fws national wildlife refuge system wilderness fellows mountains...2.1— population dynamics of...

43 | P a g e

FWS National Wildlife Refuge System Wilderness Fellows

Report on Wilderness Character Monitoring

Wichita Mountains Wilderness

Prepared by:

Thomas Jablonowski

Wilderness Fellow

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

11/16/2012

Wilderness.net Webmaster

This document is part of the Wilderness Character Toolbox on http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents Setting and Background of Refuge Wilderness.......................................................................................... 3 Introduction to Wilderness Character Monitoring.................................................................................... 8 Documents Consulted............................................................................................................................... 10 Other Resources........................................................................................................................................ 10 Staff Consulted.......................................................................................................................................... 10 Process to Identify Measures.................................................................................................................... 12 Preface Note.............................................................................................................................................. 14 Measures Used.......................................................................................................................................... 16 Untrammeled Quality................................................................................................................... 16

1.1—Index of fire management actions in wilderness................................................... 17 1.2— Number of actions to manipulate vegetation; fish, wildlife, insects, and disease; soil and water.................................................................................................................. 18

1.3— Number of escaped, unauthorized, human ignited fires burning wilderness........................................................................................................................ 20

Natural Quality.............................................................................................................................. 22 2.1— Population dynamics of selected native species: Black-capped Vireo (Vireo atricapilla)....................................................................................................................... 23 2.2— Ozone air pollution................................................................................................. 23 2.3— Total nitrogen wet deposition)............................................................................... 24 2.4— Total sulfur wet deposition.................................................................................... 25 2.5— Visibility.................................................................................................................. 26 2.6— Departure from natural fire regime....................................................................... 26 Undeveloped Quality.................................................................................................................... 28

3.1— Number of authorized physical structures, installations, and developments contributing to refuge operations................................................................................... 29

2 | P a g e

3.2—Acres of inholdings within wilderness..................................................................... 29 3.3— Number of user days of authorized, emergency use of search and rescue helicopter within wilderness............................................................................................ 30 Solitude of Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality............................................................ 32 4.1— Visitors to wilderness............................................................................................. 33 4.2—Area of wilderness affected by adjacent travel routes and development.............. 33 4.3—Agency provided recreation facilities...................................................................... 34 4.4—Miles of developed trail........................................................................................... 36 4.5—Management restrictions on visitor behavior......................................................... 37 Dropped Measures.................................................................................................................................... 41 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................. 43 Appendix A: Prioritizing Measures of Wilderness Character—priority ranking of all measures considered…….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44 Appendix B: Summary of Effort Required for Wilderness Character Monitoring...................................... 47 Appendix C: Summary of Priority, Data Source(s), and Data Collection Protocols for All Measures......... 50 Appendix D: U.S. Forest Service Trail Classification Protocol Excerpts...................................................... 54

3 | P a g e

Setting and Background of Refuge Wilderness

Geographic Setting

Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), located in Comanche County of southwestern Oklahoma, consists of 59,020 acres in the heart of the Wichita Mountain Range. Of this total acreage, 24,088 acres spread across the refuge’s south and southeastern portions are designated as the Public Use Area, while 34,932 acres covering the northwestern half of the refuge are designated as a Special Use Area. Wichita Mountains NWR encompasses the 8,570 acre Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area, which is composed of two distinct “units”. The 5,723 acre Charons Garden Unit is located in the southwestern portion of the refuge, and lies within the Public Use Area. The 2,847 acre North Mountain Unit, on the other hand, is located in the north-central part of the refuge, and lies within the Special Use Area. Map of Wichita Mountains NWR

Charons Garden Unit

North Mountain Unit

4 | P a g e

Ecological Setting

Maps of Charons Garden (top) and North Mountain (bottom) Wilderness Units

5 | P a g e

Wichita Mountains NWR exists at a cross roads of ecoregions. Amongst the eroded peaks and boulder fields of the 300 million year old Wichita Mountain Range, Central Mixed-Grass Prairie meets Crosstimbers systems, resulting in an exhibition of central-mixed grass prairie, crosstimbers oak forest and woodland, and rockland habitats. Little bluestem dominates the grasslands, while Indian grass, big bluestem, switchgrass, sideoats grama, hairy grama, and blue grama contributing heavily to the overall species composition. The forested areas, on the other hand, are dominated by post oak, blackjack oak, and eastern red cedar. This refuge-wide habitat diversity likewise supports a high degree of faunal diversity, including: 57 species of mammals, 292 species of birds, 19 species of amphibians, 55 species of reptiles, and 33 species of fishes. Notable species include: American bison (Bison bison), Texas longhorn, Rocky Mountain elk (C. e. nelsoni), and Black-capped Vireo (Vireo atricapilla) (the only federally listed species currently occurring on the refuge), and represent species for which the refuge is legislatively obligated to manage. Natural aquatic classes on the refuge, such as creeks and streams, are intermittent and seasonal, while man-made reservoirs and ponds account for the largest water bodies of the refuge. Descriptions specific to the two wilderness units, as put forth in the Wichita Mountains Wilderness: Wilderness Management Plan, are as follows: “The Charons Garden Unit, located in the southwestern part of the refuge, consists of unique geological formations of reddish granite mountains and escarpments rising above wooded drainages and rock-studded prairie lands. ... The wilderness...[unit]...includes all ecological stages from bare granite to climax shrub-grass communities. Lichens clothe the granite rocks, grasses range from short-grass species to lush stands of bluestem, and forests of oak and cedar grace many of the mountainous slopes.” “The North Mountain Unit, located in the north-central part of the refuge, about 3 miles northeast of Charons Garden, exhibit[s] a more pronounced erosional pattern than the rugged escarpments found elsewhere on the refuge. It is essentially a grassland complex interspersed with woody areas of black jack and post oaks. Timbered areas are found in ‘bands’ which follow geologic joints.” History of Establishing the Wilderness Initial review of refuge land concluded that only the Charons Garden area fit the criteria set forth by the Wilderness Act of 1964. This being said, this area of land (and this area of land alone) underwent consideration for wilderness designation beginning in 1967. Agency, organization, and citizen assessment of the Charons Garden Wilderness proposal culminated in a public hearing to comment on the possible incorporation of the area into the National Wilderness Preservation System. All contributors, spanning from large agencies and organizations, such as the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Sierra Club, to individual, local citizens, supported the designation of the Charons Garden area as wilderness on the following basis: Such designation would provide for:

- the protection and maintenance of unique geological features found nowhere else on the refuge

6 | P a g e

- the protection and maintenance of an ecologically significant area exhibiting all successional stages from bare granite to climax vegetation, and used by the refuge’s free range bison, elk, and deer herds

- the protection and provision of associated recreational opportunities

In addition to voicing their support for the designation of the Charons Garden area, the vast majority of contributors also urged the consideration and inclusion of the North Mountain area (located in the refuge’s Special Use Area) in the wilderness proposal. The initial review of refuge land had excluded this area of land due to the presence of existing roads, fencing, and stock ponds, which only left an area of less than 5,000 acres (the minimum acreage prescribed by the Wilderness Act of 1964) representing potential “wilderness”. These issues aside, public comment was persistent, and supported the designation of the North Mountain area on the basis that:

Such designation would provide for:

- the protection and maintenance of a similarly significant ecological area - the protection and maintenance of true “wild lands” (minimal human

entry—restricted to management and research purposes only) which, although not available for public use, possess intrinsic value

- continuity of purpose and management direction capable of protecting the area in light of jockeying interests and potential acquisition by other agencies (“natural area” is a departmental, bureau designation, and can be revoked by another agency)

Upon further consideration of the North Mountain area, a new wilderness proposal including both the Charons Garden and North Mountain areas as “units” of the “Wichita Mountains Wilderness” was drafted and submitted to congress for review. On October 23, 1970, the proposed 8,570 acres (5,723 acre Charons Garden unit + 2,847 acre North Mountain unit) received official wilderness designation, and became known as the Wichita Mountains Wilderness. Refuge Purposes Wichita Mountains NWR operational purposes, based on a compilation of statements found within the 1963 Master Plan for Physical and Biological Development of the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, and the 2012 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, are as follows:

“Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge was established ‘for the protection of game animals and birds and shall be recognized as a breeding place thereof.’ Preservation of wilderness is also a purpose for those portions of the Refuge designated as Wilderness.”

“To maintain, in a natural environment, representative populations of all forms of native

wildlife, including both big game and small game species”

“Chapter 701 FW8 of the Service Manual states ‘By special acts of congress or by special designation herein, five refuges are authorized to preserve and propagate remnant herds of nationally and/or historically significant animals.’” According to the aforementioned chapter, these species, in the case of Wichita Mountains NWR, are bison, elk, and Longhorn cattle.

7 | P a g e

“To provide present and future generations of citizens an opportunity to observe, study and enjoy the plants and animals of southwestern Oklahoma in a setting that is as nearly natural as possible.”

8 | P a g e

Introduction to Wilderness Character Monitoring This wilderness character monitoring program represents an interagency initiative designed to provide a standardized, yet dynamic, means of assessing current conditions, and monitoring progressive trends in wilderness—both locally at individual wilderness areas, and broadly across the National Wilderness Preservation System. Drawing substance from the words of the Wilderness Act of 1964, this program creates a hierarchical monitoring framework (outlined below) charged with feeding four “qualities” of wilderness (described below), which serve as a collective representation of wilderness character. Monitoring measures represent nuts and bolts manifestations of specificity and significance for each individual wilderness area, and affords a balance of pertinence between local and regional/national scales. Further explanation of conceptual and technical details of this monitoring program can be found in Keeping It Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends Across the National Wilderness Preservation System. The measures selected and discussed in the following report serve the aforementioned purposes in the context of the Wichita Mountains Wilderness. Baseline assessment of conditions of the Wichita Mountains Wilderness will be completed by the end of 2014.

Hierarchical Monitoring Framework of Wilderness Character Monitoring

“Wilderness Character”

The combination of biophysical, experiential, and symbolic ideals and relationships that distinguishes wilderness from other lands. The sum of all components below.

Qualities

Primary elements of wilderness character that link directly to the statutory language of the Wilderness Act of 1964. In this framework, all four qualities are necessary to assess trends in wilderness character.

Trends in qualities contribute to the computation of the overall trend in wilderness character.

Monitoring Questions

Major elements under each quality that are significantly different from one another. Monitoring questions direct this monitoring so as to answer particular management questions. Trends in

monitoring questions contribute to the computation of trends in qualities.

Indicators

Distinct and important elements within each monitoring question. Trends in indicators contribute to the computation of trends in monitoring questions.

Measures

Specific aspects of wilderness, determined by the unique context of each individual wilderness, on which data are collected. Trends in measures contribute to the computation of trends in indicators. At least

one measure is required for each indicator.

9 | P a g e

Qualities of Wilderness Character

Untrammeled “…an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man…” and “…generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable” –Wilderness Act of 1964 Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from [the actions of] modern human control or manipulation Natural “…is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions” –Wilderness Act of 1964 Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization Undeveloped “…an area of undeveloped Federal land…without permanent improvement or human habitation…” and “…where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” –Wilderness Act of 1964 Wilderness retains its primeval character and influence, and is essentially without permanent improvement or modern human occupation Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation “…has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation” –Wilderness Act of 1964 Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation

10 | P a g e

Documents Consulted “Master Development Plan for Physical and Biological Development of the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. (1963).” “Summary Report: Charons Garden Wilderness Study”

“Charons Garden Wilderness Study Area: Wilderness Study Report”

“Summary: Public Hearing Record: Charons Garden Wilderness Study: Lawton, Oklahoma: April 18, 1967”

“Wilderness Hearing, Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge: April 18, 1976” “Wichita Mountains Wilderness: Wilderness Management Plan”. (1979). “Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge: Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment”. (2012). Annual Narrative Report—1988 Annual Narrative Report—1997 Annual Narrative Report—1999 Annual Narrative Report—2001 Other Resources Landres et al. (2008). Keeping It Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System. USDA Forest Service. Landres et al. (2009). Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character. USDA Forest Service. Trail Fundamentals and Trail Management Objectives. (2011). USDA Forest Service. Staff Consulted Tony Booth Refuge Manager Ralph Bryant Deputy Refuge Manager Walter Munsterman Supervisory Wildlife Biologist Richard Baker Prescribed Fire Specialist Jeremiah Phillips AFMO

11 | P a g e

Susan Howell Supervisory Park Ranger Randy Hale Environmental Education Specialist Kelly Moran Supervisory Law Enforcement Officer

12 | P a g e

Process to Identify Measures The process of identifying measures capable of providing both localized insight to refuge staff, and national comment to the greater Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Inventory & Monitoring, and all parties that may be concerned with the state of the National Wilderness Preservation System, began with an exhaustive review of all relevant archived materials within the refuge’s files system. While conducting this initial research, staff were consulted on a casual basis for informal information, suggestions, and impressions based on their time and experience working at the refuge, which helped provide an increased sense of local context, and, in turn, some guidance for honing in on aspects of particular significance. While reading through all major documents, which included the Master Plan for Physical and Biological Development of the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, Charons Garden Wilderness Study Area: Wilderness Study Report, Wichita Mountains Wilderness: Wilderness Management Plan, and Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge: Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, a brief 1-2 pg. summary of contents was created to allow for quick and convenient future reference. After completing the thorough review of all available files and resources, the Xcel document Potential Measures for WCM—2012, part of the electronic resources provided to Wilderness Fellows at training in Fort Collins, was accessed and reviewed. Based on the information obtained from the reviewed files, measures deemed potentially significant to the refuge, and relevant to the assessment of wilderness character, from the perspective of the Wilderness Fellow, were selected from the Xcel document. A meeting with department heads representing Management, Biology, and Visitor Services Departments was then conducted in which all parties were provided with a copy of the Xcel document, and asked to select the measures they felt were appropriate. During this selection process, an open discussion was facilitated to entertain ideas, clarify objectives and terminology, and keep the analysis that went into selecting potential measures in the context of the wilderness area (as opposed to the non-wilderness portion of the refuge). Notes regarding selection and exclusion/elimination of potential measures according to each of these department representatives were taken during this meeting, and used as talking points for maintaining productive discussion during the meeting, as well as for reference in future meetings. Ultimately, this meeting served as a common outlet for all department representatives and the Wilderness Fellow to discuss their differing interpretations of the various measures, and yielded functional debate and resolutions. The aforementioned selection process served as an efficient means of paring down the list of potential measures provided within the Xcel document, and yielded a prescreened, manageable list of potential measures to be further considered through the prioritization process. The Word document FWS Wilderness Fellows, Prioritizing Measures Worksheet, part of the electronic resources provided to Wilderness Fellows at training in Fort Collins, was sent out to all department representatives present at the previous measure selection meeting, and the prescribed numerical ranking system was employed to provide further comment on the relevance and feasibility of selected potential measures. All individual scoring results were compared, and representative values were interpreted to produce a single prioritization worksheet, featured in this report as Appendix A. This process ultimately culminated in a semi-finalized list of monitoring measures for wilderness character. The absolute, finalized measures presented in this report represent the efforts of a perpetual process of reevaluation and refinement. As further meetings were conducted with representatives of individual departments, and as further conceptual and technical-oriented thought was applied to the list of measures through the drafting of this report, and the specific measure definitions contained within,

13 | P a g e

tweaking on both broad and fine scales occurred. Entire measures were added to and removed from the selected list, and the specific definitions and protocols of these measures were held in a highly malleable state until they found a form capable of adequately representing their associated aspects of wilderness character, and acknowledging the staffing and resource limitations of the refuge. The Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character, Keeping It Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System, and the reports of past Wilderness Fellows served as valuable resources throughout this process.

14 | P a g e

Preface Note The Wichita Mountains Wilderness presents an interesting scenario which has required the implementation of a new procedural protocol. “Wichita Mountains Wilderness” was the singular area designated by congress as wilderness in 1970. Thus, despite being composed of two separate “units” (Charons Garden and North Mountain Wilderness Units) which undergo two very different management prescriptions (open public use vs. restricted special use/research natural area, respectively), the wilderness contained within Wichita Mountains NWR is viewed as a single entity in the eyes of the National Wilderness Preservation System. In the context of this wilderness character monitoring program, however, where the ultimate goal is to observe and determine how wilderness changes over time, and how management/stewardship actions affect wilderness character, accurate assessment and future monitoring of the Wichita Mountains Wilderness requires a clear distinction between these two units, and the influences and impacts of their unique situations. This distinction was acknowledged through the creation of two separate database file sets for the Wichita Mountains Wilderness: one specific to the Charons Garden unit, and one specific to the North Mountain unit. The database files share the same composition of measures, but contain different data values representative of the particular conditions experienced by each unit. Throughout the following report, this distinction is indicated as such: Example: Baseline Data Value [2012]: 24 (CG) , 38 (NM) with “(CG)” indicating that the preceding data value pertains to the Charons Garden Wilderness Unit, and “(NM)” indicating that the preceding data value pertains to the North Mountain Wilderness Unit. Another preceding note to this report relates to the presence/absence of baseline data values. Wichita Mountains NWR possesses a wealth of resources in the context of preexisting monitoring programs, associated data, and high caliber personnel, which resulted in a final measure composition that is able to draw almost entirely on already available efforts and information. This being said, Wichita Mountains NWR also possesses one of the busiest field/operational schedules in the Refuge System, due in part to a combination of the unique year-round management requirements of big game populations, and ~2million annual visitors. This busy schedule was made especially so during the term of the Wilderness Fellow due to the additional demands of CCP finalization, and a rescheduled Longhorn cattle round-up. As such, while consulted staff have made it clear that the retrieval and, in certain cases, professional interpretation or systematic augmentation of required data is straightforward, and well within the practical means of staff expertise and available resources, time and availability just so happened to be more limited than usual during the initiation of this wilderness character monitoring program. Those measures for which data could be determined before the departure of the Wilderness Fellow are displayed, along with their associated baseline year, in the measure definitions below, as well as in the wilderness character monitoring database files. Those measures for which baseline data is still required will be indicated as such:

Baseline Data Value [YEAR]: TBD (CG) , TBD (NM)

throughout the report. Refuge staff will be responsible for collecting this data, and will enter the appropriate values into the database as they are determined. The year corresponding to the first available data value for a given measure will represent the baseline year for said measure, and will likewise be entered into the database. The baseline year for the Wichita Mountains Wilderness (as a whole) will correspond to the first year in which data for all measures is available, and will be entered

15 | P a g e

into the database under the “Select Wilderness” menu. The initial baseline assessment, and all associated data collection and entry, will be completed by refuge staff no later than the end of the 2014 fiscal year.

16 | P a g e

Measures Used

Untrammeled Quality

Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation

Monitoring Question

Indicator Measure Data Source(s) Frequency (yr.)

What are the trends in actions that control or manipulate the “earth and its community of life” inside wilderness?

Actions authorized by the Federal land manager that manipulate the biophysical environment

1.1 Index of fire management actions in wilderness

Fire Program

1

1.2 Number of actions to manipulate vegetation; fish, wildlife, insects, and disease; soil and water

Biology Department

1

Actions not authorized by the Federal land manager that manipulate the biophysical environment

1.3 Number of escaped, unauthorized, human ignited fires burning wilderness

Fire Program

1

17 | P a g e

[Measure 1.1]—Index of fire management actions in wilderness Baseline Data Value [YEAR]: TBD (CG) , TBD (NM)

Frequency: 1 yr.

Significant Change: 10

Data Adequacy: High

Data Source(s): Fire Program

Data Collection Protocol: The refuge Fire Program will be aware of all fires that have occurred on the refuge, and the tactics used for control/management. The Fire Program will be consulted for this information, and each fire occurring within the Charons Garden and North Mountain Wilderness Units will be scored according to the index displayed in Table 1, below. The total score of all fires occurring within a given wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value. Table 1: Scoring index for management actions applied to fires within wilderness

Management Action Description Score

Monitoring

Fire monitored by fire personnel, while

allowing it to take its natural course without

human intervention.

0

Natural containment

Minimal manipulation of fire and the

physical landscape (actions less substantial

than MIST). Use of pre-existing fire breaks

(ex: roads, trails, natural barriers) rather

than creating new ones.

1

Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics

(MIST)

Fire management actions/protocol designed

to minimize impacts on natural and cultural

resources. Actions occurring within

wilderness acknowledge and, wherever

possible/practical, abide by wilderness

regulations.

2

Suppression acts that disregard

wilderness regulations and

restrictions

Suppression actions that disregard typical

wilderness regulations and restrictions in

the interest of managing fire. Involves use

of motorized transport or equipment,

mechanical transport, or chemical fire

retardant. May significantly

impact/manipulate the physical landscape

(ex: creation of long term land scars).

10

18 | P a g e

Context and Relevance: Fire is an important component of the ecological system of Wichita Mountains NWR, and likewise represents a significant aspect of management. The index utilized by this measure seeks to communicate the frequency and degree of management associated with fire occurring within the wilderness. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses authorized actions that manipulate the biophysical environment, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the untrammeled quality of wilderness. An increase in the fire management index score indicates a degrading trend in the context of this measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, while a decrease in the index score indicates an improving trend.

[Measure 1.2]—Number of actions to manipulate vegetation; fish, wildlife, insects, and disease; soil and water Baseline Data Value [YEAR]: TBD (CG) , TBD (NM)

Frequency: 1 yr.


Data Adequacy: High

Data Source(s): Biology Department

Data Collection Protocol: The Biology Department will be aware of all actions taken to manipulate natural aspects of the wilderness, including: vegetation, fish, wildlife, insects, disease, soil, and water. The total number of such actions taken in a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value. Examples of actions to manipulate the aforementioned aspects of the natural components of wilderness are given below, as well as a guiding table (Table 2) indicating general rules for counting and reporting the number of actions for this measure. The examples found below are purely for conceptual reference, and are not intended to be all inclusive, nor representative of the manipulative actions likely to occur within this particular wilderness.

The following examples illustrate possible assignment of many different actions into the four components:

1. Actions that manipulate vegetation include:

Spraying herbicide to control populations of invasive plants

Removal of invasive plants by mechanical means

Spreading seed to rehabilitate an area that burned

Spreading fertilizer

Planting vegetation 2. Actions that manipulate fish, wildlife, insects, and disease include:

Introducing biological control agents

Manipulating wildlife habitat (ex: installing guzzlers, creating fish barriers)

Removing animals

Introducing or supplementing animals

19 | P a g e

Using management-ignited fire to improve forage 3. Actions that manipulate soil and water include:

Burned Area Emergency Response projects, including actions that fell trees to reduce soil erosion

Diverting water for irrigation

Spreading lime to buffer acid deposition

Restoration of a mine site

Table 2: Guidelines for counting and reporting actions to manipulate natural aspects of wilderness

Type of Action Example Counting Rule Reporting

Single action at a single

location

Eastern red cedar treated

at a single location

Count as one action Report one action

Single action at multiple

locations

Eastern red cedar treated

with herbicide at several

locations

Count as one action Report one action for the

single species regardless

of the number of locations

Multiple actions at a single

location

Herbicide is used to treat

eastern red cedar and old

world bluestem at the

same location

Count as multiple actions Report one action for each

species (i.e.: one

treatment on two species

= two actions)

Multiple actions at

multiple locations

Mechanical treatment

used in addition to

herbicides

Count as multiple actions Report one action for each

treatment on each species

(i.e.: two treatments on

two species = four actions)

Action occurs within a

single fiscal year

Eastern red cedar is

treated with herbicide

between June and July

2007

Count as one action Report one action

Action spans multiple

fiscal years without

interruption

Herbicide treatment

initiated in August 2007

ends in November 2007

Count as one actions Report as one action in

fiscal year 2007

Action spans multiple

fiscal years with

interruption

Herbicide treatment

initiated in August 2007

ends in November 2007,

and is reinitiated in August

2008

Count as multiple actions Report as one action in

fiscal year 2007 and one

action in fiscal year 2008

20 | P a g e

Context and Relevance: Actions that manipulate the biophysical environment have historically been performed in moderation within the Charons Garden and North Mountain Wilderness Units. This being said, when such actions are taken, it is generally for the purpose of improving aspects of the natural quality of wilderness (ex: invasive species removal/control, controlled elk and deer hunts to maintain sustainable populations). This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses authorized actions that manipulate the biophysical environment, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the untrammeled quality of wilderness. An increase in the number of actions to manipulate vegetation; fish, wildlife, insects, and disease; soil and water indicates a degrading trend in the context of this measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, while a decrease in such actions indicates an improving trend.

[Measure 1.3]—Number of escaped, unauthorized, human ignited fires burning wilderness Baseline Data Value [YEAR]: TBD (CG) , TBD (NM)

Frequency: 1 yr.

Significant Change: 50%

Data Adequacy: High


Data Collection Protocol: The refuge Fire Program will be aware of all unauthorized, human caused fires that escaped from the containment/control of their igniter, and materialized into a fire burning the wilderness. Unauthorized fires, in the context of this measure, refer to any fire started at an unauthorized location within the refuge due to a visitor’s choice to ignore explicit rules/regulations regarding fire. This primarily includes fires resulting from visitors that intentionally: start campfires within the Charons Garden Wilderness Unit (where it is explicitly prohibited), start campfires within other portions of the refuge’s Public Use area where they are not permitted, and park on the grass/off road (explicitly prohibited). Should a fire originating from such circumstances escape and proceed to burn a portion of the wilderness, it will be counted under this measure. The total number of such fires affecting a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.

Context and Relevance: In the case of Wichita Mountains NWR, where management and staff have been working towards the establishment of a more natural fire regime, actions of visitors to start unauthorized campfires and park on grass in and around wilderness represent inputs into the wilderness system of particular concern and interest to staff, as the occurrence of these actions, and the manifestation of their consequences (escaped fire), impose a factor of human manipulation on the processes of the ecological system, and subsequently impede the achievement of management goals. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses unauthorized actions that manipulate the biophysical environment, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the untrammeled quality of wilderness. An increase in the number of escaped, unauthorized, human ignited fires burning wilderness indicates a degrading trend in the context of this measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, while a decrease in the number of escaped, unauthorized, human ignited fires burning wilderness indicates an improving trend.

21 | P a g e

Comments: Measures dealing with unauthorized fire have and will likely continue to inspire debate regarding the appropriateness of their placement within the untrammeled versus natural qualities. This being said, through in-depth discussion and presentation of arguments amongst this year’s Wilderness Fellows and Program Advisors, it was determined that, while cases of varying effectiveness can be made for each quality, it is ultimately the context of the particular refuge that should drive the decision about whether and where to include escaped, unauthorized fire as a measure. In the case of Wichita Mountains NWR, staff have made the informed decision to pursue the above measure under the untrammeled quality. A note regarding the use of the term “escaped”: As described above in the Data Collection Protocol, “escaped fire” refers to a fire that becomes free from the containment/control of the individual responsible for its ignition. In the context of this measure, fires captured under this term are unauthorized fires started by visitors. The term “escaped fire” possesses a certain connotation within the technical language of fire personnel, and can be viewed as a negative event indicative of failed or ineffective control of a fire by a fire crew. To reiterate and clarify the distinction, the use of the term “escaped” in the context of this measure, report, and wilderness character monitoring initiative, refers only to a loss of control on the part of the igniter of an unauthorized fire, and is not intended to comment on the performance of fire personnel responding to the fires counted by this measure.

22 | P a g e

Natural Quality

Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization

Monitoring Question


What are the trends in terrestrial, aquatic, and atmospheric natural resources inside wilderness?

Plant and animal species and communities

2.1 Population dynamics of selected native species: Black-capped Vireo (Vireo atricapilla)

Biology Department

1

Physical resources 2.2 Ozone air pollution

FWS NWRS Branch of Air Quality

5

2.3 Total nitrogen wet deposition


5

2.4 Total sulfur wet deposition


5

2.5 Visibility FWS NWRS Branch of Air Quality

5

Biophysical processes

2.6 Departure from natural fire regime

Fire Program

1

23 | P a g e

[Measure 2.1]—Population dynamics of selected native species: Black-capped Vireo (Vireo atricapilla) Baseline Data Value [YEAR]: TBD (CG) , TBD (NM)

Frequency: 1 yr.

Significant Change: ANY

Data Adequacy: High

Data Source(s): Biology Department

Data Collection Protocol: Based on annual point count data, the Biology Department will interpret the population dynamics of Black-capped Vireo within the Charons Garden and North Mountain Wilderness Units, and score the population dynamics of Black-capped Vireo according to the following scoring system: 0 = Black-capped Vireo population is stable or increasing; 1 = Black-capped Vireo population is declining. The score of a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.

Context and Relevance: The Black-capped Vireo is currently listed as a federally endangered species, and therefore represents a native species of particular interest to refuge management and staff. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses effects on an animal species, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the natural quality of wilderness. A population dynamics score of 1 indicates a degrading trend in the context of the measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, whereas a population dynamics score of 0 must be interpreted by the Biology Department, and assigned the appropriate trend of either improving or stable based on the aforementioned point count data.

[Measure 2.2]—Ozone air pollution Baseline Data Value [2009]: 76.8 ppb (CG) , 76.8 ppb (NM)

Frequency: 5 yr.

Significant Change: ANY increase or decrease resulting in a change in the “condition” of the data value according to the scoring range below (see comments section)

Data Adequacy: Moderate—For wilderness areas where the FWS NWRS Branch of Air Quality does not have air quality monitors in close proximity, data values may have been interpolated between monitors. Interpolated data have the assigned confidence level of moderate (or, as described in the database, “medium”), and, as per the protocol dictated by the Branch of Air Quality, will not be used to assess a trend.

Data Source(s): FWS NWRS Branch of Air Quality

Data Collection Protocol: This measure is part of a set of 4 metrics designed to monitor air quality in wilderness. All data required will be provided by the FWS NWRS Branch of Air Quality. Data values reported represent 5 yr. averages for each metric.

24 | P a g e

Context and Relevance: Air quality, while largely beyond the control of refuge management, is an important and ever present aspect of wilderness character. Ozone air pollution represents one variable contributing to an assessment of air quality. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses effects on a physical resource, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the natural quality of wilderness. As per the protocol dictated by the Branch of Air Quality, being that the current data adequacy of this measure is moderate (the product of interpolation, rather than actual monitored values), a trend will not be assessed for this measure. For the purposes of this wilderness character monitoring program, further assessment will be limited to whether the numerical value calculated for this measure is increasing or decreasing. Comments: The following scoring range will be used to determine the “condition” of the data value for this measure in the wilderness character monitoring database, and will also serve as a guide for determining significant change:

< 60 ppb - Good 61-75 - Moderate > 76 - Significant Concern All data and protocol associated with this measure is the product of the FWS NWRS Branch of Air Quality.

[Measure 2.3]— Total nitrogen wet deposition Baseline Data Value [2009]: 3.0 kg/ha (CG) , 3.0 kg/ha (NM)

Frequency: 5 yr.





Context and Relevance: Air quality, while largely beyond the control of refuge management, is an important and ever present aspect of wilderness character. Total nitrogen wet deposition represents one variable contributing to an assessment of air quality. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses effects on a physical resource, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the natural quality of wilderness. As per the protocol dictated by the Branch of Air Quality, being that the current data adequacy of this measure is moderate (the product of interpolation, rather than actual monitored values), a trend will not be assessed for this

25 | P a g e

measure. For the purposes of this wilderness character monitoring program, further assessment will be limited to whether the numerical value calculated for this measure is increasing or decreasing. Comments: The following scoring range will be used to determine the “condition” of the data value for this measure in the wilderness character monitoring database, and will also serve as a guide for determining significant change:

<1 kg/ha - Good 1-3 - Moderate > 3 - Significant Concern All data and protocol associated with this measure is the product of the FWS NWRS Branch of Air Quality.

[Measure 2.4]— Total sulfur wet deposition Baseline Data Value [2009]: 2.1 kg/ha (CG) , 2.1 kg/ha (NM)

Frequency: 5 yr.





Context and Relevance: Air quality, while largely beyond the control of refuge management, is an important and ever present aspect of wilderness character. Total sulfur wet deposition represents one variable contributing to an assessment of air quality. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses effects on a physical resource, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the natural quality of wilderness. As per the protocol dictated by the Branch of Air Quality, being that the current data adequacy of this measure is moderate (the product of interpolation, rather than actual monitored values), a trend will not be assessed for this measure. For the purposes of this wilderness character monitoring program, further assessment will be limited to whether the numerical value calculated for this measure is increasing or decreasing. Comments: The following scoring range will be used to determine the “condition” of the data value for this measure in the wilderness character monitoring database, and will also serve as a guide for determining significant change:

<1 kg/ha - Good

26 | P a g e

1-3 - Moderate > 3 - Significant Concern All data and protocol associated with this measure is the product of the FWS NWRS Branch of Air Quality.

[Measure 2.5]— Visibility Baseline Data Value [2009]: 11.3 dv (CG) , 11.3 dv (NM)

Frequency: 5 yr.


Data Adequacy: High



Context and Relevance: Air quality, while largely beyond the control of refuge management, is an important and ever present aspect of wilderness character. Visibility represents one variable contributing to an assessment of air quality. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses effects on a physical resource, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the natural quality of wilderness. An increase in the visibility metric (expressed as deciview) indicates a degrading trend in the context of the measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, while a decrease in the visibility metric indicates an improving trend. Comments: The following scoring range will be used to determine the “condition” of the data value for this measure in the wilderness character monitoring database, and will also serve as a guide for determining significant change:

< 2 dv - Good 2-8 - Moderate > 8 - Significant Concern All data and protocol associated with this measure is the product of the FWS NWRS Branch of Air Quality.

Measure 2.6]—Departure from natural fire regime Baseline Data Value [YEAR]: TBD (CG) , TBD (NM)

Frequency: 1 yr.

27 | P a g e


Data Adequacy: Moderate


Data Collection Protocol: The refuge Fire Program will be aware of the fire regime condition class (FRCC) of each wilderness unit. These condition classes are described below in Table 3. The FRCC number for a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value. Table 3: Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) descriptions

Fire Regime

Condition Class

(FRCC)

Attributes

1 Fire regimes within or near historical range (e.g. fire frequencies have departed from historical range by no more than one return interval)

Low risk of losing key ecosystem components

Vegetation attributes (composition and structure) are intact and functioning within historical range

2 Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range (e.g. fire frequencies have either increased or decreased from range by more than one interval). Moderate changes in fire size, frequency, intensity, severity or landscape pattern have resulted.

Moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components

Vegetation attributes (composition and structure) have been moderately altered from the historical range

3 Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical ranges (e.g. fire frequencies have departed from historical range by multiple return intervals). Dramatic changes in fire size, frequency, intensity, severity or landscape pattern have resulted.

Vegetation attributes (composition and structure) have been significantly altered from the historical range

Context and Relevance: Fire is an important component of the ecological system of Wichita Mountains NWR, and the Fire Program is currently working towards the goal of establishing/restoring a more natural fire regime (with a burn frequency of 4-7 years). The condition classes described above communicate the degree to which fire occurrence has departed from the natural regime. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses effects on the biophysical environment, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the natural quality of wilderness. An increase in the fire regime condition class number indicates a degrading trend in the context of the measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, while a decrease in the fire regime condition class number indicates an improving trend.

28 | P a g e

Undeveloped Quality

Wilderness retains its primeval character and influence, and is essentially without permanent improvement or modern human occupation

Monitoring Question


What are the trends in non-recreational development inside wilderness?

Non-recreational structures, installations, and developments

3.1 Number of authorized physical structures, installations, and developments contributing to refuge operations

Refuge Manager

5

Inholdings 3.2 Acres of inholdings within wilderness

Refuge Manager

5

What are the trends in mechanization inside wilderness?

Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

3.3 Number of user days of authorized, emergency use of search and rescue helicopter within wilderness

Refuge Law Enforcement Unit

1

29 | P a g e

[Measure 3.1]—Number of authorized physical structures, installations, and developments contributing to refuge operations Baseline Data Value [2012]: 0 (CG) , 0 (NM)

Frequency: 5 yr.


Data Adequacy: High

Data Source(s): Refuge Manager

Data Collection Protocol: The Refuge Manager will be aware of all authorized physical structures, installations, and developments existing and utilized as a means of contributing to refuge operations, and will be consulted for the data. In the context of this measure, physical structures, installations, and developments include, but are not limited to: dams, buildings, fixed instrumentation sites, fencing (excluding boundary fencing), and roads. This measure does not include abandoned structures or debris inherited by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which serve no purpose towards refuge operations. The total number of authorized physical structures, installations, and developments contributing to refuge operations within a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.

Context and Relevance: There are currently no authorized physical structures, installations, or developments contributing to refuge operations within either the Charons Garden or North Mountain Wilderness Units. While a change/increase in the number of such structures, installations, and developments is not likely, this measure nonetheless represents an aspect of the Wichita Mountains Wilderness which refuge management and staff would like to see kept in check. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses the presence of non-recreational structures, installations, and developments within the wilderness, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the undeveloped quality of wilderness. An increase in the number of authorized physical structures, installations, and developments contributing to refuge operations within wilderness indicates a degrading trend in the context of the measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, while a decrease in the number of authorized physical structures, installations, and developments contributing to refuge operations within wilderness indicates an improving trend.

[Measure 3.2]—Acres of inholdings within wilderness Baseline Data Value [1970]: 0 acres (CG) , 0 acres (NM)

Frequency: 5 yr.


Data Adequacy: High

Data Source(s): Refuge Manager

Data Collection Protocol: The Refuge Manager will be aware of all existing inholdings within the wilderness area, and will be consulted for acreage data. The sum of all inholding acres present

30 | P a g e

within a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.

Context and Relevance: Upon its designation in 1970, the Wichita Mountains Wilderness inherited no inholdings. Furthermore, no inholdings have been acquired within either the Charons Garden or North Mountain Wilderness Units since then, and none are anticipated in the future. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses the presence of inholdings, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the undeveloped quality of wilderness. An increase in the number of acres of inholdings indicates a degrading trend in the context of the measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, while a decrease in the number of acres of inholdings indicates an improving trend.

[Measure 3.3]—Number of user days of authorized, emergency use of search and rescue helicopter within wilderness Baseline Data Value [1983]: 1 (CG) , 0 (NM)

Frequency: 1 yr.


Data Adequacy: High

Data Source(s): Refuge Law Enforcement Unit

Data Collection Protocol: The Refuge LE Unit maintains records of all search and rescue operations occurring on the refuge, and will be aware of all instances in which the search and rescue helicopter service was utilized within a given wilderness unit. The sum of all days in which the search and rescue helicopter service was authorized and utilized as part of an emergency response within a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.

Context and Relevance: Due to a combination of rugged terrain and high (and at times, inexperienced) visitation, search and rescue operations within the Charons Garden Wilderness Unit are a relatively frequent (typically annual) occurrence. Whenever possible, these operations are carried out by search and rescue teams hiking in to provide aid. However, situations of an advanced technical or time sensitive nature represent instances in which the refuge would authorize the use of an emergency helicopter. These helicopter flights represent the only authorized, emergency uses of motorized vehicles within the wilderness according to current staff and available records. The North Mountain Wilderness Unit, given its restricted access, has historically been unaffected by such events. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport within wilderness, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the undeveloped quality of wilderness. An increase in the number of user days of authorized, emergency use of the search and rescue helicopter service within wilderness indicates a degrading trend in the context of the measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, while a decrease in the number of user days indicates an improving trend.

31 | P a g e

Comments: Refuge Law Enforcement records documenting search and rescue operations and the use of the emergency helicopter service span from 1983 to present. Throughout this interval, however, there are missing incident report records for the following years: 1988, 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2001 through 2006. Due to the historical prevalence of search and rescue operations occurring within the Charons Garden Wilderness Unit, it was determined that these missing files likely would have contained instances of search and rescue helicopter use within the Charons Garden unit. Through discussion with the Supervisory Law Enforcement Officer, it was determined that the average number of helicopter uses within the Charons Garden unit computed from the available data years would serve as an accurate and appropriate stand in for the actual/missing data. This being said, any year for which helicopter use data was missing will indicate a data value of 1.5 user days in the Charons Garden database files. Aside from these average value entries, all data values for this measure will be integers.

32 | P a g e

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality

Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation

Monitoring Question


What are the trends for outstanding opportunities for solitude within wilderness?

Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness

4.1 Visitors to wilderness

Visitor Services Department

1

Remoteness from occupied and modified areas outside the wilderness

4.2 Area of wilderness affected by adjacent travel routes and development


5

What are the trends in outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation inside wilderness?

Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation

4.3 Agency provided recreation facilities


5

4.4 Miles of developed trail


5

Management restrictions on visitor behavior

4.5 Management restrictions on visitor behavior


5

33 | P a g e

[Measure 4.1]—Visitors to wilderness area Baseline Data Value [YEAR]: TBD (CG) , 0 (NM)

Frequency: 1 yr.

Significant Change: 20%

Data Adequacy: High

Data Source(s): Visitor Services Department

Data Collection Protocol: A trail counter placed at the entrance of the Elk Mountain trail will be used to assess the number of visitors to the Charons Garden Wilderness Unit over the course of a given year, and the Visitor Services Department will be consulted for these figures. No public visitation is currently permitted within the North Mountain Unit, and any change in this policy will be known by the Visitor Services Department. The total number of visitors to a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.

Context and Relevance: High visitation, through associated increased contact with sights and sounds of people inside a wilderness area, can diminish a visitor’s wilderness experience by infringing upon opportunities for solitude. Hosting an average of 1.5 million visitors annually over the last 10 years, Wichita Mountains NWR is one of the most visited refuges in the nation. While annual visitation fluctuates from year to year, a long-term trend of increasing visitation has been identified, and likewise suggests a similar trend may be experienced by the Charons Garden Wilderness Unit specifically. Visitation figures of the Elk Mountain trail serve as a particularly valuable and relevant data value in this context, as Elk Mountain represents, by far, the most highly used trail within the Charons Garden unit. If a change in visitation of the Charons Garden unit occurs, it will be most apparent based on the use of this particular trail. The North Mountain unit, due to designation as a Research Natural Area, and location within the Special Use Area of the refuge, is not likely to see a change/increase in annual visitation in the foreseeable future. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality of wilderness. An increase in the number of annual visitors to wilderness indicates a degrading trend in the context of the measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, while a decrease in the number of annual visitors to wilderness indicates an improving trend.

[Measure 4.2]—Area of wilderness affected by adjacent travel routes and development Baseline Data Value [YEAR]: TBD (CG) , TBD (NM)

Frequency: 5 yr.


Data Adequacy: High

Data Source(s): Visitor Services; GIS Analyst

34 | P a g e

Data Collection Protocol: Proximity of surrounding travel routes and developments will be assessed through the use of GIS. Additionally, standardized viewshed photographs will be taken at a set of lookout points selected by the Visitor Services Department for each unit. Based on the combined information of distance to developments/travel routes, and the perceived magnitude of their impact (as suggested by the viewshed photographs), the Visitor Services Department will use professional judgment to determine the linear distance of a buffer zone (extending interior from the borders of the wilderness units) representative of the area of wilderness impacted by adjacent travel routes and development within each unit. GIS will then be used to calculate the acreages occupied by the specific buffer of each wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, and these acreage figures will serve as the data values. All GIS files and viewshed photographs generated and used for assessment during a given monitoring period will be saved for comparison and reassessment during subsequent monitoring periods.

Context and Relevance: Charons Garden Wilderness Unit borders Fort Sill military base to the south, and private land to the west. While training exercises on Fort Sill certainly create an impact on the wilderness, it is not anticipated the base will undergo extensive development in the near future. The private land abutting the western border of Charons Garden, however, has been identified as a potential area of increased development pressure in the future, and may therefore influence changes in the affected buffer area and quality of this particular wilderness unit. Refuge developments bordering the Charons Garden unit include the Sunset picnic area to the northeast, Fawn Creek youth camping area to the east, and Treasure Lake Job Corps Center to the south. While these developments, and the travel routes associated with them, certainly contribute to the buffer of affected area within the wilderness, these developments, under refuge jurisdiction, are not likely to see significant expansion in the near future. North Mountain Wilderness Unit, on the other hand, borders private land to its north and east. Current private developments within close proximity are relatively minimal, but a large wind farm further out creates a prominent impact on the viewshed at higher elevations. These private lands are seen as a potential area of increased development pressure in the future, and may therefore make significant contributions to changes in the buffer and associated affected area of the wilderness. Adjacent refuge developments, on the other hand, are minimal. As the North Mountain unit is completely encompassed within the “Special Use” area, appreciable developments are largely limited to the dirt road network that permits access to authorized personnel. These travel routes impose minimal impact of the wilderness, and are unlikely to expand or spur additional developments in the future. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses remoteness from occupied and modified areas outside the wilderness, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality of wilderness. An increase in the number of acres of wilderness affected by adjacent travel routes and development indicates a degrading trend in the context of the measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, while a decrease in the number of acres of wilderness affected by adjacent travel routes and development indicates an improving trend.

[Measure 4.3]—Agency provided recreation facilities Baseline Data Value [1970]: 0 (CG) , 0 (NM)

35 | P a g e

Frequency: 5 yr.


Data Adequacy: High

Data Source(s): Visitor Services Department

Data Collection Protocol: The Visitor Services Department will be aware of all authorized recreational structures and facilities. This department will be consulted, and counts of all facilities representing authorized recreational development (indicated below in Tables 4 and 5) will be collected and totaled. The total count of all facilities present within a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.

Context and Relevance: The data value produced by this measure serves to quantify the presence and magnitude of recreational facilities within the wilderness. As indicated in Tables 4 and 5, neither the Charons Garden Wilderness Unit, nor the North Mountain Wilderness Unit, currently contain any recreational facilities (a characteristic that has remained since the designation of the Wichita Mountains Wilderness in 1970). This characteristic of the wilderness units, while unlikely to change in the near future, is one refuge management and staff would like to see preserved. Monitoring this measure therefore provides a means of communicating the implications of recreational facilities within wilderness to both present and future refuge staff. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality of wilderness. An increase in the total number of recreation facilities indicates a degrading trend in the context of the measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, while a decrease in the total number of recreation facilities indicates an improving trend. Table 4: List of facilities representative of recreational development, and their count within the Charons Garden Wilderness Unit (as of 2012)

CHARONS GARDEN WILDERNESS UNIT

Facilities Number

Toilets 0

Constructed tent pads or sleeping platforms 0

Picnic tables 0

Bear poles/food storage structures 0

Developed/permanent fire rings/grates 0

Shelters 0

Developed water sources 0

Corrals 0

36 | P a g e

Large bridges 0

Total 0

Table 5: List of facilities representative of recreational development, and their count within the North Mountain Wilderness Unit (as of 2012)

NORTH MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS UNIT

Facilities Number

Toilets 0

Constructed tent pads or sleeping platforms 0

Picnic tables 0

Bear poles/food storage structures 0

Developed/permanent fire rings/grates 0

Shelters 0

Developed water sources 0

Corrals 0

Large bridges 0

Total 0

[Measure 4.4]—Miles of developed trails within wilderness Baseline Data Value [1970]: 0.75 miles (CG) , 0 miles (NM)

Frequency: 5 yr.


Data Adequacy: High

Data Source(s): Visitor Services Department; GIS Analyst

Data Collection Protocol: All trails within each wilderness unit will be assessed by the Visitor Services Department to determine their level of development according to U.S. Forest Service trail classification criteria (reference material cited in “Other Resources” section; “Trail Class Matrix” and “Photo Examples” components included under Appendix D for reference).

37 | P a g e

According to the 5 class system used by the Forest Service, all trails within either wilderness unit exhibiting the general qualities of Class 3 (“developed”), 4 (“highly developed”), or 5 (“fully developed”) trails will be considered “developed” in the context of this measure. The length of these trails will then be determined via USFWS Trail Inventory gps data (collected in 2006) and summed. In the event that an existing or newly created trail for which USFWS Trail Inventory data does not exist becomes “developed”, refuge staff will walk the trail to obtain comparable gps data. The total miles of all developed trails within a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.

Context and Relevance: An important aspect of wilderness is its ability to challenge visitors with outlets and opportunities for self-reliant recreation. Developed trails serve to diminish this challenge, and the associated quality of a visitor’s wilderness experience. The North Mountain Wilderness Unit contains no developed trails, as it is located within the Special Use Area, and reserved primarily for research purposes. The Charons Garden Wilderness Unit, on the other hand, represents a popular portion of the refuge’s Public Use area, and contains a more extensive trail network. This being said, the majority of the trails contained within this wilderness unit are extremely rugged and primitive, falling within Classes 1 (“minimally developed”) and 2 (“moderately developed”) of the U.S. Forest Service’s trail classification system, and, as such, do not contribute to the data value of this measure. The only trail currently considered to be “developed” (according to USFS protocol) within the Charons Garden unit is the Elk Mountain trail (only a portion of which falls within the wilderness boundary), which exhibits the general conditions of a Class 3 trail. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality of wilderness. An increase in the number of miles of developed trails indicates a degrading trend in the context of the measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, while a decrease in the number of miles of developed trails indicates an improving trend.

[Measure 4.5]—Management restrictions on visitor behavior Baseline Data Value [2012]: 24 (CG) , 38 (NM)

Frequency: 5 yr.


Data Adequacy: High

Data Source(s): Refuge Manager; Visitor Services Department

Data Collection Protocol: Table 6, sourced from the Forest Service’s Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character, contains a list of management restrictions placed on visitor behavior, as well as scores assigned based on the degree of restriction, and the significance of their impact on opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. When scoring the restrictions of a given wilderness, a geographical weight is also applied: x1 = restriction applies only to a portion of the wilderness; x2 = restriction applies throughout entire wilderness. Based on the stipulations of management policy within a given monitoring period, each wilderness unit will be scored, and the total scores will serve as the

38 | P a g e

data values. Tables 7 and 8 illustrate this scoring process for the Charons Garden and North Mountain Wilderness Units based on management restrictions in place at the time of this report. Table 6: Index of management restrictions

Category Score Type of Restriction

Campfires 0 No regulation

1 Designated site, above designated elevation, or mandatory setback

2 Total prohibition

Camping 0 No restriction

1 Any mandatory setback; designated sites

2

3

Assigned sites

Total prohibition

Fees 0 No fees

1 Fees charged of selected user type

2 Fees charged of all visitors

Permits 0 No permit or registration

1 Voluntary self-registration

2 Mandatory, nonlimiting permit or registration

3 Mandatory; use limited

Human waste 0 No regulation

3 Pack out required

Length of stay 0 No restriction on length of stay

1 Length of stay limited

Stock use 0 No restriction

1 Mandatory setbacks; no hitching, tethering

2 Grazing prohibited or feed restricted

3 No camping with stock; area closures to all stock; or total prohibition

Swimming/bathing 0 No restrictions

39 | P a g e

2 Prohibited

Area closure 0 No restriction

3 Area closed to use

Group size limits 0 No restriction

1 Group size limits in place

Dogs 0 No restrictions

1 Required to be on leash

2 Prohibited

Context and Relevance: Based on the Wilderness Act of 1964, and reinforced through the operational definitions proposed by this monitoring program, outlets for primitive and unconfined recreation represent a major contributing quality to the overall character of wilderness. Management of wilderness includes the creation and enforcement of visitor use/behavior restrictions, which ultimately affect the quality of a visitor’s recreational experience. Tables 7 and 8 indicate the extent of management restrictions associated with the Charons Garden and North Mountain Wilderness Units at the time of this report (according to the above scoring system). The data value of this measure is not likely to change in the near future, and will therefore likely display a consistent, stable trend. Likewise, as the North Mountain unit is off limits to the public, and reserved purely for research and management purposes, the North Mountain Wilderness Unit will likely always have a higher score than the Charons Garden unit. This measure is relevant to the associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality in that it addresses management restrictions on visitor behavior, and contributes to an evaluation and understanding of the solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality of wilderness. An increase in the management restrictions index score indicates a degrading trend in the context of the measure and associated indicator, monitoring question, and quality, while a decrease in the management restrictions index score indicates an improving trend. Table 7: Management restrictions score for Charons Garden Wilderness Unit (2012)

Category Score Geographic Weight Total Score

Campfires 2 2 4

Camping 1 2 2

Fees 1 2 2

Permits 0 — 0

Human waste 0 — 0

Length of stay 1 2 2

Stock use 3 2 6

Swimming/bathing 2 2 4

40 | P a g e

Table 8: Management restrictions score for North Mountain Wilderness Unit (2012)

Area closure 0 — 0

Group size limits 1 2 2

Dogs 1 2 2

Total Score 24

Category Score Geographic Weight Total Score

Campfires 2 2 4

Camping 3 2 6

Fees 0 — 0

Permits 3 2 6

Human waste 0 — 0

Length of stay 1 2 2

Stock use 3 2 6

Swimming/bathing 2 2 4

Area closure 3 2 6

Group size limits 0 — 0

Dogs 2 2 4

Total Score 38

41 | P a g e

Dropped Measures

Untrammeled Quality

Measure Reason(s) measure was dropped

NONE—All initially selected/discussed measures for this quality were retained in final measure

composition.

Natural Quality


Population dynamics of selected

native species: Elk

Only way to semi-accurately estimate the refuge elk population is

with helicopter surveys. As such, these surveys are very expensive,

and are only conducted when funding allows, which means

consistent collection of data for this measure is not

possible/guaranteed.

Undeveloped Quality


Number of abandoned

structures

Knowledge of abandoned structures within the wilderness areas is

inconsistent among staff members, and associated documentation is

minimal. Seen as less significant to management and staff, as the

number of structures will likely never increase, compared to the

retained measure of “Number of authorized physical structures,

installations, and developments contributing to refuge operations”,

which has more future relevance.

Number of user days of

authorized, non-emergency uses

of motor vehicles, motorized

equipment, or mechanical

transport

Seen as less significant in the context of this particular wilderness, as

refuge staff rarely engage in such uses for non-emergency purposes.

The overwhelming majority of such uses are associated with

emergency search and rescue efforts, which are captured in the

retained measure “Number of user days of authorized, emergency

use of search and rescue helicopter within wilderness”. Additionally,

uses of such equipment are not regularly recorded by department

heads, suggesting the data required for this measure could prove to

be troublesome to maintain and collect.



42 | P a g e

Area of remote, “trailless”

wilderness

This measure was originally considered as a possible component of

the “Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the

wilderness” indicator, based on the rationale that “trailless”

wilderness is where a visitor would experience maximum isolation

from such sounds/disturbances (or, put another way, trailed

portions of wilderness are where increased visitor traffic and

contacts are likely to occur, resulting in a reduction of such

isolation). This measure was eventually dropped due to a perceived

overly subjective (and therefore, hard to replicate) nature, as well as

a staff desire to focus on trails in the context of “Facilities that

decrease self-reliant recreation”, rather than the aforementioned

indicator.

Viewshed After consulting other Wilderness Fellows who had pursued this

measure at other refuges, and after talking to the Supervisory Park

Ranger and GIS Analyst, it was determined that the procedure and

technological components required were too complicated and

extensive.

Soundscape* *While not included in the final measure composition of this report,

a measure of impacts to the soundscape associated with military jet

training fights over or near the border of the refuge is of interest to

refuge management and staff. A simple count of the number of

days such training flights occur would prove a sufficient and

meaningful data value for the purposes of this wilderness character

monitoring initiative, but despite contact with a member of Fort

Sill’s biology staff, a response was not received before the departure

of the Wilderness Fellow regarding the feasibility of obtaining the

required flight schedule information. This being said, the measure

was treated as though the data was unobtainable for the purposes

of this final report, but should such information become available in

the future, staff will likely consider its inclusion.

43 | P a g e

Conclusion The above compilation of selected measures provides for an accurate representation of the Wichita Mountains Wilderness, and contributes to a greater functional understanding of wilderness character and its management. Through careful design and consideration, the finalized list of monitoring measures manages to strike a critical balance between local and national pertinence, thereby exhibiting relevance for both refuge management and staff, and the FWS Division of Inventory & Monitoring. Due to the exceptionally busy schedule of Wichita Mountains NWR, efficiency was a necessity. Limited staff time and availability outside of their preexisting obligations drove the development of a distilled list of measures capable of maximizing local relevance, while minimizing demands placed on staff. This focus was applied from the very first measure selection meeting (hence the relatively short list of dropped measures), and persisted through all following processes of measure prioritization and refinement. Ultimately, a measure composition identifying and monitoring the most representative/critical aspects of the Charons Garden and North Mountain Wilderness Units resulted. This being said, additional (and in most cases, more subtle) details of the Wichita Mountains Wilderness could be communicated and monitored through the potential addition of other measures, pending an increase in available time on the part of staff. Drastic changes in wilderness character are not foreseen, at least in the immediate future, for either the Charons Garden or North Mountain Wilderness Units. This being said, aspects eliciting a susceptibility to change over a longer time scale do exist. Increased adjacent development on private lands has the potential to one day further impact the wilderness character of both units, as Charons Garden borders private land to the west, and North Mountain borders private land to the north and east. Additionally, increased visitation, while not anticipated for the North Mountain Wilderness Unit due to its location in the Special Use Area, and Research Natural Area designation, is predicted to be a likely factor experienced by and affecting the wilderness character of the Charons Garden unit. The potential magnitude of impacts to wilderness character associated with these aspects may be more accurately inferred through the analysis of changing data values and trends over the course of the next few years.

44 | P a g e

Appendix A: Prioritizing Measures of Wilderness Character—priority ranking of all measures considered (Excluding those eliminated via the initial prescreening process)

The criteria and ranking guide below is used to create an overall score for each measure. If the combined score for criteria A and B is ≤ 2, STOP and do not score criteria C and D. Those measures with the highest overall scores should be the highest priority for assessing trends in wilderness character

POTENTIAL MEASURE Criteria for Prioritizing Potential Measures OVERALL

SCORE A. Significance B. Vulnerability C. Reliability D. Feasibility

UNTRAMMELED QUALITY

Indicator: Authorized actions that manipulate the biophysical environment Measure: Index of fire management actions in wilderness 3 3 3 1 10

Indicator: Authorized actions that manipulate the biophysical environment Measure: Number of actions to manipulate plants; wildlife, insects, fish, and disease; soil and water

3 2 3 1 9

Indicator: Unauthorized actions that manipulate the biophysical environment Measure: Number of escaped, unauthorized, human ignited fires burning wilderness

2 3 3 1 9

A. Level of significance (the measure is highly relevant

to the quality and indicator of wilderness

character, and is highly useful for managing the

wilderness): High = 3, Medium = 2, Low = 1

B. Level of vulnerability (measures an attribute of

wilderness character that is currently at risk, or

may likely be at risk over 10-15 years):

High = 3, Medium = 2, Low = 1

C. Degree of reliability (the measure can be

monitored accurately with a high degree of

confidence, and would yield the same result if

measured by different people at different times):

High = 3, Medium = 2, Low = 1

D. Degree of feasibility (the measure is related to an existing effort or could be monitored without significant additional effort): High = 1, Low = 0 (if 0 is given, do not use)

45 | P a g e



NATURAL QUALITY

Indicator: Plant and animal species and communities Measure: Population dynamics of select native species: Elk 3 2 2 0 X

Indicator: Plant and animal species and communities Measure: Population dynamics of select native species: Black-capped Vireo 3 3 3 1 10

Indicator: Physical resources Measure: Air quality measures (Ozone air pollution, Total nitrogen wet deposition, Total sulfur wet deposition, Visibility)

2 3 2 1 8

Indicator: Biophysical processes Measure: Departure from natural fire regime 3 3 3 1 10



UNDEVELOPED QUALITY

Indicator: Non-recreational structures, installations, or developments Measure: Number of authorized physical structures, installations, and developments contributing to refuge operations

3 1 3 1 8

Indicator: Non-recreational structures, installations, or developments Measure: Number of abandoned structures 2 1 2 1 6

Indicator: Inholdings Measure: Acres of inholdings within wilderness 3 1 3 1 8

Indicator: Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport Measure: Authorized, non-emergency use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport

3 1 2 1 7

Indicator: Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport Measure: Number of user days of authorized, emergency use of search and rescue helicopter within wilderness

3 3 3 1 10

46 | P a g e

POTENTIAL MEASURE

Criteria for Prioritizing Potential Measures OVERALL


SOLITUDE OR PRIMITIVE AND UNCONFINED RECREATION QUALITY

Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness Measure: Visitors to wilderness 3 3 3 1 10

Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness Measure: Area of remote, “trailless” wilderness 3 2 1 1 7

Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness Measure: Viewshed 3 2 2 0 X

Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness Measure: Soundscape 3 2 3 1 9

Indicator: Remoteness from occupied and modified areas outside the wilderness Measure: Area of wilderness affected by adjacent travel routes and development 2 3 2 1 8

Indicator: Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation Measure: Agency provided recreation facilities 3 1 3 1 8

Indicator: Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation Measure: Miles of developed trail 3 2 3 1 9

Indicator: Management restrictions on visitor behavior Measure: Management restrictions on visitor behavior 3 1 3 1 8

47 | P a g e

Appendix B: Summary of Effort Required for Wilderness Character Monitoring Comment: The following table has been adapted from the original materials provided, and differs from that featured in reports of past Wilderness Fellows. This adapted design serves to communicate an estimated indication of time required to collect data for each measure in the absence of more concrete temporal figures (due to the lack of data collection completed for a number of measures before the departure of the Wilderness Fellow).

Quality Indicator Measure

Index of estimated time required to gather and interpret data for each measure (1 = minimal, 2 = moderate, 3 = high) Comments

Untrammeled



1

Untrammeled



1

Untrammeled

Actions not authorized by the Federal land manager that manipulate the biophysical environment


1

Natural Plant and animal species and communities


2 Data requires professional

interpretation

Natural Physical resources 2.2 - 2.5 Air quality measures 1 All data provided by I&M

48 | P a g e

Natural Biophysical processes 2.6 Departure from natural fire regime

2 Data requires professional

interpretation

Undeveloped Non-recreational structures, installations, and developments


1

Undeveloped Inholdings 3.2 Acres of inholdings within wilderness

1

Undeveloped Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport


1

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness

4.1 Visitors to wilderness 1


Remoteness from occupied and modified areas outside the wilderness


2 Requires fieldwork

(viewshed photographs)




1



4.4 Miles of developed trail 1

49 | P a g e


Management restrictions on visitor behavior


1

Title of staff involved in identifying, prioritizing, and selecting measures

Staff time to identify, prioritize, and select measures (hours) Comments

Refuge Manager 5 consulted in formal meetings for identification, prioritization, and ultimate selection and definition of measures

Deputy Refuge Manager 5 consulted in formal meetings for identification, prioritization, and ultimate selection and definition of measures

Supervisory Biologist 10 consulted in formal meetings for identification, prioritization, and ultimate selection and definition of measures

Prescribed Fire Specialist 4 consulted in formal meetings for definition of measures

AFMO 2 consulted in formal meetings for definition of measures

Supervisory Park Ranger 15 consulted in formal meetings for identification, prioritization, and ultimate selection and definition of measures

Environmental Education Specialist 8 consulted in formal meetings for identification, prioritization, and ultimate selection and definition of measures

Supervisory Law Enforcement Officer 4 consulted in formal meetings for definition of measures

Time you spent to identify, prioritize, and select all the measures (in whole hours)

Time you spent to learn how to enter data into the WCM database application

(in whole hours)

Time you spent to enter all data into the WCM

database application (in whole hours)

Time you spent on other tasks directly related to WCM (e.g.,

reading CCP, giving presentations, talking with staff) (in whole hours)

Time you spent doing other Refuge tasks not directly

related to WCM (in whole hours)

105 8 8 200 100

50 | P a g e

Appendix C: Summary of Priority, Data Source(s), and Data Collection Protocols for All Measures

Measure Priority (H, M, L)

Data Source(s) and Collection Protocol

Untrammeled Quality


H

Source(s): Fire Program Protocol: The refuge Fire Program will be aware of all fires that have occurred on the refuge, and the tactics used for control/management. The Fire Program will be consulted for this information, and each fire occurring within the Charons Garden and North Mountain Wilderness Units will be scored according to the index displayed in Table 1. The total score of all fires occurring within a given wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.


H

Source(s): Biology Department Protocol: The Biology Department will be aware of all actions taken to manipulate natural aspects of the wilderness, including: vegetation, fish, wildlife, insects, disease, soil, and water. The total number of such actions taken in a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value. See Table 2 for general rules of counting and reporting the number of actions for this measure.


H

Source(s): Fire Program Protocol: The refuge Fire Program will be aware of all unauthorized, human caused fires that escaped from the containment/control of their igniter, and materialized into a fire burning the wilderness. The total number of such fires affecting a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.

Natural Quality


H

Source(s): Biology Department Protocol: Based on annual point count data, the Biology Department will interpret the population dynamics of Black-capped Vireo within the Charons Garden and North Mountain Wilderness Units, and score the population dynamics of Black-capped Vireo according to the following scoring system: 0 = Black-capped Vireo population is stable or increasing; 1 = Black-capped Vireo population is declining. The score of a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.

2.2 Ozone air pollution M

Source(s): FWS NWRS Branch of Air Quality

51 | P a g e

Protocol: This measure is part of a set of 4 metrics designed to monitor air quality in wilderness. All data required will be provided by the FWS NWRS Branch of Air Quality. Data values reported represent 5 yr. averages for each metric.

2.3 Total nitrogen wet deposition

M

Source(s): FWS NWRS Branch of Air Quality Protocol: This measure is part of a set of 4 metrics designed to monitor air quality in wilderness. All data required will be provided by the FWS NWRS Branch of Air Quality. Data values reported represent 5 yr. averages for each metric.

2.4 Total sulfur wet deposition

M


2.5 Visibility

M


2.6 Departure from natural fire regime

H

Source(s): Fire Program Protocol: The refuge Fire Program will be aware of the fire regime condition class (FRCC) of each wilderness unit. These condition classes are described in Table 3. The FRCC number for a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.

Undeveloped Quality


M

Source(s): Refuge Manager Protocol: The Refuge Manager will be aware of all authorized physical structures, installations, and developments existing and utilized as a means of contributing to refuge operations, and will be consulted for the data. In the context of this measure, physical structures, installations, and developments include, but are not limited to: dams, buildings, fixed instrumentation sites, fencing (excluding boundary fencing), and roads. This measure does not include abandoned structures or debris inherited by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which serve no purpose towards refuge operations. The total number of authorized physical structures, installations, and developments contributing to refuge operations within a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.

3.2 Acres of inholdings M Source(s): Refuge Manager

52 | P a g e

within wilderness Protocol: The Refuge Manager will be aware of all existing inholdings within the wilderness area, and will be consulted for acreage data. The sum of all inholding acres present within a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.


H

Source(s): Refuge Law Enforcement Unit Protocol: The Refuge LE Unit maintains records of all search and rescue operations occurring on the refuge, and will be aware of all instances in which the search and rescue helicopter service was utilized within a given wilderness unit. The sum of all days in which the search and rescue helicopter service was authorized and utilized as part of an emergency response within a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.


4.1 Visitors to wilderness

H

Source(s): Visitor Services Department Protocol: A trail counter placed at the entrance of the Elk Mountain trail will be used to assess the number of visitors to the Charons Garden Wilderness Unit over the course of a given year, and the Visitor Services Department will be consulted for these figures. No public visitation is currently permitted within the North Mountain Unit, and any change in this policy will be known by the Visitor Services Department. The total number of visitors to a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.


M

Source(s): Visitor Services Department Protocol: Proximity of surrounding travel routes and developments will be assessed through the use of GIS. Additionally, standardized viewshed photographs will be taken at a set of lookout points selected by the Visitor Services Department for each unit. Based on the combined information of distance to developments/travel routes, and the perceived magnitude of their impact (as suggested by the viewshed photographs), the Visitor Services Department will use professional judgment to determine the linear distance of a buffer zone (extending interior from the borders of the wilderness units) representative of the area of wilderness impacted by adjacent travel routes and development within each unit. GIS will then be used to calculate the acreages occupied by the specific buffer of each wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, and these acreage figures will serve as the data values. All GIS files and viewshed photographs generated and used for assessment during a given monitoring period will be saved for comparison and reassessment during

53 | P a g e

subsequent monitoring periods.


M

Source(s): Visitor Services Department Protocol: The Visitor Services Department will be aware of all authorized recreational structures and facilities. This department will be consulted, and counts of all facilities representing authorized recreational development (indicated in Tables 4 and 5) will be collected and totaled. The total count of all facilities present within a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.

4.4 Miles of developed trail

H

Source(s): Visitor Services Department Protocol: All trails within each wilderness unit will be assessed by the Visitor Services Department to determine their level of development according to U.S. Forest Service trail classification criteria (reference material cited in “Other Resources” section; “Trail Class Matrix” and “Photo Examples” components included under Appendix D for reference). According to the 5 class system used by the Forest Service, all trails within either wilderness unit exhibiting the general qualities of Class 3 (“developed”), 4 (“highly developed”), or 5 (“fully developed”) trails will be considered “developed” in the context of this measure. The length of these trails will then be determined via USFWS Trail Inventory gps data (collected in 2006) and summed. In the event that an existing or newly created trail for which USFWS Trail Inventory data does not exist becomes “developed”, refuge staff will walk the trail to obtain comparable gps data. The total miles of all developed trails within a particular wilderness unit, during a given monitoring period, will serve as the data value.


M

Source(s): Visitor Services Department Protocol: Table 6, sourced from the Forest Service’s Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character, contains a list of management restrictions placed on visitor behavior, as well as scores assigned based on the degree of restriction, and the significance of their impact on opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. When scoring the restrictions of a given wilderness, a geographical weight is also applied: x1 = restriction applies only to a portion of the wilderness; x2 = restriction applies throughout entire wilderness. Based on the stipulations of management policy within a given monitoring period, each wilderness unit will be scored, and the total scores will serve as the data values.

54 | P a g e

Appendix D: U.S. Forest Service Trail Classification Protocol Excerpts

55 | P a g e

56 | P a g e

57 | P a g e

58 | P a g e

59 | P a g e

60 | P a g e

61 | P a g e

62 | P a g e

63 | P a g e

64 | P a g e

65 | P a g e

66 | P a g e

67 | P a g e

68 | P a g e

69 | P a g e