Wilderness Character Monitoring in the Forest Service

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 wilderness1, 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.

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:

1. How is agency stewardship affecting wilderness character?
2. 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 tradeoffs 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 degrading2) 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.

Caption text

Header text	Header text	Header text
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example

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.

IMAGE

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:

1. Be coordinated through a national integrated program planning process that

addresses information needs related to all agency business requirements;

1. Use a standards-based approach and framework for information management

and related business operations; and

1. 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:

1. 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.

1. Clarify how management decisions and actions influence trends in wilderness

character—There are tradeoffs 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 tradeoffs can help agency staff understand how their actions directly or indirectly contribute to preserving wilderness character, which in turn helps inform management decisions.

1. 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.

1. 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 placespecific 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 tradeoffs 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 tradeoffs 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:

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

[image]

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.

[figure 1.1.3]

• 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:

1. The monitoring is conducted in a designated wilderness or in any other area

where the Forest Service is congressionally mandated to preserve wilderness character.

1. 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.

1. A specific baseline year has been established for the purpose of WCM.
2. 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.

1. Required—The measure is required for all wildernesses.
2. 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.

1. Required if Relevant—If a wilderness uses the Other Features of Value Quality,

one or more of these measures are required to be selected.

1. Optional—The measure may be selected if relevant to a wilderness.
2. 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 tradeoffs and monitoring clearly shows the effects of these tradeoffs 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.

[table 1.1.6]

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:

1. Determining meaningful change in the data and trend in a measure.
2. Determining the trend in an indicator, monitoring question, and quality.
3. 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.

[table 1.1.7]

a 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.

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.

[table 1.1.8]

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:

1. The statutory definition of wilderness describes “untrammeled” in a separate

sentence.

1. The importance of untrammeled as the essence of wilderness has a long history

in wilderness literature.

1. 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.

[table 1.1.9] [table 1.1.10] [table 1.1.11] [table 1.1.12]

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.

[figure 1.1.4] [table 1.1.13] [figure 1.1.5] [figure 1.1.6] [figure 1.1.7] [figure 1.1.8] [figure 1.1.9]

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).

[table 1.1.14] [figure 1.1.10a] [figure 1.1.10b]

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.

[figure 1.1.11] [figure 1.1.12]

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 avaluable 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:

1. 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.

1. 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).