Measures Considered But Not Used

Measures included in appendix 2 were initially considered for the Forest Service WCM protocol, but were eventually dropped for a variety of reasons. This appendix lists the dropped measures and explains why they were eliminated from the monitoring protocol.

A2.1 Untrammeled Quality

A2.1.1 Indicator: Actions Authorized by the Federal Land Manager that Intentionally Manipulate the Biophysical Environment

Measure: Number of Authorized Actions to Manipulate Fire

Rather than have a separate measure in recognition of the importance of fire in wilderness systems, this was included in the measure Number of Authorized Actions and Persistent Structures Designed to Manipulate Plants, Animals, Pathogens, Soil, Water, or Fire (section 2.2.1 in part 2).

A2.2 Natural Quality

A2.2.1 Indicator: Plants

Measure: Index of Plant Species Introduced/Supplemented

This potential measure was eliminated because measures in the Natural Quality are required to be a human-caused threat and to have a clear and consistently interpretable trend (see section 3.6 in part 2). Although introduced and supplemented species can significantly impact the composition, structure, and function of wilderness ecosystems, the trend of those impacts is not always clear or interpretable.

In addition, few plant surveys are conducted in wilderness. Data availability for wildernesses will not be equal for all Forest Service regions and historical plant data records are rare to determine if a plant may have been introduced. Alternatively, assuming this is primarily a concern for nonindigenous introduced species, this element is covered in the measure Acres of Nonindigenous Plants (section 3.2.1 in part 2). The Untrammeled Quality also addresses actions involving large scale plant introduction and supplementation (section 2.2.1 for authorized actions, and section 2.3.1 for unauthorized actions, in part 2).

Measure: Index of Plant Species of Concern

This potential measure was eliminated because measures in the Natural Quality are required to be a human-caused threat and to have a clear and consistently interpretable trend (see section 3.6 in part 2). Although the loss of indigenous plant species can significantly impact wilderness ecosystems, deriving a trend would require setting a static historical or desired abundance or distribution range as a target state, which is inappropriate in wilderness. Additionally, few plant surveys are conducted in wilderness and data availability will not be equal for all Forest Service regions.

Measure: Acres of Restored Native Plant Communities

This potential measure was eliminated because, in terms of wilderness character, deriving a trend for acres of native plant communities restored would require setting a historical or desired population or distribution range as a target state, which is inappropriate in wilderness. Although it is understandable to want to use a measure such as this to show positive actions taken in wilderness, this type of measure poses significant challenges to interpret a degrading or improving trend (see section 3.6 in part 2 for more discussion about measures such as this).

Measure: Number of Extirpated Plant Species

This potential measure was eliminated because measures in the Natural Quality are required to be a human-caused threat and to have a clear and consistently interpretable trend (see section 3.6 in part 2). Although the loss of indigenous plant species can significantly impact wilderness ecosystems, deriving a trend would require setting a static historical or desired suite of species as a target state, which is inappropriate in wilderness. In addition, few plant surveys are conducted in wilderness and data availability will not be equal for all regions. Historical records are generally difficult to obtain, or are non-existent for plant extirpations. To determine if a plant is extirpated, it can take many years to adequately survey the entire wilderness.

A2.2.2 Indicator: Animals

Measure: Number of Extirpated Terrestrial and Aquatic Species

The previous Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character (Landres et al. 2009)1 recommended this measure, and it was re-evaluated as a potential measure for this current technical guide. On further consideration, this measure was eliminated because measures in the Natural Quality are required to be a human-caused threat and to have a clear and consistently interpretable trend (see section 3.6 in part 2). Although the loss of indigenous animal species can significantly impact wilderness ecosystems, deriving a trend would require setting a static historical or desired suite of species as a target state, which is inappropriate in wilderness. There were also concerns about data availability and interpretation. Few wildernesses have comprehensive inventories of animal species inhabiting that area, and historical data are generally lacking. In addition, sampling protocols would need to be sufficiently robust to account for annual and seasonal migrations and probable immigration-emigration dispersal patterns, which will be beyond the means for most wildernesses.

Measure: Index of Animal Species Introduced/Supplemented

This potential measure was eliminated because measures in the Natural Quality are required to be a human-caused threat and to have a clear and consistently interpretable trend (see section 3.6 in part 2). Although introduced and supplemented animal species can significantly impact the composition, structure, and function of wilderness ecosystems, the trend of those impacts is not always clear or interpretable. Nonindigenous introduced species are included in the measures Index of Nonindigenous Terrestrial Animal Species (section 3.3.1 in part 2) and Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species (section 3.3.2 in part 2). In addition, the Untrammeled Quality addresses actions involving the introduction and supplementation of animals—for example, both authorized and unauthorized fish stocking actions are included in measures under the Untrammeled Quality (sections 2.2.1 and 2.3.1 in part 2, respectively).

Measure: Index of Animal Species of Concern

This potential measure was eliminated because measures in the Natural Quality are required to be a human-caused threat and to have a clear and consistently interpretable trend (see section 3.6 in part 2). Although the loss of indigenous animal species can significantly impact wilderness ecosystems, deriving a trend would require setting a static historical or desired abundance or distribution range as a target state, which is inappropriate in wilderness. In addition, few units have comprehensive inventories of animal species inhabiting wilderness, and historical data are also typically lacking. Sampling protocols would need to be sufficiently robust to account for annual and seasonal migrations and probable immigration-emigration dispersal patterns, which will be beyond the means for most wildernesses.

==

Measure: Stream and Aquatic Habitat Conditions ====

This potential measures was eliminated primarily due to the lack of a national program to regularly assess stream and lake habitats using random sampling that would allow area-wide descriptions of habitat conditions and trends over time. Although such assessments (e.g., Pacfish-Infish Biological Opinion Monitoring and the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program) do occur in some Forest Service regions for long-term status and trend monitoring, these assessments cover less than 50 percent of the total Forest Service wildernesses nationally. The WCF, a national program to assess watershed health, also includes stream and aquatic habitat conditions, and is encompassed by the measure Watershed Condition Class (section 3.5.1 in part 2).

Measure: Index of Stocked/Supplemented Water Bodies

This potential was eliminated as a “stand alone” measure but is included in the measure Index of Nonindigenous Aquatic Animal Species (section 3.3.2 in part 2). That measure assesses the introduction of a full array of aquatic organisms and is not just limited to fish. This provides a more comprehensive assessment of nonindigenous aquatic species to better reflect the growing importance of the wide array of other potential nonindigenous and invasive aquatic organisms that can impact the Natural Quality of a wilderness. In addition, the action of stocking fish in a wilderness is included in the Untrammeled Quality in two measures representing authorized and unauthorized manipulations (sections 2.2.1 and 2.3.1 in part 2, respectively). A2.2.3 Indicator: Air and Water

Measure: Critical Load Exceedance

A CL is defined as the estimate of an exposure to one or more pollutants below which significant harmful effects on specified sensitive elements of the environment are not expected to occur. The Forest Service will soon use exceedance of identified CLs to monitor the trends in the effects of nitrogen and sulfur on the Natural Quality of wilderness character. This measure would directly address the effects of pollution on natural resources within a wilderness and not just the amount of pollution, 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 the current measures Deposition of Nitrogen (section 3.4.2 in part 2) and Deposition of Sulfur (section 3.4.3 in part 2), sets the stage for an easy transition to using CL exceedance as a measure under the Natural Quality in the future when forests have identified CLs for specific resources.

Measure: W126 and N100

The previous Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character (Landres et al. 2009) recommended using the W126 and N100 ozone statistics to track trends in ozone, instead of using the 8-hour concentration used for the NAAQS. The primary reason for selecting those statistics was that W126 and N100 have been demonstrated (through experimentation) to better represent the ozone exposures that result in negative effects on vegetation, while the NAAQS for ozone in 2009 was not considered to be protective of the most sensitive vegetation.

There are several reasons for now recommending using the NAAQS ozone statistic (fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentration, averaged over 3 years) to evaluate ozone trends in the measure Concentration of Ambient Ozone (see section 3.4.1 in part 2) instead of using W126 and N100. The most compelling reasons include: reducing the number of values from two to one simplifies interpretation; bringing consistency to ozone measures between federal agencies (NPS and FWS both evaluate trends using the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentration statistic); and recognizing the recent change by the EPA to a more stringent threshold for this NAAQS that is now considered to be protective of vegetation. In addition, by using the NAAQS ozone statistic instead of W126 and N100, both human health and natural resource concerns are addressed with one measure.

Measure: Elemental Content of Epiphytic Lichens

Epiphytic lichens live in and under most forest canopies, receive their nutrients primarily from the atmosphere, lack regulatory structures such as stomata and a cuticle, and are sensitive to acidifying and fertilizing pollutants. Because of these characteristics, lichens are good indicators of air quality and can provide an economical and practical means to maximize monitoring resolution, especially in remote areas or areas further than 25 miles from the nearest air quality monitor. FIA lichen plots only have lichen community data that are used in the index of sensitive lichens measure, but in addition to these FIA plots, several regions (1, 4, 6, and 10) have other lichen plots that can yield information on the elemental (or chemical) content of selected lichen species. In local areas with data, elemental content can be used in addition to sensitive lichens and air scores to provide insight about which element may be affecting lichen communities and the wilderness. Furthermore, regions 1, 4, 5, 6, and 10 have done calibration studies allowing estimates of nitrogen deposition from the nitrogen percentage in the lichen thalli. Elemental content may also be used without community data especially in areas where climate is strongly affecting the presence of lichen species.

Measure: Index of Water Quantity Condition

This potential measure was eliminated due to lack of quality data to measure water quantity. The measure originally planned to track changes in dams and stream diversions, which may or may not affect water quantity. Diversions and dams are instead tracked as persistent structures in the Untrammeled Quality (section 2.2.1 in part 2 for authorized persistent structures, and section 2.3.1 in part 2 for unauthorized persistent structures) and as physical developments in the Index of Authorized Non- Recreational Physical Development measure under the Undeveloped Quality (section 4.2.1 in part 2). Water quantity is also one of the indicators tracked by the WCF, which is encompassed by the measure Watershed Condition Class (section 3.5.1 in part 2).

A2.2.4 Indicator: Ecological Processes

Measure: Index of Fire Exclusion on the Landscape

An index of the effects of fire exclusion on the landscape (e.g., years of fire absence, or average Fire Regime Condition Class rating) is a strongly desired measure. However, while fire is a key ecological process in most if not all Forest Service wildernesses, the complexity of using a single index of the impacts from fire exclusion is beyond the scope of WCM for three primary reasons. First, discussion with fire experts indicates that there is no agreed upon single index or metric. Second, the occurrence of fire and ts effects on the landscape are controlled by plethora of dynamic and chaotic factors (Keane et al. 2013, Peterson et al. 2013) that operate well beyond the 5-year timeframe of WCM. Third, measures that rely on a historical ecological state impose stasis on ecological systems that, in wilderness, are allowed to change. Despite the importance of fire, the combination of these three factors means a single measure of the impacts of fire exclusion cannot be currently used as a required or required if relevant measure.

Measure: Index of Fragmentation/Connectivity

The previous Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character (Landres et al. 2009) evaluated fragmentation as a potential indicator of the Natural Quality in the context of vegetation. Specifically, it considered “Change in fragmentation and aggregation of vegetation (patch distribution and size) due to human actions.” Ultimately the measure was dropped from consideration because of insufficient quality of available data and insufficient data coverage across all wildernesses.

Indices of vegetation fragmentation, habitat fragmentation, and connectivity were re-evaluated as potential measures for this technical guide. While extensive literature addresses various aspects of forest fragmentation, vegetation fragmentation, habitat fragmentation, and habitat connectivity, it is dependent largely on one or more species of interest and influenced by the scale of observation and analysis. Vegetation pattern and fragmentation metrics are highly variable through space and time due to both natural and anthropogenic factors. Difficulty in separating these causes would make an assignment of trend problematic. It is also unknown whether these potential measures would change in the time interval appropriate for WCM. For these reasons, fragmentation/connectivity measures were dropped from consideration as Natural Quality measures.

Measure: Climate Change

Humans are causing warming of the atmosphere and oceans, changes in the type, amount, timing, and location of precipitation, sea level rise, and climate extremes (IPCC 2013). Despite these anthropogenic changes that are affecting wilderness ecosystems, climate change measures were not included in WCM for the following reasons:

1. Natural Variability and Uncertainty: High natural variability in temperature, precipitation, extreme weather events, and other climate parameters at local and regional scales make it difficult to parse out local climate trends and ecological effects between natural variability and human caused changes. In addition, the adaptive capacity of species and ecosystems adds to the uncertainty about being able to clearly label local climate trends and ecosystem impacts as “human-caused” and to identify what would be considered a significant or meaningful change. Regardless of the source of climate change, biological systems respond to fluctuations in local climate conditions, and do not partition their responses to anthropogenic and natural climate variation (Joyce et al. 2014, Staudinger et al. 2012). Finally, as with several other measures in the Natural Quality, using a historical or desired set of climate metrics inappropriately imposes stasis on wilderness conditions that are allowed to change over time. # Other Climate Change Monitoring Programs, Policies, and Data Sources: Wilderness managers have access to climate change information through other high quality national, regional, and local programs and policies. Examples include the National Climatic Data Center, National Climate Assessment, and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act Assessment. The Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule and directives (USDA Forest Service 2012) require each national forest to address climate change in forest plan assessments and plan monitoring programs. Element 8 and appendix E of the Forest Service Climate Change Scorecard Guide (USDA Forest Service 2011a) provide additional advice on climate change monitoring.

A2.3 Undeveloped Quality

A2.3.1 Indicator: Presence of Non-Recreational Structures, Installations, and Developments

Measure: Number of Radio Collars

Tracking the movement of wildlife such as elk and wolves using radio collars is a commonly used technique that provides a variety of data to federal and state agencies. Radio collars degrade the Undeveloped Quality of wilderness character because they typically are highly visible scientific installations and obvious evidence of human activity (NPS 2014; Landres et al. 2015). Although radio collars and other devices used to identify and track wildlife, such as ear tags, are installed on animals rather than at fixed locations, their mobility does not diminish their negative impact on wilderness character because the Wilderness Act’s Section 4(c) prohibition on installations does not specify whether the installations are fixed or mobile, only that “...there shall be no...installation.” Despite the negative impact of radio collars on the Undeveloped Quality, this potential measure was not included in this technical guide because radio collars do not occur in a majority of NFS wildernesses and because few wildernesses are likely to have the resources and practical ability to track them consistently. However, a locally developed measure may still be used to count radio collars if they are prevalent in a wilderness and it is feasible for the local unit to monitor their presence over time.

A2.3.2 Indicator: Presence of Inholdings

Measure: Number of Developed Inholding Parcels

An attempt was made during the development of this technical guide to define a measure that gauged the level of development on inholdings. The measure would address the question that if an inholding does not display any obvious signs of development and is totally transparent to a wilderness visitor, does it truly have an impact on the Undeveloped Quality? Attempting to gauge the level of development resulted in several issues including how to characterize the impact, and how to measure persistence and visual impacts of such developments over time. As a result of these issues, a less subjective measure, Acres of Inholdings, was used instead.

A2.3.3 Indicator: Use of Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport

Measure: Number of Unauthorized Uses of Motor Vehicles, Motorized Equipment, or Mechanical Transport

The incidence of illegal mechanical transport or motorized equipment incursions, most notably from mountain bikes, motorcycles, snowmobiles and other types of snow machines, and all-terrain vehicles, is unfortunately common in many parts of the country. However, the primary challenge posed in the development of a valid monitoring protocol to track this measure is the need to account for the “level of effort” of law enforcement or other agency observers to discern if a rise in the level of incursions is due to an actual increase in the frequency of illegal trespass or simply due to increased law enforcement or wilderness patrols. While the development of this protocol is feasible, it was determined to be outside the scope of this technical guide as few wildernesses would probably have the resources to commit to the level of monitoring that would be required. For this reason, it was determined that this measure should be dropped as a standard part of the protocol.

A2.4 Other Features of Value

A2.4.1 Indicator: Deterioration or Loss of Integral Cultural Features

Measure: Number of Actions That Damage or Disturb Integral Cultural Features

This measure was dropped due to lack of data and the difficulty in collecting data to monitor the trend in the measure. The difficulty with monitoring actions that damage features of value is the need to account for the “level of effort” of law enforcement or other agency observers to discern if an increase in the number of actions is due to an actual increase in frequency or simply due to increased law enforcement or wilderness patrols.