areas'''. These designations (Class I and Class II) indicate the degree of air quality protection for areas already considered clean air areas (i.e., already meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS]).
* The Wilderness Act (1964), Section 2(a) Statement of Policy, requires that wilderness "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, Rohlf and Honnold (1988) and McCloskey (1999) assert that the statement from Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act that "… each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area" gives the primary and affirmative management direction for wilderness. Section 4(b) also states that even when the agency administers the area for other purposes, the agency must also "preserve its wilderness character." The Congressional Record (United States Congress 1983) supports 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."
* The National Environmental Policy Act (1970) requires an analysis of the environmental consequences of proposed management actions on all NFS lands, including management actions taken in wilderness. Analysis of actions within and adjacent to wilderness should consider impacts to wilderness character.
* The Endangered Species Act (1973) provides a program for the conservation of wildlife and plant species that are threatened or endangered with extinction. It establishes specific procedures to determine which plant and animal species are added or removed from protective status. Loss of animal or plant species directly affects the preservation of natural conditions in wilderness.
* The Eastern Wilderness Areas Act (1975) added 16 national forest areas to the NWPS and directed that 17 areas in eastern national forests should be studied such that the Secretary of Agriculture should recommend additions to the NWPS within 5 years. Congress debated the issue of designating severely modified areas as wilderness; they ultimately chose to add such areas to the NWPS and declined to establish a separate "Eastern Wilderness" category of designation.
* The National Forest Management Act (1976), as amended, provides that management direction for wilderness be incorporated into forest plans and sets minimum standards for the content of the plans.
* The Colorado Wilderness Act (1980) includes a specific reference to what are now commonly referred to as the Congressional Grazing Guidelines, and these Guidelines were incorporated into the statutory language of the Arizona Wilderness Act (1990). These guidelines grew out of apparent confusion on the part of agency managers as to how grazing was to be administered in wilderness beyond the general direction in the Wilderness Act's Section 4(d)(4)(2) that it "...shall be permitted to continue..." The guidelines in this Act state that "There shall be no curtailments of grazing in wilderness areas simply because an area is...wilderness." Additional guidance was provided for maintenance and replacement of grazing related improvements.
* The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980) added about 56 million acres to the NWPS in 35 areas administered by the NPS, FWS, and Forest Service. It was the intent of Congress to preserve unrivaled scenic and geological values associated with natural landscapes, and to preserve vast unaltered arctic tundra, boreal forest, and coastal rain forest ecosystems.
* The Information Quality Act (2001) (Data Quality Act, P.L. 100–554, section 515) directs federal agencies to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information they disseminate (including statistical information) to make sure it is useful, clear, and sound.

==== Relevant Regulations ====

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is based on statutory authority and establish requirements and procedures for federal agencies that comply with law. The primary CFRs applicable to NFS wilderness include 36 CFR 293 that sets forth requirements for management of wilderness and primitive areas, and 36 CFR 261.18 that lists those human activities prohibited within a national forest wilderness.

The 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) provides direction for land management planning. Section 1.5.6 of this technical guide describes how WCM can provide valuable information to support the Planning Rule's direction for assessment, plan development/amendment/revision, and monitoring. For example, WCM helps measure "progress toward meeting the desired conditions and objectives in the plan, including for providing multiple use opportunities." (36 CFR 219.12 [a] [5] [vii]).

==== Relevant Policies ====

Forest Service Manual (FSM) chapter 2320 – Wilderness Management, outlines agency policy pursuant to the Wilderness Act. This chapter includes the following policies that directly address the need for preserving wilderness character:

:2320.2 – Objectives, 4. Protect and perpetuate wilderness character and '''public values''' including, but not limited to, opportunities for scientific study, education, '''solitude''', physical and mental challenge and stimulation, inspiration, and '''primitive recreation''' experiences…

:2323.14 – Visitor Management. Plan and manage public use of wilderness in such a manner that preserves the wilderness character of the area.

FSM 1940 establishes the information management framework for all Forest Service IM&A activities. The policy at FSM 1940.3 directs that IM&A activities shall:

# Be coordinated through a national integrated program planning process that addresses information needs related to all agency business requirements;
# Use a standards-based approach and framework for information management and related business operations; and
# Foster and realize opportunities for collaboration, cooperation, and coordination across Forest Service deputy area programs and with agency partners, including the public; local, state, and other federal agencies; and nongovernmental organizations.

FSM 1920 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 provide policy and detailed guidance for land management planning, including conducting assessments and monitoring.

== 1.4 Defining and Monitoring Wilderness Character ==

To ensure that wilderness character is preserved, it must first be defined. The Wilderness Act does not define wilderness character, nor is a definition discussed in the congressional testimony leading to the Act's passage. An interagency wilderness team (Landres et al. 2015) recently defined wilderness character:

:Wilderness character is a holistic concept based on the interaction of (1) '''biophysical environments''' primarily free from modern human manipulation and impact, (2) personal experiences in natural environments relatively free from the encumbrances and signs of modern society, and (3) symbolic meanings of humility, restraint, and interdependence that inspire human connection with nature. Taken together, these tangible and intangible values define wilderness character and distinguish wilderness from all other lands.

Focusing on wilderness character connects on-the-ground wilderness conditions and management actions to the mandates of the Wilderness Act and agency policy to "preserve wilderness character." Connecting conditions and actions to policy helps:

* Improve wilderness stewardship—Wilderness stewardship has traditionally been fraught with uncertainty and subjective opinions about what should, or should not, be done. More consistent, standardized protocols for monitoring wilderness character can help professionalize wilderness stewardship and contribute to agency accountability, transparency, and defensibility.
* Clarify how management decisions and actions influence trends in wilderness character—There are trade-offs in almost all aspects of wilderness stewardship, and evaluating what is gained and what is lost in terms of wilderness character helps staff determine priorities for which actions should and should not be taken in a wilderness. Openly discussing these trade-offs can help agency staff understand how their actions directly or indirectly contribute to preserving wilderness character, which in turn helps inform management decisions.
* Improve communication among staff and with the public about wilderness stewardship—The standard language of WCM allows staff across different resource areas and disciplines to use common terms in discussing wilderness-related projects, needs, conditions, and impacts. This language also allows staff to discuss wilderness stewardship in a more open and transparent manner with the public, which may in turn improve agency defensibility when legal questions regarding the preservation of wilderness character arise.
* Create a legacy of experience and knowledge about wilderness locally and broadly within the agency—Experience and knowledge of a wilderness are often lost with staff turnover, and the baseline understanding of resource conditions may shift over time. Monitoring wilderness character provides a way to assess the changes occurring locally, which in turn builds a legacy about a wilderness, its stewardship, and how wilderness character changes over time.

=== 1.4.1 Five Qualities of Wilderness Character ===

WCM links the conceptual definition of wilderness character to a practical framework of qualities. The qualities of wilderness character are Untrammeled, Natural, Undeveloped, Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation, and Other Features of Value. These qualities are derived from the entire statutory definition of wilderness in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, which expresses congressional intent, both ideal and practical, for the meaning of wilderness and wilderness character (McCloskey 1966, 1999; Ochs 1999; Rohlf and Honnold 1988; Scott 2002). These qualities were first identified by the Forest Service (Landres et al. 2005) and subsequently refined by the agency and interagency teams that developed, implemented, and improved WCM over the past 15 years (BLM 2012; Landres et al. 2008; NPS 2014). Collectively, these qualities represent the primary tangible aspects of wilderness character that link on-the-ground conditions in wilderness and the outcomes of wilderness stewardship to the statutory definition of wilderness.

The WCM strategy uses these five qualities to monitor and assess trend in wilderness character. Several important premises frame the use of these qualities:

* All five qualities are equally important—The land management agencies must implement laws in their entirety, and the Wilderness Act does not state that one sentence or one portion of the text in Section 2(c) is more important than another. For these reasons, all five qualities are of equal importance for the purpose of this WCM strategy. However, as explained in section 1.5.4, in the process of compiling trends across these qualities to derive an estimate of the overall trend in wilderness character, the Untrammeled Quality is used as a tiebreaker, in essence giving this quality greater weight than the others reflecting the prominence and importance of this quality.
* These qualities apply to every wilderness—These qualities apply to all designated wilderness—regardless of size, location, or other unique place-specific attributes. This is because the qualities are based on the legal definition of wilderness and every law designating a wilderness includes specific language that ties it to this definition (Dawson and Hendee 2009). While individual wilderness laws may include specific exceptions or special provisions that apply to the uses and values of particular areas, no federal legislation changes the Wilderness Act's Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness, and no legislation changes the management responsibility of Section 4(b) for "preserving the wilderness character of the area." Special provisions are, by law, allowed in wilderness even though they may allow actions or uses that degrade wilderness character. The only exception to these qualities applying to every wilderness is the Other Features of Value Quality, which may or may not exist within a given wilderness because of the statement in the legal definition that a wilderness "may [emphasis added] also contain...other features."
* These qualities are uniquely expressed within each wilderness—Every wilderness is unique: some are swamps while others are rock and ice; some are immense while others are small; some are very remote while others are surrounded by suburban and urban developments; some are iconic and revered by people who never set foot in them while others are relatively unknown. This uniqueness has two important implications for this WCM strategy: (1) trend in wilderness character can only be based on how wilderness character is changing within an individual wilderness and (2) the state of wilderness character should not be compared among wildernesses because such comparisons are meaningless.
* Wilderness character is more than these qualities—Besides the tangible qualities used for monitoring wilderness character, there also are important intangible aspects of wilderness character that are difficult or impossible to quantify; these are not included in this WCM strategy. These intangible aspects are diverse and may include the immensity of an area and the connection people may feel to nature, the ethical value to society from having areas that are managed with restraint and humility, and the inspirational and psychological benefits that individuals experience in wilderness (Putney and Harmon 2003; Roggenbuck and Driver 2000; Schroeder 2007). These values and benefits of wilderness, as well as other intangible aspects of an area's wilderness character, can be described holistically and qualitatively in a Wilderness Character Narrative (see NPS 2014). Developing a Wilderness Character Narrative is incorporated into the Forest Service Wilderness Program's Wilderness Stewardship Performance measure.
* Management decisions and actions may preserve or degrade these qualities— Wilderness character may be improved, preserved, or degraded by the actions managers choose to take or not take. 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 that are considered the minimum necessary for the administration of the area—such as requiring visitors to use designated campsites, authorizing administrative use of '''motorized equipment''' and '''mechanical transportation''', or taking actions to restore ecological conditions—may diminish certain qualities of wilderness character. Significantly, protecting one aspect of wilderness character may diminish another aspect. For example, a bridge built to protect a stream bank from erosion caused by people or horses also is a recreational development that may diminish the opportunity for people to experience the primitive challenge of crossing the stream. Similarly, the required use of designated campsites to prevent the proliferation of sites and associated impacts on soil and vegetation may also diminish the opportunity for '''unconfined recreation''' and the sense of freedom from the constraints of regulation. Besides trade-offs among the different qualities of wilderness character, the cumulative results of seemingly small decisions and actions may cause a substantial gain or loss of wilderness character over time. With an established framework to discuss these trade-offs within the context of wilderness character and its five qualities, Forest Service line officers and managers have a tool to approach wilderness stewardship with humility, respect, and restraint, ultimately helping them to preserve wilderness character.

== 1.5 Approach to Forest Service Wilderness Character Monitoring ==

This section describes the conceptual framework and key principles used in monitoring wilderness character. The following four successive actions provide the structure for WCM in the Forest Service:

# Compile baseline data for all required measures presented in this technical guide and for any optional measures, or locally developed measures for a specific wilderness.
# Continue compiling data for each measure based on the '''frequency''' recommendation in this technical guide. Determine trend in the measure as improving, stable, or degrading (based on the '''threshold for meaningful change''' and the rules described in section 1.5.4) every 5 years once the baseline has been established.
# Compile the trends (not the data) from each measure within an indicator— using the rules in section 1.5.4—to determine the trend in the indicator. These same rules are used to compile trends in the indicators to determine the trend in the monitoring question, to compile trends in the monitoring questions to determine the trend in the quality, and likewise compile quality trends to determine the overall trend in wilderness character for each wilderness.
# Once the trend in wilderness character is determined for every wilderness, the Forest Service can compile these trends to assess broad-scale agency performance in preserving wilderness character. Similarly, trends from all four wilderness managing agencies can be compiled to assess performance in preserving wilderness character across the NWPS.

=== 1.5.1 Organizational Framework ===

WCM is organized in a hierarchical framework (fig. 1.1.2) that divides wilderness character into successively finer elements. These elements are:

* Qualities—Qualities are the primary elements of wilderness character that link directly to the statutory language of the Wilderness Act. The same set of qualities applies nationwide to all wildernesses. In this technical guide, four qualities: (1) Untrammeled, (2) Natural, (3) Undeveloped, and (4) Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation are all necessary to monitor and assess trend in wilderness character, and each wilderness must report the trend in each of these qualities. Where other features of value exist in a wilderness and are integral to its meaning and significance, a fifth quality, Other Features of Value, must also be reported (see section 6.0).
* Monitoring questions—Monitoring questions capture essential components of each quality that are significantly different from one another and address particular management questions and goals.
* Indicators—Indicators are distinct and important elements under each monitoring question. In nearly all cases, there is more than one indicator under a monitoring question. The trend in all indicators is reported by each wilderness.
* Measures—Measures are the specific elements under each indicator for which data are compiled to assess trend in an indicator. In general, measures are human-caused threats to the indicator: when these threats decrease, wilderness character is improved; when these threats increase, wilderness character is degraded.

[[File:Figure 1.1.2.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.2—Hierarchical relationship of the qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures illustrated with the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality.]]

=== 1.5.2 Key Principles of this Monitoring ===

To implement this monitoring, agency staff need to understand the following key principles:

* WCM will provide credible data that will be directly useful for assessing the outcomes of wilderness stewardship—This technical guide has been developed with substantive input from subject matter experts and designed by on-the-ground wilderness managers and regional and national wilderness staff to provide the most useful information possible for the full range of agency staff involved in wilderness stewardship.
* The WCM baseline, the reference point for evaluating trend in wilderness character, is the time of designation or when WCM is initiated—The first year that data are compiled for all measures forms the WCM baseline and is the reference point against which change in wilderness character is assessed and evaluated over time. Ideally, the WCM baseline year would be the time of wilderness designation. Realistically, however, the '''WCM baseline year''' will likely be the first year that WCM is implemented because existing wildernesses generally lack data from the time of designation for most—or even all— measures. WCM baseline conditions are the starting point for assessing change over time without value judgment as to whether these are good, bad, or desired. For example, if a wilderness had structures or installations at the time of designation, those features would be part of the baseline condition of the wilderness. WCM would show how the Undeveloped Quality of wilderness, which includes structures and installations, changes over time. When the WCM baseline year is established after wilderness designation, '''WCM baseline conditions''' may show improvements or degradations compared to conditions at the time of designation; regardless, these WCM baseline conditions become the de facto reference point for evaluating future trend in wilderness character. If Congress enacts new legislation that adds acreage to an existing wilderness, the WCM baseline year is not reset to the year of this new legislation but remains as is. Likewise, the WCM baseline year would not be reset if a local unit replaces or updates one or more of the measures selected for a wilderness.
* Trend in wilderness character is determined by change within an individual wilderness—Each Forest Service wilderness is unique in its combination of geographic setting, biophysical properties, enabling legislation, and administrative direction; therefore, trend in wilderness character can only be determined by assessing change within a given wilderness. When designated, each wilderness enters the NWPS with its own degree of "intactness" of wilderness character, and the intent of management is to maintain or improve this state of wilderness character over time in the face of modern technology and civilization (fig. 1.1.3). Wilderness character monitoring provides a means for showing whether this state of wilderness character is being preserved or is degrading over time; in figure 1.1.3 the management task is to prevent the orange circle from sliding down the line. The uniqueness of wilderness character in each wilderness means that it is inappropriate and misleading to compare wilderness character from one wilderness to another. This is consistent with national direction provided by the Wilderness Act and supported by Forest Service policy to preserve wilderness character relative to the time an area was designated as wilderness, regardless of the size of the area, ecosystem, proximity to urban areas, or any other attribute of a wilderness.

[[File:Figure 1.1.3.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.3—Relationship between the state of wilderness character and modern technology and civilization.]]

* WCM balances national consistency with local relevance—This technical guide is designed to balance national and local needs for information on trend in wilderness character by using a mix of measures modeled after the approach used in WSP. See section 1.5.3 for details on this approach, which ensures national consistency and the ability to understand trend in wilderness character across different wildernesses for regional and national reporting, while allowing and encouraging local flexibility and relevance within this national structure.
* Trend in wilderness character is reported every 5 years for every wilderness— The Wilderness Act mandates that every wilderness be managed to preserve its wilderness character, so the monitoring described in this technical guide needs to be conducted on every wilderness, not just a sample of wildernesses. For some measures, local data compilation will occur annually, while trend in wilderness character will be assessed and reported to regional and national wilderness program staff every 5 years once the baseline has been established. This 5-year period balances workload with providing needed information at a pace that allows for adaptive management.
* Not all monitoring done in wilderness is WCM—All wilderness units currently conduct some form of monitoring inside wilderness. Typically, this monitoring is for specific resource purposes such as assessing campsite condition, range condition, or '''abundance''' and distribution of specific plant or animal species. Such monitoring provides data that may be used in WCM, but by itself, should not be called WCM. In general, to qualify as WCM, all four of the following requirements must be met:
# The monitoring is conducted in a designated wilderness or in any other area where the Forest Service is congressionally mandated to preserve wilderness character.
# The monitoring includes at least one measure for each of the indicators of the Untrammeled, Natural, Undeveloped, and Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation qualities, as well as the Other Features of Value Quality if appropriate.
# A specific baseline year has been established for the purpose of WCM.
# The monitoring is intended to be a long-term monitoring program that synthesizes the trends in all the measures into an integrated assessment of trend in wilderness character and is conducted periodically as long as the area remains designated as wilderness.

=== 1.5.3 Measures ===

All the measures included in this technical guide were developed to be relevant and cost effective across the agency, because either national data are already available or local units (national forests or grasslands, or ranger districts) should be able to gather or compile the data relatively easily. In this technical guide, detailed monitoring protocols are described for a total of 28 measures (summarized in tables 1.1.1–1.1.5), although not all of these will be used in any one wilderness. For national consistency, all wildernesses are required to select 15 measures, and an additional one or two measures are required for the Other Features of Value Quality if that quality is relevant to a particular wilderness. Some indicators have single measures that apply nationally and are required. Other indicators have multiple potential measures and local units must select at least one, and may choose the one that is most locally relevant. The approach for selecting measures in WCM is similar to that used in WSP. Although the lead local unit for each wilderness will be responsible for the selection of measures, it is important to involve local staff and specialists and engage the support of Supervisors Office, as well as the Regional Office as appropriate. All measures selected by a unit for WCM—including locally developed measures—need to be approved by the local line officer and are used in determining the overall trend in wilderness character.

There are five types of measures.

# Required—The measure is required for all wildernesses.
# Required to Select at Least One—At least one measure must be selected from the set of several potential measures; selections should be based on relevance to a wilderness, and additional measures from the set may also be selected if relevant.
# Required if Relevant—If a wilderness uses the Other Features of Value Quality, one or more of these measures are required to be selected.
# Optional—The measure may be selected if relevant to a wilderness.
# Locally Developed Measures—In addition to the measures identified in this technical guide, the local unit may develop new measures for other attributes considered integral to wilderness character for the individual wilderness. Locally developed measures do not replace any of the required measures. Further, if a local office wants to modify a required measure, this becomes a new locally developed measure that would be used in addition to the required measure.

==== Key Concepts Related to the Measures ====

Following the recommendations in Keeping It Wild 2, all the measures in this technical guide were selected to be useful, simple, and practical. The following key concepts, learned from experience implementing WCM, apply to the measures in this technical guide:

* WCM measures should not replicate those used in other monitoring programs—This technical guide uses existing data whenever and however possible. Importantly, if data already exist in a particular resource monitoring program and are applicable to WCM, those data sources are described for individual measures in part 2 of this technical guide along with guidelines for their use.
* Frequency of data compilation will depend on the measure—The type of measure will determine the frequency of data compilation, analysis, and entry. For example, annual data would be reported for measures that fluctuate annually, such as the number of authorized '''trammeling actions''' in the Untrammeled Quality. Measures with low variability, such as the number of physical structures in the Undeveloped Quality, would only be reported every 5 years.
* Measures that are integral to wilderness character are monitored regardless of managerial jurisdiction—Some resources are integral to wilderness character but are not directly under the management jurisdiction of the Forest Service. For example, visibility is an experiential and ecological attribute of wilderness character but is beyond direct management control. The state of such resources in wilderness can serve as important benchmarks for assessing the magnitude of future anthropogenic impacts such as climate change and regional development, and the consequence of these impacts on wilderness character.
* Management actions and developments may impact more than one quality of wilderness character, but they are measured only in the quality that is most directly affected—As a general principle of the WCM strategy described in this technical guide, actions and developments that affect more than one quality of wilderness character will be measured only in the quality that is most directly impacted by that action or development. For example, an agency-built recreation feature such as a toilet would degrade both the Undeveloped and Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation qualities, but is measured only in the latter quality because of the direct link to recreation. The intent is to avoid double counting actions or developments. Occasionally, separate and distinct impacts from a single management action or development can be measured independently by using different measures, and in such cases, these distinct measures can be included under multiple qualities. For example, a barrier built to prevent nonindigenous fish from moving up a stream has separate and distinct measurable impacts on the Untrammeled, Undeveloped, and Natural qualities. The action to build the barrier would be counted as an '''intentional manipulation''' in the Untrammeled Quality, the presence of the barrier would be counted as an installation in the Undeveloped Quality, and altered stream flow could be counted as a locally developed measure in the Natural Quality. Likewise, wildlife tracking devices such as radio collars or ear tags have separate and distinct impacts on the Untrammeled and Undeveloped qualities. The action of collaring or tagging an animal would be counted as a trammeling action under the Untrammeled Quality, while the presence of the collar or tag as a mobile installation could be counted as a locally developed measure under the Undeveloped Quality.
* Local interpretation of monitoring results is necessary because some measures have opposing impacts on different qualities—Reducing the complex, nuanced, and holistic nature of wilderness character into discrete entities may lead to cases where a single management action has opposing impacts on different qualities. For example, a toilet may be considered necessary to reduce impacts to the natural resources from high amounts of human waste, but this toilet also degrades the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality because it is a recreation feature. Wilderness stewardship commonly involves such trade-offs and monitoring clearly shows the effects of these trade-offs on wilderness character. To clarify interpretation of monitoring results, reporting will include short narrative text by local staff that provides the context to understand seemingly conflicting trends in the data.
* Measures and data sources can change over time—Consistently using the same measures over time is necessary to show trend within a wilderness, but a monitoring program also needs to evolve. Measures and data sources may change because '''data adequacy''' or availability improves, new issues arise, new policy direction requires a change, or new measures are developed that provide better information on some aspect of wilderness character (see section 1.8). Because WCM is relatively new, Forest Service staff may need to balance the benefits of consistency in using existing measures and data sources against the benefits of using new and better measures if they become available even though a new measure may prevent determining trend until sufficient data have accumulated for the new measure. When staff consider making such a change, they should contact their Regional Wilderness Program Manager and the WCM Central Team to discuss the appropriateness and feasibility of this change. In addition, a statistician should be consulted to help determine the appropriate method of analyzing trend in the new measure. When measures or data sources are changed, it is important to document when the change occurred, the reason(s) for this action, and the potential impact on interpreting trend in wilderness character.

==== Data Sources ====

Data used in this technical guide to assess trend in wilderness character for a wilderness come from several sources, generally categorized as:

* Existing data currently residing in a Forest Service corporate database (including NRM), with opportunities for validation and modification.
* Existing data stored in local databases or spreadsheets.
* Existing data from external data sources.
* Professional knowledge.
* Newly compiled data from the field.

All the measures included in this technical guide were developed to reduce the amount of time and effort needed by local units to implement WCM, and existing data are used whenever appropriate and available. Local units, however, may need to compile existing data from the field for a few measures (e.g., tracking the number of authorized trammeling actions in a new NRM application, or assessing the condition of unique features integral to wilderness character). Whenever possible, protocols were developed to use data from national or regional monitoring programs across all appropriate resource disciplines (e.g., air, water, wildlife). For some measures, national staff compile and provide data to the local unit for verification. For other measures, local unit staff compile data from existing databases, administrative records (e.g., minimum requirement decisions), professional knowledge and judgment, or field collection.

'''Legacy or historical data''' may be used whenever available and appropriate for WCM. Legacy data from the local unit are an important reservoir of information, and may be used if data were collected (1) after the area was designated as wilderness or managed to preserve wilderness character and (2) using consistent, credible, and documented protocols that are directly relevant to WCM. Although there is no predetermined "use by" date for historical data, there may sometimes be questions about the appropriateness of using legacy data for a measure. For example, if there is a large gap between when the legacy data were collected and the WCM baseline year, or if legacy data adequacy is substandard or unknown. In some situations, legacy data may actually be better than newer data for use in WCM. Local resource specialists always will determine the appropriateness of using legacy data and their applicability for the measure.

The variety of measures used will require a variety of data and data sources, with corresponding variability in data adequacy. Some measures are based on point data (e.g., installations) or professional estimation (e.g., area of invasive plants), some require assumptions about integration over large areas (e.g., '''watershed condition'''), and some will be biased by the amount of effort (e.g., law enforcement effort for unauthorized trammeling actions). High-quality corporate datasets will be available for some measures, while for others there will only be poor '''data quality''' or no data available. In these latter cases, local professional knowledge may be used to assign a data value as long as the rationale for the judgment is documented. This includes information about the person making the judgment, the type and amount of field experience the judgment is based on, and any other information needed for outside viewers to understand the basis for the professional judgment. Data adequacy ('''data quantity''' and data quality) is always reported for each measure (see section 1.0 in part 2 for more information on deriving and using data adequacy).

==== Measure Baseline ====

The first year that data are compiled for a measure forms the measure baseline, and is the reference point for evaluating the '''trend in a measure''' over time. The measure baseline (i.e., the first year that data are compiled for an individual measure) is distinct from the WCM baseline (i.e., the first year that data are compiled for all measures, as explained above in section 1.5.2). While the '''measure baseline year''' will often be the same as the WCM baseline year, it may predate the WCM baseline year if legacy data are used, or it may post-date the WCM baseline year if the data source or data protocol change. The first value reported for a measure from this measure baseline year is called the measure baseline value.

If new or better data or data sources become available over time, it may be appropriate to adjust the measure baseline value. For example, improved data may result in a recalculation of the miles of system trail from 30 miles to 25 miles, but would not indicate a change on the ground or an improving trend in the measure; instead, 25 miles should become the new measure baseline value. In this situation, the measure baseline value would be reset based on the best available data and future trends in the measure would be assessed against the time of the new measure baseline value. Consult with resource specialists, the Regional Program Manager, and the Wilderness Information Management Steering Team regional representative before resetting an existing measure baseline value to ensure the appropriateness of this action. Guidance on interpreting the impact of resetting the baseline value of one or more measures on WCM baseline conditions will be developed.

==== Data Handling ====

How data are handled for a measure depends on the measure and the data used. Some measures quantify a single attribute (e.g., as a simple count, percentage, or average), and some combine two or more disparate attributes in an index. For example, the measure Acres of Nonindigenous Plant Species monitors a single attribute: acres. In contrast, the measure Index of Nonindigenous Terrestrial Animal Species tracks two attributes—species distribution and estimated impact—which are combined to yield a unit-less '''component score''' for each selected nonindigenous species. The component scores from each species are then added together to yield a unit-less '''index value''' for the measure (e.g., see table 2.3.5 in part 2). In addition, not all indices have component scores; for example, the Index of Encounters combines two attributes—traveling encounters and camp encounters—in a mathematical formula that produces a unit-less index value.

As described above, the frequency of data compilation also varies across measures from annually to once every 5 years. For annual measures that are likely to experience large fluctuations from year to year, such as the measures quantifying the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, and mechanical transport, a 3-year rolling average is calculated from the annual data (e.g., see measures 4.4.1—4.4.3 in part 2). The use of a 3-year rolling average does not obscure actions that degrade wilderness character; rather, this commonly used data handling technique prevents a large and transient increase or decrease in the data from skewing the trend either upwards or downwards.

Regardless of the frequency of data compilation, use of an index or rolling averages, or other data handling procedures, all measures produce a single value for each year of data compilation—the '''measure value'''—that is used to derive the trend in the measure. A measure value may be a single attribute (e.g., the total number, acres, or miles impacted), an index value, or a 3-year average, and may be calculated annually or every 5 years (see table 1.1.6). For example, for the measure Acres of Inholdings, the measure value is the total number of acres. For the measure Index of Visitor Management Restrictions, the measure value is the index value. For the measure Number of Authorized Actions and Persistent Structures Designed to Manipulate Plants, Animals, Pathogens, Soil, Water, or Fire, the measure value is the 3-year average of the annual number of authorized trammeling actions (e.g., if the annual number of trammeling actions was 4 in 2015, 0 in 2016, and 2 in 2017, the measure value for 2017 would be 2 which is the 3-year average of those annual values). For the measure Index of Administrative Authorizations to Use Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport, the measure value is the 3-year average of annual index values (e.g., if the annual index value was 30 in 2015, 100 in 2016, and 50 in 2017, the measure value for 2017 would be 60 which is the 3-year average of those annual index values).

Importantly, as much of the data handling as possible will be done automatically and internally by either NRM, the WCMD, or a central data analyst responsible for data compilation, analysis, and data entry for national measures. For some measures, however, data handling will need to be done by the local unit, as described in the protocol section for such measures in part 2.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.6—The four different derivations of the measure value used to derive the trend in a measure.
|-
! || Frequency !! Example measure !! Measure value
|-
| Single attribute || 5 years || Acres of Inholdings || Total number of acres
|-
| Index || 5 years || Index of Visitor Management Restrictions || Index value
|-
| Single attribute using a 3-year rolling average || 1 year || Number of Authorized Actions and Persistent Structures Designed to Manipulate Plants, Animals, Pathogens, Soil, Water, or Fire || 3-year average of the annual number of authorized trammeling actions
|-
| Index using a 3-year rolling average || 1 year || Index of Administrative Authorizations to Use Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport || 3-year average of the annual index values
|}

=== 1.5.4 Assessing Trends ===

Trend in wilderness character is determined by using nationally consistent rules to compile trends across the measures, indicators, monitoring questions, and qualities to derive an overall trend in wilderness character for each wilderness. The overall trend in wilderness character provides a readily interpretable assessment for wilderness managers at the local unit level to evaluate outcomes of their stewardship. Trends in wilderness character examined across several wildernesses provide information for regional and national wilderness program managers to assess whether agency policies and programs are fulfilling the legal mandate of the Wilderness Act to preserve wilderness character.

There are three primary steps to determining the trend in wilderness character:

# Determining meaningful change in the data and trend in a measure.
# Determining the trend in an indicator, monitoring question, and quality.
# Determining the overall trend in wilderness character.

==== Step 1—Determining Meaningful Change in the Data and Trend in a Measure ====

A meaningful change in each measure is based on either nationally or locally determined thresholds. For each measure included in this technical guide, the threshold for change was determined based on resource specialists' assessments of how much change in the data qualifies as a meaningful change in the measure. Meaningful change in a measure is not tied directly to, or based on, a national forest's land or resource management plan, nor does it represent significant change or impacts as defined by NEPA. Part 2 of this technical guide describe the thresholds for meaningful change in the data for each measure. Local units must determine thresholds for locally developed measures. The trend in each measure is classified into one of three categories: (1) stable (no meaningful change in the data), (2) improving (a meaningful improvement), or (3) degrading (a meaningful degradation).

To determine the trend in a measure for a given year, compare the most recent measure value with the measure baseline value. In some cases, the most recent measure value may not be for the year the trend is reported; for example, air quality data are often published at set intervals which may not align with the trend reporting cycle, and the most recent measure value may be from a few years prior. Also, if legacy data exist for a measure, these data would be included in determining trend for the measure. Table 1.1.7 provides several examples that illustrate how to derive trends by using measure values from different years for different measures. For some measures that have at least five values, trend is not determined by a comparison of two measure values but instead is derived by using the statistical procedure of regression analysis of all available values (see appendix B in Landres et al. 2009 for background on the use of regression, and section 1.0 in part 2 in this technical guide for details on its use). Regression is generally not appropriate for measures that use "any change" (e.g., an increase of one '''dam''') or "categories" (e.g., a change from 10- to 20-percent areal coverage of nonindigenous plants) as thresholds for determining meaningful change. In addition, switching to regression analysis for determining meaningful change once there are five measure values may change the trend in a measure.

[[File:Table 1.1.7.png|thumb|Table 1.1.7—Five hypothetical measures showing how trend is derived based on comparing the most recent measure value with the measure's baseline value.<ref>Circles show that data were compiled for the given year. For each measure, trend is assessed from that measure's baseline year (left black circle) to that measure's most recent year of data compilation (right black circle) either by comparing them directly or by regression analysis. Open circles show additional years that data were collected. The shaded column under 2010 shows the hypothetical WCM baseline year (the first year for which data are available for all measures), with legacy data from 2008 and 2009. The "Trend derived" column shows the set of years used to determine the trend in each measure for reporting in 2015. A dash mark (-) indicates no data for that year.</ref>]]

==== Step 2—Determining Trend in an Indicator, Monitoring Question, and Quality ====

Once trends have been determined for all the measures, use the following rules to derive the trend in an indicator:

* All the trends in the measures of one indicator are combined (including trends from locally developed, optional, and all other types of measures), with each improving-trending measure offsetting each degrading-trending measure.
* The overall trend in the indicator is improving if there are more improving- than degrading-trending measures, and the overall trend is degrading if there are more degrading- than improving-trending measures (regardless of the number of stable measures).
* If there are an equal number of improving- and degrading-trending measures, the overall trend in the indicator is referred to as an offsetting stable trend.
* If all the measures are stable, the trend in the indicator is also stable. By applying the same rules, the resulting trends in the indicators are then used to derive the trends in the monitoring questions, and likewise through each of the qualities (see table 1.1.8). These trends are illustrated by using arrows—a downward arrow showing a degrading trend, an upward arrow showing an improving trend, a horizontal double-headed arrow showing a stable trend, and a vertical double-headed arrow showing an '''offsetting stable trend'''. Throughout this technical guide, for brevity, the examples do not include every measure for an indicator, and in some cases the name of the measure has been abbreviated.

[[File:Table 1.1.8.png|thumb|Table 1.1.8—An example showing how trends in the qualities are derived from trends in the measures, indicators, and monitoring questions.]]

==== Step 3—Determining the Overall Trend in Wilderness Character ====

Trend in wilderness character is derived by combining the trends from all the qualities. The Wilderness Act does not state that any one aspect of the Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness is more or less important than another, so this WCM strategy assumes that all qualities are equally important, with one exception described below for the Untrammeled Quality. This assumption of equal importance includes the Other Features of Value Quality because even though such features may or may not be present in a wilderness, the Wilderness Act provides no reason to consider this quality (when present) more or less important than the other qualities.

Once trends in each quality have been determined, derive the overall trend in wilderness character by following the same four rules described previously in step 2. However, if there are an equal number of improving- and degrading-trending qualities, an additional rule is applied as a tiebreaker:

* If there are an equal number of improving- and degrading-trending qualities, the trend in the Untrammeled Quality determines the overall trend in wilderness character.

The following three reasons support giving extra weight to the Untrammeled Quality in a tiebreaker situation:

# The statutory definition of wilderness describes "untrammeled" in a separate sentence.
# The importance of untrammeled as the essence of wilderness has a long history in wilderness literature.
# No other land designations are, by law, to be kept untrammeled.

These three factors serve to make the Untrammeled Quality "first among equals," an idea supported by a recent legal review conducted by Long and Biber (2014). Tables 1.1.9 to 1.1.12 apply these rules to four examples to illustrate how the trends in the five qualities are aggregated to assess the overall trend in wilderness character. For brevity, the measures, indicators, and monitoring questions used to determine the trend in each quality are not shown in these tables. In table 1.1.12 that shows how the Untrammeled Quality functions as a tiebreaker in determining overall trend in wilderness character, the trends in the other qualities offset one another so the overall trend in wilderness character is offsetting-stable, rather than the simple stable trend in the Untrammeled Quality.

[[File:Table 1.1.9.png|thumb|Table 1.1.9—Two qualities with an improving trend, one quality with a degrading trend.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.10.png|thumb|Table 1.1.10—One quality with an improving trend, two qualities with a degrading trend.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.11.png|thumb|Table 1.1.11—Two qualities with an improving trend, two qualities with a degrading trend; Untrammeled Quality as "tiebreaker."]]

[[File:Table 1.1.12.png|thumb|Table 1.1.12—Two qualities with an improving trend, two qualities with a degrading trend; Untrammeled Quality as "tiebreaker."]]

==== Flexibility and Limitations in Assessing Trend ====

The approach to deriving an overall trend in wilderness character has several important qualifications. First, the approach of compiling trends, and not the data, allows disparate types of data to be used for the measures. This in turn allows different wildernesses to use a single, nationally consistent approach to assessing trends in wilderness character across the entire NWPS (see section 1.5.5 for resulting analyses and reports that can be derived from this consistent approach). Second, the different number of monitoring questions, indicators, and measures within each quality does not affect the overall trend in wilderness character because each quality is represented by a single trend. Third, this hierarchical approach provides different levels of information for the various needs of different audiences. For example, local unit managers need detailed information on specific measures and indicators, while regional and national staff need broader trend information.

A final qualification is that the approach purposefully only shows the change that is occurring and not the magnitude of that change in the indicators, monitoring questions, qualities, and wilderness character. Magnitude is not included because it would:

* Imply a greater level of precision than is possible in this national monitoring strategy.
* Require consistency across wildernesses and agencies in the number and types of measures that is not possible given the variability within the NWPS.
* Make outcomes more vulnerable to gaming or manipulation (whereas this WCM strategy's conservative approach counts any declining trend as a fully, not partially, declining trend).
* Not provide any additional resources to local managers who already have the detailed information they need from the data and trends in the measures.

=== 1.5.5 Reporting ===

The Forest Service anticipates that three types of standardized monitoring reports will be required, each designed for a different audience: (1) individual wilderness, (2) regional, and (3) national reports. Collectively, these monitoring reports will help local managers understand how wilderness character is changing and promote understanding of larger regional and national trends in agency wilderness stewardship. Once WCM is fully implemented by the Forest Service, the frequency of these reports will be determined, and will likely be annually or biennially for the local report (to maintain ongoing interest and support for local WCM) and once every 5 years for the regional and national reports. Standard reports will be generated by the interagency WCMD from measures and data entered for each wilderness, with an option for additional user-added qualitative information in the reports.

The intent of the reports outlined in this section is to promote communication and enable discussion of wilderness stewardship at the local unit level and among regional and national wilderness program managers within the Forest Service, key national non-governmental partners, and congressional staff. Standardized reporting formats at different levels provide the ability to compare information across the agency, within and among Forest Service regions, and different wildernesses on a local unit. For reporting purposes, "preserving wilderness character" is defined by a trend in wilderness character that is either stable or improving.

All three levels of reporting will include a short narrative (different from the Wilderness Character Narrative required under the WSP Wilderness Character Baseline element) that provides information about conditions, circumstances, and context that affect the interpretation and use of the trends reported. The short narrative gives local, and regional and national program managers the opportunity to add qualitative information and insights from their professional judgment to complement and help interpret the data and trends. For example, this short narrative is the appropriate place to describe the effects of climate change or an intense fire season on the Natural Quality and on the other qualities of wilderness character. The short narrative becomes a valuable part of the legacy information passed to future wilderness managers and helps ensure consistency in reporting over time. The short narrative also provides insight about the Forest Service WCM that feeds into the change management process.

==== Individual Wilderness Report ====

The purpose of the Individual Wilderness Report is to promote understanding of wilderness conditions and facilitate discussion among local staff about preserving wilderness character. The standardized reporting format will show the trend in wilderness character for a specific wilderness, as well as trends in the qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures. This report provides a level of detail suitable for communicating monitoring results with line officers and potentially with interested citizens, and will assist managers with planning and developing informed management actions. Highlights from the Individual Wilderness Report could also be included in monitoring and evaluation reports, as required by planning regulations. Individual Wilderness Reports will likely be produced annually or biennially.

Besides the formal Individual Wilderness Report, local units also will generate a "data dump" of all the information entered into the WCMD for use by the local manager to compare current conditions against thresholds for meaningful change. This data dump would not be used for upward reporting or communicating results to the public, but instead would provide a detailed reservoir of information for local staff. Refer to figures 1.1.4 through 1.1.9 and table 1.1.13 for the suggested format for the Individual Wilderness Report.

[[File:Figure 1.1.4.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.4—Summary page for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.13.png|thumb|Table 1.1.13—Summary of trends in the measures, indicators, monitoring questions, qualities, and wilderness character overall for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.5.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.5—Summary of the trend in the Untrammeled Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.6.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.6—Summary of the trend in the Natural Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.7.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.7—Summary of the trend in the Undeveloped Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.8.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.8—Summary of the trend in the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.9.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.9—Summary of the trend in the Other Features of Value Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

==== Regional Report ====

The Regional Report is intended to promote communication and discussion of monitoring results among the regional wilderness program managers. A standardized reporting format will show trends in wilderness character and trends in the qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures included in this technical guide for all wildernesses in a region. A map may also be produced showing the percentage of wildernesses within each region that are preserving wilderness character. This report provides the level of detail regional wilderness program managers need to help with accountability for wilderness stewardship and policy review.

Regional Reports will likely be produced every 5 years with optional periodic progress reports. Table 1.1.14 is an example that summarizes trends in wilderness character for the 13 wildernesses for which the Northern Region (Region 1) has the lead responsibility. Figures 1.1.10a and 1.1.10b are examples that summarize the trend in the Undeveloped Quality for the Northern Region (for brevity, the other qualities are not presented).

[[File:Table 1.1.14.pdf.png|thumb|Table 1.1.14—An example summary of the trends in wilderness character across the 13 wildernesses for which the Northern Region has the lead responsibility.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.10a.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.10a—An example summary of the trends in the Undeveloped Quality across the 13 wildernesses for which the Northern Region has the lead responsibility.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.10b.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.10b—An example short narrative summary of the trends in the Undeveloped Quality across the 13 wildernesses for which the Northern Region has the lead responsibility.]]

==== National Report ====

The purpose of the National Report is to promote communication and allow discussion of monitoring results with line officers and program managers to inform policy review and improve wilderness stewardship. The National Report will consist of two parts: (1) a summary of national trends in wilderness character and each of the five qualities suitable for briefings to the National Leadership Team and similar audiences, and (2) a summary of regional trends in wilderness character. Together, these summaries provide the level of detail national and regional wilderness program managers need to assist with accountability for wilderness stewardship and policy review.

The National Report will likely be produced on a 5-year cycle with annual progress reports. Producing an annual progress report will allow national compilation and synthesis work to be spread evenly year to year rather than increasing workloads once every 5 years. Additionally, annual progress reports will provide a consistent flow of information about trends in wilderness character to leaders in the wilderness program, who can use the reports to inform program decisions.

Until all NFS wildernesses implement this Forest Service WCM strategy and have sufficient data to derive trends, producing biennial national progress reports are recommended. These updates will discuss what is happening with WCM, communicate any significant findings from data entered to date, share lessons learned from monitoring done to date, and provide information on what will occur in the next year.

[[File:Figure 1.1.11.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.11—An example summary of the national trends in wilderness character across all 445 NFS wildernesses.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.12.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.12—An example summary of the regional trends in wilderness character across the nine regions of the Forest Service.]]

=== 1.5.6 Using the Results in Forest Service Planning and Administration ===

The results of WCM can provide useful information for planning and decision making, including forest-level planning, project-level planning and decisions, and for administrative purposes at the national, regional, or local level.

==== Forest Planning ====

Wilderness management direction is prepared as a part of the forest planning process as required by 36 CFR Part 219 and FSM 1922. Forest planning also complies with NEPA (FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15).

The 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) was developed to ensure that plans are consistent with and complement existing, related agency policies that guide management of resources on NFS lands, such as the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF; USDA Forest Service 2011c) and the agency's Sustainable Recreation Framework (2010). The three primary planning phases described in the Planning Rule include (1) assessment, (2) plan development/amendment/revision, and (3) monitoring.

Information collected from WCM can contribute to each of the planning framework's phases. WCM provides feedback for the planning cycle by testing relevant assumptions, assessing relevant conditions over time, and measuring management effectiveness. WCM can be an important component of forest plan monitoring programs. Based on the evaluation of the information gathered through monitoring, the responsible official can determine the following:

* Whether a change to a local unit's land management plan may be needed,
* Whether a change to management activities may be needed; or
* Whether an assessment may be needed to determine if there is a preliminary need to change a land management plan.

==== Project or Activity Decisions ====

Trend information over five or more years, and information that transcends the time individual wilderness managers are at a wilderness, will be especially powerful in efforts to preserve wilderness character. For example, being able to compare the current number and type of actions taken to manipulate vegetation to the number and type of actions that will be taken 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, comparing the number and development level of '''buildings''', '''trails''', dams, and other physical developments that exist today to the number and development level that will exist 10 years or more from now is a valuable indicator about whether evidence of human occupation and modification is increasing or decreasing. Such trend information can evaluate the effectiveness of existing stewardship programs and help prioritize what actions can be taken, or not taken, to most improve wilderness character.

==== Administrative Purposes ====

At regional and national levels, information derived from WCM has the following two primary uses:

# Improves agency accountability (performance measurement)—Ultimately, once trends in wilderness character are known, a new performance measure will be instituted in the Forest Service to track the number of wildernesses with wilderness character that is stable or improving. This measure will be designed to evaluate only those measures over which the agency has direct control, such as management actions that trammel wilderness and not those where the agency's ability to influence is less certain, such as changes in nitrogen (N) deposition levels. This performance measure combined with the results of WSP will help evaluate the effectiveness of the agency's wilderness stewardship program. Regional and national reports (see section 1.5.5) will show the number or percentage of wildernesses in which the trend in wilderness character is preserved compared to the number or percentage in which the trend in wilderness character is degrading. These reports will also show which of the five qualities regionally and nationally are contributing to the degradation of 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.
# Improves agency policy review and oversight to support wilderness stewardship needs at the local level—Information from WCM can help evaluate whether current wilderness management policy is fulfilling the mandate of the Wilderness Act 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 inconsistent implementation of existing policies or to existing policies that are implemented consistently, 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.

== 1.6 Roles and Responsibilities ==

Forest Service responsibilities for resource inventory and monitoring are outlined in FSM 1940.04. The following subsections describe the specific roles and responsibilities for monitoring and evaluation of wilderness character. Existing Forest Service personnel typically fulfill these roles and responsibilities.

Roles and responsibilities for data compilation vary depending upon the measure. Tables 1.1.15–1.1.19 identify the measure type, frequency of data compilation for the measure, and whether data compilation and analysis for measures occurs at the national level, local level, or a combination of both (see also Appendix 1 for a summary of local and national tasks for all measures).

[[File:Table 1.1.15.png|thumb|Table 1.1.15—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Untrammeled Quality.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.16.png|thumb|Table 1.1.16—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Natural Quality.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.17.png|thumb|Table 1.1.17—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Undeveloped Quality.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.18.png|thumb|Table 1.1.18—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.19.png|thumb|Table 1.1.19—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Other Features of Value Quality.]]

=== 1.6.1 National ===

The National Wilderness Program Leader, WCM Program Manager, and associated staff members are responsible for implementing WCM across all Forest Service wildernesses. They are also responsible for working with the NPS, FWS, and BLM to provide a comprehensive WCM program for the entire NWPS. Specific responsibilities include:

* Leadership—Develop and oversee the Forest Service WCM program. Support and evaluate implementation at the regional and forest levels. Ensure WCM needs are met by allocating available funding and establishing and supporting the centralized staffing necessary for implementation (e.g., a central data analyst position). Collaborate with the other wilderness managing agencies to facilitate interagency WCM.
* Data management—Understand local versus national responsibilities for data collection and compilation for all measures included in this technical guide. Ensure compliance with '''quality assurance''' and '''quality control''' (QA/QC) and metadata standards (see sections 1.7.5 and 1.7.1, respectively). Support regions by providing oversight and training as necessary. Conduct national data collection and compilation and provide results to regional offices or local units (national data collection and compilation will likely be completed by a central data analyst employed at the national level). Coordinate with broader agency, interagency, and national programs as needed. Periodically assess data adequacy across all regions. Collaborate with NRM staff to develop and maintain corporate databases and information standards that integrate WCM information (see section 1.7.2). Collaborate with the WCMD Steering Team to ensure Forest Service WCM needs are met (see section 1.7.3).
* Evaluation and response—Assess national trends in wilderness character every 5 years. Prepare a National Report every 5 years as well as annual updates (see section 1.5.5). Evaluate national trend results and determine appropriate management and monitoring responses. Use WCM data and trend results appropriately to inform national Forest Service planning and assessments. Provide guidance to regions and forests regarding the suitability of results, future needs and priorities, and opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of WCM and wilderness stewardship. Share trend results with the other federal wilderness managing agencies and evaluate trends in wilderness character across the entire NWPS. Use NWPS trend results appropriately to inform interagency wilderness direction, policies, and guidance. Assess Forest Service protocols annually and update as needed in response to results and experiences at the national, regional, and forest levels (see section 1.8.1). Conduct major change management processes every 5 years (see section 1.8.2).

=== 1.6.2 Regional ===

Each region is responsible for implementing WCM across all wildernesses under their jurisdiction. Specific responsibilities for Regional Wilderness Program Managers and regional directors with responsibility for resources in wilderness include:

* Leadership—Identify who will lead the monitoring effort for all wildernesses within a region. Provide support for implementation at the forest and wilderness level. Review measure selections for each wilderness and facilitate development of additional local measures if necessary. Coordinate with adjoining regions that co-manage a wilderness. Ensure WCM needs are met by assessing the availability of wilderness management specialists and allocating available funding.
* Data management—Understand local versus national responsibilities for data collection and compilation for all selected measures. Coordinate and facilitate data collection and compilation across the region, including local data needs, any multi-unit or regional data needs, and the retrieval of national data. Coordinate with other federal, state, and non-governmental programs as needed. Conduct periodic reviews to assess data adequacy. Oversee and facilitate data entry in the appropriate databases, including NRM and the WCMD (see sections 1.7.2 and 1.7.3, respectively). Provide support at the regional level to maintain NRM code tables so local units can enter data appropriately.
* Evaluation and response—Assess regional trends in wilderness character every 5 years and prepare Regional Reports (see section 1.5.5). Evaluate regional trend results and determine appropriate management and monitoring responses. Use WCM data and trend results appropriately to inform regional planning, assessments, and management activities. Coordinate with local units to periodically evaluate the need for additional measures or changes to existing measures. Assist national staff in assessing protocols, technical guides, and directives annually (see section 1.8.1). Assist national staff in interpreting trend results for a region. Participate in future activities related to WCM.

=== 1.6.3 National Forests and Grasslands ===

Each wilderness managed by the Forest Service has a single national forest or grassland identified as lead for that wilderness. Lead forests or grasslands are responsible for implementing WCM across all wildernesses under their jurisdiction. Specific responsibilities include:

* Leadership—Identify who will lead the monitoring effort for each wilderness. Coordinate with all other units and agencies that co-manage a wilderness. Select required and optional measures for monitoring each wilderness, and develop additional local measures if necessary (measure selection will likely be completed by the forest staff officer with wilderness responsibilities, with assistance from relevant interdisciplinary personnel and line officers). Ensure that funding is allocated to complete WCM.
* Data management—Understand local versus national responsibilities for data collection and compilation for all selected measures. Conduct local data collection and compilation, and retrieve nationally collected and compiled data when necessary. Participate in multi-unit or regionally coordinated data collection and compilation. Ensure that all data meet QA/QC standards. Enter data for all selected measures into the appropriate databases, such as NRM and the WCMD (see sections 1.7.2 and 1.7.3, respectively).
* Evaluation and response—Assess trends in wilderness character every 5 years for each wilderness. Prepare an Individual Wilderness Report and a local "data dump" report annually or biennially (see section 1.5.5). Evaluate trend results and determine appropriate management and monitoring responses. Use WCM data and trend results appropriately in forest planning, assessments, and project implementation. Conduct periodic reviews to evaluate the need for additional measures or changes to existing measures. Assist regional and national staff in interpreting trend results for a wilderness.

== 1.7 Data Management ==

The WCM strategy is built upon the premise of using existing data whenever appropriate and available to establish a baseline for each measure and evaluate trends over time. This WCM strategy is designed to reduce workload impact on local staff to the maximum degree possible (see figure 1.1.13—Relationship among various databases used for WCM).

[[File:Figure 1.1.13.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.13—Relationship among various databases used for WCM.]]

==== Local Data ====

Local data may consist of data already entered in NRM, data stored in local databases or spreadsheets, existing data collection, or data derived from local knowledge or professional judgment. Some of the data used in this technical guide are already in the NRM-Wilderness application as part of annual program reporting, such as wilderness regulations used to track unconfined recreation and '''administrative authorizations''' to use motorized equipment or mechanical transport.

Forest Service program areas, other than the Wilderness Program, may have a data steward for other data that are needed to support certain measures. For example, facility engineers are responsible for maintaining records about roads and buildings in NRM. This technical guide takes advantage of these types of existing data sources, however, in many cases local data need to be linked to the appropriate wilderness to support WCM analysis (e.g., tabular or spatial analysis). This technical guide also acknowledges that local data can be of varying quality, and WCM provides an opportunity to update national corporate datasets with current data.

==== National Data ====

National data may consist of data from national corporate datasets or external datasets. These will be accessed by a central data analyst to both reduce workload impact on the field and for efficiencies of scale. Other datasets require Geographic Information System (GIS) skills and these measures will typically be analyzed at the national or regional level.

=== 1.7.1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Metadata ===

The data used for WCM have metadata. Metadata are information about data— its history and changes—that provide the necessary context for understanding, trusting, and correctly using those data. From defining data attributes and accuracy to providing information about map projection and coordinate systems, metadata provide answers to many users' questions. Metadata also help people find the data they need, determine how best to use the data, and avoid duplication of effort. The Forest Service Metadata Users Guide (http://www.fs.fed.us/gac/metadata/) is designed to help users with this information.

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) standards should be implemented when creating and managing metadata. The Forest Service standards for archiving and managing '''FGDC compliant metadata''' should conform to retention and disposal requirements and schedules described in FSH 6209.11 and to direction issued by the FGDC Historical Records Working Group of the National Archives and Records Administration.

=== 1.7.2 Natural Resource Manager ===

Approximately half of the measures in this technical guide will use NRM to access relevant data. Some of the measures will access data currently stored in NRM. To pull and analyze the appropriate data, these measures may require the development of standardized reports, user views, or other extraction utilities. For other measures, the necessary datasets are not presently stored in NRM but may be in the future. Data entry screens and other supporting modules would need to be developed to store and analyze data for any additional measures. These would be developed in the new NRM-WCM application.

The Forest Service designed NRM applications to meet the unique business requirements of the agency, however, the applications follow standards of the FGDC and are therefore compatible in metadata standards with data compiled by other federal agencies.

=== 1.7.3 Interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring Database ===

All four wilderness managing agencies have contributed to the development of an interagency WCMD to serve as a central portal for data entry, data storage, data analysis, and trend reporting (Adams et al. 2012). The WCMD (available at https://wc.wilderness.net/) is hosted on the Wilderness Connect website with permissioned access for agency and non-agency personnel. Guidance for accessing and using the WCMD will be released after WCM is formally implemented in the Forest Service in 2018.

In the WCMD, local users for each wilderness will select a single set of measures for which data can be entered. The required Forest Service measures described in this technical guide will be built into the WCMD and users will have the option of adding locally developed measures for each wilderness. Local users or a central data analyst at the national level will enter measure values based on the frequency of data compilation for each measure. For some measures, the WCMD will be able to calculate measure values from supporting data (e.g., calculating 3-year rolling averages from annual data). Once enough data have been entered to derive trends in all selected measures, the WCMD will determine the trends in the measures, indicators, monitoring questions, qualities, and overall wilderness character for each wilderness by using the assigned thresholds for meaningful change (see section 1.5.4). The WCMD will generate the Individual Wilderness Reports and "data dumps," Regional Reports, and National Report (section 1.5.5), and an Interagency Report for reporting trends in wilderness character across the entire NWPS.

=== 1.7.4 Data Stewardship ===

Data stewardship is the oversight and management of data for the program area. This oversight is brought to bear throughout the data lifecycle (FGDC 2010) from defining information needs and data requirements, to using data to support the agency mission. It includes many aspects of the roles discussed in section 1.6 for data acquisition, data management, and evaluation and response, with an emphasis on taking the responsibility to ensure that data are consistent with USDA requirements for Information Quality Activities as described by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (http://www.ocio.usda.gov/policy-directives-records-forms/informationquality-activities).

=== 1.7.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ===

Forest Service WCM fulfills data QA/QC as mandated by the Data Quality Act, USDA, and Forest Service policy. Oversight of data collection, transfer, and accuracy is essential to effective management and occurs throughout the monitoring process.

QA/QC processes are defined in FSM 1940 as follows:

* Quality assurance—The total integrated program for ensuring that the uncertainties inherent in inventory and monitoring data are known and do not exceed acceptable magnitudes, within a stated level of confidence. QA encompasses the plans, specifications, and policies affecting the collection, processing, and reporting of data. It is the system of activities designed to provide officials with independent assurance that QC is implemented effectively and uniformly throughout the inventory and monitoring programs (USDA Forest Service 2009).
* Quality control—The routine application of prescribed field and office procedures to reduce random and systematic errors and ensure that data are generated within known and acceptable performance limits. QC involves using qualified personnel, using reliable equipment and supplies, training personnel, and strictly adhering to service-wide standard operating procedures for tasks such as information needs assessments, establishment of standards and methods, data collection, data processing, mapping, analysis, and dissemination. (USDA Forest Service 2009).

== 1.8 Change Management ==

Information and protocols presented in this technical guide are anticipated to change and improve over time. Change may be necessary if new agency requirements are developed such as a new law or a new management issue that requires change in this monitoring. Changes may also be necessary when attributes tracked in a dataset are modified, resulting in changes that would be needed to the applicable measure protocols. Changes in measures or protocols also may be necessary if the conceptual understanding about wilderness character changes.

Change management is a comprehensive process that begins with the identification of a need for change and ends with the resolution of that request. A change management process is necessary in all monitoring programs, and is especially important for the protocols described in this technical guide because WCM has not been fully implemented across the NFS and adjustments are anticipated as implementation proceeds. A viable change management process is needed to ensure that the protocols reflect contemporary thinking about wilderness character, that lessons learned during implementation are used to improve the protocols, and that the protocols use all available datasets.

Minor and major changes are described separately because they involve considerably different processes. Submit any proposals for change to the WCM Central Team for review.

=== 1.8.1 Minor Change Management Process ===

The minor change management process will likely be conducted every year and includes:

* Modification of existing measures, necessitated by:
** Experience gained during the practical implementation of the monitoring protocol;
** Availability of data sources for existing measures;
** New research or other perspectives about what constitutes wilderness character; and
** Need for some level of consistency with the other NWPS agencies.
* Changes to the WCM process and timeline.
* Changes to the NRM-WCM application or the online interagency WCMD. For minor changes that occur with Forest Service implementation of WCM, no consultation with the other agencies is needed.

=== 1.8.2 Major Change Management Process ===

The major change management process will likely be conducted every 5 years and is more comprehensive than the minor change process. The major change process includes:

* Reviewing the appropriateness of the qualities of wilderness character from the statutory definition of wilderness, as well as the interagency monitoring questions and indicators recommended in Keeping It Wild 2.
* Deleting or adding measures, especially if they are required.
* Reviewing the appropriateness of the data analysis and methods for assessing trend in wilderness character.

Details of the major change management process have not yet been developed. This WCM strategy needs to be reviewed and re-evaluated by those directly associated with the protocols including agency staff at all administrative levels and partners who have been involved with WCM. This process would likely entail conducting a workshop and developing a work plan for the resolution of issues and concerns identified by participants. These changes also need to be coordinated with the Interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring Committee as well as with the WCMD Steering Team.

=== 1.8.3 Coordinating Change with Corporate Data Systems ===

NRM applications also have a change management process that may not be fully synchronized with updates to this technical guide. Therefore, the rate of change in this technical guide should be fully coordinated with NRM through the program of work proposal process to ensure desired NRM applications are consistent with any technical guide changes. The Forest Service GIS Data Dictionary also includes a change management process to ensure that changes will meet the business needs of the agency and reduce the impacts to support systems. This process, however, may not be synchronized with future updates to this technical guide. As a result, changes in GIS standards may not be consistent with the current version of this technical guide and may not be consistent with NRM applications.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

2023-03-05T20:17:21Z

Admin:

Natural Quality

2023-03-05T20:17:05Z

Admin:

Natural Quality

2023-03-05T20:16:47Z

Admin:

Wilderness Character Monitoring in the Forest Service

2023-03-05T20:16:29Z

Admin:

[[Category:USFS]]
<div class="noautonum" style="float:right;width:30%;margin-left:15px;">
<div class="toc">
<div class="center">[[USFS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide]]</div>
[[File:Wilderness character monitoring technical guide - rmrs gtr406.pdf.png|200px|thumb|center]]
<div class="center">
'''2 {{ PAGENAME }}'''
</div>
</div>
<br>
__TOC__
</div>

The Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), manages 154 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and 1 national prairie. These 193 million acres (78 million hectares) of federal land in the National Forest System (NFS) represent a broad diversity of landscapes and ecosystems across the nation. Since the Wilderness Act of 1964 was signed into law, Congress has designated 37 million acres (approximately 15 million hectares) of NFS land as '''wilderness'''<ref>Terms and phrases in bold text are defined in the glossary at the end of part 2 of this technical guide.</ref>, about 19 percent of all the land managed by the Forest Service.

The central mandate of the Wilderness Act is to preserve '''wilderness character'''. This affirmative legal obligation applies to all federal wildernesses across the entire National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), including all Forest Service wildernesses. This legal mandate and Forest Service wilderness policy (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2330) raise the simple question: are we preserving wilderness character?

The Forest Service can answer this question only by monitoring and assessing the '''trend in wilderness character''' over time. This technical guide provides the Forest Service a strategy and methodology for monitoring trends in wilderness character that is consistent with the revised interagency '''wilderness character monitoring''' (WCM) strategy published in Keeping It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System (hereafter, Keeping It Wild 2; Landres et al. 2015) and endorsed in 2015 by the Interagency Wilderness Policy Council. The '''protocols''' in this technical guide are designed to be practical and cost effective, and allow the Forest Service to demonstrate accountability for the legal and policy mandates to preserve wilderness character. This updated technical guide supersedes the 2009 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character (Landres et al. 2009) and incorporates the '''best available scientific information''' and best practices for monitoring wilderness character.

For wilderness managers and line officers, part 1 of this technical guide provides extensive background information on wilderness character and the Forest Service approach to monitoring and assessing trends in wilderness character. Part 2 of this guide provides detailed protocols for gathering, analyzing, and interpreting WCM data. This technical guide includes the following major sections:

* Part 1 describes essential concepts for understanding the Forest Service nationwide approach to monitoring and assessing trends in wilderness character, defines each of the five qualities of wilderness character (Untrammeled, Natural, Undeveloped, Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation, and Other Features of Value) and briefly describes each of the measures used in this monitoring along with their relevance to Forest Service WCM. Part 1 is the what and the why of the Forest Service approach to WCM.
* Part 2 describes how this Forest Service WCM will be implemented, with an overview of implementation concepts followed by detailed, step-by-step guidance for every measure in all five qualities.
* Appendices 1 and 2 provide a summary of all the key attributes for implementing WCM for every measure in table form and a description of measures that were considered but not used, respectively.

== 1.1 Purpose and Scope ==

The purpose of this technical guide is to provide Forest Service protocols on how to monitor and assess trends in wilderness character. This monitoring will provide information to show how agency stewardship makes a difference on the ground, and ensure accountability for upholding the legal and policy mandates of preserving wilderness character (Landres et al. 2012). This monitoring will provide information to help answer two key questions about the outcomes of '''wilderness stewardship''':

# How is agency stewardship affecting wilderness character?
# Is wilderness character changing over time within a wilderness and across all wildernesses administered by the Forest Service? If so, how and why is it changing?

This technical guide provides detailed protocols for implementing WCM on NFS lands. These protocols establish consistency in WCM across NFS units and with the other wilderness management agencies, increase the credibility of the information collected, and improve the efficiency of the Forest Service WCM. This national consistency allows for determining the trend in wilderness character in a single wilderness, as well as the collective trend in wilderness character across all NFS wildernesses.

The Forest Service WCM strategy is currently being implemented across the NFS and adjustments are anticipated in the future as a result of these activities. For this reason, this technical guide and appendices are being published online to allow the Forest Service to update content that reflects changes or improvements to information and protocols that occur during implementation (e.g., changes in roles and responsibilities for monitoring and evaluating WCM described in section 1.6 or adjustments to the '''change management process''' described in section 1.8). The target audience for this guide is local Forest Service unit (national forest or grassland, or ranger district) staff charged with managing wilderness consistent with agency policy; the guide is intended to help them implement WCM. Information derived from this monitoring may also be of use to regional and national staff charged with developing wilderness policy and assessing its effectiveness towards meeting the Wilderness Act's legal mandate to preserve wilderness character. The results of this monitoring will provide both groups information to improve wilderness stewardship and wilderness policy.

Line officers may use WCM information to assess the effects of past management decisions on wilderness character and to help inform decisions about future actions. Monitoring by itself does not provide guidance for what to do if the trend in wilderness character is degrading; instead, monitoring can signal the need for follow-up actions or decisions, and can ensure that line officers understand the trade-offs associated with actions or decisions.

Attributes that are integral to the area's wilderness character, but that are not directly under the jurisdiction of managers, also are included in this monitoring. An example of such an attribute would be air quality. Monitoring these attributes provides a more comprehensive understanding of how wilderness character is changing over time and whether those changes are due to factors within or beyond the agency's jurisdiction. Such a holistic view of wilderness character informs our understanding of broad-scale, regional, and cumulative impacts to wilderness character.

The scope of this technical guide is intentionally limited in several ways because wilderness character is a complex concept with tangible, intangible, ethical, societal, legal, personal, local, and national dimensions. From its outset, the WCM strategy described in this technical guide was designed to create a pragmatic and effective way to assess trends in wilderness character. To practically limit its scope, this WCM strategy:

* Applies to all areas in which the Forest Service has been directed by Congress to "preserve the wilderness character" of the area. This includes all designated wildernesses and congressionally designated Wilderness Study Areas mandated to preserve wilderness character in their authorizing legislation. The strategy does not apply to other types of protected areas outside the mandate of the Wilderness Act or subsequent wilderness legislation, including lands recommended as wilderness through the forest planning process and congressionally designated Wilderness Study Areas lacking specific direction to preserve wilderness character. WCM may still be useful for assessing on-the ground changes and informing stewardship in areas with future potential for wilderness designation.
* Monitors tangible attributes of the five qualities of wilderness character derived from the Definition of Wilderness, Section 2(c) in the Wilderness Act. This monitoring does not directly monitor the intangible, symbolic, societal, or personal values, meanings, and benefits of wilderness character, although the tangible attributes that are monitored do contribute to these.
* Assesses the trend in wilderness character over time for an entire wilderness, and does not assess how wilderness character is changing in specific locations within a wilderness, or how wilderness character compares across different wildernesses.
* Supports minimum requirements and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses by helping staff organize information on the effects of proposed projects, but does not determine the significance of effects or replace agency decision processes.
* Does not fulfill all the monitoring requirements needed to manage an individual wilderness, such as monitoring for specific projects or compliance monitoring for special use permits (SUPs).
* Monitors the outcomes of stewardship, as well as selected outside forces acting on wilderness, and does not monitor the management actions or processes that occur in wilderness (see section 1.3.1 Wilderness Stewardship Performance for discussion about these differences).

== 1.2 Overview of Forest Service Wilderness Character Monitoring ==

This Forest Service WCM strategy is based on the interagency strategy described in Keeping It Wild 2, and is organized around a hierarchical framework (see section 1.5.1) that divides wilderness character into successively finer elements of qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures (tables 1.1.1–1.1.5). The '''qualities''', '''monitoring questions''', and '''indicators''' used here are consistent with the interagency strategy, whereas the measures are unique to the Forest Service. This technical guide identifies measures required by all wildernesses administered by the Forest Service, these required measures are analogous to the "national core" measures in other Forest Service monitoring protocols. Besides these agency-required measures, locally developed measures to meet wilderness-specific information needs may also be used. The Forest Service WCM strategy is structured as follows:

* The Forest Service uses Keeping It Wild 2's organizational framework of qualities, monitoring questions, and indicators to ensure interagency consistency (tables 1.1.1–1.1.5).
* At least one measure must be used for each indicator. For each indicator, this technical guide describes a required measure, or a set of measures from which at least one must be used (tables 1.1.1–1.1.5).
* In addition to the required measures, optional measures described in this technical guide may be chosen for a wilderness if they are highly relevant. Additional locally developed measures may be used for a wilderness, and are encouraged to more fully describe trend in wilderness character, as long as they adhere to the guidelines described in section 1.5.3.
* Data are gathered or compiled for each measure by using the best available information.
* Once there are at least two data points per measure, a trend (improving, stable, or degrading<ref>Note that the Forest Service uses the terms improving and degrading even though Keeping It Wild 2 uses the terms upward
and downward, respectively.</ref>) is determined based on agency established rules, or locally developed rules for locally developed measures. Trends in each measure are reported at 5-year intervals even though data for some measures may need to be gathered annually. See section 1.0 in part 2 for details on determining trend.
* If there is more than one measure within an indicator, trends in these measures are compiled by using consistent rules (see section 1.5.4) to determine the trend in the indicator. Only the trends in the measures, not the data, are compiled. These same rules are then used to determine the trend in each monitoring question, each quality, and ultimately the overall trend in wilderness character.
* Wilderness character is considered "preserved" (i.e., as required by law and Forest Service policy) when there is a stable or improving trend. Once the trend in wilderness character for each wilderness is determined, the percentage of wildernesses with a stable or improving trend in wilderness character within a region and across the entire Forest Service can be derived.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.1—Summary of the monitoring question, indicators, measures, and measure type used to monitor trend in the Untrammeled Quality of wilderness character.
|-
! colspan="4" | Untrammeled Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="2" | What are the trends in actions that intentionally control or manipulate the "earth and its community of life" inside wilderness? || Actions authorized by the Federal land manager that intentionally manipulate the biophysical environment || Number of authorized actions and persistent structures designed to manipulate plants, animals, pathogens, soil, water, or fire || Required
|-
| Actions not authorized by the Federal land manager that intentionally manipulate the biophysical environment || Number of unauthorized actions and persistent structures by agencies, organizations, or individuals that manipulate plants, animals, pathogens, soil, water, or fire || Required
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.2—Summary of the monitoring question, indicators, measures, and measure types used to monitor trend in the Natural Quality of wilderness character
|-
! colspan="4"| Natural Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="11"| What are the trends in the natural environment from human-caused change? || Plants || Acres of nonindigenous plant species || Required
|-
| rowspan="2"| Animals || Index of nonindigenous terrestrial animal species || rowspan="2"| Required to select at least one
|-
| Index of nonindigenous aquatic animal species
|-
| rowspan="6"| Air and water || Concentration of ambient ozone || rowspan="5"| Required to select at least one
|-
| Deposition of nitrogen
|-
| Deposition of sulfur
|-
| Amount of haze
|-
| Index of sensitive lichen species
|-
| Extent of waterbodies with impaired water quality || Required
|-
| rowspan="2"| Ecological processes || Watershed condition class || rowspan="2"| Required to select at least one
|-
| Number of animal unit months of commercial livestock use
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.3—Summary of the monitoring questions, indicators, measures, and measure types used tomonitor trend in the Undeveloped Quality of wilderness character.
|-
! colspan="4"| Undeveloped Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="2"| What are the trends in physical evidence of development inside wilderness? || Presence of non-recreational structures, installations, and development || Index of authorized non-recreational physical development || Required
|-
| Presence of inholdings || Acres of inholdings || Required
|-
| rowspan="3"| What are the trends in mechanization? || rowspan="3"| Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport || Index of administrative authorizations to use motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport || Required
|-
| Percent of emergency incidents using motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport || Optional
|-
| Index of special provision authorizations to use motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport || Optional
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.4—Summary of the monitoring questions, indicators, measures, and measure types used to monitor trend in the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality of wilderness character.
|-
! colspan="4"| Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="5"| What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for solitude? || rowspan="4" | Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity inside wilderness || Index of encounters || Required
|-
| Index of recreation sites within primary use areas || rowspan="3" | Required to select at least one
|-
| Acres of wilderness away from access and travel routes and developments inside wilderness
|-
| Miles of unauthorized trails
|-
| Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity outside the wilderness || Acres of wilderness away from adjacent travel routes and developments outside the wilderness || Required
|-
| rowspan="3"| What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation? || rowspan="2"| Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation || Index of NFS developed trails || rowspan="2"| Required to select at least one
|-
| Index of authorized constructed recreation features
|-
| Management restrictions on visitor behavior || Index of visitor management restrictions || Required
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.5—Summary of the monitoring questions, indicators, measures, and measure types used to monitor trend in the Other Features of Value Quality of wilderness character.
|-
! colspan="4" | Other Features of Value Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="2" | What are the trends in the unique features that are tangible and integral to wilderness character? || Deterioration or loss of integral cultural features || Condition index for integral cultural features || Required if relevant
|-
| Deterioration or loss of other integral site-specific features of value || Condition index for other features || Required if relevant
|}

=== 1.2.1 Relationship to Interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring ===

The Forest Service, the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) use Keeping It Wild 2 as a framework to develop agency-specific WCM programs. All four agencies use the same definition of wilderness character and the same qualities, monitoring questions, and indicators. Each agency also uses the same process for compiling trends across measures to derive a trend in each indicator, monitoring question, quality, and ultimately wilderness character. Use of this nationally consistent interagency framework will allow all four agencies to pool their resulting data to assess trends in wilderness character across the entire NWPS.

Keeping It Wild 2 provides an interagency monitoring strategy, but does not define agency-specific responsibilities for implementing that strategy, ensuring quality control, and fostering interagency consistency into the future. Given their different authorities, policies, and cultures, each agency is responsible for developing its own procedures to ensure implementation of the interagency strategy. This includes determining agency-specific monitoring protocols and processes for training, oversight, use of the online interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring Database (WCMD) reporting, sharing results with the other agencies, and working across all agencies to provide a comprehensive WCM program for the entire NWPS (see section 1.7.3).

The Forest Service currently shares management responsibility for 32 wildernesses (28 with the BLM, 1 with the FWS, and 3 with the NPS). In some cases, the Forest Service manages the majority of the acreage for a wilderness, while in others the agency manages only a small fraction. To implement WCM in an interagency wilderness, the administering agencies may either: (1) each monitor their own portion of the wilderness with agency-specific measures, or (2) agree to follow a single agency's WCM protocols and share a single set of measures. Under either alternative, interagency wildernesses will report the trend in wilderness character for the entire wilderness. Before implementing the WCM strategy described in this technical guide, in all 32 cases, Forest Service wilderness mangers will need to work with their local counterparts in the other managing agency to determine which alternative is most appropriate. If the local units decide to share a single set of measures for the wilderness, consider developing an interagency memorandum of understanding that outlines respective roles and responsibilities and states which agency's WCM protocols will be followed. For example, a wilderness could use the measures from the agency that has the majority of the acreage for a wilderness or another arrangement could be developed. Whichever alternative is selected for an interagency wilderness, include documentation of the decision and its rationale as a reference for future managers.

== 1.3 Relationship to Forest Service Programs, Monitoring, and Policies ==

This effort to monitor trends in wilderness character integrates with other Forest Service wilderness programs, agency-wide monitoring efforts, as well as laws, regulations, and policies.

=== 1.3.1 Wilderness Stewardship Performance ===

The Wilderness Program's performance measure Number of Wildernesses Meeting Baseline Performance for Preserving Wilderness Character, commonly known as Wilderness Stewardship Performance (WSP), tracks the stewardship actions undertaken by the agency to fulfill the Wilderness Act's mandate to "preserve wilderness character." It feeds into the geo-enabled Performance Accountability System (gPAS), which annually reports metrics of agency performance to the Department of Agriculture, Congress, and the public. The lead Forest Service unit for a wilderness selects 10 elements, from a possible set of 20, that most closely reflect local stewardship priorities, within prescribed rules. Each element is worth 10 points, and a wilderness is deemed to be managed to an acceptable standard within WSP if it scores 60 points or higher.

The business rules around the selection of elements reinforce the linkages between agency stewardship actions and wilderness character. The elements in WSP are arrayed beneath categories that conform to the five qualities of wilderness character. While local units have some flexibility in the selection of these elements, they must select as least one element for each quality. Not all of the elements under the qualities of wilderness character in WSP track with the placement of measures for wilderness character monitoring because some decisions were made on the organization of WSP prior to the completion of Keeping It Wild 2. Most notably, '''trails''' and user-developed sites are under the Undeveloped Quality in WSP and under the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality in WCM.

There also are two additional categories of elements (Special Provisions and Administration) that do not track directly with wilderness character monitoring but do help evaluate the agency's ability to steward the wilderness resource. Additionally, one mandatory element focuses exclusively on wilderness character: Wilderness Character Baseline. In two-point increments, this element tracks the completion of the steps needed to establish a baseline for wilderness character and then evaluates trends over time. This element also includes writing a Wilderness Character Narrative to provide a qualitative and holistic description of the tangible and intangible aspects of an area's wilderness character.

There is a natural and obvious overlap between WSP and WCM. WSP tracks the stewardship actions taken by the agency, whereas WCM monitors the outcomes of those actions, as well as selected outside forces acting on wilderness. Figure 1.1.1 depicts the relationship between WSP and WCM.

[[File:Figure 1.1.1.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.1—Relationship between Wilderness Stewardship Performance and WCM.]]

For example, WSP tracks whether or not a local unit has developed an '''invasive species''' management plan, conducted an inventory, and taken appropriate management actions, whereas WCM evaluates the trend in the acres of nonindigenous plant species. The two work well together to provide a powerful tool to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the Forest Service's wilderness stewardship program.

=== 1.3.2 Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment ===

The Forest Service Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment (IM&A) Strategy (hereafter IM&A Strategy; USDA Forest Service 2013a) is an agency-wide strategy to improve data and information used to support implementation of the agency mission. As a requirement for sound stewardship of natural resources, the IM&A Strategy places an emphasis on high-quality information resulting from improved IM&A activities. Forest Service WCM follows the principles outlined in the IM&A Strategy and is designed to answer critical management questions at the field level, support collaboration with partners, and provide aggregated data to inform decisions at multiple levels.

This technical guide gathers as much data as possible from well-established and scientifically credible national monitoring programs within and outside the Forest Service. Inside the Forest Service, this technical guide draws as much data as is appropriate and possible from Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), Natural Resource Manager (NRM), and terrestrial, aquatic, wildlife, and social monitoring programs that are currently being developed and tested. Data from outside the Forest Service used in this technical guide includes data on air pollutants from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) and data on 303(d) listed streams from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states.

Forest Service inventory and monitoring data are collected by using a variety of methods and systems. A current list of standard protocols and methods for different resource areas is published and maintained on a Forest Service website at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/rig/protocols/master.shtml (also referred to as the Forest Service "master list" of protocols).

Effective collaboration with states, other federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations will result in selection of programs or protocols that reflect general consensus about the most effective methods to meet WCM objectives. Collaboration will also result in more cost effective WCM. Understanding the data provided by these outside monitoring and assessment programs, as well as their basic structures, will minimize duplication of effort and cost and enhance collaboration to monitor and preserve wilderness character.

=== 1.3.3 Laws, Regulations, and Policies ===

Several laws, regulations, and policies relate directly to the protection of wilderness character and to the IM&A of wilderness resources.

==== Relevant Laws ====

While many laws affect the administration of wilderness in NFS lands, the following principal laws bear directly on the mandate to preserve wilderness character and this technical guide. Laws are listed chronologically by the date of enactment:

* The General Mining Act (1872) declared public lands free and open to mineral exploration and purchase, and decreed all lands with valuable mineral deposits open for occupancy. It also established the procedures for mining claims and operations. While mining claims filed prior to wilderness establishment are considered to be valid existing rights, development of these claims affects wilderness character.
* The Antiquities Act (1906), the National Historic Preservation Act (1966), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979) provide the statutory basis for protecting and managing heritage resources on federal lands. Policies derived from these legal directions seek to balance the need for protecting heritage resources with the need for wilderness to be without permanent developments (as directed in the Wilderness Act).
* The Clean Water Act (1948, 1972, 1977, and 1987) establishes guidelines for protecting water quality and a shift to holistic watershed-based protection strategies. Under the watershed approach, equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring '''impaired watersheds'''. Water quality and quantity are vital to natural systems and processes within wilderness.
* The Clean Air Act (1963), as amended, directs the Forest Service to protect Class I air quality standards in certain wildernesses and Class II standards in the remaining wildernesses. It designated all wildernesses larger than 5,000 acres that were in existence as of August 7, 1977, as '''Class I areas'''. These designations (Class I and Class II) indicate the degree of air quality protection for areas already considered clean air areas (i.e., already meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS]).
* The Wilderness Act (1964), Section 2(a) Statement of Policy, requires that wilderness "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, Rohlf and Honnold (1988) and McCloskey (1999) assert that the statement from Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act that "… each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area" gives the primary and affirmative management direction for wilderness. Section 4(b) also states that even when the agency administers the area for other purposes, the agency must also "preserve its wilderness character." The Congressional Record (United States Congress 1983) supports 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."
* The National Environmental Policy Act (1970) requires an analysis of the environmental consequences of proposed management actions on all NFS lands, including management actions taken in wilderness. Analysis of actions within and adjacent to wilderness should consider impacts to wilderness character.
* The Endangered Species Act (1973) provides a program for the conservation of wildlife and plant species that are threatened or endangered with extinction. It establishes specific procedures to determine which plant and animal species are added or removed from protective status. Loss of animal or plant species directly affects the preservation of natural conditions in wilderness.
* The Eastern Wilderness Areas Act (1975) added 16 national forest areas to the NWPS and directed that 17 areas in eastern national forests should be studied such that the Secretary of Agriculture should recommend additions to the NWPS within 5 years. Congress debated the issue of designating severely modified areas as wilderness; they ultimately chose to add such areas to the NWPS and declined to establish a separate "Eastern Wilderness" category of designation.
* The National Forest Management Act (1976), as amended, provides that management direction for wilderness be incorporated into forest plans and sets minimum standards for the content of the plans.
* The Colorado Wilderness Act (1980) includes a specific reference to what are now commonly referred to as the Congressional Grazing Guidelines, and these Guidelines were incorporated into the statutory language of the Arizona Wilderness Act (1990). These guidelines grew out of apparent confusion on the part of agency managers as to how grazing was to be administered in wilderness beyond the general direction in the Wilderness Act's Section 4(d)(4)(2) that it "...shall be permitted to continue..." The guidelines in this Act state that "There shall be no curtailments of grazing in wilderness areas simply because an area is...wilderness." Additional guidance was provided for maintenance and replacement of grazing related improvements.
* The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980) added about 56 million acres to the NWPS in 35 areas administered by the NPS, FWS, and Forest Service. It was the intent of Congress to preserve unrivaled scenic and geological values associated with natural landscapes, and to preserve vast unaltered arctic tundra, boreal forest, and coastal rain forest ecosystems.
* The Information Quality Act (2001) (Data Quality Act, P.L. 100–554, section 515) directs federal agencies to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information they disseminate (including statistical information) to make sure it is useful, clear, and sound.

==== Relevant Regulations ====

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is based on statutory authority and establish requirements and procedures for federal agencies that comply with law. The primary CFRs applicable to NFS wilderness include 36 CFR 293 that sets forth requirements for management of wilderness and primitive areas, and 36 CFR 261.18 that lists those human activities prohibited within a national forest wilderness.

The 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) provides direction for land management planning. Section 1.5.6 of this technical guide describes how WCM can provide valuable information to support the Planning Rule's direction for assessment, plan development/amendment/revision, and monitoring. For example, WCM helps measure "progress toward meeting the desired conditions and objectives in the plan, including for providing multiple use opportunities." (36 CFR 219.12 [a] [5] [vii]).

==== Relevant Policies ====

Forest Service Manual (FSM) chapter 2320 – Wilderness Management, outlines agency policy pursuant to the Wilderness Act. This chapter includes the following policies that directly address the need for preserving wilderness character:

:2320.2 – Objectives, 4. Protect and perpetuate wilderness character and '''public values''' including, but not limited to, opportunities for scientific study, education, '''solitude''', physical and mental challenge and stimulation, inspiration, and '''primitive recreation''' experiences…

:2323.14 – Visitor Management. Plan and manage public use of wilderness in such a manner that preserves the wilderness character of the area.

FSM 1940 establishes the information management framework for all Forest Service IM&A activities. The policy at FSM 1940.3 directs that IM&A activities shall:

# Be coordinated through a national integrated program planning process that addresses information needs related to all agency business requirements;
# Use a standards-based approach and framework for information management and related business operations; and
# Foster and realize opportunities for collaboration, cooperation, and coordination across Forest Service deputy area programs and with agency partners, including the public; local, state, and other federal agencies; and nongovernmental organizations.

FSM 1920 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 provide policy and detailed guidance for land management planning, including conducting assessments and monitoring.

== 1.4 Defining and Monitoring Wilderness Character ==

To ensure that wilderness character is preserved, it must first be defined. The Wilderness Act does not define wilderness character, nor is a definition discussed in the congressional testimony leading to the Act's passage. An interagency wilderness team (Landres et al. 2015) recently defined wilderness character:

:Wilderness character is a holistic concept based on the interaction of (1) '''biophysical environments''' primarily free from modern human manipulation and impact, (2) personal experiences in natural environments relatively free from the encumbrances and signs of modern society, and (3) symbolic meanings of humility, restraint, and interdependence that inspire human connection with nature. Taken together, these tangible and intangible values define wilderness character and distinguish wilderness from all other lands.

Focusing on wilderness character connects on-the-ground wilderness conditions and management actions to the mandates of the Wilderness Act and agency policy to "preserve wilderness character." Connecting conditions and actions to policy helps:

* Improve wilderness stewardship—Wilderness stewardship has traditionally been fraught with uncertainty and subjective opinions about what should, or should not, be done. More consistent, standardized protocols for monitoring wilderness character can help professionalize wilderness stewardship and contribute to agency accountability, transparency, and defensibility.
* Clarify how management decisions and actions influence trends in wilderness character—There are trade-offs in almost all aspects of wilderness stewardship, and evaluating what is gained and what is lost in terms of wilderness character helps staff determine priorities for which actions should and should not be taken in a wilderness. Openly discussing these trade-offs can help agency staff understand how their actions directly or indirectly contribute to preserving wilderness character, which in turn helps inform management decisions.
* Improve communication among staff and with the public about wilderness stewardship—The standard language of WCM allows staff across different resource areas and disciplines to use common terms in discussing wilderness-related projects, needs, conditions, and impacts. This language also allows staff to discuss wilderness stewardship in a more open and transparent manner with the public, which may in turn improve agency defensibility when legal questions regarding the preservation of wilderness character arise.
* Create a legacy of experience and knowledge about wilderness locally and broadly within the agency—Experience and knowledge of a wilderness are often lost with staff turnover, and the baseline understanding of resource conditions may shift over time. Monitoring wilderness character provides a way to assess the changes occurring locally, which in turn builds a legacy about a wilderness, its stewardship, and how wilderness character changes over time.

=== 1.4.1 Five Qualities of Wilderness Character ===

WCM links the conceptual definition of wilderness character to a practical framework of qualities. The qualities of wilderness character are Untrammeled, Natural, Undeveloped, Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation, and Other Features of Value. These qualities are derived from the entire statutory definition of wilderness in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, which expresses congressional intent, both ideal and practical, for the meaning of wilderness and wilderness character (McCloskey 1966, 1999; Ochs 1999; Rohlf and Honnold 1988; Scott 2002). These qualities were first identified by the Forest Service (Landres et al. 2005) and subsequently refined by the agency and interagency teams that developed, implemented, and improved WCM over the past 15 years (BLM 2012; Landres et al. 2008; NPS 2014). Collectively, these qualities represent the primary tangible aspects of wilderness character that link on-the-ground conditions in wilderness and the outcomes of wilderness stewardship to the statutory definition of wilderness.

The WCM strategy uses these five qualities to monitor and assess trend in wilderness character. Several important premises frame the use of these qualities:

* All five qualities are equally important—The land management agencies must implement laws in their entirety, and the Wilderness Act does not state that one sentence or one portion of the text in Section 2(c) is more important than another. For these reasons, all five qualities are of equal importance for the purpose of this WCM strategy. However, as explained in section 1.5.4, in the process of compiling trends across these qualities to derive an estimate of the overall trend in wilderness character, the Untrammeled Quality is used as a tiebreaker, in essence giving this quality greater weight than the others reflecting the prominence and importance of this quality.
* These qualities apply to every wilderness—These qualities apply to all designated wilderness—regardless of size, location, or other unique place-specific attributes. This is because the qualities are based on the legal definition of wilderness and every law designating a wilderness includes specific language that ties it to this definition (Dawson and Hendee 2009). While individual wilderness laws may include specific exceptions or special provisions that apply to the uses and values of particular areas, no federal legislation changes the Wilderness Act's Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness, and no legislation changes the management responsibility of Section 4(b) for "preserving the wilderness character of the area." Special provisions are, by law, allowed in wilderness even though they may allow actions or uses that degrade wilderness character. The only exception to these qualities applying to every wilderness is the Other Features of Value Quality, which may or may not exist within a given wilderness because of the statement in the legal definition that a wilderness "may [emphasis added] also contain...other features."
* These qualities are uniquely expressed within each wilderness—Every wilderness is unique: some are swamps while others are rock and ice; some are immense while others are small; some are very remote while others are surrounded by suburban and urban developments; some are iconic and revered by people who never set foot in them while others are relatively unknown. This uniqueness has two important implications for this WCM strategy: (1) trend in wilderness character can only be based on how wilderness character is changing within an individual wilderness and (2) the state of wilderness character should not be compared among wildernesses because such comparisons are meaningless.
* Wilderness character is more than these qualities—Besides the tangible qualities used for monitoring wilderness character, there also are important intangible aspects of wilderness character that are difficult or impossible to quantify; these are not included in this WCM strategy. These intangible aspects are diverse and may include the immensity of an area and the connection people may feel to nature, the ethical value to society from having areas that are managed with restraint and humility, and the inspirational and psychological benefits that individuals experience in wilderness (Putney and Harmon 2003; Roggenbuck and Driver 2000; Schroeder 2007). These values and benefits of wilderness, as well as other intangible aspects of an area's wilderness character, can be described holistically and qualitatively in a Wilderness Character Narrative (see NPS 2014). Developing a Wilderness Character Narrative is incorporated into the Forest Service Wilderness Program's Wilderness Stewardship Performance measure.
* Management decisions and actions may preserve or degrade these qualities— Wilderness character may be improved, preserved, or degraded by the actions managers choose to take or not take. 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 that are considered the minimum necessary for the administration of the area—such as requiring visitors to use designated campsites, authorizing administrative use of '''motorized equipment''' and '''mechanical transportation''', or taking actions to restore ecological conditions—may diminish certain qualities of wilderness character. Significantly, protecting one aspect of wilderness character may diminish another aspect. For example, a bridge built to protect a stream bank from erosion caused by people or horses also is a recreational development that may diminish the opportunity for people to experience the primitive challenge of crossing the stream. Similarly, the required use of designated campsites to prevent the proliferation of sites and associated impacts on soil and vegetation may also diminish the opportunity for '''unconfined recreation''' and the sense of freedom from the constraints of regulation. Besides trade-offs among the different qualities of wilderness character, the cumulative results of seemingly small decisions and actions may cause a substantial gain or loss of wilderness character over time. With an established framework to discuss these trade-offs within the context of wilderness character and its five qualities, Forest Service line officers and managers have a tool to approach wilderness stewardship with humility, respect, and restraint, ultimately helping them to preserve wilderness character.

== 1.5 Approach to Forest Service Wilderness Character Monitoring ==

This section describes the conceptual framework and key principles used in monitoring wilderness character. The following four successive actions provide the structure for WCM in the Forest Service:

# Compile baseline data for all required measures presented in this technical guide and for any optional measures, or locally developed measures for a specific wilderness.
# Continue compiling data for each measure based on the '''frequency''' recommendation in this technical guide. Determine trend in the measure as improving, stable, or degrading (based on the '''threshold for meaningful change''' and the rules described in section 1.5.4) every 5 years once the baseline has been established.
# Compile the trends (not the data) from each measure within an indicator— using the rules in section 1.5.4—to determine the trend in the indicator. These same rules are used to compile trends in the indicators to determine the trend in the monitoring question, to compile trends in the monitoring questions to determine the trend in the quality, and likewise compile quality trends to determine the overall trend in wilderness character for each wilderness.
# Once the trend in wilderness character is determined for every wilderness, the Forest Service can compile these trends to assess broad-scale agency performance in preserving wilderness character. Similarly, trends from all four wilderness managing agencies can be compiled to assess performance in preserving wilderness character across the NWPS.

=== 1.5.1 Organizational Framework ===

WCM is organized in a hierarchical framework (fig. 1.1.2) that divides wilderness character into successively finer elements. These elements are:

* Qualities—Qualities are the primary elements of wilderness character that link directly to the statutory language of the Wilderness Act. The same set of qualities applies nationwide to all wildernesses. In this technical guide, four qualities: (1) Untrammeled, (2) Natural, (3) Undeveloped, and (4) Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation are all necessary to monitor and assess trend in wilderness character, and each wilderness must report the trend in each of these qualities. Where other features of value exist in a wilderness and are integral to its meaning and significance, a fifth quality, Other Features of Value, must also be reported (see section 6.0).
* Monitoring questions—Monitoring questions capture essential components of each quality that are significantly different from one another and address particular management questions and goals.
* Indicators—Indicators are distinct and important elements under each monitoring question. In nearly all cases, there is more than one indicator under a monitoring question. The trend in all indicators is reported by each wilderness.
* Measures—Measures are the specific elements under each indicator for which data are compiled to assess trend in an indicator. In general, measures are human-caused threats to the indicator: when these threats decrease, wilderness character is improved; when these threats increase, wilderness character is degraded.

[[File:Figure 1.1.2.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.2—Hierarchical relationship of the qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures illustrated with the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality.]]

=== 1.5.2 Key Principles of this Monitoring ===

To implement this monitoring, agency staff need to understand the following key principles:

* WCM will provide credible data that will be directly useful for assessing the outcomes of wilderness stewardship—This technical guide has been developed with substantive input from subject matter experts and designed by on-the-ground wilderness managers and regional and national wilderness staff to provide the most useful information possible for the full range of agency staff involved in wilderness stewardship.
* The WCM baseline, the reference point for evaluating trend in wilderness character, is the time of designation or when WCM is initiated—The first year that data are compiled for all measures forms the WCM baseline and is the reference point against which change in wilderness character is assessed and evaluated over time. Ideally, the WCM baseline year would be the time of wilderness designation. Realistically, however, the '''WCM baseline year''' will likely be the first year that WCM is implemented because existing wildernesses generally lack data from the time of designation for most—or even all— measures. WCM baseline conditions are the starting point for assessing change over time without value judgment as to whether these are good, bad, or desired. For example, if a wilderness had structures or installations at the time of designation, those features would be part of the baseline condition of the wilderness. WCM would show how the Undeveloped Quality of wilderness, which includes structures and installations, changes over time. When the WCM baseline year is established after wilderness designation, '''WCM baseline conditions''' may show improvements or degradations compared to conditions at the time of designation; regardless, these WCM baseline conditions become the de facto reference point for evaluating future trend in wilderness character. If Congress enacts new legislation that adds acreage to an existing wilderness, the WCM baseline year is not reset to the year of this new legislation but remains as is. Likewise, the WCM baseline year would not be reset if a local unit replaces or updates one or more of the measures selected for a wilderness.
* Trend in wilderness character is determined by change within an individual wilderness—Each Forest Service wilderness is unique in its combination of geographic setting, biophysical properties, enabling legislation, and administrative direction; therefore, trend in wilderness character can only be determined by assessing change within a given wilderness. When designated, each wilderness enters the NWPS with its own degree of "intactness" of wilderness character, and the intent of management is to maintain or improve this state of wilderness character over time in the face of modern technology and civilization (fig. 1.1.3). Wilderness character monitoring provides a means for showing whether this state of wilderness character is being preserved or is degrading over time; in figure 1.1.3 the management task is to prevent the orange circle from sliding down the line. The uniqueness of wilderness character in each wilderness means that it is inappropriate and misleading to compare wilderness character from one wilderness to another. This is consistent with national direction provided by the Wilderness Act and supported by Forest Service policy to preserve wilderness character relative to the time an area was designated as wilderness, regardless of the size of the area, ecosystem, proximity to urban areas, or any other attribute of a wilderness.

[[File:Figure 1.1.3.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.3—Relationship between the state of wilderness character and modern technology and civilization.]]

* WCM balances national consistency with local relevance—This technical guide is designed to balance national and local needs for information on trend in wilderness character by using a mix of measures modeled after the approach used in WSP. See section 1.5.3 for details on this approach, which ensures national consistency and the ability to understand trend in wilderness character across different wildernesses for regional and national reporting, while allowing and encouraging local flexibility and relevance within this national structure.
* Trend in wilderness character is reported every 5 years for every wilderness— The Wilderness Act mandates that every wilderness be managed to preserve its wilderness character, so the monitoring described in this technical guide needs to be conducted on every wilderness, not just a sample of wildernesses. For some measures, local data compilation will occur annually, while trend in wilderness character will be assessed and reported to regional and national wilderness program staff every 5 years once the baseline has been established. This 5-year period balances workload with providing needed information at a pace that allows for adaptive management.
* Not all monitoring done in wilderness is WCM—All wilderness units currently conduct some form of monitoring inside wilderness. Typically, this monitoring is for specific resource purposes such as assessing campsite condition, range condition, or '''abundance''' and distribution of specific plant or animal species. Such monitoring provides data that may be used in WCM, but by itself, should not be called WCM. In general, to qualify as WCM, all four of the following requirements must be met:
# The monitoring is conducted in a designated wilderness or in any other area where the Forest Service is congressionally mandated to preserve wilderness character.
# The monitoring includes at least one measure for each of the indicators of the Untrammeled, Natural, Undeveloped, and Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation qualities, as well as the Other Features of Value Quality if appropriate.
# A specific baseline year has been established for the purpose of WCM.
# The monitoring is intended to be a long-term monitoring program that synthesizes the trends in all the measures into an integrated assessment of trend in wilderness character and is conducted periodically as long as the area remains designated as wilderness.

=== 1.5.3 Measures ===

All the measures included in this technical guide were developed to be relevant and cost effective across the agency, because either national data are already available or local units (national forests or grasslands, or ranger districts) should be able to gather or compile the data relatively easily. In this technical guide, detailed monitoring protocols are described for a total of 28 measures (summarized in tables 1.1.1–1.1.5), although not all of these will be used in any one wilderness. For national consistency, all wildernesses are required to select 15 measures, and an additional one or two measures are required for the Other Features of Value Quality if that quality is relevant to a particular wilderness. Some indicators have single measures that apply nationally and are required. Other indicators have multiple potential measures and local units must select at least one, and may choose the one that is most locally relevant. The approach for selecting measures in WCM is similar to that used in WSP. Although the lead local unit for each wilderness will be responsible for the selection of measures, it is important to involve local staff and specialists and engage the support of Supervisors Office, as well as the Regional Office as appropriate. All measures selected by a unit for WCM—including locally developed measures—need to be approved by the local line officer and are used in determining the overall trend in wilderness character.

There are five types of measures.

# Required—The measure is required for all wildernesses.
# Required to Select at Least One—At least one measure must be selected from the set of several potential measures; selections should be based on relevance to a wilderness, and additional measures from the set may also be selected if relevant.
# Required if Relevant—If a wilderness uses the Other Features of Value Quality, one or more of these measures are required to be selected.
# Optional—The measure may be selected if relevant to a wilderness.
# Locally Developed Measures—In addition to the measures identified in this technical guide, the local unit may develop new measures for other attributes considered integral to wilderness character for the individual wilderness. Locally developed measures do not replace any of the required measures. Further, if a local office wants to modify a required measure, this becomes a new locally developed measure that would be used in addition to the required measure.

==== Key Concepts Related to the Measures ====

Following the recommendations in Keeping It Wild 2, all the measures in this technical guide were selected to be useful, simple, and practical. The following key concepts, learned from experience implementing WCM, apply to the measures in this technical guide:

* WCM measures should not replicate those used in other monitoring programs—This technical guide uses existing data whenever and however possible. Importantly, if data already exist in a particular resource monitoring program and are applicable to WCM, those data sources are described for individual measures in part 2 of this technical guide along with guidelines for their use.
* Frequency of data compilation will depend on the measure—The type of measure will determine the frequency of data compilation, analysis, and entry. For example, annual data would be reported for measures that fluctuate annually, such as the number of authorized '''trammeling actions''' in the Untrammeled Quality. Measures with low variability, such as the number of physical structures in the Undeveloped Quality, would only be reported every 5 years.
* Measures that are integral to wilderness character are monitored regardless of managerial jurisdiction—Some resources are integral to wilderness character but are not directly under the management jurisdiction of the Forest Service. For example, visibility is an experiential and ecological attribute of wilderness character but is beyond direct management control. The state of such resources in wilderness can serve as important benchmarks for assessing the magnitude of future anthropogenic impacts such as climate change and regional development, and the consequence of these impacts on wilderness character.
* Management actions and developments may impact more than one quality of wilderness character, but they are measured only in the quality that is most directly affected—As a general principle of the WCM strategy described in this technical guide, actions and developments that affect more than one quality of wilderness character will be measured only in the quality that is most directly impacted by that action or development. For example, an agency-built recreation feature such as a toilet would degrade both the Undeveloped and Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation qualities, but is measured only in the latter quality because of the direct link to recreation. The intent is to avoid double counting actions or developments. Occasionally, separate and distinct impacts from a single management action or development can be measured independently by using different measures, and in such cases, these distinct measures can be included under multiple qualities. For example, a barrier built to prevent nonindigenous fish from moving up a stream has separate and distinct measurable impacts on the Untrammeled, Undeveloped, and Natural qualities. The action to build the barrier would be counted as an '''intentional manipulation''' in the Untrammeled Quality, the presence of the barrier would be counted as an installation in the Undeveloped Quality, and altered stream flow could be counted as a locally developed measure in the Natural Quality. Likewise, wildlife tracking devices such as radio collars or ear tags have separate and distinct impacts on the Untrammeled and Undeveloped qualities. The action of collaring or tagging an animal would be counted as a trammeling action under the Untrammeled Quality, while the presence of the collar or tag as a mobile installation could be counted as a locally developed measure under the Undeveloped Quality.
* Local interpretation of monitoring results is necessary because some measures have opposing impacts on different qualities—Reducing the complex, nuanced, and holistic nature of wilderness character into discrete entities may lead to cases where a single management action has opposing impacts on different qualities. For example, a toilet may be considered necessary to reduce impacts to the natural resources from high amounts of human waste, but this toilet also degrades the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality because it is a recreation feature. Wilderness stewardship commonly involves such trade-offs and monitoring clearly shows the effects of these trade-offs on wilderness character. To clarify interpretation of monitoring results, reporting will include short narrative text by local staff that provides the context to understand seemingly conflicting trends in the data.
* Measures and data sources can change over time—Consistently using the same measures over time is necessary to show trend within a wilderness, but a monitoring program also needs to evolve. Measures and data sources may change because '''data adequacy''' or availability improves, new issues arise, new policy direction requires a change, or new measures are developed that provide better information on some aspect of wilderness character (see section 1.8). Because WCM is relatively new, Forest Service staff may need to balance the benefits of consistency in using existing measures and data sources against the benefits of using new and better measures if they become available even though a new measure may prevent determining trend until sufficient data have accumulated for the new measure. When staff consider making such a change, they should contact their Regional Wilderness Program Manager and the WCM Central Team to discuss the appropriateness and feasibility of this change. In addition, a statistician should be consulted to help determine the appropriate method of analyzing trend in the new measure. When measures or data sources are changed, it is important to document when the change occurred, the reason(s) for this action, and the potential impact on interpreting trend in wilderness character.

==== Data Sources ====

Data used in this technical guide to assess trend in wilderness character for a wilderness come from several sources, generally categorized as:

* Existing data currently residing in a Forest Service corporate database (including NRM), with opportunities for validation and modification.
* Existing data stored in local databases or spreadsheets.
* Existing data from external data sources.
* Professional knowledge.
* Newly compiled data from the field.

All the measures included in this technical guide were developed to reduce the amount of time and effort needed by local units to implement WCM, and existing data are used whenever appropriate and available. Local units, however, may need to compile existing data from the field for a few measures (e.g., tracking the number of authorized trammeling actions in a new NRM application, or assessing the condition of unique features integral to wilderness character). Whenever possible, protocols were developed to use data from national or regional monitoring programs across all appropriate resource disciplines (e.g., air, water, wildlife). For some measures, national staff compile and provide data to the local unit for verification. For other measures, local unit staff compile data from existing databases, administrative records (e.g., minimum requirement decisions), professional knowledge and judgment, or field collection.

'''Legacy or historical data''' may be used whenever available and appropriate for WCM. Legacy data from the local unit are an important reservoir of information, and may be used if data were collected (1) after the area was designated as wilderness or managed to preserve wilderness character and (2) using consistent, credible, and documented protocols that are directly relevant to WCM. Although there is no predetermined "use by" date for historical data, there may sometimes be questions about the appropriateness of using legacy data for a measure. For example, if there is a large gap between when the legacy data were collected and the WCM baseline year, or if legacy data adequacy is substandard or unknown. In some situations, legacy data may actually be better than newer data for use in WCM. Local resource specialists always will determine the appropriateness of using legacy data and their applicability for the measure.

The variety of measures used will require a variety of data and data sources, with corresponding variability in data adequacy. Some measures are based on point data (e.g., installations) or professional estimation (e.g., area of invasive plants), some require assumptions about integration over large areas (e.g., '''watershed condition'''), and some will be biased by the amount of effort (e.g., law enforcement effort for unauthorized trammeling actions). High-quality corporate datasets will be available for some measures, while for others there will only be poor '''data quality''' or no data available. In these latter cases, local professional knowledge may be used to assign a data value as long as the rationale for the judgment is documented. This includes information about the person making the judgment, the type and amount of field experience the judgment is based on, and any other information needed for outside viewers to understand the basis for the professional judgment. Data adequacy ('''data quantity''' and data quality) is always reported for each measure (see section 1.0 in part 2 for more information on deriving and using data adequacy).

==== Measure Baseline ====

The first year that data are compiled for a measure forms the measure baseline, and is the reference point for evaluating the '''trend in a measure''' over time. The measure baseline (i.e., the first year that data are compiled for an individual measure) is distinct from the WCM baseline (i.e., the first year that data are compiled for all measures, as explained above in section 1.5.2). While the '''measure baseline year''' will often be the same as the WCM baseline year, it may predate the WCM baseline year if legacy data are used, or it may post-date the WCM baseline year if the data source or data protocol change. The first value reported for a measure from this measure baseline year is called the measure baseline value.

If new or better data or data sources become available over time, it may be appropriate to adjust the measure baseline value. For example, improved data may result in a recalculation of the miles of system trail from 30 miles to 25 miles, but would not indicate a change on the ground or an improving trend in the measure; instead, 25 miles should become the new measure baseline value. In this situation, the measure baseline value would be reset based on the best available data and future trends in the measure would be assessed against the time of the new measure baseline value. Consult with resource specialists, the Regional Program Manager, and the Wilderness Information Management Steering Team regional representative before resetting an existing measure baseline value to ensure the appropriateness of this action. Guidance on interpreting the impact of resetting the baseline value of one or more measures on WCM baseline conditions will be developed.

==== Data Handling ====

How data are handled for a measure depends on the measure and the data used. Some measures quantify a single attribute (e.g., as a simple count, percentage, or average), and some combine two or more disparate attributes in an index. For example, the measure Acres of Nonindigenous Plant Species monitors a single attribute: acres. In contrast, the measure Index of Nonindigenous Terrestrial Animal Species tracks two attributes—species distribution and estimated impact—which are combined to yield a unit-less '''component score''' for each selected nonindigenous species. The component scores from each species are then added together to yield a unit-less '''index value''' for the measure (e.g., see table 2.3.5 in part 2). In addition, not all indices have component scores; for example, the Index of Encounters combines two attributes—traveling encounters and camp encounters—in a mathematical formula that produces a unit-less index value.

As described above, the frequency of data compilation also varies across measures from annually to once every 5 years. For annual measures that are likely to experience large fluctuations from year to year, such as the measures quantifying the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, and mechanical transport, a 3-year rolling average is calculated from the annual data (e.g., see measures 4.4.1—4.4.3 in part 2). The use of a 3-year rolling average does not obscure actions that degrade wilderness character; rather, this commonly used data handling technique prevents a large and transient increase or decrease in the data from skewing the trend either upwards or downwards.

Regardless of the frequency of data compilation, use of an index or rolling averages, or other data handling procedures, all measures produce a single value for each year of data compilation—the '''measure value'''—that is used to derive the trend in the measure. A measure value may be a single attribute (e.g., the total number, acres, or miles impacted), an index value, or a 3-year average, and may be calculated annually or every 5 years (see table 1.1.6). For example, for the measure Acres of Inholdings, the measure value is the total number of acres. For the measure Index of Visitor Management Restrictions, the measure value is the index value. For the measure Number of Authorized Actions and Persistent Structures Designed to Manipulate Plants, Animals, Pathogens, Soil, Water, or Fire, the measure value is the 3-year average of the annual number of authorized trammeling actions (e.g., if the annual number of trammeling actions was 4 in 2015, 0 in 2016, and 2 in 2017, the measure value for 2017 would be 2 which is the 3-year average of those annual values). For the measure Index of Administrative Authorizations to Use Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport, the measure value is the 3-year average of annual index values (e.g., if the annual index value was 30 in 2015, 100 in 2016, and 50 in 2017, the measure value for 2017 would be 60 which is the 3-year average of those annual index values).

Importantly, as much of the data handling as possible will be done automatically and internally by either NRM, the WCMD, or a central data analyst responsible for data compilation, analysis, and data entry for national measures. For some measures, however, data handling will need to be done by the local unit, as described in the protocol section for such measures in part 2.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.6—The four different derivations of the measure value used to derive the trend in a measure.
|-
! || Frequency !! Example measure !! Measure value
|-
| Single attribute || 5 years || Acres of Inholdings || Total number of acres
|-
| Index || 5 years || Index of Visitor Management Restrictions || Index value
|-
| Single attribute using a 3-year rolling average || 1 year || Number of Authorized Actions and Persistent Structures Designed to Manipulate Plants, Animals, Pathogens, Soil, Water, or Fire || 3-year average of the annual number of authorized trammeling actions
|-
| Index using a 3-year rolling average || 1 year || Index of Administrative Authorizations to Use Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport || 3-year average of the annual index values
|}

=== 1.5.4 Assessing Trends ===

Trend in wilderness character is determined by using nationally consistent rules to compile trends across the measures, indicators, monitoring questions, and qualities to derive an overall trend in wilderness character for each wilderness. The overall trend in wilderness character provides a readily interpretable assessment for wilderness managers at the local unit level to evaluate outcomes of their stewardship. Trends in wilderness character examined across several wildernesses provide information for regional and national wilderness program managers to assess whether agency policies and programs are fulfilling the legal mandate of the Wilderness Act to preserve wilderness character.

There are three primary steps to determining the trend in wilderness character:

# Determining meaningful change in the data and trend in a measure.
# Determining the trend in an indicator, monitoring question, and quality.
# Determining the overall trend in wilderness character.

==== Step 1—Determining Meaningful Change in the Data and Trend in a Measure ====

A meaningful change in each measure is based on either nationally or locally determined thresholds. For each measure included in this technical guide, the threshold for change was determined based on resource specialists' assessments of how much change in the data qualifies as a meaningful change in the measure. Meaningful change in a measure is not tied directly to, or based on, a national forest's land or resource management plan, nor does it represent significant change or impacts as defined by NEPA. Part 2 of this technical guide describe the thresholds for meaningful change in the data for each measure. Local units must determine thresholds for locally developed measures. The trend in each measure is classified into one of three categories: (1) stable (no meaningful change in the data), (2) improving (a meaningful improvement), or (3) degrading (a meaningful degradation).

To determine the trend in a measure for a given year, compare the most recent measure value with the measure baseline value. In some cases, the most recent measure value may not be for the year the trend is reported; for example, air quality data are often published at set intervals which may not align with the trend reporting cycle, and the most recent measure value may be from a few years prior. Also, if legacy data exist for a measure, these data would be included in determining trend for the measure. Table 1.1.7 provides several examples that illustrate how to derive trends by using measure values from different years for different measures. For some measures that have at least five values, trend is not determined by a comparison of two measure values but instead is derived by using the statistical procedure of regression analysis of all available values (see appendix B in Landres et al. 2009 for background on the use of regression, and section 1.0 in part 2 in this technical guide for details on its use). Regression is generally not appropriate for measures that use "any change" (e.g., an increase of one '''dam''') or "categories" (e.g., a change from 10- to 20-percent areal coverage of nonindigenous plants) as thresholds for determining meaningful change. In addition, switching to regression analysis for determining meaningful change once there are five measure values may change the trend in a measure.

[[File:Table 1.1.7.png|thumb|Table 1.1.7—Five hypothetical measures showing how trend is derived based on comparing the most recent measure value with the measure's baseline value.<ref>Circles show that data were compiled for the given year. For each measure, trend is assessed from that measure's baseline year (left black circle) to that measure's most recent year of data compilation (right black circle) either by comparing them directly or by regression analysis. Open circles show additional years that data were collected. The shaded column under 2010 shows the hypothetical WCM baseline year (the first year for which data are available for all measures), with legacy data from 2008 and 2009. The "Trend derived" column shows the set of years used to determine the trend in each measure for reporting in 2015. A dash mark (-) indicates no data for that year.</ref>]]

==== Step 2—Determining Trend in an Indicator, Monitoring Question, and Quality ====

Once trends have been determined for all the measures, use the following rules to derive the trend in an indicator:

* All the trends in the measures of one indicator are combined (including trends from locally developed, optional, and all other types of measures), with each improving-trending measure offsetting each degrading-trending measure.
* The overall trend in the indicator is improving if there are more improving- than degrading-trending measures, and the overall trend is degrading if there are more degrading- than improving-trending measures (regardless of the number of stable measures).
* If there are an equal number of improving- and degrading-trending measures, the overall trend in the indicator is referred to as an offsetting stable trend.
* If all the measures are stable, the trend in the indicator is also stable. By applying the same rules, the resulting trends in the indicators are then used to derive the trends in the monitoring questions, and likewise through each of the qualities (see table 1.1.8). These trends are illustrated by using arrows—a downward arrow showing a degrading trend, an upward arrow showing an improving trend, a horizontal double-headed arrow showing a stable trend, and a vertical double-headed arrow showing an '''offsetting stable trend'''. Throughout this technical guide, for brevity, the examples do not include every measure for an indicator, and in some cases the name of the measure has been abbreviated.

[[File:Table 1.1.8.png|thumb|Table 1.1.8—An example showing how trends in the qualities are derived from trends in the measures, indicators, and monitoring questions.]]

==== Step 3—Determining the Overall Trend in Wilderness Character ====

Trend in wilderness character is derived by combining the trends from all the qualities. The Wilderness Act does not state that any one aspect of the Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness is more or less important than another, so this WCM strategy assumes that all qualities are equally important, with one exception described below for the Untrammeled Quality. This assumption of equal importance includes the Other Features of Value Quality because even though such features may or may not be present in a wilderness, the Wilderness Act provides no reason to consider this quality (when present) more or less important than the other qualities.

Once trends in each quality have been determined, derive the overall trend in wilderness character by following the same four rules described previously in step 2. However, if there are an equal number of improving- and degrading-trending qualities, an additional rule is applied as a tiebreaker:

* If there are an equal number of improving- and degrading-trending qualities, the trend in the Untrammeled Quality determines the overall trend in wilderness character.

The following three reasons support giving extra weight to the Untrammeled Quality in a tiebreaker situation:

# The statutory definition of wilderness describes "untrammeled" in a separate sentence.
# The importance of untrammeled as the essence of wilderness has a long history in wilderness literature.
# No other land designations are, by law, to be kept untrammeled.

These three factors serve to make the Untrammeled Quality "first among equals," an idea supported by a recent legal review conducted by Long and Biber (2014). Tables 1.1.9 to 1.1.12 apply these rules to four examples to illustrate how the trends in the five qualities are aggregated to assess the overall trend in wilderness character. For brevity, the measures, indicators, and monitoring questions used to determine the trend in each quality are not shown in these tables. In table 1.1.12 that shows how the Untrammeled Quality functions as a tiebreaker in determining overall trend in wilderness character, the trends in the other qualities offset one another so the overall trend in wilderness character is offsetting-stable, rather than the simple stable trend in the Untrammeled Quality.

[[File:Table 1.1.9.png|thumb|Table 1.1.9—Two qualities with an improving trend, one quality with a degrading trend.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.10.png|thumb|Table 1.1.10—One quality with an improving trend, two qualities with a degrading trend.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.11.png|thumb|Table 1.1.11—Two qualities with an improving trend, two qualities with a degrading trend; Untrammeled Quality as "tiebreaker."]]

[[File:Table 1.1.12.png|thumb|Table 1.1.12—Two qualities with an improving trend, two qualities with a degrading trend; Untrammeled Quality as "tiebreaker."]]

==== Flexibility and Limitations in Assessing Trend ====

The approach to deriving an overall trend in wilderness character has several important qualifications. First, the approach of compiling trends, and not the data, allows disparate types of data to be used for the measures. This in turn allows different wildernesses to use a single, nationally consistent approach to assessing trends in wilderness character across the entire NWPS (see section 1.5.5 for resulting analyses and reports that can be derived from this consistent approach). Second, the different number of monitoring questions, indicators, and measures within each quality does not affect the overall trend in wilderness character because each quality is represented by a single trend. Third, this hierarchical approach provides different levels of information for the various needs of different audiences. For example, local unit managers need detailed information on specific measures and indicators, while regional and national staff need broader trend information.

A final qualification is that the approach purposefully only shows the change that is occurring and not the magnitude of that change in the indicators, monitoring questions, qualities, and wilderness character. Magnitude is not included because it would:

* Imply a greater level of precision than is possible in this national monitoring strategy.
* Require consistency across wildernesses and agencies in the number and types of measures that is not possible given the variability within the NWPS.
* Make outcomes more vulnerable to gaming or manipulation (whereas this WCM strategy's conservative approach counts any declining trend as a fully, not partially, declining trend).
* Not provide any additional resources to local managers who already have the detailed information they need from the data and trends in the measures.

=== 1.5.5 Reporting ===

The Forest Service anticipates that three types of standardized monitoring reports will be required, each designed for a different audience: (1) individual wilderness, (2) regional, and (3) national reports. Collectively, these monitoring reports will help local managers understand how wilderness character is changing and promote understanding of larger regional and national trends in agency wilderness stewardship. Once WCM is fully implemented by the Forest Service, the frequency of these reports will be determined, and will likely be annually or biennially for the local report (to maintain ongoing interest and support for local WCM) and once every 5 years for the regional and national reports. Standard reports will be generated by the interagency WCMD from measures and data entered for each wilderness, with an option for additional user-added qualitative information in the reports.

The intent of the reports outlined in this section is to promote communication and enable discussion of wilderness stewardship at the local unit level and among regional and national wilderness program managers within the Forest Service, key national non-governmental partners, and congressional staff. Standardized reporting formats at different levels provide the ability to compare information across the agency, within and among Forest Service regions, and different wildernesses on a local unit. For reporting purposes, "preserving wilderness character" is defined by a trend in wilderness character that is either stable or improving.

All three levels of reporting will include a short narrative (different from the Wilderness Character Narrative required under the WSP Wilderness Character Baseline element) that provides information about conditions, circumstances, and context that affect the interpretation and use of the trends reported. The short narrative gives local, and regional and national program managers the opportunity to add qualitative information and insights from their professional judgment to complement and help interpret the data and trends. For example, this short narrative is the appropriate place to describe the effects of climate change or an intense fire season on the Natural Quality and on the other qualities of wilderness character. The short narrative becomes a valuable part of the legacy information passed to future wilderness managers and helps ensure consistency in reporting over time. The short narrative also provides insight about the Forest Service WCM that feeds into the change management process.

==== Individual Wilderness Report ====

The purpose of the Individual Wilderness Report is to promote understanding of wilderness conditions and facilitate discussion among local staff about preserving wilderness character. The standardized reporting format will show the trend in wilderness character for a specific wilderness, as well as trends in the qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures. This report provides a level of detail suitable for communicating monitoring results with line officers and potentially with interested citizens, and will assist managers with planning and developing informed management actions. Highlights from the Individual Wilderness Report could also be included in monitoring and evaluation reports, as required by planning regulations. Individual Wilderness Reports will likely be produced annually or biennially.

Besides the formal Individual Wilderness Report, local units also will generate a "data dump" of all the information entered into the WCMD for use by the local manager to compare current conditions against thresholds for meaningful change. This data dump would not be used for upward reporting or communicating results to the public, but instead would provide a detailed reservoir of information for local staff. Refer to figures 1.1.4 through 1.1.9 and table 1.1.13 for the suggested format for the Individual Wilderness Report.

[[File:Figure 1.1.4.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.4—Summary page for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.13.png|thumb|Table 1.1.13—Summary of trends in the measures, indicators, monitoring questions, qualities, and wilderness character overall for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.5.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.5—Summary of the trend in the Untrammeled Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.6.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.6—Summary of the trend in the Natural Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.7.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.7—Summary of the trend in the Undeveloped Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.8.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.8—Summary of the trend in the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.9.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.9—Summary of the trend in the Other Features of Value Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

==== Regional Report ====

The Regional Report is intended to promote communication and discussion of monitoring results among the regional wilderness program managers. A standardized reporting format will show trends in wilderness character and trends in the qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures included in this technical guide for all wildernesses in a region. A map may also be produced showing the percentage of wildernesses within each region that are preserving wilderness character. This report provides the level of detail regional wilderness program managers need to help with accountability for wilderness stewardship and policy review.

Regional Reports will likely be produced every 5 years with optional periodic progress reports. Table 1.1.14 is an example that summarizes trends in wilderness character for the 13 wildernesses for which the Northern Region (Region 1) has the lead responsibility. Figures 1.1.10a and 1.1.10b are examples that summarize the trend in the Undeveloped Quality for the Northern Region (for brevity, the other qualities are not presented).

[[File:Table 1.1.14.pdf.png|thumb|Table 1.1.14—An example summary of the trends in wilderness character across the 13 wildernesses for which the Northern Region has the lead responsibility.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.10a.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.10a—An example summary of the trends in the Undeveloped Quality across the 13 wildernesses for which the Northern Region has the lead responsibility.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.10b.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.10b—An example short narrative summary of the trends in the Undeveloped Quality across the 13 wildernesses for which the Northern Region has the lead responsibility.]]

==== National Report ====

The purpose of the National Report is to promote communication and allow discussion of monitoring results with line officers and program managers to inform policy review and improve wilderness stewardship. The National Report will consist of two parts: (1) a summary of national trends in wilderness character and each of the five qualities suitable for briefings to the National Leadership Team and similar audiences, and (2) a summary of regional trends in wilderness character. Together, these summaries provide the level of detail national and regional wilderness program managers need to assist with accountability for wilderness stewardship and policy review.

The National Report will likely be produced on a 5-year cycle with annual progress reports. Producing an annual progress report will allow national compilation and synthesis work to be spread evenly year to year rather than increasing workloads once every 5 years. Additionally, annual progress reports will provide a consistent flow of information about trends in wilderness character to leaders in the wilderness program, who can use the reports to inform program decisions.

Until all NFS wildernesses implement this Forest Service WCM strategy and have sufficient data to derive trends, producing biennial national progress reports are recommended. These updates will discuss what is happening with WCM, communicate any significant findings from data entered to date, share lessons learned from monitoring done to date, and provide information on what will occur in the next year.

[[File:Figure 1.1.11.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.11—An example summary of the national trends in wilderness character across all 445 NFS wildernesses.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.12.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.12—An example summary of the regional trends in wilderness character across the nine regions of the Forest Service.]]

=== 1.5.6 Using the Results in Forest Service Planning and Administration ===

The results of WCM can provide useful information for planning and decision making, including forest-level planning, project-level planning and decisions, and for administrative purposes at the national, regional, or local level.

==== Forest Planning ====

Wilderness management direction is prepared as a part of the forest planning process as required by 36 CFR Part 219 and FSM 1922. Forest planning also complies with NEPA (FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15).

The 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) was developed to ensure that plans are consistent with and complement existing, related agency policies that guide management of resources on NFS lands, such as the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF; USDA Forest Service 2011c) and the agency's Sustainable Recreation Framework (2010). The three primary planning phases described in the Planning Rule include (1) assessment, (2) plan development/amendment/revision, and (3) monitoring.

Information collected from WCM can contribute to each of the planning framework's phases. WCM provides feedback for the planning cycle by testing relevant assumptions, assessing relevant conditions over time, and measuring management effectiveness. WCM can be an important component of forest plan monitoring programs. Based on the evaluation of the information gathered through monitoring, the responsible official can determine the following:

* Whether a change to a local unit's land management plan may be needed,
* Whether a change to management activities may be needed; or
* Whether an assessment may be needed to determine if there is a preliminary need to change a land management plan.

==== Project or Activity Decisions ====

Trend information over five or more years, and information that transcends the time individual wilderness managers are at a wilderness, will be especially powerful in efforts to preserve wilderness character. For example, being able to compare the current number and type of actions taken to manipulate vegetation to the number and type of actions that will be taken 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, comparing the number and development level of '''buildings''', '''trails''', dams, and other physical developments that exist today to the number and development level that will exist 10 years or more from now is a valuable indicator about whether evidence of human occupation and modification is increasing or decreasing. Such trend information can evaluate the effectiveness of existing stewardship programs and help prioritize what actions can be taken, or not taken, to most improve wilderness character.

==== Administrative Purposes ====

At regional and national levels, information derived from WCM has the following two primary uses:

# Improves agency accountability (performance measurement)—Ultimately, once trends in wilderness character are known, a new performance measure will be instituted in the Forest Service to track the number of wildernesses with wilderness character that is stable or improving. This measure will be designed to evaluate only those measures over which the agency has direct control, such as management actions that trammel wilderness and not those where the agency's ability to influence is less certain, such as changes in nitrogen (N) deposition levels. This performance measure combined with the results of WSP will help evaluate the effectiveness of the agency's wilderness stewardship program. Regional and national reports (see section 1.5.5) will show the number or percentage of wildernesses in which the trend in wilderness character is preserved compared to the number or percentage in which the trend in wilderness character is degrading. These reports will also show which of the five qualities regionally and nationally are contributing to the degradation of 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.
# Improves agency policy review and oversight to support wilderness stewardship needs at the local level—Information from WCM can help evaluate whether current wilderness management policy is fulfilling the mandate of the Wilderness Act 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 inconsistent implementation of existing policies or to existing policies that are implemented consistently, 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.

== 1.6 Roles and Responsibilities ==

Forest Service responsibilities for resource inventory and monitoring are outlined in FSM 1940.04. The following subsections describe the specific roles and responsibilities for monitoring and evaluation of wilderness character. Existing Forest Service personnel typically fulfill these roles and responsibilities.

Roles and responsibilities for data compilation vary depending upon the measure. Tables 1.1.15–1.1.19 identify the measure type, frequency of data compilation for the measure, and whether data compilation and analysis for measures occurs at the national level, local level, or a combination of both (see also Appendix 1 for a summary of local and national tasks for all measures).

[[File:Table 1.1.15.png|thumb|Table 1.1.15—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Untrammeled Quality.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.16.png|thumb|Table 1.1.16—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Natural Quality.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.17.png|thumb|Table 1.1.17—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Undeveloped Quality.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.18.png|thumb|Table 1.1.18—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.19.png|thumb|Table 1.1.19—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Other Features of Value Quality.]]

=== 1.6.1 National ===

The National Wilderness Program Leader, WCM Program Manager, and associated staff members are responsible for implementing WCM across all Forest Service wildernesses. They are also responsible for working with the NPS, FWS, and BLM to provide a comprehensive WCM program for the entire NWPS. Specific responsibilities include:

* Leadership—Develop and oversee the Forest Service WCM program. Support and evaluate implementation at the regional and forest levels. Ensure WCM needs are met by allocating available funding and establishing and supporting the centralized staffing necessary for implementation (e.g., a central data analyst position). Collaborate with the other wilderness managing agencies to facilitate interagency WCM.
* Data management—Understand local versus national responsibilities for data collection and compilation for all measures included in this technical guide. Ensure compliance with '''quality assurance''' and '''quality control''' (QA/QC) and metadata standards (see sections 1.7.5 and 1.7.1, respectively). Support regions by providing oversight and training as necessary. Conduct national data collection and compilation and provide results to regional offices or local units (national data collection and compilation will likely be completed by a central data analyst employed at the national level). Coordinate with broader agency, interagency, and national programs as needed. Periodically assess data adequacy across all regions. Collaborate with NRM staff to develop and maintain corporate databases and information standards that integrate WCM information (see section 1.7.2). Collaborate with the WCMD Steering Team to ensure Forest Service WCM needs are met (see section 1.7.3).
* Evaluation and response—Assess national trends in wilderness character every 5 years. Prepare a National Report every 5 years as well as annual updates (see section 1.5.5). Evaluate national trend results and determine appropriate management and monitoring responses. Use WCM data and trend results appropriately to inform national Forest Service planning and assessments. Provide guidance to regions and forests regarding the suitability of results, future needs and priorities, and opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of WCM and wilderness stewardship. Share trend results with the other federal wilderness managing agencies and evaluate trends in wilderness character across the entire NWPS. Use NWPS trend results appropriately to inform interagency wilderness direction, policies, and guidance. Assess Forest Service protocols annually and update as needed in response to results and experiences at the national, regional, and forest levels (see section 1.8.1). Conduct major change management processes every 5 years (see section 1.8.2).

=== 1.6.2 Regional ===

Each region is responsible for implementing WCM across all wildernesses under their jurisdiction. Specific responsibilities for Regional Wilderness Program Managers and regional directors with responsibility for resources in wilderness include:

* Leadership—Identify who will lead the monitoring effort for all wildernesses within a region. Provide support for implementation at the forest and wilderness level. Review measure selections for each wilderness and facilitate development of additional local measures if necessary. Coordinate with adjoining regions that co-manage a wilderness. Ensure WCM needs are met by assessing the availability of wilderness management specialists and allocating available funding.
* Data management—Understand local versus national responsibilities for data collection and compilation for all selected measures. Coordinate and facilitate data collection and compilation across the region, including local data needs, any multi-unit or regional data needs, and the retrieval of national data. Coordinate with other federal, state, and non-governmental programs as needed. Conduct periodic reviews to assess data adequacy. Oversee and facilitate data entry in the appropriate databases, including NRM and the WCMD (see sections 1.7.2 and 1.7.3, respectively). Provide support at the regional level to maintain NRM code tables so local units can enter data appropriately.
* Evaluation and response—Assess regional trends in wilderness character every 5 years and prepare Regional Reports (see section 1.5.5). Evaluate regional trend results and determine appropriate management and monitoring responses. Use WCM data and trend results appropriately to inform regional planning, assessments, and management activities. Coordinate with local units to periodically evaluate the need for additional measures or changes to existing measures. Assist national staff in assessing protocols, technical guides, and directives annually (see section 1.8.1). Assist national staff in interpreting trend results for a region. Participate in future activities related to WCM.

=== 1.6.3 National Forests and Grasslands ===

Each wilderness managed by the Forest Service has a single national forest or grassland identified as lead for that wilderness. Lead forests or grasslands are responsible for implementing WCM across all wildernesses under their jurisdiction. Specific responsibilities include:

* Leadership—Identify who will lead the monitoring effort for each wilderness. Coordinate with all other units and agencies that co-manage a wilderness. Select required and optional measures for monitoring each wilderness, and develop additional local measures if necessary (measure selection will likely be completed by the forest staff officer with wilderness responsibilities, with assistance from relevant interdisciplinary personnel and line officers). Ensure that funding is allocated to complete WCM.
* Data management—Understand local versus national responsibilities for data collection and compilation for all selected measures. Conduct local data collection and compilation, and retrieve nationally collected and compiled data when necessary. Participate in multi-unit or regionally coordinated data collection and compilation. Ensure that all data meet QA/QC standards. Enter data for all selected measures into the appropriate databases, such as NRM and the WCMD (see sections 1.7.2 and 1.7.3, respectively).
* Evaluation and response—Assess trends in wilderness character every 5 years for each wilderness. Prepare an Individual Wilderness Report and a local "data dump" report annually or biennially (see section 1.5.5). Evaluate trend results and determine appropriate management and monitoring responses. Use WCM data and trend results appropriately in forest planning, assessments, and project implementation. Conduct periodic reviews to evaluate the need for additional measures or changes to existing measures. Assist regional and national staff in interpreting trend results for a wilderness.

== 1.7 Data Management ==

The WCM strategy is built upon the premise of using existing data whenever appropriate and available to establish a baseline for each measure and evaluate trends over time. This WCM strategy is designed to reduce workload impact on local staff to the maximum degree possible (see figure 1.1.13—Relationship among various databases used for WCM).

[[File:Figure 1.1.13.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.13—Relationship among various databases used for WCM.]]

==== Local Data ====

Local data may consist of data already entered in NRM, data stored in local databases or spreadsheets, existing data collection, or data derived from local knowledge or professional judgment. Some of the data used in this technical guide are already in the NRM-Wilderness application as part of annual program reporting, such as wilderness regulations used to track unconfined recreation and '''administrative authorizations''' to use motorized equipment or mechanical transport.

Forest Service program areas, other than the Wilderness Program, may have a data steward for other data that are needed to support certain measures. For example, facility engineers are responsible for maintaining records about roads and buildings in NRM. This technical guide takes advantage of these types of existing data sources, however, in many cases local data need to be linked to the appropriate wilderness to support WCM analysis (e.g., tabular or spatial analysis). This technical guide also acknowledges that local data can be of varying quality, and WCM provides an opportunity to update national corporate datasets with current data.

==== National Data ====

National data may consist of data from national corporate datasets or external datasets. These will be accessed by a central data analyst to both reduce workload impact on the field and for efficiencies of scale. Other datasets require Geographic Information System (GIS) skills and these measures will typically be analyzed at the national or regional level.

=== 1.7.1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Metadata ===

The data used for WCM have metadata. Metadata are information about data— its history and changes—that provide the necessary context for understanding, trusting, and correctly using those data. From defining data attributes and accuracy to providing information about map projection and coordinate systems, metadata provide answers to many users' questions. Metadata also help people find the data they need, determine how best to use the data, and avoid duplication of effort. The Forest Service Metadata Users Guide (http://www.fs.fed.us/gac/metadata/) is designed to help users with this information.

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) standards should be implemented when creating and managing metadata. The Forest Service standards for archiving and managing '''FGDC compliant metadata''' should conform to retention and disposal requirements and schedules described in FSH 6209.11 and to direction issued by the FGDC Historical Records Working Group of the National Archives and Records Administration.

=== 1.7.2 Natural Resource Manager ===

Approximately half of the measures in this technical guide will use NRM to access relevant data. Some of the measures will access data currently stored in NRM. To pull and analyze the appropriate data, these measures may require the development of standardized reports, user views, or other extraction utilities. For other measures, the necessary datasets are not presently stored in NRM but may be in the future. Data entry screens and other supporting modules would need to be developed to store and analyze data for any additional measures. These would be developed in the new NRM-WCM application.

The Forest Service designed NRM applications to meet the unique business requirements of the agency, however, the applications follow standards of the FGDC and are therefore compatible in metadata standards with data compiled by other federal agencies.

=== 1.7.3 Interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring Database ===

All four wilderness managing agencies have contributed to the development of an interagency WCMD to serve as a central portal for data entry, data storage, data analysis, and trend reporting (Adams et al. 2012). The WCMD (available at https://wc.wilderness.net/) is hosted on the Wilderness Connect website with permissioned access for agency and non-agency personnel. Guidance for accessing and using the WCMD will be released after WCM is formally implemented in the Forest Service in 2018.

In the WCMD, local users for each wilderness will select a single set of measures for which data can be entered. The required Forest Service measures described in this technical guide will be built into the WCMD and users will have the option of adding locally developed measures for each wilderness. Local users or a central data analyst at the national level will enter measure values based on the frequency of data compilation for each measure. For some measures, the WCMD will be able to calculate measure values from supporting data (e.g., calculating 3-year rolling averages from annual data). Once enough data have been entered to derive trends in all selected measures, the WCMD will determine the trends in the measures, indicators, monitoring questions, qualities, and overall wilderness character for each wilderness by using the assigned thresholds for meaningful change (see section 1.5.4). The WCMD will generate the Individual Wilderness Reports and "data dumps," Regional Reports, and National Report (section 1.5.5), and an Interagency Report for reporting trends in wilderness character across the entire NWPS.

=== 1.7.4 Data Stewardship ===

Data stewardship is the oversight and management of data for the program area. This oversight is brought to bear throughout the data lifecycle (FGDC 2010) from defining information needs and data requirements, to using data to support the agency mission. It includes many aspects of the roles discussed in section 1.6 for data acquisition, data management, and evaluation and response, with an emphasis on taking the responsibility to ensure that data are consistent with USDA requirements for Information Quality Activities as described by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (http://www.ocio.usda.gov/policy-directives-records-forms/informationquality-activities).

=== 1.7.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ===

Forest Service WCM fulfills data QA/QC as mandated by the Data Quality Act, USDA, and Forest Service policy. Oversight of data collection, transfer, and accuracy is essential to effective management and occurs throughout the monitoring process.

QA/QC processes are defined in FSM 1940 as follows:

* Quality assurance—The total integrated program for ensuring that the uncertainties inherent in inventory and monitoring data are known and do not exceed acceptable magnitudes, within a stated level of confidence. QA encompasses the plans, specifications, and policies affecting the collection, processing, and reporting of data. It is the system of activities designed to provide officials with independent assurance that QC is implemented effectively and uniformly throughout the inventory and monitoring programs (USDA Forest Service 2009).
* Quality control—The routine application of prescribed field and office procedures to reduce random and systematic errors and ensure that data are generated within known and acceptable performance limits. QC involves using qualified personnel, using reliable equipment and supplies, training personnel, and strictly adhering to service-wide standard operating procedures for tasks such as information needs assessments, establishment of standards and methods, data collection, data processing, mapping, analysis, and dissemination. (USDA Forest Service 2009).

== 1.8 Change Management ==

Information and protocols presented in this technical guide are anticipated to change and improve over time. Change may be necessary if new agency requirements are developed such as a new law or a new management issue that requires change in this monitoring. Changes may also be necessary when attributes tracked in a dataset are modified, resulting in changes that would be needed to the applicable measure protocols. Changes in measures or protocols also may be necessary if the conceptual understanding about wilderness character changes.

Change management is a comprehensive process that begins with the identification of a need for change and ends with the resolution of that request. A change management process is necessary in all monitoring programs, and is especially important for the protocols described in this technical guide because WCM has not been fully implemented across the NFS and adjustments are anticipated as implementation proceeds. A viable change management process is needed to ensure that the protocols reflect contemporary thinking about wilderness character, that lessons learned during implementation are used to improve the protocols, and that the protocols use all available datasets.

Minor and major changes are described separately because they involve considerably different processes. Submit any proposals for change to the WCM Central Team for review.

=== 1.8.1 Minor Change Management Process ===

The minor change management process will likely be conducted every year and includes:

* Modification of existing measures, necessitated by:
** Experience gained during the practical implementation of the monitoring protocol;
** Availability of data sources for existing measures;
** New research or other perspectives about what constitutes wilderness character; and
** Need for some level of consistency with the other NWPS agencies.
* Changes to the WCM process and timeline.
* Changes to the NRM-WCM application or the online interagency WCMD. For minor changes that occur with Forest Service implementation of WCM, no consultation with the other agencies is needed.

=== 1.8.2 Major Change Management Process ===

The major change management process will likely be conducted every 5 years and is more comprehensive than the minor change process. The major change process includes:

* Reviewing the appropriateness of the qualities of wilderness character from the statutory definition of wilderness, as well as the interagency monitoring questions and indicators recommended in Keeping It Wild 2.
* Deleting or adding measures, especially if they are required.
* Reviewing the appropriateness of the data analysis and methods for assessing trend in wilderness character.

Details of the major change management process have not yet been developed. This WCM strategy needs to be reviewed and re-evaluated by those directly associated with the protocols including agency staff at all administrative levels and partners who have been involved with WCM. This process would likely entail conducting a workshop and developing a work plan for the resolution of issues and concerns identified by participants. These changes also need to be coordinated with the Interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring Committee as well as with the WCMD Steering Team.

=== 1.8.3 Coordinating Change with Corporate Data Systems ===

NRM applications also have a change management process that may not be fully synchronized with updates to this technical guide. Therefore, the rate of change in this technical guide should be fully coordinated with NRM through the program of work proposal process to ensure desired NRM applications are consistent with any technical guide changes. The Forest Service GIS Data Dictionary also includes a change management process to ensure that changes will meet the business needs of the agency and reduce the impacts to support systems. This process, however, may not be synchronized with future updates to this technical guide. As a result, changes in GIS standards may not be consistent with the current version of this technical guide and may not be consistent with NRM applications.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

2023-03-05T20:16:13Z

Admin:

Untrammeled Quality

2023-03-05T20:15:49Z

Admin:

Untrammeled Quality

2023-03-05T19:54:13Z

Admin:

Abbreviations and Acronyms

2023-03-05T19:53:45Z

Admin:

Wilderness Character Monitoring in the Forest Service

2023-03-05T19:53:07Z

Admin:

[[Category:USFS]]
<div class="noautonum" style="float:right;width:30%;margin-left:15px;">
<div class="toc">
<div class="center">[[USFS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide]]</div>
[[File:Wilderness character monitoring technical guide - rmrs gtr406.pdf.png|200px|thumb|center]]
<div class="center">
== 1 {{ PAGENAME }} ==
</div>
</div>
<br>
__TOC__
</div>

The Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), manages 154 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and 1 national prairie. These 193 million acres (78 million hectares) of federal land in the National Forest System (NFS) represent a broad diversity of landscapes and ecosystems across the nation. Since the Wilderness Act of 1964 was signed into law, Congress has designated 37 million acres (approximately 15 million hectares) of NFS land as '''wilderness'''<ref>Terms and phrases in bold text are defined in the glossary at the end of part 2 of this technical guide.</ref>, about 19 percent of all the land managed by the Forest Service.

The central mandate of the Wilderness Act is to preserve '''wilderness character'''. This affirmative legal obligation applies to all federal wildernesses across the entire National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), including all Forest Service wildernesses. This legal mandate and Forest Service wilderness policy (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2330) raise the simple question: are we preserving wilderness character?

The Forest Service can answer this question only by monitoring and assessing the '''trend in wilderness character''' over time. This technical guide provides the Forest Service a strategy and methodology for monitoring trends in wilderness character that is consistent with the revised interagency '''wilderness character monitoring''' (WCM) strategy published in Keeping It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System (hereafter, Keeping It Wild 2; Landres et al. 2015) and endorsed in 2015 by the Interagency Wilderness Policy Council. The '''protocols''' in this technical guide are designed to be practical and cost effective, and allow the Forest Service to demonstrate accountability for the legal and policy mandates to preserve wilderness character. This updated technical guide supersedes the 2009 Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character (Landres et al. 2009) and incorporates the '''best available scientific information''' and best practices for monitoring wilderness character.

For wilderness managers and line officers, part 1 of this technical guide provides extensive background information on wilderness character and the Forest Service approach to monitoring and assessing trends in wilderness character. Part 2 of this guide provides detailed protocols for gathering, analyzing, and interpreting WCM data. This technical guide includes the following major sections:

* Part 1 describes essential concepts for understanding the Forest Service nationwide approach to monitoring and assessing trends in wilderness character, defines each of the five qualities of wilderness character (Untrammeled, Natural, Undeveloped, Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation, and Other Features of Value) and briefly describes each of the measures used in this monitoring along with their relevance to Forest Service WCM. Part 1 is the what and the why of the Forest Service approach to WCM.
* Part 2 describes how this Forest Service WCM will be implemented, with an overview of implementation concepts followed by detailed, step-by-step guidance for every measure in all five qualities.
* Appendices 1 and 2 provide a summary of all the key attributes for implementing WCM for every measure in table form and a description of measures that were considered but not used, respectively.

== 1.1 Purpose and Scope ==

The purpose of this technical guide is to provide Forest Service protocols on how to monitor and assess trends in wilderness character. This monitoring will provide information to show how agency stewardship makes a difference on the ground, and ensure accountability for upholding the legal and policy mandates of preserving wilderness character (Landres et al. 2012). This monitoring will provide information to help answer two key questions about the outcomes of '''wilderness stewardship''':

# How is agency stewardship affecting wilderness character?
# Is wilderness character changing over time within a wilderness and across all wildernesses administered by the Forest Service? If so, how and why is it changing?

This technical guide provides detailed protocols for implementing WCM on NFS lands. These protocols establish consistency in WCM across NFS units and with the other wilderness management agencies, increase the credibility of the information collected, and improve the efficiency of the Forest Service WCM. This national consistency allows for determining the trend in wilderness character in a single wilderness, as well as the collective trend in wilderness character across all NFS wildernesses.

The Forest Service WCM strategy is currently being implemented across the NFS and adjustments are anticipated in the future as a result of these activities. For this reason, this technical guide and appendices are being published online to allow the Forest Service to update content that reflects changes or improvements to information and protocols that occur during implementation (e.g., changes in roles and responsibilities for monitoring and evaluating WCM described in section 1.6 or adjustments to the '''change management process''' described in section 1.8). The target audience for this guide is local Forest Service unit (national forest or grassland, or ranger district) staff charged with managing wilderness consistent with agency policy; the guide is intended to help them implement WCM. Information derived from this monitoring may also be of use to regional and national staff charged with developing wilderness policy and assessing its effectiveness towards meeting the Wilderness Act's legal mandate to preserve wilderness character. The results of this monitoring will provide both groups information to improve wilderness stewardship and wilderness policy.

Line officers may use WCM information to assess the effects of past management decisions on wilderness character and to help inform decisions about future actions. Monitoring by itself does not provide guidance for what to do if the trend in wilderness character is degrading; instead, monitoring can signal the need for follow-up actions or decisions, and can ensure that line officers understand the trade-offs associated with actions or decisions.

Attributes that are integral to the area's wilderness character, but that are not directly under the jurisdiction of managers, also are included in this monitoring. An example of such an attribute would be air quality. Monitoring these attributes provides a more comprehensive understanding of how wilderness character is changing over time and whether those changes are due to factors within or beyond the agency's jurisdiction. Such a holistic view of wilderness character informs our understanding of broad-scale, regional, and cumulative impacts to wilderness character.

The scope of this technical guide is intentionally limited in several ways because wilderness character is a complex concept with tangible, intangible, ethical, societal, legal, personal, local, and national dimensions. From its outset, the WCM strategy described in this technical guide was designed to create a pragmatic and effective way to assess trends in wilderness character. To practically limit its scope, this WCM strategy:

* Applies to all areas in which the Forest Service has been directed by Congress to "preserve the wilderness character" of the area. This includes all designated wildernesses and congressionally designated Wilderness Study Areas mandated to preserve wilderness character in their authorizing legislation. The strategy does not apply to other types of protected areas outside the mandate of the Wilderness Act or subsequent wilderness legislation, including lands recommended as wilderness through the forest planning process and congressionally designated Wilderness Study Areas lacking specific direction to preserve wilderness character. WCM may still be useful for assessing on-the ground changes and informing stewardship in areas with future potential for wilderness designation.
* Monitors tangible attributes of the five qualities of wilderness character derived from the Definition of Wilderness, Section 2(c) in the Wilderness Act. This monitoring does not directly monitor the intangible, symbolic, societal, or personal values, meanings, and benefits of wilderness character, although the tangible attributes that are monitored do contribute to these.
* Assesses the trend in wilderness character over time for an entire wilderness, and does not assess how wilderness character is changing in specific locations within a wilderness, or how wilderness character compares across different wildernesses.
* Supports minimum requirements and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses by helping staff organize information on the effects of proposed projects, but does not determine the significance of effects or replace agency decision processes.
* Does not fulfill all the monitoring requirements needed to manage an individual wilderness, such as monitoring for specific projects or compliance monitoring for special use permits (SUPs).
* Monitors the outcomes of stewardship, as well as selected outside forces acting on wilderness, and does not monitor the management actions or processes that occur in wilderness (see section 1.3.1 Wilderness Stewardship Performance for discussion about these differences).

== 1.2 Overview of Forest Service Wilderness Character Monitoring ==

This Forest Service WCM strategy is based on the interagency strategy described in Keeping It Wild 2, and is organized around a hierarchical framework (see section 1.5.1) that divides wilderness character into successively finer elements of qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures (tables 1.1.1–1.1.5). The '''qualities''', '''monitoring questions''', and '''indicators''' used here are consistent with the interagency strategy, whereas the measures are unique to the Forest Service. This technical guide identifies measures required by all wildernesses administered by the Forest Service, these required measures are analogous to the "national core" measures in other Forest Service monitoring protocols. Besides these agency-required measures, locally developed measures to meet wilderness-specific information needs may also be used. The Forest Service WCM strategy is structured as follows:

* The Forest Service uses Keeping It Wild 2's organizational framework of qualities, monitoring questions, and indicators to ensure interagency consistency (tables 1.1.1–1.1.5).
* At least one measure must be used for each indicator. For each indicator, this technical guide describes a required measure, or a set of measures from which at least one must be used (tables 1.1.1–1.1.5).
* In addition to the required measures, optional measures described in this technical guide may be chosen for a wilderness if they are highly relevant. Additional locally developed measures may be used for a wilderness, and are encouraged to more fully describe trend in wilderness character, as long as they adhere to the guidelines described in section 1.5.3.
* Data are gathered or compiled for each measure by using the best available information.
* Once there are at least two data points per measure, a trend (improving, stable, or degrading<ref>Note that the Forest Service uses the terms improving and degrading even though Keeping It Wild 2 uses the terms upward
and downward, respectively.</ref>) is determined based on agency established rules, or locally developed rules for locally developed measures. Trends in each measure are reported at 5-year intervals even though data for some measures may need to be gathered annually. See section 1.0 in part 2 for details on determining trend.
* If there is more than one measure within an indicator, trends in these measures are compiled by using consistent rules (see section 1.5.4) to determine the trend in the indicator. Only the trends in the measures, not the data, are compiled. These same rules are then used to determine the trend in each monitoring question, each quality, and ultimately the overall trend in wilderness character.
* Wilderness character is considered "preserved" (i.e., as required by law and Forest Service policy) when there is a stable or improving trend. Once the trend in wilderness character for each wilderness is determined, the percentage of wildernesses with a stable or improving trend in wilderness character within a region and across the entire Forest Service can be derived.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.1—Summary of the monitoring question, indicators, measures, and measure type used to monitor trend in the Untrammeled Quality of wilderness character.
|-
! colspan="4" | Untrammeled Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="2" | What are the trends in actions that intentionally control or manipulate the "earth and its community of life" inside wilderness? || Actions authorized by the Federal land manager that intentionally manipulate the biophysical environment || Number of authorized actions and persistent structures designed to manipulate plants, animals, pathogens, soil, water, or fire || Required
|-
| Actions not authorized by the Federal land manager that intentionally manipulate the biophysical environment || Number of unauthorized actions and persistent structures by agencies, organizations, or individuals that manipulate plants, animals, pathogens, soil, water, or fire || Required
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.2—Summary of the monitoring question, indicators, measures, and measure types used to monitor trend in the Natural Quality of wilderness character
|-
! colspan="4"| Natural Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="11"| What are the trends in the natural environment from human-caused change? || Plants || Acres of nonindigenous plant species || Required
|-
| rowspan="2"| Animals || Index of nonindigenous terrestrial animal species || rowspan="2"| Required to select at least one
|-
| Index of nonindigenous aquatic animal species
|-
| rowspan="6"| Air and water || Concentration of ambient ozone || rowspan="5"| Required to select at least one
|-
| Deposition of nitrogen
|-
| Deposition of sulfur
|-
| Amount of haze
|-
| Index of sensitive lichen species
|-
| Extent of waterbodies with impaired water quality || Required
|-
| rowspan="2"| Ecological processes || Watershed condition class || rowspan="2"| Required to select at least one
|-
| Number of animal unit months of commercial livestock use
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.3—Summary of the monitoring questions, indicators, measures, and measure types used tomonitor trend in the Undeveloped Quality of wilderness character.
|-
! colspan="4"| Undeveloped Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="2"| What are the trends in physical evidence of development inside wilderness? || Presence of non-recreational structures, installations, and development || Index of authorized non-recreational physical development || Required
|-
| Presence of inholdings || Acres of inholdings || Required
|-
| rowspan="3"| What are the trends in mechanization? || rowspan="3"| Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport || Index of administrative authorizations to use motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport || Required
|-
| Percent of emergency incidents using motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport || Optional
|-
| Index of special provision authorizations to use motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport || Optional
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.4—Summary of the monitoring questions, indicators, measures, and measure types used to monitor trend in the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality of wilderness character.
|-
! colspan="4"| Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="5"| What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for solitude? || rowspan="4" | Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity inside wilderness || Index of encounters || Required
|-
| Index of recreation sites within primary use areas || rowspan="3" | Required to select at least one
|-
| Acres of wilderness away from access and travel routes and developments inside wilderness
|-
| Miles of unauthorized trails
|-
| Remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity outside the wilderness || Acres of wilderness away from adjacent travel routes and developments outside the wilderness || Required
|-
| rowspan="3"| What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation? || rowspan="2"| Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation || Index of NFS developed trails || rowspan="2"| Required to select at least one
|-
| Index of authorized constructed recreation features
|-
| Management restrictions on visitor behavior || Index of visitor management restrictions || Required
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.5—Summary of the monitoring questions, indicators, measures, and measure types used to monitor trend in the Other Features of Value Quality of wilderness character.
|-
! colspan="4" | Other Features of Value Quality
|-
! Monitoring question !! Indicator !! Measure !! Measure type
|-
| rowspan="2" | What are the trends in the unique features that are tangible and integral to wilderness character? || Deterioration or loss of integral cultural features || Condition index for integral cultural features || Required if relevant
|-
| Deterioration or loss of other integral site-specific features of value || Condition index for other features || Required if relevant
|}

=== 1.2.1 Relationship to Interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring ===

The Forest Service, the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) use Keeping It Wild 2 as a framework to develop agency-specific WCM programs. All four agencies use the same definition of wilderness character and the same qualities, monitoring questions, and indicators. Each agency also uses the same process for compiling trends across measures to derive a trend in each indicator, monitoring question, quality, and ultimately wilderness character. Use of this nationally consistent interagency framework will allow all four agencies to pool their resulting data to assess trends in wilderness character across the entire NWPS.

Keeping It Wild 2 provides an interagency monitoring strategy, but does not define agency-specific responsibilities for implementing that strategy, ensuring quality control, and fostering interagency consistency into the future. Given their different authorities, policies, and cultures, each agency is responsible for developing its own procedures to ensure implementation of the interagency strategy. This includes determining agency-specific monitoring protocols and processes for training, oversight, use of the online interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring Database (WCMD) reporting, sharing results with the other agencies, and working across all agencies to provide a comprehensive WCM program for the entire NWPS (see section 1.7.3).

The Forest Service currently shares management responsibility for 32 wildernesses (28 with the BLM, 1 with the FWS, and 3 with the NPS). In some cases, the Forest Service manages the majority of the acreage for a wilderness, while in others the agency manages only a small fraction. To implement WCM in an interagency wilderness, the administering agencies may either: (1) each monitor their own portion of the wilderness with agency-specific measures, or (2) agree to follow a single agency's WCM protocols and share a single set of measures. Under either alternative, interagency wildernesses will report the trend in wilderness character for the entire wilderness. Before implementing the WCM strategy described in this technical guide, in all 32 cases, Forest Service wilderness mangers will need to work with their local counterparts in the other managing agency to determine which alternative is most appropriate. If the local units decide to share a single set of measures for the wilderness, consider developing an interagency memorandum of understanding that outlines respective roles and responsibilities and states which agency's WCM protocols will be followed. For example, a wilderness could use the measures from the agency that has the majority of the acreage for a wilderness or another arrangement could be developed. Whichever alternative is selected for an interagency wilderness, include documentation of the decision and its rationale as a reference for future managers.

== 1.3 Relationship to Forest Service Programs, Monitoring, and Policies ==

This effort to monitor trends in wilderness character integrates with other Forest Service wilderness programs, agency-wide monitoring efforts, as well as laws, regulations, and policies.

=== 1.3.1 Wilderness Stewardship Performance ===

The Wilderness Program's performance measure Number of Wildernesses Meeting Baseline Performance for Preserving Wilderness Character, commonly known as Wilderness Stewardship Performance (WSP), tracks the stewardship actions undertaken by the agency to fulfill the Wilderness Act's mandate to "preserve wilderness character." It feeds into the geo-enabled Performance Accountability System (gPAS), which annually reports metrics of agency performance to the Department of Agriculture, Congress, and the public. The lead Forest Service unit for a wilderness selects 10 elements, from a possible set of 20, that most closely reflect local stewardship priorities, within prescribed rules. Each element is worth 10 points, and a wilderness is deemed to be managed to an acceptable standard within WSP if it scores 60 points or higher.

The business rules around the selection of elements reinforce the linkages between agency stewardship actions and wilderness character. The elements in WSP are arrayed beneath categories that conform to the five qualities of wilderness character. While local units have some flexibility in the selection of these elements, they must select as least one element for each quality. Not all of the elements under the qualities of wilderness character in WSP track with the placement of measures for wilderness character monitoring because some decisions were made on the organization of WSP prior to the completion of Keeping It Wild 2. Most notably, '''trails''' and user-developed sites are under the Undeveloped Quality in WSP and under the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality in WCM.

There also are two additional categories of elements (Special Provisions and Administration) that do not track directly with wilderness character monitoring but do help evaluate the agency's ability to steward the wilderness resource. Additionally, one mandatory element focuses exclusively on wilderness character: Wilderness Character Baseline. In two-point increments, this element tracks the completion of the steps needed to establish a baseline for wilderness character and then evaluates trends over time. This element also includes writing a Wilderness Character Narrative to provide a qualitative and holistic description of the tangible and intangible aspects of an area's wilderness character.

There is a natural and obvious overlap between WSP and WCM. WSP tracks the stewardship actions taken by the agency, whereas WCM monitors the outcomes of those actions, as well as selected outside forces acting on wilderness. Figure 1.1.1 depicts the relationship between WSP and WCM.

[[File:Figure 1.1.1.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.1—Relationship between Wilderness Stewardship Performance and WCM.]]

For example, WSP tracks whether or not a local unit has developed an '''invasive species''' management plan, conducted an inventory, and taken appropriate management actions, whereas WCM evaluates the trend in the acres of nonindigenous plant species. The two work well together to provide a powerful tool to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the Forest Service's wilderness stewardship program.

=== 1.3.2 Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment ===

The Forest Service Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment (IM&A) Strategy (hereafter IM&A Strategy; USDA Forest Service 2013a) is an agency-wide strategy to improve data and information used to support implementation of the agency mission. As a requirement for sound stewardship of natural resources, the IM&A Strategy places an emphasis on high-quality information resulting from improved IM&A activities. Forest Service WCM follows the principles outlined in the IM&A Strategy and is designed to answer critical management questions at the field level, support collaboration with partners, and provide aggregated data to inform decisions at multiple levels.

This technical guide gathers as much data as possible from well-established and scientifically credible national monitoring programs within and outside the Forest Service. Inside the Forest Service, this technical guide draws as much data as is appropriate and possible from Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), Natural Resource Manager (NRM), and terrestrial, aquatic, wildlife, and social monitoring programs that are currently being developed and tested. Data from outside the Forest Service used in this technical guide includes data on air pollutants from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) and data on 303(d) listed streams from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states.

Forest Service inventory and monitoring data are collected by using a variety of methods and systems. A current list of standard protocols and methods for different resource areas is published and maintained on a Forest Service website at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/rig/protocols/master.shtml (also referred to as the Forest Service "master list" of protocols).

Effective collaboration with states, other federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations will result in selection of programs or protocols that reflect general consensus about the most effective methods to meet WCM objectives. Collaboration will also result in more cost effective WCM. Understanding the data provided by these outside monitoring and assessment programs, as well as their basic structures, will minimize duplication of effort and cost and enhance collaboration to monitor and preserve wilderness character.

=== 1.3.3 Laws, Regulations, and Policies ===

Several laws, regulations, and policies relate directly to the protection of wilderness character and to the IM&A of wilderness resources.

==== Relevant Laws ====

While many laws affect the administration of wilderness in NFS lands, the following principal laws bear directly on the mandate to preserve wilderness character and this technical guide. Laws are listed chronologically by the date of enactment:

* The General Mining Act (1872) declared public lands free and open to mineral exploration and purchase, and decreed all lands with valuable mineral deposits open for occupancy. It also established the procedures for mining claims and operations. While mining claims filed prior to wilderness establishment are considered to be valid existing rights, development of these claims affects wilderness character.
* The Antiquities Act (1906), the National Historic Preservation Act (1966), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979) provide the statutory basis for protecting and managing heritage resources on federal lands. Policies derived from these legal directions seek to balance the need for protecting heritage resources with the need for wilderness to be without permanent developments (as directed in the Wilderness Act).
* The Clean Water Act (1948, 1972, 1977, and 1987) establishes guidelines for protecting water quality and a shift to holistic watershed-based protection strategies. Under the watershed approach, equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring '''impaired watersheds'''. Water quality and quantity are vital to natural systems and processes within wilderness.
* The Clean Air Act (1963), as amended, directs the Forest Service to protect Class I air quality standards in certain wildernesses and Class II standards in the remaining wildernesses. It designated all wildernesses larger than 5,000 acres that were in existence as of August 7, 1977, as '''Class I areas'''. These designations (Class I and Class II) indicate the degree of air quality protection for areas already considered clean air areas (i.e., already meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS]).
* The Wilderness Act (1964), Section 2(a) Statement of Policy, requires that wilderness "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, Rohlf and Honnold (1988) and McCloskey (1999) assert that the statement from Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act that "… each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area" gives the primary and affirmative management direction for wilderness. Section 4(b) also states that even when the agency administers the area for other purposes, the agency must also "preserve its wilderness character." The Congressional Record (United States Congress 1983) supports 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."
* The National Environmental Policy Act (1970) requires an analysis of the environmental consequences of proposed management actions on all NFS lands, including management actions taken in wilderness. Analysis of actions within and adjacent to wilderness should consider impacts to wilderness character.
* The Endangered Species Act (1973) provides a program for the conservation of wildlife and plant species that are threatened or endangered with extinction. It establishes specific procedures to determine which plant and animal species are added or removed from protective status. Loss of animal or plant species directly affects the preservation of natural conditions in wilderness.
* The Eastern Wilderness Areas Act (1975) added 16 national forest areas to the NWPS and directed that 17 areas in eastern national forests should be studied such that the Secretary of Agriculture should recommend additions to the NWPS within 5 years. Congress debated the issue of designating severely modified areas as wilderness; they ultimately chose to add such areas to the NWPS and declined to establish a separate "Eastern Wilderness" category of designation.
* The National Forest Management Act (1976), as amended, provides that management direction for wilderness be incorporated into forest plans and sets minimum standards for the content of the plans.
* The Colorado Wilderness Act (1980) includes a specific reference to what are now commonly referred to as the Congressional Grazing Guidelines, and these Guidelines were incorporated into the statutory language of the Arizona Wilderness Act (1990). These guidelines grew out of apparent confusion on the part of agency managers as to how grazing was to be administered in wilderness beyond the general direction in the Wilderness Act's Section 4(d)(4)(2) that it "...shall be permitted to continue..." The guidelines in this Act state that "There shall be no curtailments of grazing in wilderness areas simply because an area is...wilderness." Additional guidance was provided for maintenance and replacement of grazing related improvements.
* The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980) added about 56 million acres to the NWPS in 35 areas administered by the NPS, FWS, and Forest Service. It was the intent of Congress to preserve unrivaled scenic and geological values associated with natural landscapes, and to preserve vast unaltered arctic tundra, boreal forest, and coastal rain forest ecosystems.
* The Information Quality Act (2001) (Data Quality Act, P.L. 100–554, section 515) directs federal agencies to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information they disseminate (including statistical information) to make sure it is useful, clear, and sound.

==== Relevant Regulations ====

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is based on statutory authority and establish requirements and procedures for federal agencies that comply with law. The primary CFRs applicable to NFS wilderness include 36 CFR 293 that sets forth requirements for management of wilderness and primitive areas, and 36 CFR 261.18 that lists those human activities prohibited within a national forest wilderness.

The 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) provides direction for land management planning. Section 1.5.6 of this technical guide describes how WCM can provide valuable information to support the Planning Rule's direction for assessment, plan development/amendment/revision, and monitoring. For example, WCM helps measure "progress toward meeting the desired conditions and objectives in the plan, including for providing multiple use opportunities." (36 CFR 219.12 [a] [5] [vii]).

==== Relevant Policies ====

Forest Service Manual (FSM) chapter 2320 – Wilderness Management, outlines agency policy pursuant to the Wilderness Act. This chapter includes the following policies that directly address the need for preserving wilderness character:

:2320.2 – Objectives, 4. Protect and perpetuate wilderness character and '''public values''' including, but not limited to, opportunities for scientific study, education, '''solitude''', physical and mental challenge and stimulation, inspiration, and '''primitive recreation''' experiences…

:2323.14 – Visitor Management. Plan and manage public use of wilderness in such a manner that preserves the wilderness character of the area.

FSM 1940 establishes the information management framework for all Forest Service IM&A activities. The policy at FSM 1940.3 directs that IM&A activities shall:

# Be coordinated through a national integrated program planning process that addresses information needs related to all agency business requirements;
# Use a standards-based approach and framework for information management and related business operations; and
# Foster and realize opportunities for collaboration, cooperation, and coordination across Forest Service deputy area programs and with agency partners, including the public; local, state, and other federal agencies; and nongovernmental organizations.

FSM 1920 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 provide policy and detailed guidance for land management planning, including conducting assessments and monitoring.

== 1.4 Defining and Monitoring Wilderness Character ==

To ensure that wilderness character is preserved, it must first be defined. The Wilderness Act does not define wilderness character, nor is a definition discussed in the congressional testimony leading to the Act's passage. An interagency wilderness team (Landres et al. 2015) recently defined wilderness character:

:Wilderness character is a holistic concept based on the interaction of (1) '''biophysical environments''' primarily free from modern human manipulation and impact, (2) personal experiences in natural environments relatively free from the encumbrances and signs of modern society, and (3) symbolic meanings of humility, restraint, and interdependence that inspire human connection with nature. Taken together, these tangible and intangible values define wilderness character and distinguish wilderness from all other lands.

Focusing on wilderness character connects on-the-ground wilderness conditions and management actions to the mandates of the Wilderness Act and agency policy to "preserve wilderness character." Connecting conditions and actions to policy helps:

* Improve wilderness stewardship—Wilderness stewardship has traditionally been fraught with uncertainty and subjective opinions about what should, or should not, be done. More consistent, standardized protocols for monitoring wilderness character can help professionalize wilderness stewardship and contribute to agency accountability, transparency, and defensibility.
* Clarify how management decisions and actions influence trends in wilderness character—There are trade-offs in almost all aspects of wilderness stewardship, and evaluating what is gained and what is lost in terms of wilderness character helps staff determine priorities for which actions should and should not be taken in a wilderness. Openly discussing these trade-offs can help agency staff understand how their actions directly or indirectly contribute to preserving wilderness character, which in turn helps inform management decisions.
* Improve communication among staff and with the public about wilderness stewardship—The standard language of WCM allows staff across different resource areas and disciplines to use common terms in discussing wilderness-related projects, needs, conditions, and impacts. This language also allows staff to discuss wilderness stewardship in a more open and transparent manner with the public, which may in turn improve agency defensibility when legal questions regarding the preservation of wilderness character arise.
* Create a legacy of experience and knowledge about wilderness locally and broadly within the agency—Experience and knowledge of a wilderness are often lost with staff turnover, and the baseline understanding of resource conditions may shift over time. Monitoring wilderness character provides a way to assess the changes occurring locally, which in turn builds a legacy about a wilderness, its stewardship, and how wilderness character changes over time.

=== 1.4.1 Five Qualities of Wilderness Character ===

WCM links the conceptual definition of wilderness character to a practical framework of qualities. The qualities of wilderness character are Untrammeled, Natural, Undeveloped, Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation, and Other Features of Value. These qualities are derived from the entire statutory definition of wilderness in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, which expresses congressional intent, both ideal and practical, for the meaning of wilderness and wilderness character (McCloskey 1966, 1999; Ochs 1999; Rohlf and Honnold 1988; Scott 2002). These qualities were first identified by the Forest Service (Landres et al. 2005) and subsequently refined by the agency and interagency teams that developed, implemented, and improved WCM over the past 15 years (BLM 2012; Landres et al. 2008; NPS 2014). Collectively, these qualities represent the primary tangible aspects of wilderness character that link on-the-ground conditions in wilderness and the outcomes of wilderness stewardship to the statutory definition of wilderness.

The WCM strategy uses these five qualities to monitor and assess trend in wilderness character. Several important premises frame the use of these qualities:

* All five qualities are equally important—The land management agencies must implement laws in their entirety, and the Wilderness Act does not state that one sentence or one portion of the text in Section 2(c) is more important than another. For these reasons, all five qualities are of equal importance for the purpose of this WCM strategy. However, as explained in section 1.5.4, in the process of compiling trends across these qualities to derive an estimate of the overall trend in wilderness character, the Untrammeled Quality is used as a tiebreaker, in essence giving this quality greater weight than the others reflecting the prominence and importance of this quality.
* These qualities apply to every wilderness—These qualities apply to all designated wilderness—regardless of size, location, or other unique place-specific attributes. This is because the qualities are based on the legal definition of wilderness and every law designating a wilderness includes specific language that ties it to this definition (Dawson and Hendee 2009). While individual wilderness laws may include specific exceptions or special provisions that apply to the uses and values of particular areas, no federal legislation changes the Wilderness Act's Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness, and no legislation changes the management responsibility of Section 4(b) for "preserving the wilderness character of the area." Special provisions are, by law, allowed in wilderness even though they may allow actions or uses that degrade wilderness character. The only exception to these qualities applying to every wilderness is the Other Features of Value Quality, which may or may not exist within a given wilderness because of the statement in the legal definition that a wilderness "may [emphasis added] also contain...other features."
* These qualities are uniquely expressed within each wilderness—Every wilderness is unique: some are swamps while others are rock and ice; some are immense while others are small; some are very remote while others are surrounded by suburban and urban developments; some are iconic and revered by people who never set foot in them while others are relatively unknown. This uniqueness has two important implications for this WCM strategy: (1) trend in wilderness character can only be based on how wilderness character is changing within an individual wilderness and (2) the state of wilderness character should not be compared among wildernesses because such comparisons are meaningless.
* Wilderness character is more than these qualities—Besides the tangible qualities used for monitoring wilderness character, there also are important intangible aspects of wilderness character that are difficult or impossible to quantify; these are not included in this WCM strategy. These intangible aspects are diverse and may include the immensity of an area and the connection people may feel to nature, the ethical value to society from having areas that are managed with restraint and humility, and the inspirational and psychological benefits that individuals experience in wilderness (Putney and Harmon 2003; Roggenbuck and Driver 2000; Schroeder 2007). These values and benefits of wilderness, as well as other intangible aspects of an area's wilderness character, can be described holistically and qualitatively in a Wilderness Character Narrative (see NPS 2014). Developing a Wilderness Character Narrative is incorporated into the Forest Service Wilderness Program's Wilderness Stewardship Performance measure.
* Management decisions and actions may preserve or degrade these qualities— Wilderness character may be improved, preserved, or degraded by the actions managers choose to take or not take. 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 that are considered the minimum necessary for the administration of the area—such as requiring visitors to use designated campsites, authorizing administrative use of '''motorized equipment''' and '''mechanical transportation''', or taking actions to restore ecological conditions—may diminish certain qualities of wilderness character. Significantly, protecting one aspect of wilderness character may diminish another aspect. For example, a bridge built to protect a stream bank from erosion caused by people or horses also is a recreational development that may diminish the opportunity for people to experience the primitive challenge of crossing the stream. Similarly, the required use of designated campsites to prevent the proliferation of sites and associated impacts on soil and vegetation may also diminish the opportunity for '''unconfined recreation''' and the sense of freedom from the constraints of regulation. Besides trade-offs among the different qualities of wilderness character, the cumulative results of seemingly small decisions and actions may cause a substantial gain or loss of wilderness character over time. With an established framework to discuss these trade-offs within the context of wilderness character and its five qualities, Forest Service line officers and managers have a tool to approach wilderness stewardship with humility, respect, and restraint, ultimately helping them to preserve wilderness character.

== 1.5 Approach to Forest Service Wilderness Character Monitoring ==

This section describes the conceptual framework and key principles used in monitoring wilderness character. The following four successive actions provide the structure for WCM in the Forest Service:

# Compile baseline data for all required measures presented in this technical guide and for any optional measures, or locally developed measures for a specific wilderness.
# Continue compiling data for each measure based on the '''frequency''' recommendation in this technical guide. Determine trend in the measure as improving, stable, or degrading (based on the '''threshold for meaningful change''' and the rules described in section 1.5.4) every 5 years once the baseline has been established.
# Compile the trends (not the data) from each measure within an indicator— using the rules in section 1.5.4—to determine the trend in the indicator. These same rules are used to compile trends in the indicators to determine the trend in the monitoring question, to compile trends in the monitoring questions to determine the trend in the quality, and likewise compile quality trends to determine the overall trend in wilderness character for each wilderness.
# Once the trend in wilderness character is determined for every wilderness, the Forest Service can compile these trends to assess broad-scale agency performance in preserving wilderness character. Similarly, trends from all four wilderness managing agencies can be compiled to assess performance in preserving wilderness character across the NWPS.

=== 1.5.1 Organizational Framework ===

WCM is organized in a hierarchical framework (fig. 1.1.2) that divides wilderness character into successively finer elements. These elements are:

* Qualities—Qualities are the primary elements of wilderness character that link directly to the statutory language of the Wilderness Act. The same set of qualities applies nationwide to all wildernesses. In this technical guide, four qualities: (1) Untrammeled, (2) Natural, (3) Undeveloped, and (4) Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation are all necessary to monitor and assess trend in wilderness character, and each wilderness must report the trend in each of these qualities. Where other features of value exist in a wilderness and are integral to its meaning and significance, a fifth quality, Other Features of Value, must also be reported (see section 6.0).
* Monitoring questions—Monitoring questions capture essential components of each quality that are significantly different from one another and address particular management questions and goals.
* Indicators—Indicators are distinct and important elements under each monitoring question. In nearly all cases, there is more than one indicator under a monitoring question. The trend in all indicators is reported by each wilderness.
* Measures—Measures are the specific elements under each indicator for which data are compiled to assess trend in an indicator. In general, measures are human-caused threats to the indicator: when these threats decrease, wilderness character is improved; when these threats increase, wilderness character is degraded.

[[File:Figure 1.1.2.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.2—Hierarchical relationship of the qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures illustrated with the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality.]]

=== 1.5.2 Key Principles of this Monitoring ===

To implement this monitoring, agency staff need to understand the following key principles:

* WCM will provide credible data that will be directly useful for assessing the outcomes of wilderness stewardship—This technical guide has been developed with substantive input from subject matter experts and designed by on-the-ground wilderness managers and regional and national wilderness staff to provide the most useful information possible for the full range of agency staff involved in wilderness stewardship.
* The WCM baseline, the reference point for evaluating trend in wilderness character, is the time of designation or when WCM is initiated—The first year that data are compiled for all measures forms the WCM baseline and is the reference point against which change in wilderness character is assessed and evaluated over time. Ideally, the WCM baseline year would be the time of wilderness designation. Realistically, however, the '''WCM baseline year''' will likely be the first year that WCM is implemented because existing wildernesses generally lack data from the time of designation for most—or even all— measures. WCM baseline conditions are the starting point for assessing change over time without value judgment as to whether these are good, bad, or desired. For example, if a wilderness had structures or installations at the time of designation, those features would be part of the baseline condition of the wilderness. WCM would show how the Undeveloped Quality of wilderness, which includes structures and installations, changes over time. When the WCM baseline year is established after wilderness designation, '''WCM baseline conditions''' may show improvements or degradations compared to conditions at the time of designation; regardless, these WCM baseline conditions become the de facto reference point for evaluating future trend in wilderness character. If Congress enacts new legislation that adds acreage to an existing wilderness, the WCM baseline year is not reset to the year of this new legislation but remains as is. Likewise, the WCM baseline year would not be reset if a local unit replaces or updates one or more of the measures selected for a wilderness.
* Trend in wilderness character is determined by change within an individual wilderness—Each Forest Service wilderness is unique in its combination of geographic setting, biophysical properties, enabling legislation, and administrative direction; therefore, trend in wilderness character can only be determined by assessing change within a given wilderness. When designated, each wilderness enters the NWPS with its own degree of "intactness" of wilderness character, and the intent of management is to maintain or improve this state of wilderness character over time in the face of modern technology and civilization (fig. 1.1.3). Wilderness character monitoring provides a means for showing whether this state of wilderness character is being preserved or is degrading over time; in figure 1.1.3 the management task is to prevent the orange circle from sliding down the line. The uniqueness of wilderness character in each wilderness means that it is inappropriate and misleading to compare wilderness character from one wilderness to another. This is consistent with national direction provided by the Wilderness Act and supported by Forest Service policy to preserve wilderness character relative to the time an area was designated as wilderness, regardless of the size of the area, ecosystem, proximity to urban areas, or any other attribute of a wilderness.

[[File:Figure 1.1.3.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.3—Relationship between the state of wilderness character and modern technology and civilization.]]

* WCM balances national consistency with local relevance—This technical guide is designed to balance national and local needs for information on trend in wilderness character by using a mix of measures modeled after the approach used in WSP. See section 1.5.3 for details on this approach, which ensures national consistency and the ability to understand trend in wilderness character across different wildernesses for regional and national reporting, while allowing and encouraging local flexibility and relevance within this national structure.
* Trend in wilderness character is reported every 5 years for every wilderness— The Wilderness Act mandates that every wilderness be managed to preserve its wilderness character, so the monitoring described in this technical guide needs to be conducted on every wilderness, not just a sample of wildernesses. For some measures, local data compilation will occur annually, while trend in wilderness character will be assessed and reported to regional and national wilderness program staff every 5 years once the baseline has been established. This 5-year period balances workload with providing needed information at a pace that allows for adaptive management.
* Not all monitoring done in wilderness is WCM—All wilderness units currently conduct some form of monitoring inside wilderness. Typically, this monitoring is for specific resource purposes such as assessing campsite condition, range condition, or '''abundance''' and distribution of specific plant or animal species. Such monitoring provides data that may be used in WCM, but by itself, should not be called WCM. In general, to qualify as WCM, all four of the following requirements must be met:
# The monitoring is conducted in a designated wilderness or in any other area where the Forest Service is congressionally mandated to preserve wilderness character.
# The monitoring includes at least one measure for each of the indicators of the Untrammeled, Natural, Undeveloped, and Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation qualities, as well as the Other Features of Value Quality if appropriate.
# A specific baseline year has been established for the purpose of WCM.
# The monitoring is intended to be a long-term monitoring program that synthesizes the trends in all the measures into an integrated assessment of trend in wilderness character and is conducted periodically as long as the area remains designated as wilderness.

=== 1.5.3 Measures ===

All the measures included in this technical guide were developed to be relevant and cost effective across the agency, because either national data are already available or local units (national forests or grasslands, or ranger districts) should be able to gather or compile the data relatively easily. In this technical guide, detailed monitoring protocols are described for a total of 28 measures (summarized in tables 1.1.1–1.1.5), although not all of these will be used in any one wilderness. For national consistency, all wildernesses are required to select 15 measures, and an additional one or two measures are required for the Other Features of Value Quality if that quality is relevant to a particular wilderness. Some indicators have single measures that apply nationally and are required. Other indicators have multiple potential measures and local units must select at least one, and may choose the one that is most locally relevant. The approach for selecting measures in WCM is similar to that used in WSP. Although the lead local unit for each wilderness will be responsible for the selection of measures, it is important to involve local staff and specialists and engage the support of Supervisors Office, as well as the Regional Office as appropriate. All measures selected by a unit for WCM—including locally developed measures—need to be approved by the local line officer and are used in determining the overall trend in wilderness character.

There are five types of measures.

# Required—The measure is required for all wildernesses.
# Required to Select at Least One—At least one measure must be selected from the set of several potential measures; selections should be based on relevance to a wilderness, and additional measures from the set may also be selected if relevant.
# Required if Relevant—If a wilderness uses the Other Features of Value Quality, one or more of these measures are required to be selected.
# Optional—The measure may be selected if relevant to a wilderness.
# Locally Developed Measures—In addition to the measures identified in this technical guide, the local unit may develop new measures for other attributes considered integral to wilderness character for the individual wilderness. Locally developed measures do not replace any of the required measures. Further, if a local office wants to modify a required measure, this becomes a new locally developed measure that would be used in addition to the required measure.

==== Key Concepts Related to the Measures ====

Following the recommendations in Keeping It Wild 2, all the measures in this technical guide were selected to be useful, simple, and practical. The following key concepts, learned from experience implementing WCM, apply to the measures in this technical guide:

* WCM measures should not replicate those used in other monitoring programs—This technical guide uses existing data whenever and however possible. Importantly, if data already exist in a particular resource monitoring program and are applicable to WCM, those data sources are described for individual measures in part 2 of this technical guide along with guidelines for their use.
* Frequency of data compilation will depend on the measure—The type of measure will determine the frequency of data compilation, analysis, and entry. For example, annual data would be reported for measures that fluctuate annually, such as the number of authorized '''trammeling actions''' in the Untrammeled Quality. Measures with low variability, such as the number of physical structures in the Undeveloped Quality, would only be reported every 5 years.
* Measures that are integral to wilderness character are monitored regardless of managerial jurisdiction—Some resources are integral to wilderness character but are not directly under the management jurisdiction of the Forest Service. For example, visibility is an experiential and ecological attribute of wilderness character but is beyond direct management control. The state of such resources in wilderness can serve as important benchmarks for assessing the magnitude of future anthropogenic impacts such as climate change and regional development, and the consequence of these impacts on wilderness character.
* Management actions and developments may impact more than one quality of wilderness character, but they are measured only in the quality that is most directly affected—As a general principle of the WCM strategy described in this technical guide, actions and developments that affect more than one quality of wilderness character will be measured only in the quality that is most directly impacted by that action or development. For example, an agency-built recreation feature such as a toilet would degrade both the Undeveloped and Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation qualities, but is measured only in the latter quality because of the direct link to recreation. The intent is to avoid double counting actions or developments. Occasionally, separate and distinct impacts from a single management action or development can be measured independently by using different measures, and in such cases, these distinct measures can be included under multiple qualities. For example, a barrier built to prevent nonindigenous fish from moving up a stream has separate and distinct measurable impacts on the Untrammeled, Undeveloped, and Natural qualities. The action to build the barrier would be counted as an '''intentional manipulation''' in the Untrammeled Quality, the presence of the barrier would be counted as an installation in the Undeveloped Quality, and altered stream flow could be counted as a locally developed measure in the Natural Quality. Likewise, wildlife tracking devices such as radio collars or ear tags have separate and distinct impacts on the Untrammeled and Undeveloped qualities. The action of collaring or tagging an animal would be counted as a trammeling action under the Untrammeled Quality, while the presence of the collar or tag as a mobile installation could be counted as a locally developed measure under the Undeveloped Quality.
* Local interpretation of monitoring results is necessary because some measures have opposing impacts on different qualities—Reducing the complex, nuanced, and holistic nature of wilderness character into discrete entities may lead to cases where a single management action has opposing impacts on different qualities. For example, a toilet may be considered necessary to reduce impacts to the natural resources from high amounts of human waste, but this toilet also degrades the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality because it is a recreation feature. Wilderness stewardship commonly involves such trade-offs and monitoring clearly shows the effects of these trade-offs on wilderness character. To clarify interpretation of monitoring results, reporting will include short narrative text by local staff that provides the context to understand seemingly conflicting trends in the data.
* Measures and data sources can change over time—Consistently using the same measures over time is necessary to show trend within a wilderness, but a monitoring program also needs to evolve. Measures and data sources may change because '''data adequacy''' or availability improves, new issues arise, new policy direction requires a change, or new measures are developed that provide better information on some aspect of wilderness character (see section 1.8). Because WCM is relatively new, Forest Service staff may need to balance the benefits of consistency in using existing measures and data sources against the benefits of using new and better measures if they become available even though a new measure may prevent determining trend until sufficient data have accumulated for the new measure. When staff consider making such a change, they should contact their Regional Wilderness Program Manager and the WCM Central Team to discuss the appropriateness and feasibility of this change. In addition, a statistician should be consulted to help determine the appropriate method of analyzing trend in the new measure. When measures or data sources are changed, it is important to document when the change occurred, the reason(s) for this action, and the potential impact on interpreting trend in wilderness character.

==== Data Sources ====

Data used in this technical guide to assess trend in wilderness character for a wilderness come from several sources, generally categorized as:

* Existing data currently residing in a Forest Service corporate database (including NRM), with opportunities for validation and modification.
* Existing data stored in local databases or spreadsheets.
* Existing data from external data sources.
* Professional knowledge.
* Newly compiled data from the field.

All the measures included in this technical guide were developed to reduce the amount of time and effort needed by local units to implement WCM, and existing data are used whenever appropriate and available. Local units, however, may need to compile existing data from the field for a few measures (e.g., tracking the number of authorized trammeling actions in a new NRM application, or assessing the condition of unique features integral to wilderness character). Whenever possible, protocols were developed to use data from national or regional monitoring programs across all appropriate resource disciplines (e.g., air, water, wildlife). For some measures, national staff compile and provide data to the local unit for verification. For other measures, local unit staff compile data from existing databases, administrative records (e.g., minimum requirement decisions), professional knowledge and judgment, or field collection.

'''Legacy or historical data''' may be used whenever available and appropriate for WCM. Legacy data from the local unit are an important reservoir of information, and may be used if data were collected (1) after the area was designated as wilderness or managed to preserve wilderness character and (2) using consistent, credible, and documented protocols that are directly relevant to WCM. Although there is no predetermined "use by" date for historical data, there may sometimes be questions about the appropriateness of using legacy data for a measure. For example, if there is a large gap between when the legacy data were collected and the WCM baseline year, or if legacy data adequacy is substandard or unknown. In some situations, legacy data may actually be better than newer data for use in WCM. Local resource specialists always will determine the appropriateness of using legacy data and their applicability for the measure.

The variety of measures used will require a variety of data and data sources, with corresponding variability in data adequacy. Some measures are based on point data (e.g., installations) or professional estimation (e.g., area of invasive plants), some require assumptions about integration over large areas (e.g., '''watershed condition'''), and some will be biased by the amount of effort (e.g., law enforcement effort for unauthorized trammeling actions). High-quality corporate datasets will be available for some measures, while for others there will only be poor '''data quality''' or no data available. In these latter cases, local professional knowledge may be used to assign a data value as long as the rationale for the judgment is documented. This includes information about the person making the judgment, the type and amount of field experience the judgment is based on, and any other information needed for outside viewers to understand the basis for the professional judgment. Data adequacy ('''data quantity''' and data quality) is always reported for each measure (see section 1.0 in part 2 for more information on deriving and using data adequacy).

==== Measure Baseline ====

The first year that data are compiled for a measure forms the measure baseline, and is the reference point for evaluating the '''trend in a measure''' over time. The measure baseline (i.e., the first year that data are compiled for an individual measure) is distinct from the WCM baseline (i.e., the first year that data are compiled for all measures, as explained above in section 1.5.2). While the '''measure baseline year''' will often be the same as the WCM baseline year, it may predate the WCM baseline year if legacy data are used, or it may post-date the WCM baseline year if the data source or data protocol change. The first value reported for a measure from this measure baseline year is called the measure baseline value.

If new or better data or data sources become available over time, it may be appropriate to adjust the measure baseline value. For example, improved data may result in a recalculation of the miles of system trail from 30 miles to 25 miles, but would not indicate a change on the ground or an improving trend in the measure; instead, 25 miles should become the new measure baseline value. In this situation, the measure baseline value would be reset based on the best available data and future trends in the measure would be assessed against the time of the new measure baseline value. Consult with resource specialists, the Regional Program Manager, and the Wilderness Information Management Steering Team regional representative before resetting an existing measure baseline value to ensure the appropriateness of this action. Guidance on interpreting the impact of resetting the baseline value of one or more measures on WCM baseline conditions will be developed.

==== Data Handling ====

How data are handled for a measure depends on the measure and the data used. Some measures quantify a single attribute (e.g., as a simple count, percentage, or average), and some combine two or more disparate attributes in an index. For example, the measure Acres of Nonindigenous Plant Species monitors a single attribute: acres. In contrast, the measure Index of Nonindigenous Terrestrial Animal Species tracks two attributes—species distribution and estimated impact—which are combined to yield a unit-less '''component score''' for each selected nonindigenous species. The component scores from each species are then added together to yield a unit-less '''index value''' for the measure (e.g., see table 2.3.5 in part 2). In addition, not all indices have component scores; for example, the Index of Encounters combines two attributes—traveling encounters and camp encounters—in a mathematical formula that produces a unit-less index value.

As described above, the frequency of data compilation also varies across measures from annually to once every 5 years. For annual measures that are likely to experience large fluctuations from year to year, such as the measures quantifying the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, and mechanical transport, a 3-year rolling average is calculated from the annual data (e.g., see measures 4.4.1—4.4.3 in part 2). The use of a 3-year rolling average does not obscure actions that degrade wilderness character; rather, this commonly used data handling technique prevents a large and transient increase or decrease in the data from skewing the trend either upwards or downwards.

Regardless of the frequency of data compilation, use of an index or rolling averages, or other data handling procedures, all measures produce a single value for each year of data compilation—the '''measure value'''—that is used to derive the trend in the measure. A measure value may be a single attribute (e.g., the total number, acres, or miles impacted), an index value, or a 3-year average, and may be calculated annually or every 5 years (see table 1.1.6). For example, for the measure Acres of Inholdings, the measure value is the total number of acres. For the measure Index of Visitor Management Restrictions, the measure value is the index value. For the measure Number of Authorized Actions and Persistent Structures Designed to Manipulate Plants, Animals, Pathogens, Soil, Water, or Fire, the measure value is the 3-year average of the annual number of authorized trammeling actions (e.g., if the annual number of trammeling actions was 4 in 2015, 0 in 2016, and 2 in 2017, the measure value for 2017 would be 2 which is the 3-year average of those annual values). For the measure Index of Administrative Authorizations to Use Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport, the measure value is the 3-year average of annual index values (e.g., if the annual index value was 30 in 2015, 100 in 2016, and 50 in 2017, the measure value for 2017 would be 60 which is the 3-year average of those annual index values).

Importantly, as much of the data handling as possible will be done automatically and internally by either NRM, the WCMD, or a central data analyst responsible for data compilation, analysis, and data entry for national measures. For some measures, however, data handling will need to be done by the local unit, as described in the protocol section for such measures in part 2.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1.1.6—The four different derivations of the measure value used to derive the trend in a measure.
|-
! || Frequency !! Example measure !! Measure value
|-
| Single attribute || 5 years || Acres of Inholdings || Total number of acres
|-
| Index || 5 years || Index of Visitor Management Restrictions || Index value
|-
| Single attribute using a 3-year rolling average || 1 year || Number of Authorized Actions and Persistent Structures Designed to Manipulate Plants, Animals, Pathogens, Soil, Water, or Fire || 3-year average of the annual number of authorized trammeling actions
|-
| Index using a 3-year rolling average || 1 year || Index of Administrative Authorizations to Use Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport || 3-year average of the annual index values
|}

=== 1.5.4 Assessing Trends ===

Trend in wilderness character is determined by using nationally consistent rules to compile trends across the measures, indicators, monitoring questions, and qualities to derive an overall trend in wilderness character for each wilderness. The overall trend in wilderness character provides a readily interpretable assessment for wilderness managers at the local unit level to evaluate outcomes of their stewardship. Trends in wilderness character examined across several wildernesses provide information for regional and national wilderness program managers to assess whether agency policies and programs are fulfilling the legal mandate of the Wilderness Act to preserve wilderness character.

There are three primary steps to determining the trend in wilderness character:

# Determining meaningful change in the data and trend in a measure.
# Determining the trend in an indicator, monitoring question, and quality.
# Determining the overall trend in wilderness character.

==== Step 1—Determining Meaningful Change in the Data and Trend in a Measure ====

A meaningful change in each measure is based on either nationally or locally determined thresholds. For each measure included in this technical guide, the threshold for change was determined based on resource specialists' assessments of how much change in the data qualifies as a meaningful change in the measure. Meaningful change in a measure is not tied directly to, or based on, a national forest's land or resource management plan, nor does it represent significant change or impacts as defined by NEPA. Part 2 of this technical guide describe the thresholds for meaningful change in the data for each measure. Local units must determine thresholds for locally developed measures. The trend in each measure is classified into one of three categories: (1) stable (no meaningful change in the data), (2) improving (a meaningful improvement), or (3) degrading (a meaningful degradation).

To determine the trend in a measure for a given year, compare the most recent measure value with the measure baseline value. In some cases, the most recent measure value may not be for the year the trend is reported; for example, air quality data are often published at set intervals which may not align with the trend reporting cycle, and the most recent measure value may be from a few years prior. Also, if legacy data exist for a measure, these data would be included in determining trend for the measure. Table 1.1.7 provides several examples that illustrate how to derive trends by using measure values from different years for different measures. For some measures that have at least five values, trend is not determined by a comparison of two measure values but instead is derived by using the statistical procedure of regression analysis of all available values (see appendix B in Landres et al. 2009 for background on the use of regression, and section 1.0 in part 2 in this technical guide for details on its use). Regression is generally not appropriate for measures that use "any change" (e.g., an increase of one '''dam''') or "categories" (e.g., a change from 10- to 20-percent areal coverage of nonindigenous plants) as thresholds for determining meaningful change. In addition, switching to regression analysis for determining meaningful change once there are five measure values may change the trend in a measure.

[[File:Table 1.1.7.png|thumb|Table 1.1.7—Five hypothetical measures showing how trend is derived based on comparing the most recent measure value with the measure's baseline value.<ref>Circles show that data were compiled for the given year. For each measure, trend is assessed from that measure's baseline year (left black circle) to that measure's most recent year of data compilation (right black circle) either by comparing them directly or by regression analysis. Open circles show additional years that data were collected. The shaded column under 2010 shows the hypothetical WCM baseline year (the first year for which data are available for all measures), with legacy data from 2008 and 2009. The "Trend derived" column shows the set of years used to determine the trend in each measure for reporting in 2015. A dash mark (-) indicates no data for that year.</ref>]]

==== Step 2—Determining Trend in an Indicator, Monitoring Question, and Quality ====

Once trends have been determined for all the measures, use the following rules to derive the trend in an indicator:

* All the trends in the measures of one indicator are combined (including trends from locally developed, optional, and all other types of measures), with each improving-trending measure offsetting each degrading-trending measure.
* The overall trend in the indicator is improving if there are more improving- than degrading-trending measures, and the overall trend is degrading if there are more degrading- than improving-trending measures (regardless of the number of stable measures).
* If there are an equal number of improving- and degrading-trending measures, the overall trend in the indicator is referred to as an offsetting stable trend.
* If all the measures are stable, the trend in the indicator is also stable. By applying the same rules, the resulting trends in the indicators are then used to derive the trends in the monitoring questions, and likewise through each of the qualities (see table 1.1.8). These trends are illustrated by using arrows—a downward arrow showing a degrading trend, an upward arrow showing an improving trend, a horizontal double-headed arrow showing a stable trend, and a vertical double-headed arrow showing an '''offsetting stable trend'''. Throughout this technical guide, for brevity, the examples do not include every measure for an indicator, and in some cases the name of the measure has been abbreviated.

[[File:Table 1.1.8.png|thumb|Table 1.1.8—An example showing how trends in the qualities are derived from trends in the measures, indicators, and monitoring questions.]]

==== Step 3—Determining the Overall Trend in Wilderness Character ====

Trend in wilderness character is derived by combining the trends from all the qualities. The Wilderness Act does not state that any one aspect of the Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness is more or less important than another, so this WCM strategy assumes that all qualities are equally important, with one exception described below for the Untrammeled Quality. This assumption of equal importance includes the Other Features of Value Quality because even though such features may or may not be present in a wilderness, the Wilderness Act provides no reason to consider this quality (when present) more or less important than the other qualities.

Once trends in each quality have been determined, derive the overall trend in wilderness character by following the same four rules described previously in step 2. However, if there are an equal number of improving- and degrading-trending qualities, an additional rule is applied as a tiebreaker:

* If there are an equal number of improving- and degrading-trending qualities, the trend in the Untrammeled Quality determines the overall trend in wilderness character.

The following three reasons support giving extra weight to the Untrammeled Quality in a tiebreaker situation:

# The statutory definition of wilderness describes "untrammeled" in a separate sentence.
# The importance of untrammeled as the essence of wilderness has a long history in wilderness literature.
# No other land designations are, by law, to be kept untrammeled.

These three factors serve to make the Untrammeled Quality "first among equals," an idea supported by a recent legal review conducted by Long and Biber (2014). Tables 1.1.9 to 1.1.12 apply these rules to four examples to illustrate how the trends in the five qualities are aggregated to assess the overall trend in wilderness character. For brevity, the measures, indicators, and monitoring questions used to determine the trend in each quality are not shown in these tables. In table 1.1.12 that shows how the Untrammeled Quality functions as a tiebreaker in determining overall trend in wilderness character, the trends in the other qualities offset one another so the overall trend in wilderness character is offsetting-stable, rather than the simple stable trend in the Untrammeled Quality.

[[File:Table 1.1.9.png|thumb|Table 1.1.9—Two qualities with an improving trend, one quality with a degrading trend.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.10.png|thumb|Table 1.1.10—One quality with an improving trend, two qualities with a degrading trend.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.11.png|thumb|Table 1.1.11—Two qualities with an improving trend, two qualities with a degrading trend; Untrammeled Quality as "tiebreaker."]]

[[File:Table 1.1.12.png|thumb|Table 1.1.12—Two qualities with an improving trend, two qualities with a degrading trend; Untrammeled Quality as "tiebreaker."]]

==== Flexibility and Limitations in Assessing Trend ====

The approach to deriving an overall trend in wilderness character has several important qualifications. First, the approach of compiling trends, and not the data, allows disparate types of data to be used for the measures. This in turn allows different wildernesses to use a single, nationally consistent approach to assessing trends in wilderness character across the entire NWPS (see section 1.5.5 for resulting analyses and reports that can be derived from this consistent approach). Second, the different number of monitoring questions, indicators, and measures within each quality does not affect the overall trend in wilderness character because each quality is represented by a single trend. Third, this hierarchical approach provides different levels of information for the various needs of different audiences. For example, local unit managers need detailed information on specific measures and indicators, while regional and national staff need broader trend information.

A final qualification is that the approach purposefully only shows the change that is occurring and not the magnitude of that change in the indicators, monitoring questions, qualities, and wilderness character. Magnitude is not included because it would:

* Imply a greater level of precision than is possible in this national monitoring strategy.
* Require consistency across wildernesses and agencies in the number and types of measures that is not possible given the variability within the NWPS.
* Make outcomes more vulnerable to gaming or manipulation (whereas this WCM strategy's conservative approach counts any declining trend as a fully, not partially, declining trend).
* Not provide any additional resources to local managers who already have the detailed information they need from the data and trends in the measures.

=== 1.5.5 Reporting ===

The Forest Service anticipates that three types of standardized monitoring reports will be required, each designed for a different audience: (1) individual wilderness, (2) regional, and (3) national reports. Collectively, these monitoring reports will help local managers understand how wilderness character is changing and promote understanding of larger regional and national trends in agency wilderness stewardship. Once WCM is fully implemented by the Forest Service, the frequency of these reports will be determined, and will likely be annually or biennially for the local report (to maintain ongoing interest and support for local WCM) and once every 5 years for the regional and national reports. Standard reports will be generated by the interagency WCMD from measures and data entered for each wilderness, with an option for additional user-added qualitative information in the reports.

The intent of the reports outlined in this section is to promote communication and enable discussion of wilderness stewardship at the local unit level and among regional and national wilderness program managers within the Forest Service, key national non-governmental partners, and congressional staff. Standardized reporting formats at different levels provide the ability to compare information across the agency, within and among Forest Service regions, and different wildernesses on a local unit. For reporting purposes, "preserving wilderness character" is defined by a trend in wilderness character that is either stable or improving.

All three levels of reporting will include a short narrative (different from the Wilderness Character Narrative required under the WSP Wilderness Character Baseline element) that provides information about conditions, circumstances, and context that affect the interpretation and use of the trends reported. The short narrative gives local, and regional and national program managers the opportunity to add qualitative information and insights from their professional judgment to complement and help interpret the data and trends. For example, this short narrative is the appropriate place to describe the effects of climate change or an intense fire season on the Natural Quality and on the other qualities of wilderness character. The short narrative becomes a valuable part of the legacy information passed to future wilderness managers and helps ensure consistency in reporting over time. The short narrative also provides insight about the Forest Service WCM that feeds into the change management process.

==== Individual Wilderness Report ====

The purpose of the Individual Wilderness Report is to promote understanding of wilderness conditions and facilitate discussion among local staff about preserving wilderness character. The standardized reporting format will show the trend in wilderness character for a specific wilderness, as well as trends in the qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures. This report provides a level of detail suitable for communicating monitoring results with line officers and potentially with interested citizens, and will assist managers with planning and developing informed management actions. Highlights from the Individual Wilderness Report could also be included in monitoring and evaluation reports, as required by planning regulations. Individual Wilderness Reports will likely be produced annually or biennially.

Besides the formal Individual Wilderness Report, local units also will generate a "data dump" of all the information entered into the WCMD for use by the local manager to compare current conditions against thresholds for meaningful change. This data dump would not be used for upward reporting or communicating results to the public, but instead would provide a detailed reservoir of information for local staff. Refer to figures 1.1.4 through 1.1.9 and table 1.1.13 for the suggested format for the Individual Wilderness Report.

[[File:Figure 1.1.4.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.4—Summary page for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.13.png|thumb|Table 1.1.13—Summary of trends in the measures, indicators, monitoring questions, qualities, and wilderness character overall for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.5.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.5—Summary of the trend in the Untrammeled Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.6.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.6—Summary of the trend in the Natural Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.7.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.7—Summary of the trend in the Undeveloped Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.8.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.8—Summary of the trend in the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.9.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.9—Summary of the trend in the Other Features of Value Quality for the Individual Wilderness Report.]]

==== Regional Report ====

The Regional Report is intended to promote communication and discussion of monitoring results among the regional wilderness program managers. A standardized reporting format will show trends in wilderness character and trends in the qualities, monitoring questions, indicators, and measures included in this technical guide for all wildernesses in a region. A map may also be produced showing the percentage of wildernesses within each region that are preserving wilderness character. This report provides the level of detail regional wilderness program managers need to help with accountability for wilderness stewardship and policy review.

Regional Reports will likely be produced every 5 years with optional periodic progress reports. Table 1.1.14 is an example that summarizes trends in wilderness character for the 13 wildernesses for which the Northern Region (Region 1) has the lead responsibility. Figures 1.1.10a and 1.1.10b are examples that summarize the trend in the Undeveloped Quality for the Northern Region (for brevity, the other qualities are not presented).

[[File:Table 1.1.14.pdf.png|thumb|Table 1.1.14—An example summary of the trends in wilderness character across the 13 wildernesses for which the Northern Region has the lead responsibility.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.10a.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.10a—An example summary of the trends in the Undeveloped Quality across the 13 wildernesses for which the Northern Region has the lead responsibility.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.10b.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.10b—An example short narrative summary of the trends in the Undeveloped Quality across the 13 wildernesses for which the Northern Region has the lead responsibility.]]

==== National Report ====

The purpose of the National Report is to promote communication and allow discussion of monitoring results with line officers and program managers to inform policy review and improve wilderness stewardship. The National Report will consist of two parts: (1) a summary of national trends in wilderness character and each of the five qualities suitable for briefings to the National Leadership Team and similar audiences, and (2) a summary of regional trends in wilderness character. Together, these summaries provide the level of detail national and regional wilderness program managers need to assist with accountability for wilderness stewardship and policy review.

The National Report will likely be produced on a 5-year cycle with annual progress reports. Producing an annual progress report will allow national compilation and synthesis work to be spread evenly year to year rather than increasing workloads once every 5 years. Additionally, annual progress reports will provide a consistent flow of information about trends in wilderness character to leaders in the wilderness program, who can use the reports to inform program decisions.

Until all NFS wildernesses implement this Forest Service WCM strategy and have sufficient data to derive trends, producing biennial national progress reports are recommended. These updates will discuss what is happening with WCM, communicate any significant findings from data entered to date, share lessons learned from monitoring done to date, and provide information on what will occur in the next year.

[[File:Figure 1.1.11.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.11—An example summary of the national trends in wilderness character across all 445 NFS wildernesses.]]

[[File:Figure 1.1.12.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.12—An example summary of the regional trends in wilderness character across the nine regions of the Forest Service.]]

=== 1.5.6 Using the Results in Forest Service Planning and Administration ===

The results of WCM can provide useful information for planning and decision making, including forest-level planning, project-level planning and decisions, and for administrative purposes at the national, regional, or local level.

==== Forest Planning ====

Wilderness management direction is prepared as a part of the forest planning process as required by 36 CFR Part 219 and FSM 1922. Forest planning also complies with NEPA (FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15).

The 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) was developed to ensure that plans are consistent with and complement existing, related agency policies that guide management of resources on NFS lands, such as the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF; USDA Forest Service 2011c) and the agency's Sustainable Recreation Framework (2010). The three primary planning phases described in the Planning Rule include (1) assessment, (2) plan development/amendment/revision, and (3) monitoring.

Information collected from WCM can contribute to each of the planning framework's phases. WCM provides feedback for the planning cycle by testing relevant assumptions, assessing relevant conditions over time, and measuring management effectiveness. WCM can be an important component of forest plan monitoring programs. Based on the evaluation of the information gathered through monitoring, the responsible official can determine the following:

* Whether a change to a local unit's land management plan may be needed,
* Whether a change to management activities may be needed; or
* Whether an assessment may be needed to determine if there is a preliminary need to change a land management plan.

==== Project or Activity Decisions ====

Trend information over five or more years, and information that transcends the time individual wilderness managers are at a wilderness, will be especially powerful in efforts to preserve wilderness character. For example, being able to compare the current number and type of actions taken to manipulate vegetation to the number and type of actions that will be taken 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, comparing the number and development level of '''buildings''', '''trails''', dams, and other physical developments that exist today to the number and development level that will exist 10 years or more from now is a valuable indicator about whether evidence of human occupation and modification is increasing or decreasing. Such trend information can evaluate the effectiveness of existing stewardship programs and help prioritize what actions can be taken, or not taken, to most improve wilderness character.

==== Administrative Purposes ====

At regional and national levels, information derived from WCM has the following two primary uses:

# Improves agency accountability (performance measurement)—Ultimately, once trends in wilderness character are known, a new performance measure will be instituted in the Forest Service to track the number of wildernesses with wilderness character that is stable or improving. This measure will be designed to evaluate only those measures over which the agency has direct control, such as management actions that trammel wilderness and not those where the agency's ability to influence is less certain, such as changes in nitrogen (N) deposition levels. This performance measure combined with the results of WSP will help evaluate the effectiveness of the agency's wilderness stewardship program. Regional and national reports (see section 1.5.5) will show the number or percentage of wildernesses in which the trend in wilderness character is preserved compared to the number or percentage in which the trend in wilderness character is degrading. These reports will also show which of the five qualities regionally and nationally are contributing to the degradation of 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.
# Improves agency policy review and oversight to support wilderness stewardship needs at the local level—Information from WCM can help evaluate whether current wilderness management policy is fulfilling the mandate of the Wilderness Act 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 inconsistent implementation of existing policies or to existing policies that are implemented consistently, 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.

== 1.6 Roles and Responsibilities ==

Forest Service responsibilities for resource inventory and monitoring are outlined in FSM 1940.04. The following subsections describe the specific roles and responsibilities for monitoring and evaluation of wilderness character. Existing Forest Service personnel typically fulfill these roles and responsibilities.

Roles and responsibilities for data compilation vary depending upon the measure. Tables 1.1.15–1.1.19 identify the measure type, frequency of data compilation for the measure, and whether data compilation and analysis for measures occurs at the national level, local level, or a combination of both (see also Appendix 1 for a summary of local and national tasks for all measures).

[[File:Table 1.1.15.png|thumb|Table 1.1.15—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Untrammeled Quality.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.16.png|thumb|Table 1.1.16—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Natural Quality.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.17.png|thumb|Table 1.1.17—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Undeveloped Quality.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.18.png|thumb|Table 1.1.18—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality.]]

[[File:Table 1.1.19.png|thumb|Table 1.1.19—Summary of measure type, data compilation frequency, and local or national staff responsibility for the measures in the Other Features of Value Quality.]]

=== 1.6.1 National ===

The National Wilderness Program Leader, WCM Program Manager, and associated staff members are responsible for implementing WCM across all Forest Service wildernesses. They are also responsible for working with the NPS, FWS, and BLM to provide a comprehensive WCM program for the entire NWPS. Specific responsibilities include:

* Leadership—Develop and oversee the Forest Service WCM program. Support and evaluate implementation at the regional and forest levels. Ensure WCM needs are met by allocating available funding and establishing and supporting the centralized staffing necessary for implementation (e.g., a central data analyst position). Collaborate with the other wilderness managing agencies to facilitate interagency WCM.
* Data management—Understand local versus national responsibilities for data collection and compilation for all measures included in this technical guide. Ensure compliance with '''quality assurance''' and '''quality control''' (QA/QC) and metadata standards (see sections 1.7.5 and 1.7.1, respectively). Support regions by providing oversight and training as necessary. Conduct national data collection and compilation and provide results to regional offices or local units (national data collection and compilation will likely be completed by a central data analyst employed at the national level). Coordinate with broader agency, interagency, and national programs as needed. Periodically assess data adequacy across all regions. Collaborate with NRM staff to develop and maintain corporate databases and information standards that integrate WCM information (see section 1.7.2). Collaborate with the WCMD Steering Team to ensure Forest Service WCM needs are met (see section 1.7.3).
* Evaluation and response—Assess national trends in wilderness character every 5 years. Prepare a National Report every 5 years as well as annual updates (see section 1.5.5). Evaluate national trend results and determine appropriate management and monitoring responses. Use WCM data and trend results appropriately to inform national Forest Service planning and assessments. Provide guidance to regions and forests regarding the suitability of results, future needs and priorities, and opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of WCM and wilderness stewardship. Share trend results with the other federal wilderness managing agencies and evaluate trends in wilderness character across the entire NWPS. Use NWPS trend results appropriately to inform interagency wilderness direction, policies, and guidance. Assess Forest Service protocols annually and update as needed in response to results and experiences at the national, regional, and forest levels (see section 1.8.1). Conduct major change management processes every 5 years (see section 1.8.2).

=== 1.6.2 Regional ===

Each region is responsible for implementing WCM across all wildernesses under their jurisdiction. Specific responsibilities for Regional Wilderness Program Managers and regional directors with responsibility for resources in wilderness include:

* Leadership—Identify who will lead the monitoring effort for all wildernesses within a region. Provide support for implementation at the forest and wilderness level. Review measure selections for each wilderness and facilitate development of additional local measures if necessary. Coordinate with adjoining regions that co-manage a wilderness. Ensure WCM needs are met by assessing the availability of wilderness management specialists and allocating available funding.
* Data management—Understand local versus national responsibilities for data collection and compilation for all selected measures. Coordinate and facilitate data collection and compilation across the region, including local data needs, any multi-unit or regional data needs, and the retrieval of national data. Coordinate with other federal, state, and non-governmental programs as needed. Conduct periodic reviews to assess data adequacy. Oversee and facilitate data entry in the appropriate databases, including NRM and the WCMD (see sections 1.7.2 and 1.7.3, respectively). Provide support at the regional level to maintain NRM code tables so local units can enter data appropriately.
* Evaluation and response—Assess regional trends in wilderness character every 5 years and prepare Regional Reports (see section 1.5.5). Evaluate regional trend results and determine appropriate management and monitoring responses. Use WCM data and trend results appropriately to inform regional planning, assessments, and management activities. Coordinate with local units to periodically evaluate the need for additional measures or changes to existing measures. Assist national staff in assessing protocols, technical guides, and directives annually (see section 1.8.1). Assist national staff in interpreting trend results for a region. Participate in future activities related to WCM.

=== 1.6.3 National Forests and Grasslands ===

Each wilderness managed by the Forest Service has a single national forest or grassland identified as lead for that wilderness. Lead forests or grasslands are responsible for implementing WCM across all wildernesses under their jurisdiction. Specific responsibilities include:

* Leadership—Identify who will lead the monitoring effort for each wilderness. Coordinate with all other units and agencies that co-manage a wilderness. Select required and optional measures for monitoring each wilderness, and develop additional local measures if necessary (measure selection will likely be completed by the forest staff officer with wilderness responsibilities, with assistance from relevant interdisciplinary personnel and line officers). Ensure that funding is allocated to complete WCM.
* Data management—Understand local versus national responsibilities for data collection and compilation for all selected measures. Conduct local data collection and compilation, and retrieve nationally collected and compiled data when necessary. Participate in multi-unit or regionally coordinated data collection and compilation. Ensure that all data meet QA/QC standards. Enter data for all selected measures into the appropriate databases, such as NRM and the WCMD (see sections 1.7.2 and 1.7.3, respectively).
* Evaluation and response—Assess trends in wilderness character every 5 years for each wilderness. Prepare an Individual Wilderness Report and a local "data dump" report annually or biennially (see section 1.5.5). Evaluate trend results and determine appropriate management and monitoring responses. Use WCM data and trend results appropriately in forest planning, assessments, and project implementation. Conduct periodic reviews to evaluate the need for additional measures or changes to existing measures. Assist regional and national staff in interpreting trend results for a wilderness.

== 1.7 Data Management ==

The WCM strategy is built upon the premise of using existing data whenever appropriate and available to establish a baseline for each measure and evaluate trends over time. This WCM strategy is designed to reduce workload impact on local staff to the maximum degree possible (see figure 1.1.13—Relationship among various databases used for WCM).

[[File:Figure 1.1.13.png|thumb|Figure 1.1.13—Relationship among various databases used for WCM.]]

==== Local Data ====

Local data may consist of data already entered in NRM, data stored in local databases or spreadsheets, existing data collection, or data derived from local knowledge or professional judgment. Some of the data used in this technical guide are already in the NRM-Wilderness application as part of annual program reporting, such as wilderness regulations used to track unconfined recreation and '''administrative authorizations''' to use motorized equipment or mechanical transport.

Forest Service program areas, other than the Wilderness Program, may have a data steward for other data that are needed to support certain measures. For example, facility engineers are responsible for maintaining records about roads and buildings in NRM. This technical guide takes advantage of these types of existing data sources, however, in many cases local data need to be linked to the appropriate wilderness to support WCM analysis (e.g., tabular or spatial analysis). This technical guide also acknowledges that local data can be of varying quality, and WCM provides an opportunity to update national corporate datasets with current data.

==== National Data ====

National data may consist of data from national corporate datasets or external datasets. These will be accessed by a central data analyst to both reduce workload impact on the field and for efficiencies of scale. Other datasets require Geographic Information System (GIS) skills and these measures will typically be analyzed at the national or regional level.

=== 1.7.1 Wilderness Character Monitoring Metadata ===

The data used for WCM have metadata. Metadata are information about data— its history and changes—that provide the necessary context for understanding, trusting, and correctly using those data. From defining data attributes and accuracy to providing information about map projection and coordinate systems, metadata provide answers to many users' questions. Metadata also help people find the data they need, determine how best to use the data, and avoid duplication of effort. The Forest Service Metadata Users Guide (http://www.fs.fed.us/gac/metadata/) is designed to help users with this information.

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) standards should be implemented when creating and managing metadata. The Forest Service standards for archiving and managing '''FGDC compliant metadata''' should conform to retention and disposal requirements and schedules described in FSH 6209.11 and to direction issued by the FGDC Historical Records Working Group of the National Archives and Records Administration.

=== 1.7.2 Natural Resource Manager ===

Approximately half of the measures in this technical guide will use NRM to access relevant data. Some of the measures will access data currently stored in NRM. To pull and analyze the appropriate data, these measures may require the development of standardized reports, user views, or other extraction utilities. For other measures, the necessary datasets are not presently stored in NRM but may be in the future. Data entry screens and other supporting modules would need to be developed to store and analyze data for any additional measures. These would be developed in the new NRM-WCM application.

The Forest Service designed NRM applications to meet the unique business requirements of the agency, however, the applications follow standards of the FGDC and are therefore compatible in metadata standards with data compiled by other federal agencies.

=== 1.7.3 Interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring Database ===

All four wilderness managing agencies have contributed to the development of an interagency WCMD to serve as a central portal for data entry, data storage, data analysis, and trend reporting (Adams et al. 2012). The WCMD (available at https://wc.wilderness.net/) is hosted on the Wilderness Connect website with permissioned access for agency and non-agency personnel. Guidance for accessing and using the WCMD will be released after WCM is formally implemented in the Forest Service in 2018.

In the WCMD, local users for each wilderness will select a single set of measures for which data can be entered. The required Forest Service measures described in this technical guide will be built into the WCMD and users will have the option of adding locally developed measures for each wilderness. Local users or a central data analyst at the national level will enter measure values based on the frequency of data compilation for each measure. For some measures, the WCMD will be able to calculate measure values from supporting data (e.g., calculating 3-year rolling averages from annual data). Once enough data have been entered to derive trends in all selected measures, the WCMD will determine the trends in the measures, indicators, monitoring questions, qualities, and overall wilderness character for each wilderness by using the assigned thresholds for meaningful change (see section 1.5.4). The WCMD will generate the Individual Wilderness Reports and "data dumps," Regional Reports, and National Report (section 1.5.5), and an Interagency Report for reporting trends in wilderness character across the entire NWPS.

=== 1.7.4 Data Stewardship ===

Data stewardship is the oversight and management of data for the program area. This oversight is brought to bear throughout the data lifecycle (FGDC 2010) from defining information needs and data requirements, to using data to support the agency mission. It includes many aspects of the roles discussed in section 1.6 for data acquisition, data management, and evaluation and response, with an emphasis on taking the responsibility to ensure that data are consistent with USDA requirements for Information Quality Activities as described by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (http://www.ocio.usda.gov/policy-directives-records-forms/informationquality-activities).

=== 1.7.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ===

Forest Service WCM fulfills data QA/QC as mandated by the Data Quality Act, USDA, and Forest Service policy. Oversight of data collection, transfer, and accuracy is essential to effective management and occurs throughout the monitoring process.

QA/QC processes are defined in FSM 1940 as follows:

* Quality assurance—The total integrated program for ensuring that the uncertainties inherent in inventory and monitoring data are known and do not exceed acceptable magnitudes, within a stated level of confidence. QA encompasses the plans, specifications, and policies affecting the collection, processing, and reporting of data. It is the system of activities designed to provide officials with independent assurance that QC is implemented effectively and uniformly throughout the inventory and monitoring programs (USDA Forest Service 2009).
* Quality control—The routine application of prescribed field and office procedures to reduce random and systematic errors and ensure that data are generated within known and acceptable performance limits. QC involves using qualified personnel, using reliable equipment and supplies, training personnel, and strictly adhering to service-wide standard operating procedures for tasks such as information needs assessments, establishment of standards and methods, data collection, data processing, mapping, analysis, and dissemination. (USDA Forest Service 2009).

== 1.8 Change Management ==

Information and protocols presented in this technical guide are anticipated to change and improve over time. Change may be necessary if new agency requirements are developed such as a new law or a new management issue that requires change in this monitoring. Changes may also be necessary when attributes tracked in a dataset are modified, resulting in changes that would be needed to the applicable measure protocols. Changes in measures or protocols also may be necessary if the conceptual understanding about wilderness character changes.

Change management is a comprehensive process that begins with the identification of a need for change and ends with the resolution of that request. A change management process is necessary in all monitoring programs, and is especially important for the protocols described in this technical guide because WCM has not been fully implemented across the NFS and adjustments are anticipated as implementation proceeds. A viable change management process is needed to ensure that the protocols reflect contemporary thinking about wilderness character, that lessons learned during implementation are used to improve the protocols, and that the protocols use all available datasets.

Minor and major changes are described separately because they involve considerably different processes. Submit any proposals for change to the WCM Central Team for review.

=== 1.8.1 Minor Change Management Process ===

The minor change management process will likely be conducted every year and includes:

* Modification of existing measures, necessitated by:
** Experience gained during the practical implementation of the monitoring protocol;
** Availability of data sources for existing measures;
** New research or other perspectives about what constitutes wilderness character; and
** Need for some level of consistency with the other NWPS agencies.
* Changes to the WCM process and timeline.
* Changes to the NRM-WCM application or the online interagency WCMD. For minor changes that occur with Forest Service implementation of WCM, no consultation with the other agencies is needed.

=== 1.8.2 Major Change Management Process ===

The major change management process will likely be conducted every 5 years and is more comprehensive than the minor change process. The major change process includes:

* Reviewing the appropriateness of the qualities of wilderness character from the statutory definition of wilderness, as well as the interagency monitoring questions and indicators recommended in Keeping It Wild 2.
* Deleting or adding measures, especially if they are required.
* Reviewing the appropriateness of the data analysis and methods for assessing trend in wilderness character.

Details of the major change management process have not yet been developed. This WCM strategy needs to be reviewed and re-evaluated by those directly associated with the protocols including agency staff at all administrative levels and partners who have been involved with WCM. This process would likely entail conducting a workshop and developing a work plan for the resolution of issues and concerns identified by participants. These changes also need to be coordinated with the Interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring Committee as well as with the WCMD Steering Team.

=== 1.8.3 Coordinating Change with Corporate Data Systems ===

NRM applications also have a change management process that may not be fully synchronized with updates to this technical guide. Therefore, the rate of change in this technical guide should be fully coordinated with NRM through the program of work proposal process to ensure desired NRM applications are consistent with any technical guide changes. The Forest Service GIS Data Dictionary also includes a change management process to ensure that changes will meet the business needs of the agency and reduce the impacts to support systems. This process, however, may not be synchronized with future updates to this technical guide. As a result, changes in GIS standards may not be consistent with the current version of this technical guide and may not be consistent with NRM applications.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

2023-03-05T19:31:17Z

Admin:

[[Category:USFS]]
{{Infobox
| title = [[USFS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide]]
| image = Wilderness character monitoring technical guide - rmrs gtr406.pdf.png
}}

;ALP: Automated Lands Project
;AML: Abandoned Mine Lands
;ANILCA: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
;AQS: Air Quality System
;AUMs: Animal Unit Months
;BAER: Burned Area Emergency Response
;BLM: Bureau of Land Management
;CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
;CL: Critical Load
;EDW: Enterprise Data Warehouse
;EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
;FACTS: Forest Service Activity Tracking System
;FGDC: Federal Geographic Data Committee
;FIA: Forest Inventory and Analysis
;FIRESTAT: Fire Statistics System
;FSH: Forest Service Handbook
;FSM: Forest Service Manual
;FWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
;GI: Geospatial Interface
;GIS: Geographic Information System
;gPAS: Geo-Enabled Performance Accountability System
;GPS: Global Positioning System
;HUC: Hydrologic Unit Code
;IM&A: Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment
;IMPROVE: Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
;LEIMARS: Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations Management Attainment Reporting System
;LSRS: Land Status Record System
;MISIN: Midwest Invasive Species Information Network
;MRA: Minimum Requirements Analysis
;N: Nitrogen
;NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards
;NADP: National Atmospheric Deposition Program
;NAS: Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
;NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
;NFS: National Forest System
;NFST: National Forest System Trail
;NHD: National Hydrography Dataset
;NH3: Ammonia
;NID: National Inventory of Dams
;NOX: Nitrogen Oxides
;NPS: National Park Service
;NRIS: Natural Resource Information System
;NRM: Natural Resource Manager
;NRM-Air: Natural Resource Manager—Air application
;NRM-Buildings: Natural Resource Manager—Buildings application
;NRM-Dams: Natural Resource Manager—Dams application
;NRM-Features: Natural Resource Manager—Features application
;NRM-Heritage: Natural Resource Manager—Heritage application
;NRM-Range: Natural Resource Manager—Range application
;NRM-Roads: Natural Resource Manager—Roads application
;NRM-SUDS: Natural Resource Manager—Special Uses Database System
;NRM-TESP-IS: Natural Resource Manager—Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants—Invasive Species
;NRM-Trails: Natural Resource Manager—Trails application
;NRM-WCM: Natural Resource Manager—Wilderness Character Monitoring application
;NRM-Wildlife: Natural Resource Manager—Wildlife application
;NRM-Wilderness: Natural Resource Manager—Wilderness application
;NVUM: National Visitor Use Monitoring
;NWPS: National Wilderness Preservation System
;PALS: Project Activity Levels
;QA: Quality Assurance
;QC: Quality Control
;SDE: Spatial Data Engine
;S: Sulfur
;SNOTEL: Snow Telemetry
;SO2: Sulfur Dioxide
;TDEP: Total Deposition
;USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture
;USGS: U.S. Geological Survey
;WCC: Watershed Condition Classification
;WCF: Watershed Condition Framework
;WCM: Wilderness Character Monitoring
;WCMD: Wilderness Character Monitoring Database
;WFDSS: Wildland Fire Decision Support System
;WSP: Wilderness Stewardship Performance

Abbreviations and Acronyms

2023-03-05T19:25:18Z

Admin:

[[Category:USFS]]
{{Infobox
| image = Wilderness character monitoring technical guide - rmrs gtr406.pdf.png
| html5 =
* [[Abbreviations and Acronyms]]
* '''Part 1, National Framework''', describes what and why, i.e., the approach the Forest Service will use to implement wilderness character monitoring nationwide, including definitions and key concepts.

# [[Wilderness Character Monitoring in the Forest Service]]
# [[Untrammeled Quality]]
# [[Natural Quality]]
# [[Undeveloped Quality]]
# [[Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality]]
# [[Other Features of Value Quality]]

* '''Part 2, Monitoring Protocols''', describes how this monitoring will be implemented with detailed, step-by-step protocols.

# [[Monitoring Protocols|Overview]]
# [[Untrammeled Quality Indicators]]
# [[Natural Quality Indicators]]
# [[Undeveloped Quality Indicators]]
# [[Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality Indicators]]
# [[Other Features of Value Quality Indicators]]

* [[Glossary]]
* [[References]]
* Appendices
# [[Summary of Key Implementation Attributes for All the Measures in Each Quality]]
# [[Measures Considered But Not Used]]
}}

;ALP: Automated Lands Project
;AML: Abandoned Mine Lands
;ANILCA: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
;AQS: Air Quality System
;AUMs: Animal Unit Months
;BAER: Burned Area Emergency Response
;BLM: Bureau of Land Management
;CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
;CL: Critical Load
;EDW: Enterprise Data Warehouse
;EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
;FACTS: Forest Service Activity Tracking System
;FGDC: Federal Geographic Data Committee
;FIA: Forest Inventory and Analysis
;FIRESTAT: Fire Statistics System
;FSH: Forest Service Handbook
;FSM: Forest Service Manual
;FWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
;GI: Geospatial Interface
;GIS: Geographic Information System
;gPAS: Geo-Enabled Performance Accountability System
;GPS: Global Positioning System
;HUC: Hydrologic Unit Code
;IM&A: Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment
;IMPROVE: Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
;LEIMARS: Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations Management Attainment Reporting System
;LSRS: Land Status Record System
;MISIN: Midwest Invasive Species Information Network
;MRA: Minimum Requirements Analysis
;N: Nitrogen
;NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards
;NADP: National Atmospheric Deposition Program
;NAS: Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
;NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
;NFS: National Forest System
;NFST: National Forest System Trail
;NHD: National Hydrography Dataset
;NH3: Ammonia
;NID: National Inventory of Dams
;NOX: Nitrogen Oxides
;NPS: National Park Service
;NRIS: Natural Resource Information System
;NRM: Natural Resource Manager
;NRM-Air: Natural Resource Manager—Air application
;NRM-Buildings: Natural Resource Manager—Buildings application
;NRM-Dams: Natural Resource Manager—Dams application
;NRM-Features: Natural Resource Manager—Features application
;NRM-Heritage: Natural Resource Manager—Heritage application
;NRM-Range: Natural Resource Manager—Range application
;NRM-Roads: Natural Resource Manager—Roads application
;NRM-SUDS: Natural Resource Manager—Special Uses Database System
;NRM-TESP-IS: Natural Resource Manager—Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants—Invasive Species
;NRM-Trails: Natural Resource Manager—Trails application
;NRM-WCM: Natural Resource Manager—Wilderness Character Monitoring application
;NRM-Wildlife: Natural Resource Manager—Wildlife application
;NRM-Wilderness: Natural Resource Manager—Wilderness application
;NVUM: National Visitor Use Monitoring
;NWPS: National Wilderness Preservation System
;PALS: Project Activity Levels
;QA: Quality Assurance
;QC: Quality Control
;SDE: Spatial Data Engine
;S: Sulfur
;SNOTEL: Snow Telemetry
;SO2: Sulfur Dioxide
;TDEP: Total Deposition
;USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture
;USGS: U.S. Geological Survey
;WCC: Watershed Condition Classification
;WCF: Watershed Condition Framework
;WCM: Wilderness Character Monitoring
;WCMD: Wilderness Character Monitoring Database
;WFDSS: Wildland Fire Decision Support System
;WSP: Wilderness Stewardship Performance

USFS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide

2023-03-05T19:24:52Z

Admin:

[[Category:USFS]]
{{Infobox
| image = Wilderness character monitoring technical guide - rmrs gtr406.pdf.png
| html5 =
* [[Abbreviations and Acronyms]]
* '''Part 1, National Framework''', describes what and why, i.e., the approach the Forest Service will use to implement wilderness character monitoring nationwide, including definitions and key concepts.

# [[Wilderness Character Monitoring in the Forest Service]]
# [[Untrammeled Quality]]
# [[Natural Quality]]
# [[Undeveloped Quality]]
# [[Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality]]
# [[Other Features of Value Quality]]

* '''Part 2, Monitoring Protocols''', describes how this monitoring will be implemented with detailed, step-by-step protocols.

# [[Monitoring Protocols|Overview]]
# [[Untrammeled Quality Indicators]]
# [[Natural Quality Indicators]]
# [[Undeveloped Quality Indicators]]
# [[Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality Indicators]]
# [[Other Features of Value Quality Indicators]]

* [[Glossary]]
* [[References]]
* Appendices
# [[Summary of Key Implementation Attributes for All the Measures in Each Quality]]
# [[Measures Considered But Not Used]]
}}

This Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide provides a tested and refined methodology for monitoring trends in wilderness character based on lessons learned from 15 years of experience developing and implementing wilderness character monitoring across the National Wilderness Preservation System. This document updates and replaces the Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character (Landres et al. 2009), and provides protocols for the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, to implement a nationally consistent approach to wilderness character monitoring across all 448 wildernesses administered by the agency. This approach also is consistent with the interagency wilderness character monitoring strategy published in Keeping It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System (Landres et al. 2015) and endorsed in 2015 by the Interagency Wilderness Policy Council.

This technical guide builds on the best available data to yield a coherent understanding of how wilderness character is changing over time. Wilderness character monitoring provides the Forest Service:

* Information to show how agency stewardship makes a difference on the ground based on credible data that are collected consistently and endure over time.
* Accountability for the legal and policy mandate "to preserve wilderness character" by compiling key data to evaluate trends in conditions that tie directly to the Wilderness Act of 1964.
* A communication framework to comprehensively discuss wilderness stewardship needs and priorities related to preserving wilderness character within the Forest Service and with the public.

Wilderness character monitoring in the Forest Service is designed to be nationally consistent while allowing and encouraging local flexibility as necessary to meet wilderness-specific needs. The statutory language of the Wilderness Act is used to identify five qualities of wilderness character that form the foundation of this monitoring: (1) Untrammeled, (2) Natural, (3) Undeveloped, (4) Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation, and (5) Other Features of Value. This technical guide uses Keeping It Wild 2’s organizational framework of qualities, monitoring questions, and indicators to ensure consistency across the four wilderness managing agencies (the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Each agency identifies measures to evaluate trends in these five qualities. This technical guide describes the Forest Service required as well as optional measures. Locally developed measures to meet wilderness-specific information needs are also discussed.

Implementing wilderness character monitoring does not guarantee the preservation of wilderness character, but it informs and helps improve wilderness stewardship by ensuring that Forest Service line officers and managers are accountable to the central mandate of the Wilderness Act—to preserve wilderness character.

Main Page

2023-03-05T19:21:11Z

Admin:

[[File:Wilderness survival guide.jpg|frameless|right]]
==== What is all this? ====

These pages contain corrected and annotated versions of documentation mostly to do with wilderness and 'wilderness character' in the United States. So far we have:

[[USFS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide]]

Eventually we will have it all. Promises promises.

==== Isn't this stuff already on a real government website somewhere? ====

Maybe. Government websites come and go, and in many cases documents, pages, database applications, and whole domains are removed from public availability and not replaced. Most of the time this happens when employees or priorities change, but in many cases non-technical content managers just can't keep up when an agency switches from ftp and CGI scripts to Adobe Dreamweaver, to Oracle ContentDB, to Microsoft Sharepoint, to 'let's just shoehorn EVERYTHING into an ArcGIS storymap'. Things break, especially websites after the idiot programmer has gone home.

Plus, government websites generally have bad design, irritating 'webmasters', boneheaded policies, and mid-century publishing routines. Meetings, trainings, delays. Eventually the CIO decides to discontinue PHP or the Ministry of Communication changes its mind about scientists having blogs, and pages disappear again. No, but thanks no.

==== This looks like Wikipedia, is this Wikipedia? ====

No, but these pages use [https://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki] software, which was developed to run Wikipedia. Wikipedia is different though, in that it has [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_content_guidelines rules] and a society of admins to enforce what goes on in their articles. In most cases, information on these pages would not fit Wikipedia's model of only having independently sourced articles about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability notable] topics.

Main Page

2023-03-05T17:19:29Z

Admin:

[[File:Wilderness survival guide.jpg|frameless|right]]
==== What is all this? ====

These pages contain corrected and annotated versions of documentation mostly to do with wilderness and 'wilderness character' in the United States. So far we have:

[[USFS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide]]

Eventually we will have it all. Promises promises.

==== Isn't this stuff already on a real government website somewhere? ====

Maybe. Government websites come and go, and in many cases documents, pages, database applications, and whole domains are removed from public availability and not replaced. Most of the time this happens when employees or priorities change, but in many cases non-technical content managers just can't keep up when an agency switches from ftp scripts to Adobe Dreamweaver, to Oracle ContentDB, to Microsoft Sharepoint, to 'let's just shoehorn EVERYTHING into an ArcGIS storymap'. Things break, especially websites after the idiot programmer has gone home.

Plus, government websites generally have bad design, irritating 'webmasters', and boneheaded policies, and mid-century publishing routines. Meetings, trainings. No, but thanks no.

==== This looks like Wikipedia, is this Wikipedia? ====

No, but these pages use [https://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki] software, which was developed to run Wikipedia. Wikipedia is different though, in that it has [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_content_guidelines rules] and a society of admins to enforce what goes on in their articles. In most cases, information on these pages would not fit Wikipedia's model of only having independently sourced articles about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability notable] topics.

File:Wilderness survival guide.jpg

2023-03-05T17:16:48Z

Admin:

Wilderness survival guide cover

Natural Quality Indicators

2023-03-04T22:17:40Z

Admin: /* Guidance for Selecting Air Quality Measures */

<div class="noautonum" style="float:right;width:30%;margin-left:15px;">__TOC__</div>

Monitoring the Natural Quality assesses how human-caused change affects ecological systems. Key indicators and measures monitor plants, animals, air and water, and ecological processes. This section provides detailed guidance for monitoring the following indicators and measures:

: 3.2 Indicator: Plants
:: 3.2.1 Measure: Acres of Nonindigenous Plant Species
: 3.3 Indicator: Animals
:: 3.3.1 Measure: Index of Nonindigenous Terrestrial Animal Species
:: 3.3.2 Measure: Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species
: 3.4 Indicator: Air and Water
:: 3.4.1 Measure: Concentration of Ambient Ozone
:: 3.4.2 Measure: Deposition of Nitrogen
:: 3.4.3 Measure: Deposition of Sulfur
:: 3.4.4 Measure: Amount of Haze
:: 3.4.5 Measure: Index of Sensitive Lichen Species
:: 3.4.6 Measure: Extent of Waterbodies With Impaired Water Quality
: 3.5 Indicator: Ecological Processes
:: 3.5.1 Measure: Watershed Condition Class
:: 3.5.1 Measure: Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use

Section 3.6, Selecting Measures for the Natural Quality, provides recommendations for identifying and establishing locally developed measures in the Natural Quality. It discusses the general considerations for developing these measures, explains why certain types of measures are problematic, offers examples to clarify what are and are not appropriate measures, and provides a flowchart outlining the general process.

== 3.2 Indicator: Plants ==

This indicator focuses on threats to indigenous plant species and communities. There is one required measure for this indicator.

=== 3.2.1 Measure: Acres of Nonindigenous Plant Species ===

This measure assesses the total number of acres, or the estimated percentage of acres, occupied by selected nonindigenous plant species in wilderness. Local units may select the appropriate protocol option as described in step 2 below. Data are compiled from a variety of local, state, regional, and national data sources. Local staff calculate the measure value. Table 2.3.1 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:T2.3.1.pdf.png|thumb|Table 2.3.1—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Acres of Nonindigenous Plant Species."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Develop a list of known nonindigenous plants in the wilderness and select species for monitoring.''' There may be many nonindigenous plants within a wilderness, but for practical reasons, it is recommended that local units select up to five species that pose the greatest ecological risk to native plant communities for use in this measure. Local units, however, may select as many species as they want but will need to balance practicality with the number of species selected considering the quality and availability of inventory data for the selected species. Selecting these species should consider the invasiveness or ability to spread and occupy new habitat, the amount of habitat at risk, and the potential impact of these species on indigenous plants and animals. If there is certainty that only natural vectors enabled a nonindigenous plant species to become established in a wilderness (i.e., via natural range expansion or movement), then that species would not be included. If, however, there is ambiguity about how the species was introduced (whether natural or human-caused), then the species would be included. Nonindigenous plant species that were present at the time of wilderness designation should be included for consideration in this measure. Consult the local botanist, invasive species program manager, ecologist, range conservationist, or other local sources of knowledge on nonindigenous plants to select species for this measure. Over time, new species can be added to the list of selected species, and species already on the list can be replaced with different species; any modification of the list of selected species should be considered carefully as changes in the acreage occupied by selected nonindigenous plant species may affect the trend in this measure.

'''Step 2: Determine the wilderness acreage currently occupied by each selected species and calculate the total number of acres, or the estimated percentage of acres, for all species.''' A variety of data sources may be necessary for this measure, and data sources may vary by species. Acreage data for each selected species can be based on actual surveys, observation, or professional knowledge. Current and past nonindigenous plant data are available from the NRM application for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants, and Invasive Species (NRM-TESP-IS). To retrieve spatial data on selected species from NRM for this measure, consult a specialist familiar with the NRM application and GIS to perform the necessary queries. Examples of other sources of data concerning nonindigenous plant species for a particular area include the following:

* Forest Service resource specialist on the local unit where a wilderness is located (i.e., forest botanist, range specialist ecologist, or invasive species coordinator).
* Individual state Department of Natural Resources invasive species program.
* The Natural Heritage Program.
* Local weed associations by state or county.
* Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)

Data adequacy for all data sources likely varies greatly depending on the wilderness and the species of interest. It is strongly recommended that local natural resource specialists, such as forest botanists, ecologists, or invasive species coordinators, be consulted to validate the data, especially if national datasets are used. If the determination of species extent is based partially or entirely on professional judgment, include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the assessment and their basis for the estimation.

To accommodate the reality that data may not be available for a wilderness, or that data adequacy may be insufficient to accurately assess the total number of acres for one or more selected species, the following section describes three protocol options for using this measure in order of decreasing data adequacy.

Protocol Option 1—Total Acres. The first protocol option assesses the total number of acres occupied by the selected species (e.g., 10 acres). Use this protocol option if the acreage of all selected species can be determined with sufficient data adequacy. Calculate the total number of wilderness acres occupied by one or more selected nonindigenous species to attain the measure value; do not double count acres if more than one of the species occur in the same location. For example, if there are four selected species that each occupy 10 acres and the distribution of all four species does not overlap, the total area reported would be 40 acres (10 for species a + 10 for species b + 10 for species c + 10 for species d). If the distribution of two of these species completely overlapped, the total area reported would be 30 acres (10 for species a + 10 for species b + 10 for the overlapped distribution of species c and species d).

Protocol Option 2—Categories Based Partially on Data. The second protocol option assesses the estimated percentage of acres occupied by selected nonindigenous plant species, using set "percent occupied" categories. Use this protocol option if data exist but there are concerns about how recent the data are, or about the quality or spatial coverage of the data. Similarly, if data adequacy is variable for different species, it may be appropriate to use this protocol option. For this protocol option, resource specialists must estimate the percentage of wilderness acres occupied by the selected nonindigenous plant species based on existing data as well as supplementary professional knowledge. Assign the applicable "percent occupied" amount from the seven categories described in the list below. These categories are scaled conservatively to emphasize the impact on the Natural Quality of wilderness character.

* None—0% of total wilderness acreage.
* Very Low—less than 1 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* Low—1 to 5 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* Moderate—6 to 20 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* High—21 to 35 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* Very high—36 to 50 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* Extreme—greater than 50 percent of the total wilderness acreage.

Protocol Option 3—Categories Based on Professional Judgment: The third protocol option also assesses the estimated percentage of acres occupied by selected species, but uses broader "percent occupied" categories than the previous option. Use this protocol option when there are little or no data on which to base an estimate of the acreage of selected species and there is lower confidence in the estimate. Resource specialists must estimate the percentage of wilderness acres occupied by the selected nonindigenous plant species based on professional knowledge. Assign the applicable "percent occupied" amount from the following four categories:

* None—less than 1 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* Low—1 to 5 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* Moderate—6 to 20 percent of the total wilderness acreage.
* High—greater than 20 percent of the total wilderness acreage.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' If protocol option 1 was selected, enter the total number of acres; if protocol options 2 or 3 were selected, enter the applicable "percent occupied" category of the estimated percentage of acres. The measure value is either the number of acres or the "percent occupied" category.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

Comprehensive and systematic surveys in wilderness for nonindigenous terrestrial plants are typically lacking, with data coming from sporadic and infrequent visits from resource specialists who have the knowledge to identify these species. Wildernesses are typically remote and often viewed as not needing basic resource inventories to guide management so even if a systematic survey has been conducted, it may not be repeated. If either the second or third protocol option based on categories is used, resource specialists should note in a narrative if there are particular species that currently occur across less than 1 percent of the wilderness acreage but have the potential for significant spread and adverse impacts if environmental or other conditions change.

==== Data Adequacy ====

Data adequacy varies depending on the protocol option used. For the first protocol option that relies on existing data, overall data adequacy is generally considered medium or high; data quality is generally good (e.g., ground level inventory) or moderate (e.g., data from regional or national databases), and data quantity is partial or complete as there are likely data on selected species for most or all of a wilderness. For the second protocol option that relies on a combination of existing data and professional judgment, data adequacy is generally considered medium or low because data quality is likely moderate or poor and data quantity is likely partial or insufficient. For the third protocol option that relies extensively on professional knowledge, data adequacy is likely low because data quality is poor and data quantity is likely insufficient or partial. Data adequacy must be verified locally for all protocol options.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, the spatial extent of selected nonindigenous plant species is assessed and the total number of acres (protocol option 1), or the applicable "percent occupied" category of the estimated percentage of acres (protocol options 2 and 3), is entered in the WCMD.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change differs depending on the protocol option used. If the first protocol option is used, the threshold is a 5-percent change in the total number of acres occupied by selected nonindigenous plant species. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis. If either the second or third protocol option is used, the threshold is any change in categories. Either a decrease in the total acreage beyond the 5-percent threshold for meaningful change, or a change to a lower "percent occupied" category, results in an improving trend in the measure.

== 3.3 Indicator: Animals ==

This indicator focuses on threats to indigenous animal species and communities. There are two measures for this indicator and units are required to select at least one.

=== 3.3.1 Measure: Index of Nonindigenous Terrestrial Animal Species ===

This measure is an index that assesses the geographic distribution and estimated impact of selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species. Data are compiled from a variety of local, state, regional, and national data sources. The WCMD calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.2 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:T2.3.2.pdf.png|thumb|Table 2.3.2—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Nonindigenous Terrestrial Animal Species."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Develop a list of known nonindigenous terrestrial animals in the wilderness and select species for monitoring.''' This includes all nonindigenous terrestrial animal species, and domestic (and feral) livestock, swine, horses, and burros; terrestrial insects such as Asian long-horned beetle, emerald ash borer, gypsy moth, and hemlock woolly adelgid; and terrestrial pathogens and diseases such as sudden oak death, chronic wasting disease, and white-nose syndrome. For some terrestrial animal species, distribution can vary seasonally and if the species occurs within a wilderness at any time, it could be included in this list. If there is certainty that only natural vectors enabled a nonindigenous animal species to become established in wilderness (i.e., via natural range expansion or movement), then that species would not be included; however, if there is ambiguity about how the species was introduced (whether natural or human-caused), then the species would be included. Nonindigenous animal species that were present at the time of wilderness designation should be included for consideration in this measure. Consult the local wildlife biologist, invasive species program manager, ecologist, or other local sources of knowledge to first identify nonindigenous terrestrial animals in a wilderness and then select species for inclusion in this measure.

As not all nonindigenous species have the same degree of ecological impact on wilderness, select species to monitor based on their potential to displace '''native species''' or do ecological harm to a wilderness environment. For practical reasons, local units may choose to limit the number of species selected based on their impact and data adequacy. Over time, new species can be added to the list of selected species, and species already on the list can be replaced with different species; any modification of the list of selected species should be considered carefully as changes in the index may affect the trend in this measure.

'''Step 2: Determine the distribution and impact of each selected species.''' The index used for this measure combines the numerical ratings for distribution and impact that are assigned for each selected species. These numerical ratings are based on defined distribution and impact categories, described below. If the determination of distribution or impact categories for any species is based partially or entirely on professional judgment, include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the assessment and their basis for the estimation. Both distribution and impact must be reassessed for all selected species each monitoring cycle.

Distribution is the known or estimated geographic extent inside wilderness of each selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species. For this measure, distribution is measured as the percentage of the total wilderness occupied by each selected species that permanently resides in a wilderness, or the maximum geographic extent of each selected species that occurs seasonally in a wilderness. A variety of data sources, including national and local data sources as well as professional knowledge, may be necessary for determining distribution, and data sources may vary by species. In order of priority, use surveys, observations, or professional knowledge to assess species distribution. A primary data source for this measure is the Forest Service Natural Resource Information System (NRIS). This application is a good starting place if data are available. Other relevant databases are NRM-Wildlife and NRM-TESP-IS. Examples of additional sources of data concerning nonindigenous terrestrial animal species include:

* Forest Service resource specialist on the local unit where a wilderness is located (i.e., wildlife biologist, ecologist, or invasive species coordinator).
* Individual state Department of Natural Resources invasive species program.
* NatureServe Explorer database (https://explorer.natureserve.org/) and its state Natural Heritage Program members.
* Local invasive species programs by county or city.
* Forest Service and BLM wild horse and burro herd data (http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/ecology/wildhorseburro/territories/index.shtml and https://www.blm.gov/programs/wild-horse-and-burro/herd-management).
* Forest Service Forest Health Protection mapping and reporting tools (https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/).

Data adequacy for all data sources likely varies greatly depending on the wilderness and the species of interest. It is strongly recommended that local natural resource specialists, such as biologists, ecologists, or invasive species coordinators, be consulted to validate the data, especially for datasets that extend beyond a wilderness boundary.

Assign one of the following '''distribution categories''' for each selected species based on the known or estimated percent distribution over the entire wilderness:

* Trace—the species occupies less than 1 percent of a wilderness.
* Sparse—the species occupies 1 to 5 percent of a wilderness.
* Moderate—the species occupies 6 to 25 percent of a wilderness.
* Wide—the species occupies more than 25 percent of a wilderness.

These distribution categories are scaled conservatively to emphasize the ecological effects of increased distribution of nonindigenous species. Once the distribution category has been assigned for each selected species, note the associated numerical rating according to the following table 2.3.3.

[[File:Table 2.3.3.png|thumb|Table 2.3.3—Numerical ratings for the distribution of terrestrial nonindigenous animal species.]]

Impact is the estimated relative effect of each selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species on the Natural Quality of wilderness character. Impact may change over time due to a variety of changing ecological circumstances. Consult the local wildlife biologist, invasive species program manager, ecologist, or other local sources of knowledge to determine the impact of each species. Resource specialists should base their impact assessments for each species on the scientific literature or their professional observation or knowledge. Assign one of the following '''impact categories''' for each species:

* Low—the species has a relatively small or localized impact on the natural ecosystems and plant and animal communities.
* Moderate—the species has a noticeable effect on plant or animal communities or natural ecosystems and eradication efforts may or may not be in place because of uncertainty about impact.
* High—the species has a large or significant effect on plant or animal communities or natural ecosystems and plans for eradication or reduction are likely in place because of the known large impact of the species. Once the impact category has been assigned, note the associated numerical rating according to the following table 2.3.4.

[[File:Table 2.3.4—Numerical ratings for the impact category of nonindigenous terrestrial animal species..png|thumb|Table 2.3.4—Numerical ratings for the impact category of nonindigenous terrestrial animal species.]]

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' The final measure value is derived through an index combining all selected species' numerical ratings for distribution and impact. While this index is described for reference, users will not be responsible for calculating the measure value themselves; instead, users will enter the assigned numerical distribution and impact ratings for each species in the WCMD, and the WCMD will calculate the measure value automatically. The measure value is the index value.

In calculating the index value for this measure, there are two basic steps. First, generate a component score for each selected species by multiplying the numerical rating for distribution by the numerical rating for impact. Second, sum the component scores for all species to produce the final index value. Table 2.3.5 provides an example showing how to calculate the index value for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.5—An example of how to calculate the index value for selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species..png|thumb|Table 2.3.5—An example of how to calculate the index value for selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species.]]

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

Comprehensive and systematic surveys in wilderness for nonindigenous terrestrial animals are typically lacking, with data coming from sporadic and infrequent visits from resource specialists who have the knowledge to identify these species. Even if a systematic survey is conducted, it may not be repeated.

==== Data Adequacy ====

Data quantity varies depending on the geographic area and the species of interest, and is generally expected to be insufficient to partial. Data quality also varies considerably across wildernesses because surveys and comprehensive, statistically robust inventories of nonindigenous terrestrial animal species in wildernesses are often lacking; data quality is therefore generally expected to be poor to moderate. Combining these two aspects yields an estimated low to medium data adequacy. Because of high variability, local units must verify these determinations for each data source used; for example, national data sources may have high data adequacy while evaluations based on professional judgment will often have low data adequacy.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, assess the geographic distribution and estimated impact of selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species. Enter the assigned distribution and impact ratings for each species into the WCMD. The measure value is automatically calculated by the WCMD based on the entered data.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is a 5-percent change in the measure value for all selected nonindigenous terrestrial animal species. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis. A decrease in the measure value beyond the threshold for meaningful change results in an improving trend in this measure.

=== 3.3.2 Measure: Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species ===

This measure is an index that assesses the geographic distribution and estimated impact of selected nonindigenous aquatic species (NAS), including amphibians, fish, crustaceans, mollusks, gastropods, aquatic insects, and aquatic pathogens and diseases. Data are compiled from a variety of local, state, regional, and national data sources. The WCMD calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.6 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.6—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species.".png|thumb|Table 2.3.6—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Develop a list of known nonindigenous aquatic animals in the wilderness and select species for monitoring.''' This includes all NAS and water-borne pathogens and diseases such as whirling disease, iridoviruses, and chytrid fungus. Locally or regionally '''indigenous species''' introduced in fishless waters would also be included in this list. Stocking of indigenous species into waters where they may already occur, or introducing indigenous fish species into waters that already have other fish species, are unlikely to have a measurable effect on the Natural Quality and are therefore not included under this measure. If there is certainty that only natural vectors enabled a NAS to become established in a wilderness (i.e., via natural range expansion or movement), then that species would not be included; however, if there is ambiguity about how the species was introduced (whether natural or human-caused), then the species would be included. Nonindigenous aquatic animal species that were present at the time of wilderness designation should be included for consideration in this measure. Consult with forest and district resource specialists to first identify known NAS in a wilderness and then select species for inclusion in this measure.

As NAS have varying degrees of ecological impact on wilderness, select species to monitor based on their potential to displace native species or do ecological harm to the wilderness environment. For practical reasons, local units may choose to limit the number of species selected based on their impact and data adequacy. Over time, new species can be added to the list of selected species, and species already on the list can be replaced with different species; any modification of the list of selected species should be considered carefully as changes in the index will likely affect the trend for this measure.

'''Step 2: Determine the distribution and impact of each selected species.''' The index used for this measure combines the numerical ratings for distribution and impact that are assigned for each selected species. These numerical ratings are based on defined distribution and impact categories, described below. If the determination of distribution or impact categories for any species is based partially or entirely on professional judgment, include additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the assessment and their basis for the estimation. Both distribution and impact must be reassessed for all selected species each monitoring cycle.

Distribution is the known or estimated geographic extent inside wilderness of each selected NAS. For this measure, distribution is measured as the percentage of the total wilderness waterbodies occupied by each selected species that resides in a wilderness or the maximum geographic extent of each selected species that seasonally occurs in a wilderness.

A variety of data sources, including national and local data sources and professional knowledge, may be necessary for determining distribution, and data sources may vary by species. In order of priority, use surveys, observations, or professional knowledge to assess species distribution. Data adequacy for all data sources may vary greatly depending on the wilderness and the species of interest. Consult with local natural resource specialists, such as fisheries biologists, ecologists, or invasive species coordinators to validate the data, especially for datasets that extend beyond a wilderness boundary.

A useful source of data for this measure is the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) national database for NAS, located at the Southeast Ecological Science Center and available at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/. This site is a central repository for accurate, spatially referenced biogeographic accounts of NAS in the United States. It provides detailed records, collection locations, and dates, and can searched by state, county, or watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 2 to HUC 8) for nonindigenous aquatic groups, taxa, and species. The Southeast Ecological Science Center can also be contacted to run specific queries for watersheds associated with an individual wilderness. After navigating to the website (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/), follow these steps to retrieve data:

# Go to "Database & Queries" (top of home page).
# Select "Search by Drainage Area [HUC 8]."
# Select appropriate state from map of the U.S.
# Select "All" groups and sort by "Taxonomic Group."
# Select desired HUC 8 sub basin and records will be displayed.
# Select "Collection Information" under the "More Information" column heading for each species listed.
# Assess the distribution of each species using these results, especially the information in the "Locality" and "Year" columns. For additional details on a given collection or sighting, select "Specimen ID." This provides information on the collection date and accuracy, pathway, status, and any references that are available.

Examples of additional sources of data concerning nonindigenous aquatic animal species are listed below.

* Forest Service resource specialist on the unit where a wilderness is located (i.e., fisheries biologist, hydrologist, or invasive species coordinator).
* Forest Service NRM-TESP-IS.
* Forest Service regional aquatic invasive species databases (e.g., Region 4's database available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r4/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_016101).
* Individual state Department of Natural Resources invasive species program, or state fish and game agencies (especially useful for obtaining fish stocking or fish assessment records).
* Regional, state, or local invasive aquatic species programs (e.g., the Portland State University Center for Lakes and Reservoirs has excellent data for the state of Oregon—Center for Lakes and Reservoirs - Portland State University; Michigan State University's Midwest Invasive Species Information Network [MISIN] has similar data for the Midwest—Midwest Invasive Species Information Network [MISIN]).

Assign one of the following distribution categories for each selected species based on the known or estimated percent distribution over the entire wilderness:

* Low—the species occupies 10 percent or less of the waterbodies in a wilderness.
* Moderate—the species occupies 11 to 20 percent of the waterbodies in a wilderness.
* Wide—the species occupies more than 20 percent of the waterbodies in a wilderness.

Once the distribution category has been assigned for each selected species, note the associated numerical rating shown in table 2.3.7.

[[File:Table 2.3.7—Numerical ratings for the distribution category of nonindigenous aquatic animal species..png|thumb|Table 2.3.7—Numerical ratings for the distribution category of nonindigenous aquatic animal species.]]

Impact is the estimated relative effect of each selected nonindigenous aquatic animal species on the Natural Quality of wilderness character. Impact may change over time due to a variety of changing ecological circumstances. Assign one of the following an impact categories for each species:

* Low—the species has a relatively small or localized impact on the natural ecosystems and plant and animal communities.
* Moderate—the species has a noticeable effect on plant or animal communities or natural ecosystems and eradication efforts may or may not be in place because of uncertainty about impact.
* High—the species has a large or significant effect on plant or animal communities or natural ecosystems and plans for eradication or reduction are likely in place because of the known large impact of the species.

Once the impact category has been assigned, note the associated numerical rating according to the following, table 2.3.8.

[[File:Table 2.3.8—Numerical ratings for the impact category of nonindigenous aquatic animal species..png|thumb|Table 2.3.8—Numerical ratings for the impact category of nonindigenous aquatic animal species.]]

These recommended impact categories and numerical ratings are assigned to reflect relative impacts. The setting (location, climate, other species) plays a key role in influencing the relative impact of an individual NAS. As a general rule, nonindigenous fish should likely receive the highest impact rating because they are often the top predator in aquatic systems and can have significant and lasting effects on the character and function of aquatic systems. Indigenous fish introduced into fishless waters should be considered nonindigenous and assigned a rating of 3. Aquatic invasive species (including invasive nonindigenous aquatic pathogens) would generally be assigned the second highest rating due to their potential to increase in numbers and distribution relatively quickly and have significant impacts on indigenous species by direct competition for limited resources such as water, nutrients, food, and shelter (Office of Technology Assessment 1993). Low impact species would often include certain, nonindigenous aquatic organisms that are found at the current extreme edge of their range of conditions for survival where the stress of the environment limits their productivity and competitiveness. (Jim Capurso, U.S. Forest Service, R6 Fish Program Leader and Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator, personal communication, December 1, 2016).

The general categories and ratings presented in table 2.3.8 may not fit local conditions or the specific circumstances found in an individual wilderness. Units are encouraged to adjust these ratings based on local information and professional knowledge. For example, the availability of a risk assessment for a particular invasive species, such as New Zealand mud snails or zebra mussels, could allow a local office to increase the impact rating to the maximum level of 3. Although there is no national database that provides relative risk ratings for invasive aquatic animals, such ratings may be available on a local, state, or regional level and could provide a basis for increasing the ratings for individual invasive species. Document the rationale for these adjustments.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' The final measure value is derived through an index combining all selected species' numerical ratings for distribution and impact. While this index is described for reference, users will not be responsible for calculating the measure value themselves; instead, users will enter the assigned numerical distribution and impact ratings for each species in the WCMD, and the WCMD will then calculate the measure value automatically. The measure value is the index value. In calculating the index value for this measure, there are two basic steps. First, generate a component score for each selected species by multiplying the numerical rating for distribution by the numerical rating for impact. Second, sum the component scores for all species to produce the final index value. Table 2.3.9 provides an example showing how to calculate the index value for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.9—An example of how to calculate the index value for selected nonindigenous aquatic animal species..png|thumb|Table 2.3.9—An example of how to calculate the index value for selected nonindigenous aquatic animal species.]]

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

Currently, comprehensive surveys for NAS, in both lakes and streams, are generally lacking, especially in wilderness. Where they do exist, data often are not entered into a national NAS database, but may be available in a local database. Also, there is often a lack of periodic follow-up sampling. Although progress has been made in the last few years, lack of data on NAS for many water bodies makes treatment, protection, and management extremely difficult. It also puts a premium on coordinated data gathering and data sharing among management, research interests, and users in general.

==== Data Adequacy ====

For data used in the NAS index, there is a fair degree of variability depending on a given geographic area and species of interest. Data quantity for the measure ranges from complete (e.g., fish stocking records) to insufficient (e.g., estimates and professional judgment), and is given an overall rating of partial. Data quality similarly ranges from high (e.g., fish stocking records) to low (e.g., estimates and professional judgment), resulting in an average moderate rating. This provides an overall data adequacy rating of medium. Because of high variability, local units must verify these determinations for each data source used.

==== Frequency ====

At least every 5 years, assess the geographic distribution and estimated impact of selected nonindigenous aquatic animal species. Enter the distribution and impact ratings for each species into the WCMD. The measure value is automatically calculated by the WCMD based on the entered data.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is a 5-percent change in the measure value for all selected nonindigenous aquatic animal species. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis. A decrease in the measure value beyond the threshold for meaningful change results in an improving trend in this measure.

== 3.4 Indicator: Air and Water ==

This indicator focuses on threats to air and water quality. There are six measures for this indicator: five measures on air quality from which units are required to select at least one, and one required measure on water quality.

==== Guidance for Selecting Air Quality Measures ====

Section 3.4 describes the five air quality measures:

# Measure: Concentration of Ambient Ozone
# Measure: Deposition of Nitrogen
# Measure: Deposition of Sulfur
# Measure: Amount of Haze
# Measure: Index of Sensitive Lichens

Local units are required to select at least one of these air quality measures, or may select multiple measures if relevant to the individual wilderness. For all five measures, the central data analyst will complete the protocols by retrieving data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program or other national monitoring networks. The purpose of this section is to provide additional guidance for local units to consider when selecting air quality measures because some measures are more appropriate for certain geographic regions of the U.S., and available data may vary by geographic region.

Air quality measures are selected based on their relevancy to the local wilderness. Contact local or regional air resource specialists for assistance in determining which air quality measure(s) is/are most appropriate and feasible to monitor for each wilderness. Factors to consider include the availability of data as well as the relative impacts of various pollutants in a wilderness. Air quality monitoring plans for the forest or local unit may also identify the pollutant(s) most likely affecting a wilderness. The following general guidelines for each air quality measure may help guide the selection process.

* Concentration of Ambient Ozone—This measure will be particularly important for wildernesses located within or near areas that are exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. Fortunately, these also are wildernesses most likely to have access to the data necessary to use this measure. There is limited data availability for the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
* Deposition of Nitrogen—This measure will be of more interest to local units located west of the Mississippi River and in areas of the East where nitrogen deposition is of greater concern than sulfur deposition.
* Deposition of Sulfur—This measure will be of most interest for Forest Service Regions 8 and 9 in the eastern U.S. This is especially true for New England and the Appalachian Mountain range where sulfur has accumulated over decades of high deposition and continues to be released into, and negatively affect, watersheds and aquatic systems.
* Amount of Haze—This measure will be of interest to local units with noticeable haze or other impacts to visibility. Almost all wildernesses (except those in Alaska and Puerto Rico) have representative visibility data.
* Index of Sensitive Lichen Species—This measure is primarily for wildernesses where air pollution monitoring stations are limited or not available. It will be especially useful in Alaska where air quality monitoring equipment is very limited, and in Forest Service regions 1, 4, and 6 where lichen monitoring data are readily available. Use of this measure is limited to wildernesses with forested habitats. At this time, nitrogen and sulfur are the only pollutants modeled for lichen sensitivity.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 2.3.10: Recommended air measures for Forest Service regions. A dash (-) in the column generally means not relevant or not recommended.
|-
! Region !! Concentration of ambient ozone !! Deposition of nitrogen !! Deposition of sulfur !! Amount of haze !! Index of sensitive lichen species
|-
| 1 || - || Yes || - || Yes || Yes
|-
| 2 || Yes || Yes || - || Yes || -
|-
| 3 || Yes || Yes || - || Yes || -
|-
| 4 || Yes || Yes || - || Yes || Yes
|-
| 5 || Yes || Yes || - || Yes || -
|-
| 6 || - || - || - || Yes || Yes
|-
| 8 || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes || -
|-
| 9 || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes || -
|-
| 10 || - || - || - || - || Yes
|}

Table 2.3.10 shows the air quality measures that may be most relevant for each Forest Service region (Regions 1–10). While this table may help narrow the selection process, it should not replace recommendations of local or regional air resource specialists. In this table, the protocol options mentioned under nitrogen and sulfur are discussed in sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3, respectively.

=== 3.4.1 Measure: Concentration of Ambient Ozone ===

This measure assesses the 3-year rolling average of ozone concentration (fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration) based on the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program's annual analyses of national ozone monitoring data. Unless stated otherwise, the protocol steps are intended to be completed by the central data analyst. Data are compiled from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program NAAQS website. The central data analyst calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.11 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.11—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Concentration of Ambient Ozone..png|thumb|Table 2.3.11—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Concentration of Ambient Ozone.]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Determine the ozone monitor that is representative of air quality for the wilderness.''' Although ozone data are available for all 50 states and Puerto Rico, not all wildernesses have a monitoring site located near them. Monitoring data from sites located within 25 miles of a wilderness boundary are generally considered representative (see Caveats and Cautions). If confronted with multiple viable monitors, a large disparity in elevation either between the monitoring site and a wilderness or across a wilderness, or any other questionable situations, contact an air resource specialist for assistance in selecting the single most representative site. If an air resource specialist confirms that there are no representative ozone monitors for a specific wilderness, do not use this measure and refer back to the local unit to select one of the other air quality measures.

In addition to consulting with air resource specialists, the central data analyst has the following two tools available to locate monitoring sites:

# NRM-Air—This NRM application contains spatial layers for ozone monitoring sites (called fixed equipment sites) and wilderness boundaries. Use these layers within the Geospatial Interface (GI) ArcMap extension to buffer a wilderness and identify monitoring sites within 25 miles. Consult a GIS specialist or a specialist familiar with the application for assistance if necessary.
# Forest Service Air Resource Management Program mapping tool—This tool is available online at https://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/maps/index.php and displays locations of ozone monitors as dots on the map.

Figure 2.3.1 is a screen capture from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program online tool showing ozone monitoring site locations. When the user zooms in on the map, forest and wilderness boundaries and scale are revealed. Information is available for all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The tool allows users to select the area of interest to see whether any ozone monitoring sites are located within approximately 25 miles of a wilderness boundary.

[[File:Figure 2.3.1.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.1—Screen capture from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program online tool showing ozone monitoring site locations for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.]]

Once a representative monitoring site is identified for a wilderness, record the last five digits of the monitor ID as well as the state and county it is located in.

'''Step 2: Retrieve ozone data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program.''' Navigate to the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program NAAQS website (http://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/graphs/o3calc/health.php) to access ozone summary data (shown in fig. 2.3.2). In the boxes under "Select a New Location" (found in the upper right hand corner of the page), enter the state, county, and monitor ID for the selected monitoring site; ignore the check box for "Class 1 only" and click "Load Data."

[[File:Figure 2.3.2.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.2—An example of a summary graph for the 3-year average ozone statistic from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website.]]

The first graph in the summary report depicts the NAAQS for ozone: the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 calendar years. The 3-year averages are calculated using values from the current and previous two years of data (e.g., the 3-year average for 2018 combines data from 2016, 2017, and 2018), and are represented in the graph by red triangles. Note that there may be up to a year delay in posting data. To retrieve the data depicted in the graph, click on "NAAQS Results" to the right of the graph. The data appear in columns, with each row representing a single year. To identify which column contains the 3-year rolling averages, click on the "Readme" (metadata) file (located below "NAAQS Results").

Record the "3-year average (parts per million [ppm])" data for all relevant years since the year of wilderness designation. For example, for a wilderness designated in 2000, the first 3-year average to record would be from 2002 (combining data from 2000— the year of designation, 2001, and 2002). Not all ozone monitoring sites have legacy data dating from the year of designation, in which case begin recording the ozone data when monitoring began. Only ozone data from 1990 forward are considered valid for this measure, even though some monitoring sites may have data from earlier years. Since the ozone monitoring network was expanded and became more stable around 1990, using data from that year forward minimizes the amount of missing data that could adversely affect the trend analysis. For wildernesses designated from 1964 to 1989, therefore, the first 3-year average to record should be from 1992 at the earliest (combining data from 1990, 1991, and 1992).

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' Enter the 3-year average fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration, rounded to the nearest tenth (i.e., 0.1), for all recorded years. If a null value is recorded for a certain year (i.e., a value of "-999" indicating missing annual data), include documentation of the null value but do not enter data for that year in the WCMD. The measure value is the 3-year average ozone statistic.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

One problem with this measure is that ozone monitors are frequently located near urban areas, and not all Forest Service wildernesses have a representative monitor. Wildernesses without a representative monitor will not be able to use this measure.

There are cases when a monitor located more than 25 miles away may be considered representative of a wilderness. Many factors determine how broad an area a single ozone monitor can represent, including topography, elevation, and distance to major pollution sources. Ozone monitors located further than 25 miles from a wilderness may still be representative if the air mass is similar to that over a wilderness, or if the terrain is relatively flat and the monitor is located at a similar elevation and downwind distance from major air pollution sources.

It is acceptable to use ozone data from a monitor that may represent only a portion of a wilderness, a situation that may arise for very large wildernesses and those with highly complex terrain. Ozone data from one monitor may not accurately evaluate ozone levels in all areas of a wilderness, but the data from one well-managed monitor should provide a representative ozone trend for a wilderness. The goal of this measure is to evaluate the trend in ozone concentration over time, not to establish exact ozone concentrations for a particular location in a wilderness.

If there is any question about the representativeness of a monitoring site, consult an air resource specialist to help identify the most representative monitor to use for this measure. Finally, the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website does not have up to date ozone data or graphics. Until the lapse in maintenance ends, annual ozone concentration data are sourced from EPA [https://aqs.epa.gov/aqsweb/airdata/download_files.html] and trends are calculated by the WCM Central Team using the protocol described above.

==== Data Adequacy ====

The ozone data used in this measure comes from a network of permanent monitoring sites managed by the EPA and other federal, state, tribal, and local air quality agencies (including some national forests that participate in cooperative ozone monitoring with state or local air regulatory agencies). The data collected from these monitoring sites receive rigorous quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) review before being entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database, from which the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program pulls and analyzes the data. The method of analysis used by the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program follows national protocols from the EPA and state and local air regulators.

Data adequacy must be verified for each wilderness individually. While data quality is considered good for all ozone monitoring sites, data quantity may vary and this will affect the data adequacy rating. Data quantity is considered complete only if there is a continuous data record. If there are data gaps of more than 2 years, data quality is moderate. Ozone monitoring sites with complete data will have a high data adequacy rating. Sites with partial data will have a medium data adequacy rating.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, obtain the most current ozone data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program (that draws the data from the EPA) and enter these data in the WCMD. Although the data are released annually, data compilation, analysis, and entry of all new years may take place on a 5-year interval rather than annually (i.e., rather than retrieving, analyzing, and entering data every year, the central data analyst may retrieve, analyze, and enter 5 years of data at a time). There can be up to a year delay in ozone data being available (e.g., 2014 data may not be available until the end of 2015) and the central data analyst should plan to compile data for this measure just prior to the reporting interval.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is statistical significance as determined by regression analysis. A statistically significant decreasing trend in the 3-year rolling average of the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentration results in an improving trend in the measure.

=== 3.4.2 Measure: Deposition of Nitrogen ===

This measure assesses the amount of nitrogen deposition in a wilderness by using either the average total deposition (based on nationally modeled or measured spatial data) or the trend in wet deposition (based on the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program's annual analyses of spatially interpolated data). Local units may select the appropriate protocol option as described in step 1 below. Unless stated otherwise, the protocol steps are intended to be completed by the central data analyst. Data are compiled from either the NADP website, the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website, or other local or regional databases. The central data analyst calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.12 describes key features for this measure.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 2.3.12—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Deposition of Nitrogen."
|-
! Measure type !! Protocol options !! Local tasks !! National tasks !! Frequency
|-
| Required to select at least one of the five air quality measures
|| Protocol Option 1: Total Deposition
Protocol Option 2: Wet Deposition
|| Validate the nationally selected protocol option.
|| Step 1: Determine which protocol option is appropriate for the wilderness.
Step 2: Retrieve and process the deposition data.

Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.
|| 5 years
|}

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Determine which protocol option is appropriate for the wilderness.''' The two protocol options for this measure are described below. Consult with an air resource specialist to confirm which protocol option is most appropriate. While the central data analyst may make a preliminary recommendation, local units must validate and approve the selected protocol option, and may choose to use local or regional deposition data if available and appropriate.

Protocol Option 1—Total Deposition. This protocol option uses modeled spatial data to assess the average total nitrogen deposition in a wilderness. These data are available for wildernesses in the lower 48 states. Use this protocol option unless more accurate, regionally refined deposition information is available.

Protocol Option 2—Wet Deposition. This protocol option uses spatially interpolated data to assess the trend in wet deposition of nitrogen. The wet deposition data used for this protocol option are interpolated at a finer resolution than for protocol option 1, and therefore better reflect variation in deposition across the landscape and provide a more accurate average deposition value. These data are only available for eastern wildernesses in the continental U.S. where wet deposition trends mirror total deposition trends.

In addition to the two protocol options described in this technical guide, other local or regional nitrogen deposition data may be available for a given wilderness. For example, El Toro Wilderness in Puerto Rico is not covered by the data described in protocol option 1 or 2, however there is a National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) monitoring site (PR20) located near the wilderness and those data could be used to describe wet deposition trends. An air resource specialist should be consulted to assist with this analysis. Similarly, forests in Regions 1, 4, 6, and 10 have access to a regionally specific alternative to the protocol options described in this section: nitrogen deposition estimates based on lichen sampling and elemental analysis of lichen tissue. These are considered the best nitrogen deposition data for the Pacific Northwest and Alaska where deposition-monitoring sites are scarce and the extremely complex (i.e., mountainous) terrain located adjacent to the ocean makes air quality modeling difficult. Wilderness-specific nitrogen deposition trends based on lichen elemental analyses are available for units in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Alaska on the Forest Service National Lichens and Air Quality Database and Clearinghouse at http://gis.nacse.org/lichenair/. Local Forest Service units in Regions 6 and 10 should consider using these nitrogen deposition trends as well as the air pollution scores described in the measure Index of Sensitive Lichens (section 3.4.5 in part 2) to monitor wilderness air quality.

Other local or regional deposition data sources might be preferred for a wilderness if they are available at a finer spatial resolution, especially in areas of mountainous terrain. If a local unit is considering using regionally refined deposition data other than those described in protocol options 1 and 2, consult with an air resource specialist to ensure that the data are relevant and used appropriately.

'''Step 2: Retrieve and process the deposition data.''' This step is described below for each protocol option.

Protocol Option 1—Total Deposition. The best total nitrogen deposition values available nationally are the result of a hybrid approach that combines measured and modeled deposition into spatial coverages (Schwede and Lear 2014). This approach combines monitoring data with output from the Community Multiscale Air Quality modeling system, giving priority to measurement data near the location of the monitor and priority to modeled data in areas where monitoring data are not available. The Total Deposition (TDEP) Science Committee of the NADP http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/committees/tdep/ creates these deposition values. Although TDEP products include values for many components of deposition, this protocol option uses only the annual total nitrogen data. Annual nitrogen deposition data are available from 2000 forward. GIS analysis will be required to calculate annual total nitrogen deposition within each wilderness for each year of interest.

If protocol option 1 is selected, TDEP data are obtained from the NADP through the website: http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/committees/tdep/tdepmaps/. To retrieve data, navigate to the website and follow these steps:

# Open the "README file for data" (found on the bottom of the page) and record the TDEP version number. The version number consists of a 4-digit year and a 2-digit release number (e.g., 2016.01), and can be found in the lower left corner of the ReadMe file. It is critical to document which TDEP version is used because each subsequent release updates all of the previous years to reflect modifications and enhancements in the underlying model.
# Return to the bottom of the main page and click "Download Grids." Next, click on the folder labeled "n_tw" that contains the total wet and dry deposition data. Other similarly named folders contain different nitrogen statistics, so it is important to use the "n_tw" folder and no other.
# Download the zip files for all years of interest. The first time data are compiled for this measure, and every time a new version is released, all available years of data since the year of wilderness designation must be downloaded and analyzed. If the version number has not changed since the previous data compilation, only new years of data must be downloaded. Be advised that the most recent years posted will usually be 1 to 2 years behind the current date.

Consult with a GIS specialist to analyze the downloaded spatial data. Once the files have been unzipped and imported from the .e00 extension, each will show a gridded coverage of the modeled estimates of total nitrogen deposition for the calendar year, at a resolution of 12 kilometers by 12 kilometers. The GIS specialist will need to buffer the wilderness boundary by 12 kilometers before clipping the data.

Because the total deposition estimates are in 12 kilometer squares (approximately 35,600 acres), there likely will be a significant number of wildernesses that are entirely encompassed in a single square (e.g., many of the 270 Forest Service wildernesses smaller than 35,600 acres). For wildernesses contained within a single square, use that value as the wilderness average. For wildernesses that take up more than one square, however, the average TDEP value for a wilderness will need to be calculated. Record the wilderness average total deposition for all years of downloaded data.

Protocol Option 2—Wet Deposition. If protocol option 2 is selected, wet deposition data are obtained through the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website at http://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/graphs/dep/ (see fig. 2.3.3). In the boxes under "Select a New Location," enter the state, national forest, and wilderness, and click "Load Data" (ignore the check box for "Class 1 only").

[[File:Figure 2.3.3.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.3—An example of a summary for wet total nitrogen deposition from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website.]]

Relevant information for this measure is found in the second section of the summary titled "Wet Total Nitrogen," which includes both a graphic presentation of the data and an explanatory narrative. (In this case, total refers to the sources of nitrogen, rather than the type of deposition.) The graph depicts the average total wet deposition for a wilderness (in kilograms per hectare) for each calendar year, and contains either a red regression estimate line or a blue historical mean line. Note that there may be up to a year delay in posting data.

Determine whether wet nitrogen deposition has increased, decreased, or remained stable over time by using both the graph and the explanatory narrative. A blue line on the graph indicates a stable (not statistically significant) trend in the data. A red regression line on the graph indicates a statistically significant trend in the data, either increasing or decreasing. Look at the first sentence in the narrative to confirm the direction of the data; this sentence will read: "Deposition has decreased on average..." or "Deposition has increased on average…." Be aware that these analyses are based upon the entire data record, whereas WCM determines trend comparing the most recent measure value with the baseline measure value. As a result, the central data analyst will need to consult with an air resource specialist to determine whether it is more appropriate to use the narrative description or estimate the trend from the year of designation to the present day. Assign the applicable trend category from the options described in the following list. For the measure baseline year, the stable wet deposition of nitrogen category should be selected. If there is any question about which category to assign, contact an air resource specialist for assistance in interpreting the graph and narrative.

* Decreasing wet deposition of nitrogen—there is a statistically significant decreasing trend in the average annual wet deposition.
* Stable wet deposition of nitrogen—there is no statistically significant trend in the average annual wet deposition.
* Increasing wet deposition of nitrogen—there is a statistically significant increasing trend in the average annual wet deposition.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' For protocol option 1, enter the wilderness average total deposition values, rounded to the nearest tenth (i.e., 0.1), for all years that were assessed. For protocol option 2, enter the assigned trend category for wilderness wet deposition. The measure value is either the average total deposition or the trend category for wet deposition.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

The Forest Service will soon be able to use exceedance of identified critical loads (CL) to monitor the trend in nitrogen deposition. A CL is the amount of pollutant loading, below which negative impacts to sensitive resources do not occur. In other words, a CL is a threshold for air pollution effects. By comparing a CL to total deposition (and determining whether the CL has been exceeded) it is possible to directly address effects of pollution on natural resources within a wilderness and not just the pollution trend, as is used currently. Use of total deposition estimates from TDEP, as outlined in protocol option 1 of the current guidance, sets the stage for an easy transition to using CL exceedance in the future when units have identified CLs for nitrogen. For more information on CLs, see the Forest Service Air Portal, available at http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/airqualityportal/critical_loads/index.php, and the EPA Global Change Impacts & Adaptation CLs Mapper (currently in beta version and regularly updated), available at https://clmapper.epa.gov/.

==== Data Adequacy ====

For protocol option 1, data quantity is considered complete and data quality is considered good, resulting in a high data adequacy rating. TDEP is considered the best available approach for estimating total deposition of nitrogen, in part because it maximizes the use of measured data from nationally recognized monitoring networks. The included monitoring networks produce high quality measurements following documented protocols for monitor site selection, equipment maintenance, sample collection and handling, sample analysis, data processing, and data reporting.

For protocol option 2, data quantity is considered complete and data quality is considered good, resulting in a high data adequacy rating for the continental eastern U.S. The regionally refined spatial interpolations of wet deposition created by Grimm and Lynch (2004) are considered the best available approach for tracking deposition in the eastern U.S. This approach uses measured deposition data (similar to what is described for TDEP), measured precipitation, and topography to model wet deposition. The resulting product has a finer resolution than TDEP estimates, which better reflects variation in deposition across the landscape and provides a more accurate average deposition value for each wilderness.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, the amount of nitrogen deposition is assessed and the total deposition annual averages (protocol option 1) or applicable trend category (protocol option 2) are entered in the WCMD. For protocol option 1, although the data are released annually, data compilation, analysis, and entry of all new years may take place on a 5-year interval rather than annually (i.e., rather than retrieving, analyzing, and entering data every year, the central data analyst may retrieve, analyze, and enter 5 years of data at a time). The central data analyst should plan to compile data for either protocol option of this measure just prior to the 5-year trend reporting interval because there can be up to a year delay in posting national air quality data to websites (e.g., 2014 data may not be available until the end of 2015).

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change differs depending on the protocol option used. For protocol option 1, the threshold is statistical significance as determined by regression analysis. For protocol option 2, the threshold is any change in categories. A statistically significant decreasing trend in the data, or a change in categories towards decreasing deposition, results in an improving trend in the measure.

=== 3.4.3 Measure: Deposition of Sulfur ===

This measure assesses the amount of sulfur deposition in a wilderness by using either the trend in wet deposition (based on the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program's annual analyses of spatially interpolated data) or the average total deposition (based on nationally modeled spatial data). Local units may select the appropriate protocol option as described in step 1 below. Unless stated otherwise, the protocol steps are intended to be completed by the central data analyst. Data are compiled from either the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website, the NADP website, or other local or regional databases. The central data analyst calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.13 describes key features for this measure.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 2.3.13—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Deposition of Sulfur."
|-
! Measure type !! Protocol options !! Local tasks !! National tasks !! Frequency
|-
| Required to select at least one of the five air quality measures
|| Protocol Option 1: Wet Deposition
Protocol Option 2: Total Deposition
|| Validate the nationally selected protocol option.
|| Step 1: Determine which protocol option is appropriate for the wilderness.
Step 2: Retrieve and process the deposition data.

Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.
|| 5 years
|}

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Determine which protocol option is appropriate for the wilderness.''' The two protocol options for this measure are described below. Protocol Option 1—Wet Deposition, applies to the eastern U.S. (the area most likely to select this measure), while Protocol Option 2—Total Deposition, applies to the rest of the continental U.S. Consult with an air resource specialist to confirm which protocol option is most appropriate. While the central data analyst may make a preliminary recommendation, local units must validate and approve the selected protocol option, and may choose to use local or regional deposition data if available and appropriate.

Protocol Option 1—Wet Deposition. This protocol option uses spatially interpolated data to assess the trend in wet deposition of sulfur. The wet deposition data used for this protocol option are interpolated at a finer resolution than data for Protocol Option 2–Total Deposition, and therefore better reflect variation in deposition across the landscape and provide a more accurate average deposition value. These data are only available for eastern wildernesses in the continental U.S. where wet deposition trends mirror total deposition trends. Wildernesses in Forest Service Regions 8 and 9 (excluding Puerto Rico) should strongly consider using this protocol option.

Protocol Option 2—Total Deposition. This protocol option uses modeled spatial data to assess the average total sulfur deposition in a wilderness. These data are available for wildernesses in the lower 48 states. Use this protocol option unless more accurate, regionally refined deposition information is available.

In addition to the two protocol options described in this technical guide, other local or regional sulfur deposition data may be available for a given wilderness. For example, sulfur deposition trends at El Toro Wilderness is Puerto Rico are not covered by protocol options 1 or 2 but could be described using data from the nearby NADP wet deposition monitoring site (PR20). Other local or regional deposition data sources might be preferred if they are available at a finer spatial resolution, especially in areas of mountainous terrain. If a local unit is considering using regionally refined deposition data other than those described here, consult with an air resource specialist to ensure that the data are relevant and used appropriately.

'''Step 2: Retrieve and process the deposition data.''' This step is described for each protocol option.

Protocol Option 1—Wet Deposition. If the first protocol option is selected, wet deposition data are obtained through the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website at http://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/graphs/dep/ (shown in fig. 2.3.4). In the boxes under "Select a New Location," enter the state, national forest, and wilderness, and click "Load Data" (ignore the check box for "Class 1 only").

[[File:Figure 2.3.3.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.4—An example of a summary for wet sulfate deposition from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website.]]

Relevant information for this measure is found in the second section of the summary titled "Wet Sulfate," which includes both a graphic presentation of the data and an explanatory narrative. The graph depicts the average total wet deposition for a wilderness (in kilograms per hectare) for each calendar year, and contains either a red regression estimate line or a blue historical mean line. Note that there may be up to a year delay in posting data.

Determine whether wet sulfate deposition has increased, decreased, or remained stable over time by using both the graph and the explanatory narrative. A blue line on the graph indicates a stable (not statistically significant) trend in the data. A red regression line on the graph indicates a statistically significant trend in the data, either increasing or decreasing. Look at the first sentence in the narrative to confirm the direction of the data; this sentence will read: "Deposition has decreased on average..." or "Deposition has increased on average…." Be aware that these analyses are based upon the entire data record, whereas WCM determines trend comparing the most recent measure value with the baseline measure value. As a result, the central data analyst will need to consult with an air resource specialist to determine whether it is more appropriate to use the narrative description or estimate the trend from the year of designation to the present day. Assign the applicable trend category from the options described in the following list. For the measure baseline year, the stable wet deposition of sulfur category should be selected. If there is any question about which category to assign, contact an air resource specialist for assistance in interpreting the graph and narrative.

* Decreasing wet deposition of sulfur—there is a statistically significant decreasing trend in the average annual wet deposition.
* Stable wet deposition of sulfur—there is no statistically significant trend in the average annual wet deposition.
* Increasing wet deposition of sulfur—there is a statistically significant increasing trend in the average annual wet deposition.

Protocol Option 2—Total Deposition. If the second protocol option is selected, TDEP data are obtained from the NADP through the website http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/committees/tdep/tdepmaps/. To retrieve data, navigate to the website and follow these steps:

# Open the "README file for data" (found on the bottom of the page) and record the TDEP version number. The version number consists of a 4-digit year and a 2-digit release number (e.g., 2016.01), and can be found in the lower left corner of the ReadMe file. It is critical to document which TDEP version is used because each subsequent release updates all of the previous years to reflect modifications and enhancements in the underlying model.
# Return to the bottom of the main page and click "Download Grids." Next, click on the folder labeled "s_tw" that contains the total (wet and dry) sulfur deposition data. Other similarly named folders contain different sulfur statistics, so it is very important to use the "s_tw" folder and no other.
# Download the zip files for all years of interest. The first time data are compiled for this measure, and every time a new version is released, all available years of data since the year of wilderness designation must be downloaded and analyzed. If the version number has not changed since the previous data compilation, only new years of data must be downloaded. Be advised that the most recent years posted will usually be 1 to 2 years behind the current date.

Consult with a GIS specialist to analyze the downloaded spatial data. Once the files have been unzipped and imported from the .e00 extension, each will show a gridded coverage of the modeled estimates of total sulfur deposition for the calendar year, at a resolution of 12 kilometers by 12 kilometers. The GIS specialist will need to buffer the wilderness boundary by 12 kilometers before clipping the data.

Because the total deposition estimates are in 12 kilometer squares (approximately 35,600 acres), there likely will be a significant number of wildernesses that are entirely encompassed in a single square (e.g., many of the 270 Forest Service wildernesses smaller than 35,600 acres). For wildernesses contained within a single square, use that value as the wilderness average. For wildernesses that take up more than one square, however, the average TDEP value for a wilderness will need to be calculated. Record the wilderness average total deposition for all years of downloaded data.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' For protocol option 1, enter the assigned trend category for wilderness wet deposition. For protocol option 2, enter the wilderness average total deposition values, rounded to the nearest tenth (i.e., 0.1), for all years that were assessed. The measure value is either the trend category for wet deposition or the average total deposition.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

The Forest Service will soon be able to use exceedance of identified CLs to monitor the trend in sulfur deposition. By comparing a CL to total deposition (and determining whether the CL has been exceeded) it is possible to directly address effects of pollution on natural resources within wilderness and not just the pollution trend, as is used currently. This is especially important for areas where pollution trends are decreasing but resources continue to be negatively affected by accumulated pollutants. A prime example can be found in the southern Appalachians, where sulfur emissions and deposition have decreased dramatically since 2006, but the accumulated sulfur in some watersheds slows recovery from acidification. Therefore, even with decreasing trends in sulfur deposition, sensitive resources may still show negative effects from acidification. Use of total deposition estimates from TDEP, as outlined in protocol option 2 of the current guidance, sets the stage for an easy transition to using CL exceedance in the future when units have identified CLs for sulfur. See the Forest Service Air Portal for more information on CLs, available at http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/airqualityportal/critical_loads/index.php.

==== Data Adequacy ====

For the protocol option 1, data quantity is considered complete and data quality is considered good, resulting in a high data adequacy rating for the continental eastern U.S. The regionally refined spatial interpolations of wet deposition created by Grimm and Lynch (2004) are considered the best available approach for tracking deposition in the eastern U.S.

For the protocol option 2, data quantity is considered complete and data quality is considered good, resulting in a high data adequacy rating. TDEP is considered the best available approach for estimating total deposition of sulfur, in part because it maximizes the use of measured data from nationally recognized monitoring networks.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, the amount of sulfur deposition is assessed and the applicable trend category (protocol option 1) or total deposition annual averages (protocol option 2) are then entered in the WCMD. For protocol option 2, although the data are released annually, data compilation, analysis, and entry of all new years may take place on a 5-year interval rather than annually (i.e., rather than retrieving, analyzing, and entering data every year, the central data analyst may retrieve, analyze, and enter 5 years of data at a time). The central data analyst should plan to compile data for either protocol option of this measure just prior to the 5-year trend reporting interval because there can be up to a year delay in posting national air quality data to websites (e.g., 2014 data may not be available until the end of 2015).

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change differs depending on the protocol option used. For protocol option 1, the threshold is any change in categories. For protocol option 2, the threshold is statistical significance as determined by regression analysis. A change in categories towards decreasing deposition, or a statistically significant decreasing trend in the data, results in an improving trend in the measure.

=== 3.4.4 Measure: Amount of Haze ===

This measure assesses the trend in average deciview for the 20 percent most impaired days, based on the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program's annual analyses of national visibility monitoring data. Unless stated otherwise, the protocol steps are intended to be completed by the central data analyst. Data are compiled from the Forest Service Wilderness Air Quality website. The central data analyst calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.14 describes key features for this measure.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 2.3.12—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Deposition of Nitrogen."
|-
! Measure type !! Protocol options !! Local tasks !! National tasks !! Frequency
|-
| Required to select at least one of the five air quality measures
|| None
|| None
|| Step 1: Retrieve visibility data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program.

Step 2: Enter data in the WCMD.
|| 5 years
|}

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Retrieve visibility data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program.''' The visibility data used for this measure are collected through the IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments) program and analyzed by staff in the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program. Data will be uploaded to the Forest Service Wilderness Air Quality website (http://www.fs.fed.us/air/wilderness_monitoring.htm) once development of this site is completed. Each wilderness with a representative monitoring site will be listed with a link to the summary of visibility data from that monitor.

Relevant information for this measure will be found in the visibility graph (shown in fig. 2.3.5). The graph depicts IMPROVE data of the average deciview for the 20 percent most impaired days within a calendar year, averaged over 5 years. Deciview is a measurement of the amount of haze, with higher values of deciview indicating increased haze and greater levels of visibility impairment. Five year averages are calculated using values from the current and previous four years of data (e.g., the 5-year average for 2015 combines data from 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015), and are represented in the graph by blue dots. Note that there may be up to a year delay in posting data.

The Forest Service Air Resource Management Program conducts a statistical analysis of the IMPROVE 5-year averages using a non-parametric regression technique: the '''Theil-Sen slope'''. This technique minimizes the influence of data outliers (e.g., so that a 5 year period with very favorable weather conditions for sulfate aerosol formation does not unduly affect the trend calculation). The statistical analysis is based on the available data record since the year of wilderness designation. For example, for a wilderness designated in 2000, the first 5-year average to be included in the statistical analysis would be from 2004 (combining data from 2000—the year of designation, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004). Not all IMPROVE monitoring sites will have legacy data dating from the year of wilderness designation, in which case the statistical analysis would use the entire data record available.

[[File:Figure 2.3.5.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.5—Visibility trends for the Bridger Wilderness, 2000–2015.]]

For this measure, a p-value less than 0.10 indicates a statistically significant trend in the data. The p-value from the most recent statistical analysis is shown on the graph. If the p-value is less than 0.10, use the trend line on the graph (the blue dotted line) to determine if average deciview has increased or decreased over time. For example, in figure 2.3.5, the low p-value and downward trend line indicate a statistically significant decreasing trend in deciview. Assign the applicable trend category from the options described in the following list. For the measure baseline year, the stable deciview category should be selected. If there is any question about which category to assign, contact an air resource specialist for assistance in interpreting the graph.

* Decreasing deciview—there is a statistically significant decreasing trend in the 5-year average deciview for the 20 percent most impaired days.
* Stable deciview—there is no statistically significant trend in the 5-year average deciview for the 20 percent most impaired days.
* Increasing deciview—there is a statistically significant increasing trend in the 5-year average deciview for the 20 percent most impaired days.

'''Step 2: Enter data in the WCMD.''' Enter the assigned trend category for the average deciview in the WCMD for this measure. The measure value is the trend category for deciview.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

Representative IMPROVE sites were assigned to each Class I wildernesses based on distance and elevation criteria established by the IMPROVE Steering Committee. Subsequent studies of the spatial variability in IMPROVE data and model results suggest that most Class I wildernesses are well represented by their regulatorily assigned IMPROVE site. Based on the same criteria, most Class II wildernesses are also well represented by an IMPROVE site, but there are several, especially in southeast Alaska, which cannot be reasonably represented by IMPROVE data. Wildernesses without a representative monitor will not be able to use this measure.

IMPROVE sites that represent Class I areas are likely to remain operational in some capacity until 2064. However, a small number of other sites will most likely move or be shut down over time, in which case wildernesses will be evaluated for representativeness at a different IMPROVE monitor site. Gaps in the data record should not affect the regression.

While higher haze values indicate a less natural air quality condition, the EPA's Regional Haze Rule is designed to make steady progress towards natural conditions by 2064. As a result, the trend is a more important measure for WCM than the absolute impairment value.

Complete visibility data were not available on the Forest Service Wilderness Air Quality website during the initial implementation years of WCM, so visibility trends were calculated by the Central Team from tabular data provided by the IMPROVE coordinator. Because the website was still under development when this technical guide was published, there may need to be some reconciliation between the protocol currently described here for retrieving the haze data and the approach used once the website is finalized.

==== Data Adequacy ====

Visibility data are routinely collected and reported through the IMPROVE program. QA of the data is extensive. The number of observations per site is quite high, and the data record is generally greater than 10 years. In addition, data completeness for each site and year is determined as part of the calculation of the 5-year rolling average deciview, and site-years that do not meet standard completeness criteria are removed from the statistical analysis. For wildernesses with representative IMPROVE sites, data quantity is considered complete and data quality is considered good, resulting in a high data adequacy rating.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, the trend in the 5-year average deciview for the 20 percent most impaired days is assessed and the applicable trend category is then entered in the WCMD. The central data analyst should plan to compile data for this measure just prior to the 5-year trend reporting interval because there can be up to a year delay in posting data to the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program website (e.g., 2014 data may not be available until the end of 2015).

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is any change in categories. A change towards decreasing deciview results in an improving trend in the measure.

=== 3.4.5 Measure: Index of Sensitive Lichen Species ===

This measure assesses the trend in air pollution scores for nitrogen and sulfur derived from the presence and abundance of sensitive lichen species, based on the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program's analyses of local biomonitoring data. Unless stated otherwise, the protocol steps are intended to be completed by the central data analyst. Data are compiled from the Forest Service National Lichens and Air Quality database. The central data analyst calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.15 describes key features for this measure.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 2.3.15—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Sensitive Lichen Species."
|-
! Measure type !! Protocol options !! Local tasks !! National tasks !! Frequency
|-
| Required to select at least one of the five air quality measures
|| None
|| None
|| tep 1: Retrieve lichen data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program.
Step 2: Conduct a statistical analysis to determine the trend in the data.

Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.
|| 5 years
|}

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Retrieve lichen data from the Forest Service Air Resource Management Program.''' Navigate to the Forest Service National Lichens and Air Quality database (http://gis.nacse.org/lichenair/index.php) and follow these steps:

# Go to "Database Queries" on the left and click on "Lichen Plot Data." Select the desired wilderness from the list in the rightmost box (fig. 2.3.6) and click "Minimize." [[File:Figure 2.3.6.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.6—Example of lichen plot data from the National Lichens and Air Quality Database.]]
# Scroll down to the section titled "Select Database Fields to Include in Query." Check the boxes for "Field collection date," "Plot name" and "Air pollution score" (fig. 2.3.7), then click "Retrieve Tabular Data." [[File:Figure 2.3.7.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.7—An example of the database fields included in the query for this measure.]]
# Record relevant air pollution scores. In the table that appears, each row records a different plot number (fig. 2.3.8). The three fields selected for the query are found as columns on the far right of the table. Air pollution scores for nitrogen and sulfur are derived from an analysis of the lichen community and lichen abundances. Higher (more positive) scores indicate that more pollution (i.e., nitrogen and sulfur) is impacting the lichens on the plot. Plots without an air pollution score have not yet had their data analyzed; they will be updated in 2017 to reflect the most up to date information available. Sulfur air scores will also be calculated and uploaded here so that forests in the western U.S. and eastern U.S. have two scores. Click on the title of the "Plot name" column to sort the plots alphabetically, and identify which plots have been sampled more than once by comparing the plot name and field collection date. For example, in the figure 2.3.8, Plot 1142184 was sampled in 1995 and 2005 (first two rows) while Plot 1140188 has only been sampled once in 1996 (third row). Record the air pollution scores for all plots that have multiple field collection dates (table 2.3.16); ignore plots that have only been sampled once.

[[File:Figure 2.3.8.png|thumb|Figure 2.3.8—An example of the tabular summary of lichen plot data.]]

'''Step 2: Conduct a statistical analysis to determine the trend in the data.''' Consult a statistician or an air resource specialist for assistance with this step to determine if the number of sites is adequate and if the use of these statistical methods is appropriate. Use a two-tailed, paired t-test with an alpha level of 0.05 to determine if the air pollution scores are significantly different from one year to another. The earliest field collection date after the year of wilderness designation should be compared to the most recent field collection date to complete this analysis. There may be instances where a wilderness has multiple sampling dates across a period of up to 10 years (e.g., in fig. 2.3.8 the first year of sampling for each plot varies from 1995 to 1997). These wilderness areas may compare values from the earliest 10-year period to the most recent 10-year period. For example, in table 2.3.14, air pollution scores from 1990–1999 could be compared to air pollution scores from 2000–2010 for the three sites with more than 1 year of sampling. A p-value greater than 0.05 (as in the example in table 2.3.16) indicates that air pollution scores have not changed significantly over time, while a p-value less than or equal to 0.05 would be reasonable statistical evidence that the air pollution scores from the most recent field collection date are significantly different than those from the earliest field collection date. If a statistically significant difference is found, determine whether the air pollution scores are increasing or decreasing over time by comparing the mean air pollution score for the first field collection year with the mean score for the most recent year.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 2.3.16—An example of data retrieved from the tabular summary of lichen plot data placed into a period of the decade the data were collected.
|-
!colspan="3"| Air pollution scores—Badger Creek Wilderness
|-
! Plot number !! 1990–1999 !! 2000–2010
|-
| Plot 1142184 || -0.2678 || -0.4108
|-
| Plot 1140180 || -0.244 || -0.5537
|-
| Plot 1140176 || -1.154 || -0.0884
|-
| Average || -0.5553 || -0.2920
|-
| p-value || colspan="2"| 0.6461
|}

Assign the applicable trend category from the options described in the list below. For the measure baseline year—that is, the first period of data collection after the year of wilderness designation (e.g., 1990–1999 in the table above)—the stable air pollution category should be selected. If there is any question about which category to assign, contact an air resource specialist for assistance in interpreting the air pollution scores.

* Decreasing air pollution—there is a statistically significant decreasing trend in the air pollution scores.
* Stable air pollution—there is no statistically significant trend in the air pollution scores.
* Increasing air pollution—there is a statistically significant increasing trend in the air pollution scores.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' Enter the assigned trend category for air pollution in the WCMD for this measure. The measure value is the trend category for air pollution.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

Sensitive lichen species respond to both air pollutants as well as changes in climatic conditions, such as prolonged drought. Consult with an air resource specialist to understand if changes in sensitive lichen species are a response to changes in air pollution, climate, or both.

The data collection rate, or the amount of time between field collection dates, may be a concern for this measure. Plots are generally sampled on a 10-year monitoring cycle, and the data may not be updated on the same timeline as needed for WCM. In many wildernesses in the western U.S., lichen air plots are co-located with FIA plots, which are evenly spaced across a sampling grid that covers the country. Larger wildernesses may have more lichen biomonitoring plots because there are more FIA plots. Units may choose to locate more lichen biomonitoring plots in a wilderness to fill in the data gaps if threats due to air pollution are detected. For the Pacific Northwest, the goal is to establish one plot per 20,000 acres of wilderness, and a minimum of three plots in wildernesses under 40,000 acres.

In 2019, data will be uploaded that will result in two air pollution scores: one for nitrogen and one for sulfur. When this transition occurs, local units will need to select the metric that best describes the air condition of their forest based on individual wilderness air concerns. In general, nitrogen is more of a concern in the western U.S. whereas sulfur is a greater concern in the eastern U.S., but local conditions may vary greatly. Consult an air resource specialist for assistance in selecting which metric to use.

==== Data Adequacy ====

Data quantity for this measure is considered to be partial with a moderate degree of confidence that all data records have been gathered. Data quality is considered to be good due to a high degree of confidence that the quality of the data can reliably access trends in the measure. These ratings indicate that overall data adequacy is medium for this measure. Some wildernesses may have more lichen biomonitoring plots than others, and some plots are monitored more frequently than others based on when they were first established, funding cycles, and accessibility. Ideally, there would be one lichen biomonitoring plot per 20,000 wilderness acres even though in many cases this standard will not be met. As expected, more plots and more frequent plot remeasurments will mean that air pollution trends from a particular area will be more representative of the air conditions. Data adequacy of the lichen biomonitoring plots should be verified with the appropriate air quality specialist.

==== Frequency ====

Every 10 years, lichen data are analyzed and the applicable trend category is then entered in the WCMD. Be aware that this is the only measure based on a 10-year monitoring cycle. If this measure is selected, trends in wilderness character will not be determined until 10 years after the WCM baseline year. If deteriorating air pollution trends are detected, the frequency could be shortened to every 5 years. Consult with an air resource specialist to determine if a 5-year frequency may be appropriate.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is any change in categories. A change towards decreasing air pollution results in an improving trend in the measure.

=== 3.4.6 Measure: Extent of Waterbodies With Impaired Water Quality ===

This measure assesses the miles of streams or number of lakes inside wilderness with impaired water quality, based on national or state 303(d) list of impaired water bodies or local monitoring data. Local units may select the appropriate protocol options as described in step 1 below. Data are compiled from national or state 303(d) databases, or other local, state, regional, or national data sources. Local staff calculate the measure value. Table 2.3.17 describes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.17—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Extent of Waterbodies with Impaired Water Quality.”.png|thumb|Table 2.3.17—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Extent of Waterbodies with Impaired Water Quality."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Determine which protocol option is appropriate for the wilderness.''' The two protocol options for this measure are described below:

:Protocol Option 1—Miles of Streams. Assesses the miles of streams with impaired water quality within wilderness.

:Protocol Option 2—Number of Lakes. Assesses the number of lakes with impaired water quality within wilderness.

Local units should select the protocol option that is most relevant for a wilderness. Wildernesses with both streams and lakes should also consider the quality and availability of impairment data (see step 2) when selecting which protocol option to use. If there is any question about which protocol option to select, local units should consult with a hydrologist, fishery biologist, or other water resource specialist to help identify which is most relevant for a wilderness.

'''Step 2: Determine which wilderness streams or lakes are impaired.''' All levels of impairment are counted equally for this measure—waterbodies are either impaired or not impaired. Impaired streams and lakes that are only partially inside wilderness also are included in this measure. Given the variability in threats to water quality for each wilderness, units are encouraged to identify locally relevant water quality impairment metrics and data sources. For example, for Protocol Option 2— Number of Lakes, units could use local data on mercury levels in fish to determine whether lakes are impaired. The type of local metric and the data source(s) should be determined by a hydrologist, fishery biologist, or other water resource specialist based on both relevancy and data adequacy.

In lieu of a locally-specific impairment metric, the simplest way to assess impaired waters is by using 303(d) listings. The 303(d) refers to the section of the Clean Water Act that requires the listing of impaired waters, including streams and lakes. The central data analyst can assist local units in compiling and processing 303(d) impairment data. Methods for retrieving these data are described below:

* Spatial 303(d) data can be downloaded from the EPA's website (https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geospatial-data-downloads, select ESRI 10.x File Geodatabase under the "303(d) Listed Impaired Waters" heading). A "rad_303d.mxd" ARCMAP project contains the relevant feature classes:
** rad_303d_a—depicts impaired lakes (the "a" is for area).
** rad_303d_l—depicts impaired streams (the "l" is for line).
** rad_303d_p—depicts impaired points (the "p" is for point); for example, fish sampling may yield impaired points if pollutants are found in fish tissue. Impaired points are expected to be rare but may be relevant for either the miles of streams or number of lakes protocol options. If there are impaired points inside a wilderness, consult a hydrologist, fishery biologist, or other water resource specialist to determine whether and how those points should be included in counting the mileage of impaired streams or number of impaired lakes.
* An interactive map of the 303(d) data is also available through the EPA's "How's My Waterway" website (http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mywaterway/map.html). This website is recommended for quick initial assessments of how many streams or lakes are impaired, but it may be difficult to extract impairment data for further analysis. Detailed information on each waterbody, such as the cause of impairment, can be found through the list view by clicking on the name of the waterbody and selecting "Technical Report(s)." Note that some records may include multiple waterbodies, and the same waterbody may be included under multiple records; make sure to note the waterbody ID if there is any confusion.
* Many states have their own websites with 303(d) data. State websites will usually provide similar information as the EPA websites listed above, but may be more up to date and may contain additional references to segment-specific reports or other data.

In many cases the 303(d) listings will be sufficient to determine which waterbodies are impaired; if necessary, however, they may be supplemented with other water quality data. Consult a hydrologist, fishery biologist, or other water quality specialist to validate the national or state 303(d) data and determine whether any other water quality data are necessary, appropriate, and available to supplement those data. Examples of other sources of water quality data include the following:

* Considerable information on lake and stream impairment may be available from local unit staff, NEPA documents, wilderness plans, and various reports, publications, and university and private sector databases. Many Forest Service regions and national forests also have extensive monitoring databases for wilderness lakes.
* Forest Service monitoring data and reports for wilderness lake chemistry can be retrieved from the Federal Land Manager Environmental Database at http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/.
* Other national or regional water quality data may also be available with monitoring sites near wilderness areas (e.g., the USGS maintains a water quality data mapping tool at http://maps.waterdata.usgs.gov/mapper/index.html). Because instrumentation within wilderness is limited, water quality data for streams are often collected downstream from a wilderness boundary. Consult a hydrologist, fishery biologist, or other water quality specialist to help interpret what impairment of streams adjacent to a wilderness area (upstream or downstream) means for water quality impairment inside a wilderness.
* If there are limited or no data on water quality for a wilderness, a local hydrologist, fishery biologist, or other water quality specialist may use their professional knowledge to determine which waterbodies are impaired.

To ensure confidence in tracking trends, impairment data must be tracked consistently over time. Given the amount of variability in data sources and protocol options for this measure, it is essential that local units document the data compilation strategy for each wilderness (including the metric of impairment, primary data source including the date accessed, and any supplemental data sources). If professional judgment is used, additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the assessment and their basis for the determination should also be included. Documentation may be stored locally, on shared drives, or uploaded to the WCMD.

'''Step 3: Assess the miles of impaired streams or number of impaired lakes in the wilderness.''' This is described below for each protocol option. Wildernesses with no impaired streams or lakes may skip this step and proceed to step 4.

Protocol Option 1—Miles of Streams. Calculate the total miles of impaired streams inside wilderness, as determined from the data sources described above. For impaired streams that continue beyond a wilderness boundary, only the mileage inside wilderness should be counted for this measure. Where impaired streams flow through lakes, the mileage distance through the lake should not be counted. Each monitoring cycle, document which streams were counted as impaired. Table 2.3.18 provides an example summary of how the impaired miles of streams could be documented for the wilderness. The measure value is the total miles of impaired streams inside wilderness.

[[File:Table 2.3.18—An example summary of impaired miles of streams..png|thumb|Table 2.3.18—An example summary of impaired miles of streams.]]

Regardless of the metric or data source(s) used to determine impairment, a spatial analysis is likely to be the simplest way to assess the total miles of impaired streams. Consult a GIS specialist for assistance with the spatial analysis if necessary. The central data analyst can also assist local units in analyzing the national or state 303(d) impairment data. The following steps provide an example of how to complete the spatial analysis using the spatial 303(d) data downloaded from the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geospatial-data-downloads.

# Intersect the wilderness boundary (available from the Enterprise Data Warehouse [EDW]) and the rad_303d_l (i.e., impaired streams) feature classes.
# Remove impaired stream segments flowing through lakes, if necessary, by erasing the rad_303d_a (i.e., impaired lakes) feature class from the intersect output.
# Add a "Miles" field and calculate the mileage of each stream segment using the calculate geometry tool.
# Copy the records to a spreadsheet similar to table 2.3.16 and sum results to derive the total miles of impaired streams inside wilderness.

Protocol Option 2—Number of Lakes. Count the total number of wilderness lakes with impaired water quality, as determined from the data sources described in step 2. A lake partially inside wilderness is counted as one lake, it is not assessed proportionally based on the percentage of area inside wilderness. Each monitoring cycle, document which lakes were counted as impaired. Table 2.3.19 provides an example summary of how the impaired number of lakes could be documented for the wilderness. The measure value is the total number of impaired lakes.

[[File:Table 2.3.19—An example summary of the number of lakes with impaired water quality..png|thumb|Table 2.3.19—An example summary of the number of lakes with impaired water quality.]]

'''Step 4: Enter data in the WCMD.''' For protocol option 1, enter the total mileage of impaired streams. For protocol option 2, enter the total number of impaired lakes. If there are no streams or lakes with impaired water quality in a wilderness, enter zero in the WCMD. The measure value is either the miles of streams or the number of lakes.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

Although some wildernesses only have a small number of lakes, or a small number of impaired lakes, they may still select protocol option 2 if that is considered to be most relevant for a wilderness. For wildernesses that have a measure baseline value of 20 or fewer impaired lakes, it may be helpful to note that the 5-percent threshold for change effectively means that any change in the number of impaired lakes is considered meaningful change. For example, if a wilderness has a measure baseline value of 10 impaired lakes, a 5-percent change would be equal to 0.5 lakes; because an increase or decrease of just a single impaired lake would exceed 0.5 lakes, any change in the total number of impaired lakes would therefore result in a change in trend for the measure.

==== Data Adequacy ====

The 303(d) assessment procedures are fairly rigorous in most states so the impaired databases are generally good. However, the data adequacy varies greatly by state, and consideration of 303(d) status on NFS lands is not necessarily thorough, particularly for wildernesses where assessment information is limited. Some of the data sources for assessment information are old and should be reviewed by a local specialist for current applicability. The EPA and states are working constantly to improve the accuracy of 303(d) lists and to prepare and implement Total Maximum Daily Load plans for rehabilitation work, which will ultimately allow removal of some of the impaired waterbodies from listing. Data quantity is considered to be partial and data quality is considered to be moderate, resulting in a medium data adequacy rating for 303(d) listings.

Data adequacy for other data sources varies widely. Professional judgment typically has low data adequacy. In many cases, historical water quality data and reports are dated and of limited use. For other sources, the water quality protocols, analytical methods, and data QC may not be well documented. In a few cases, such as a proposed mining operation near a wilderness, extensive recent water quality data may have been collected. Because of this high variability, the data adequacy of all data sources must be assessed for each wilderness individually.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, assess water quality impairment in wilderness streams or lakes, and enter the total mileage of impaired streams or the total number of impaired lakes in the WCMD.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is a 5-percent change in either the total mileage of impaired streams or the total number of impaired lakes. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis for both protocol options. A decrease in the amount of impaired waterbodies beyond the threshold for meaningful change results in an improving trend in this measure.

== 3.5 Indicator: Ecological Processes ==

This indicator focuses on threats to ecological processes that affect biotic and abiotic components of wilderness ecological systems. There are two measures for this indicator and units are required to select at least one.

=== 3.5.1 Measure: Watershed Condition Class ===

This measure assesses the average wilderness watershed condition class, based on Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification (WCC) data. Unless stated otherwise, the protocol steps are intended to be completed by the central data analyst. Data are compiled from the Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework website and validated locally. The WCMD calculates the measure value. Table 2.3.20 summarizes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.20—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Watershed Condition Class.”.png|thumb|Table 2.3.20—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Watershed Condition Class."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Identify wilderness watersheds.''' The most efficient way to determine which watersheds are inside wilderness is to use GIS to overlay a wilderness boundary over a watershed layer. Watershed and wilderness layers are available on the Forest Service T drive (T:\FS\Reference\GIS drive). Watershed layers can also be downloaded from http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/watershed/condition_framework.html by clicking on the link to "download a shapefile with WCC and Prioritization information." Make sure to use the 6th code HUC (HUC 12) watershed layer rather than a different HUC level. For each watershed partially or entirely within wilderness, determine the acreage inside wilderness. Consult a GIS specialist for assistance with the spatial analysis if necessary. Record the watershed names/codes and area inside wilderness for all watersheds that are partially or entirely within wilderness.

'''Step 2: Retrieve watershed condition class data from the Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) website.''' The WCF website (http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/watershed/condition_framework.html) provides several methods for accessing watershed condition information: an interactive map, tabular data, and spatial data. The links to the following methods are on the website:

* Interactive map—The USDA Forest Service Watershed Condition and Prioritization Interactive map (fig. 2.3.9) can be accessed at https://apps.fs.usda.gov/wcatt/.
* Tabular data—Download a table containing the WCC and prioritization information for the entire NFS summarizing watershed class, watershed score, and metric (attribute) and watershed class scores (fig. 2.3.10) at http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/maps/USDAFS-WCF2011.htm.
* Spatial data—For GIS application, users can download a shapefile with WCC and Prioritization information. (This is the same link described in step 1 to download watershed layers.)

[[File:Figure 2.3.9—A screenshot of the Forest Service watershed condition and prioritization interactive map for portions of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington..png|thumb|Figure 2.3.9—A screenshot of the Forest Service watershed condition and prioritization interactive map for portions of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.]]

[[File:Figure 2.3.10—Example WCC table with watershed condition ratings for several national forests..png|thumb|Figure 2.3.10—Example WCC table with watershed condition ratings for several national forests.]]

All three links provide information at the 6th code HUC (HUC 12) watershed level, for all national forests and grasslands. Use whatever method is easiest to obtain the condition class data. Condition class may be described or titled differently for each method; for example, the table uses the heading "Watershed_Condition_FS_Area" while the spreadsheet uses "Watershed_Class_FS_Land." There are only three viable watershed condition classes: 1, 2, or 3. Equivalent descriptions for these three condition classes are displayed in table 2.3.21.

[[File:Table 2.3.21—Equivalent watershed condition class descriptions..png|thumb|Table 2.3.21—Equivalent watershed condition class descriptions.]]

The listed condition class is based on an assessment of the entire watershed. As watershed boundaries often extend beyond a wilderness boundary, a watershed may therefore be classified as "functioning at risk" or "impaired function" based on conditions outside wilderness. For watersheds that are only partially within a wilderness, a local hydrologist or other water resource specialist must validate that the listed condition class is appropriate for the portion of a watershed inside wilderness. Hydrologists or other water resource specialists may use professional judgment or the best available data to assess the listed condition class for these partial wilderness watersheds. If a water resource specialist determines that the wilderness portion of a watershed should be assigned a different condition class than the whole watershed, they may modify the condition class for that watershed. Additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the assessment and their basis for the determination should be included if a condition class is modified.

Once the data have been validated locally and any changes have been documented, the information is sent back to the central data analyst for data entry. Record the watershed condition class (using whole numbers 1, 2, or 3) for all wilderness watersheds identified in step 1.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' Enter each watershed's name, area inside wilderness, and condition class in the WCMD, and the WCMD will then calculate the average wilderness condition class automatically. Local units are not responsible for calculating the average condition class themselves, but the formula is described below for reference. The measure value is the average wilderness watershed condition class.

The calculation for the average wilderness watershed condition class consists of two basic steps. First, the WCMD multiplies the wilderness acreage in each watershed by the condition class rating for that watershed. Second, the WCMD sums these calculated values and divides the result by the total number of wilderness acres. Table 2.3.22 provides a hypothetical example of how to calculate the average wilderness watershed condition class.

[[File:Table 2.3.22—An example of how to calculate the average wilderness condition class..png|thumb|Table 2.3.22—An example of how to calculate the average wilderness condition class.]]

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

As stated above, the watershed condition class is for an entire 6th code HUC (HUC 12). As watersheds often extend beyond a wilderness boundary, conditions outside a wilderness may drive the condition class listed for a watershed. Local knowledge and professional judgment must be applied to determine if the listed condition class is appropriate for the wilderness portion of a watershed.

==== Data Adequacy ====

The WCC database provides a complete dataset for all national forests and grasslands using consistent rating protocols with nationwide maps and data tables. Local units periodically update the database, with nationwide updates conducted at 5-year intervals. While the WCC condition class ratings are moderately subjective, the quality of data should improve with future updates. Data adequacy is complete for data quantity and moderate for data quality for an overall data adequacy rating of medium. If professional judgment or other data sources are used to modify a watershed condition class, additional subjectivity is added to the data quality. Data adequacy must therefore be verified locally for each wilderness.

==== Frequency ====

Every 5 years, watershed condition class is assessed, and the condition class for each wilderness watershed is then entered in the WCMD.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is any change in the average wilderness watershed condition class. A decrease in the average condition class score results in an improving trend in this measure.

=== 3.5.2 Measure: Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use ===

This measure assesses the 3-year rolling average of commercial livestock use, based on an annual count of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) within a wilderness. Local data are compiled and entered in NRM-Range annually and are automatically retrieved by NRM-WCM. NRM-WCM calculates the annual value. The WCMD calculates the annual value and the 3-year rolling average (the measure value). Table 2.3.23 summarizes key features for this measure.

[[File:Table 2.3.23—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for the measure "Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use.".png|thumb|Table 2.3.23—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for the measure "Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use."]]

==== Protocol ====

'''Step 1: Retrieve and validate data on annual count of AUMs within wilderness from NRM.''' Livestock use is evaluated by monitoring the number of permitted AUMs of livestock grazing that are authorized for allotments located entirely or partially within wilderness. AUMs – the quantity of forage required by one mature cow and her calf (or the equivalent in sheep or horses) for 1 month – are the preferred unit of measurement rather than head months.

Retrieve data for this measure in NRM-WCM by accessing the "commercial livestock" option under the "Natural" quality in the "Navigator" tab. This will display the annual count of AUMs for the wilderness. The following attributes are automatically uploaded to NRM-WCM from NRM-Range:

* Range Management Unit Name
* Range Management Unit ID
* Total Allotment Acres
* Acres in Wilderness
* Percent in Wilderness
* Authorized AUM
* Wilderness AUM

NRM-WCM will display each of these attributes for every allotment on record in NRM-Range. Each allotment listed in NRM-WCM has an "Include" option, in which allotments can be unselected if they no longer are active. NRM-WCM also contains a "Remarks" tab in order to record specific details about each range management unit (i.e. allotment A was in non-use this year). The Local wilderness staff must review and validate all of the information pulled for each of these attributes for accuracy and completeness. If data are incorrect, work with range specialists to correct the original data in NRM-Range.

'''Step 2: Calculate the annual value.''' The NRM-WCM application will automatically calculate the annual count of AUMs within wilderness. The method NRM-WCM uses to calculate these values is described below for reference.

The calculation for the annual number of authorized wilderness AUMs consists of three basic steps. First, NRM-WCM determines which allotments are completely within the wilderness boundary and which allotments extend outside the wilderness boundary. For the allotments that extend outside the wilderness boundary NRM-WCM determines the percentage of allotment acres located inside wilderness. Next, NRM-WCM calculates the wilderness AUMs for each allotment by multiplying the number of authorized AUMs by the percentage of the allotment inside wilderness. Lastly, NRM-WCM sums the number of wilderness AUMs for all allotments to produce the total amount of authorized livestock use in wilderness for the fiscal year. Table 2.3.24 provides a hypothetical example of how to calculate the annual number of authorized wilderness AUMs.

[[File:Table 2.3.24—Example of how to calculate the total number of authorized wilderness animal unit months (AUMs)..png|thumb|Table 2.3.24—Example of how to calculate the total number of authorized wilderness animal unit months (AUMs).]]

If NRM-WCM cannot be used to retrieve data on authorized AUMs, the data may be determined by a range specialist evaluating range allotment maps, range annual operating instructions, or actual use reports. This type of evaluation relies on estimation and is less accurate, but can provide data to determine the trend in the measure if used consistently over time. Additional documentation (e.g., a brief narrative) explaining who made the assessment and their basis for the determination should be included if data are compiled this way. If local units only track head months, they should convert those units to AUMs using factors relating to days of use, livestock kind, and class. Consult a range specialist for assistance with this conversion if necessary.

'''Step 3: Enter data in the WCMD.''' Enter each allotment's name, percentage inside wilderness, and number of authorized AUMs retrieved from NRM-WCM in the WCMD. The WCMD will also automatically calculate the total number of wilderness AUMs authorized for the fiscal year. Make sure this calculation matches the NRM-WCM calculation. The WCMD will also automatically calculate 3-year rolling averages based on these annual values. The measure value is the 3-year rolling average number of authorized wilderness AUMs.

==== Caveats and Cautions ====

This measure does not directly monitor the ecological impacts of livestock grazing in wilderness; however, for the purposes of this measure and WCM, the number of AUMs is considered a good proxy for assessing impacts to the Natural Quality from livestock use. In addition, the protocol for determining the number of wilderness AUMs may or may not accurately reflect actual wilderness use. Assessing wilderness use as a simple proportion of the total allotment use, and using authorized AUMs rather than actual use, may not capture on-the-ground wilderness use due to a variety of factors, including rotational grazing programs, seasonality, difficult terrain, and lack of forage.

==== Data Adequacy ====

The data quantity for this measure is generally considered to be complete, as the data are available for all Forest Service grazing allotments. The data quality is considered to be moderate due to some uncertainty of actual use inside wilderness on an annual basis. As the overall use on the allotment is apportioned based on acres of wilderness in the allotment, actual use may vary from year to year and is difficult to ascertain. Therefore, the overall data adequacy is considered to be medium. If locally stored data or professional judgment are used in lieu of data from NRM-Range, and NRM-WCM data adequacy is likely to be lower. Data adequacy must be verified locally for each wilderness.

==== Frequency ====

Each year, data are compiled and calculated on the amount of authorized livestock use in NRM-WCM. The percentage of allotment acres inside wilderness and the number of authorized AUMs for each wilderness allotment are then entered in the WCMD.

==== Threshold for Change ====

The threshold for meaningful change is a 5-percent change in the 3-year rolling average number of authorized wilderness AUMs. Once there are five measure values, the threshold for meaningful change will switch to regression analysis. A decrease in the 3-year rolling average beyond the threshold for meaningful change results in an improving trend in this measure.

== 3.6 Selecting Measures for the Natural Quality ==

This section provides recommendations for selecting locally developed measures for the Natural Quality, based on Keeping It Wild 2 (Landres et al. 2015). It discusses the general considerations for selecting these measures, explains why certain types of measures are problematic, offers examples to clarify what are and are not appropriate measures, and provides a flowchart outlining the general selection process.

The essential requirement for all measures in WCM is the ability to assign a degrading, improving, or stable trend based on changes in their condition. Applying this seemingly straightforward idea to the Natural Quality can be fraught because ecological conditions typically do not have a single natural state from which a trend can be assigned. Instead, ecological systems are complex. Individuals of a species tend to move around, and ecological conditions and processes vary over time from one location to another (e.g., species come and go, some years are warm and some are cold, snowfields and glaciers expand and melt).

Natural change over time and from one place to another is a fundamental aspect of ecological systems, and is an essential aspect of the Natural Quality of wilderness character. To allow for this change, the Natural Quality should not be used to recreate historical conditions from an arbitrary point in time (e.g., pre-European settlement or the date of wilderness designation), target a subjective set of desired conditions (e.g., a specific game species population), or otherwise maintain unchanging ecological conditions. When combined with the Untrammeled Quality, the basic legal and philosophical tenet in wilderness is to watch what happens and not direct this change. This tenet means that there is no target for the species that occur there, or for abiotic conditions such as temperature or precipitation.

Given this principle, the most direct and simple measures in the Natural Quality are those that quantify known direct threats to the ecological system. For example, air pollutants or nonindigenous species are known threats that generally have good reference information. Even these threats, however, require sufficient understanding of whether changes are primarily natural or anthropogenic (e.g., separating the effects of volcanic air pollutants from human-caused pollutants, or the natural dispersal of nonindigenous species from human-caused spread). Today, many changes in the Natural Quality are due to the interacting effects of natural variation and humancaused threats, and our ability to distinguish between the two is frequently lacking. Moreover, even if these interactions are understood on a global or regional scale, this knowledge may be lacking for the smaller spatial scale of a wilderness. Therefore, measures of threats should be selected only if they are determined (either by data or professional judgment) to be primarily anthropogenic and if they can show meaningful change within the timeframe that is appropriate for WCM (i.e., 5–10 years) as opposed to requiring decades or centuries of data collection.

The Forest Service currently collects much natural resource information, and in some cases this information may be directly used in WCM. The data collected from resource programs provide valuable insight into regional and local ecosystems, but may not be appropriate or feasible to include in WCM. Importantly, not all threats or features of the natural environment important to wilderness character need to be included as measures in WCM if other resource programs already monitor these threats or features. In such cases, only those measures that are appropriate and the highest priority would be included, typically selected because they quantify threats to features that are truly integral to and representative of the area's wilderness character.

There are some cases in which a measure is inappropriate to monitor under the Natural Quality but is clearly integral to wilderness character. For example, the return of extirpated bears and wolves to wildernesses may be, from a wilderness perspective, a significant improvement in the Natural Quality. Counting populations of naturally occurring species, however, does not monitor a human-caused threat, nor can a trend in the measure be assigned without assuming a target ecological state. For such cases, the importance of the measure that was not selected should be acknowledged in the Wilderness Character Narrative (required under the WSP Wilderness Character Baseline element) or by including it in other monitoring programs.

Occasionally, a measure may be included under the Other Features of Value Quality instead of the Natural Quality. For example, the Other Features of Value Quality may include measures related to iconic features (e.g., glaciers) or species (e.g., wolves) that define how people think about wilderness or are specifically identified in the enabling legislation. This can be appropriate because trends in measures under the Other Features of Value Quality may be defined by human values (e.g., the presence of the feature or the species within a wilderness), whereas trends in measures under the Natural Quality are defined by the more stringent criterion of whether the ecological system is free from the effects of modern civilization.

==== Examples of Appropriate and Inappropriate Measures ====

The following examples show how measures are and are not appropriate, based on the guidelines presented in this section.

'''Appropriate Measures'''

Appropriate measures are those that meet four criteria: (1) they are current or potential threats to the ecological systems in wilderness, (2) they are primarily human-caused, (3) they do not rely on a static or target ecological state to make an assessment about trend, and (4) they can show change within 5–10 years. The discussion below describes two example measures and includes a brief explanation of why each measure is appropriate for use in WCM.

# Example Measure: Index of Nonindigenous Terrestrial Animal Species.
## Nonindigenous species are a direct and significant threat to ecological systems in wilderness.
## Nonindigenous species are most commonly introduced or spread in wilderness by humans. Even populations of nonindigenous invasive species that are spreading naturally into a wilderness were likely initially introduced outside of a wilderness by humans. In most cases, therefore, changes in the data result primarily from human agency.
## This measure monitors an effect of modern civilization and does not reference a specific ecological state (any ecological state is natural so long as it is substantially unaffected by human-caused introductions of nonindigenous invasive species). A trend can be assigned for the measure such that increasing distribution or impact of nonindigenous species degrades the Natural Quality and decreasing distribution or impact improves it.
## A meaningful trend in the measure value can be observed in a short timeframe.
# Example Measure: Concentration of Ambient Ozone.
## Ozone in the lower atmosphere is a pollutant formed primarily from reactions involving emissions from cars, industrial facilities, power plants, and other types of combustion. It can have a significant effect on ecological components, structures, and functions and is therefore a threat to the Natural Quality.
## Air pollutants such as ozone are a by-product of modern civilization and changes in the data result primarily from human agency.
## This measure monitors an effect of modern civilization and does not reference a specific ecological state (any ecological state is natural so long as it is substantially unaffected by human-caused air pollution). A trend can be assigned for the measure such that an increasing concentration of ozone degrades the Natural Quality and decreasing concentration improves it.
## A meaningful trend in the data can be observed in a short timeframe.

'''Inappropriate Measures'''

Inappropriate measures are those that do not meet the criteria described above for appropriate measures. The discussion below describes two example measures and includes a brief explanation of why the measure is inappropriate for use in WCM.
# Example Measure: Average Annual Summer or Winter Temperature (related to climate change).
## Temperature naturally varies within a wilderness from year to year without necessarily degrading wilderness character. Although changes in global temperature reflect human agency, making that determination for local change—especially in the short term—may not be feasible.
## Changing average temperature simply represents change, and cannot be considered to improve or degrade wilderness character. To state that any change in average temperature would degrade the Natural Quality sets a static target for what "natural" is in a wilderness.
## If data are not already being collected in close proximity to a wilderness, a long-time scale would be required before a meaningful trend in the data could be observed.
## Established climatology monitoring programs already exist within wilderness managing agencies and other federal agencies. This science is complex, nuanced, time-consuming, and already conducted by specialists at a much higher level than is generally possible for an individual wilderness. WCM should not duplicate or create new monitoring programs.
# Example Measure: Index of Animal (or Plant) Species of Concern (primarily state or federally listed threatened or endangered species).
## Monitoring a listed species does not directly monitor the threat to the Natural Quality. A species may be listed because of threats occurring outside a wilderness, and change in the abundance or distribution of such species in a wilderness may not be indicative of a threat inside a wilderness.
## Measures that quantify the loss of an indigenous species must be able to determine that the change in species abundance or distribution is due primarily to anthropogenic impacts and not to natural variation. Few wildernesses have adequate historical or current data to make this determination.
## Change in a population of an indigenous species does not necessarily improve or degrade the Natural Quality of wilderness character because populations change naturally over time. Identifying a trend in the measure would require setting a static historical, current, or desired abundance and distribution as a target state, which is inappropriate in wilderness.
## Determining if there is a change in species abundance and distribution would require sampling over periodic intervals and over a large area, which may be difficult to accomplish for a wilderness. The sampling protocol would also need to account for annual and seasonal migrations and probable immigration-emigration dispersal patterns.

==== Flowchart ====

The flowchart depicted in figure 2.3.11 provides general guidelines, using a series of questions, for selecting measures for the Natural Quality. The first question is whether the measure is a threat to the Natural Quality, with threat defined as human agency in directly or indirectly causing a significant change to the composition, structure, and functioning of ecological systems in wilderness (Landres et al. 2009). The second question is whether the measure will provide an interpretable trend. This question, based on the discussion above, can be summarized as asking the following: (1) whether the measure holds a wilderness to a static or target ecological state, (2) if changes can be primarily attributed to human agency, and (3) if there is sufficient information or data to make a reasonable assessment of trend within approximately 5–10 years. For this flowchart, it is assumed that all measures being considered have already been determined to be integral to wilderness character, significant or meaningful to understanding change in the indicator of the Natural Quality, and vulnerable to human-caused threats. It also is assumed that measures are able to be reliably monitored with a high degree of confidence in the data, and can feasibly be monitored into the future.

[[File:Figure 2.3.11—Flowchart for selecting measures for the Natural Quality..png|thumb|Figure 2.3.11—Flowchart for selecting measures for the Natural Quality.]]

File:Table 2.3.6—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species.".png

2023-03-04T22:06:57Z

Admin:

Table 2.3.6—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species."

File:Table 2.3.6—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species.”.png

2023-03-04T22:06:48Z

Admin: Admin moved page File:Table 2.3.6—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species.”.png to File:Table 2.3.6—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species.".png

#REDIRECT [[File:Table 2.3.6—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species.".png]]

File:Table 2.3.6—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species.".png

2023-03-04T22:06:48Z

Table 2.3.6—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species.”

File:Table 2.3.11—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Concentration of Ambient Ozone.".png

2023-03-04T22:06:33Z

Admin:

Table 2.3.11—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Concentration of Ambient Ozone."

File:Table 2.3.11—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Concentration of Ambient Ozone..png

2023-03-04T22:06:22Z

Admin: Admin moved page File:Table 2.3.11—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Concentration of Ambient Ozone..png to File:Table 2.3.11—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Concentration of Ambient Ozone.".png

#REDIRECT [[File:Table 2.3.11—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Concentration of Ambient Ozone.".png]]

File:Table 2.3.11—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Concentration of Ambient Ozone.".png

2023-03-04T22:06:22Z

Table 2.3.11—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Concentration of Ambient Ozone.

File:Table 2.4.1—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Authorized Non-Recreational Physical Development.".png

2023-03-04T22:06:05Z

Admin:

Table 2.4.1—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Authorized Non-Recreational Physical Development."

File:Table 2.4.1—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Index of Authorized Non-Recreational Physical Development.”.png

2023-03-04T22:05:54Z

Admin: Admin moved page File:Table 2.4.1—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Index of Authorized Non-Recreational Physical Development.”.png to File:Table 2.4.1—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Authorized Non-Recreational Physical Development.".png

#REDIRECT [[File:Table 2.4.1—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Authorized Non-Recreational Physical Development.".png]]

File:Table 2.4.1—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Index of Authorized Non-Recreational Physical Development.".png

2023-03-04T22:05:54Z

Table 2.4.1—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Index of Authorized Non-Recreational Physical Development.”

File:Table 2.3.23—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for the measure "Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use.".png

2023-03-04T22:05:32Z

Admin:

Table 2.3.23—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for the measure "Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use."

File:Table 2.3.23—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for the measure “Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use.”.png

2023-03-04T22:05:21Z

Admin: Admin moved page File:Table 2.3.23—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for the measure “Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use.”.png to File:Table 2.3.23—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for the measure "Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use.".png

#REDIRECT [[File:Table 2.3.23—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for the measure "Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use.".png]]

File:Table 2.3.23—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for the measure "Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use.".png

2023-03-04T22:05:21Z

Table 2.3.23—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for the measure “Number of Animal Unit Months of Commercial Livestock Use.”

File:Table 2.5.9—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Acres of Wilderness Away from Access and Travel Routes and Developments Inside Wilderness.".png

2023-03-04T22:04:22Z

Admin:

Table 2.5.9—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency
of data reporting for measure "Acres of Wilderness Away from Access and Travel Routes and
Developments Inside Wilderness."

File:Table 2.5.9—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Acres of Wilderness Away from Access and Travel Routes and Developments Inside Wilderness.”.png

2023-03-04T22:04:13Z

Admin: Admin moved page File:Table 2.5.9—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Acres of Wilderness Away from Access and Travel Routes and Developments Inside Wilderness.”.png to File:Table 2.5.9—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Acres of Wilderness Away from Access and Travel Routes and Developments Inside Wilderness.".png

#REDIRECT [[File:Table 2.5.9—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Acres of Wilderness Away from Access and Travel Routes and Developments Inside Wilderness.".png]]

File:Table 2.5.9—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Acres of Wilderness Away from Access and Travel Routes and Developments Inside Wilderness.".png

2023-03-04T22:04:13Z

Table 2.5.9—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency
of data reporting for measure “Acres of Wilderness Away from Access and Travel Routes and
Developments Inside Wilderness.”

File:Table 2.4.10—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Acres of Inholdings.".png

2023-03-04T22:03:51Z

Admin:

Table 2.4.10—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency
of data reporting for measure "Acres of Inholdings."

File:Table 2.4.10—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Acres of Inholdings.”.png

2023-03-04T22:03:41Z

Admin: Admin moved page File:Table 2.4.10—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure “Acres of Inholdings.”.png to File:Table 2.4.10—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Acres of Inholdings.".png

#REDIRECT [[File:Table 2.4.10—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Acres of Inholdings.".png]]

File:Table 2.4.10—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency of data reporting for measure "Acres of Inholdings.".png

2023-03-04T22:03:41Z

Table 2.4.10—Summary of measure type, protocol options, local tasks, national tasks, and frequency
of data reporting for measure “Acres of Inholdings.”