1 |	Page

		

ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

2013

Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness

A	Report	on	Wilderness	Character	Monitoring

Franklin	J.	Dekker

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
2 |	Page

This	report	is	part	of	a	national	initiative	to	establish	baseline	wilderness	character	for	

all	the	National	Wildlife	Refuges	with	designated	wilderness.		The	measures	for	each	

wilderness	were	developed	with	refuge	staff	and	reviewed	at	the	national	level.		

					Brain	Glaspell,	Refuge	Manager,	Arctic	NWR					 																						Date

					Nancy	Roeper,	National	Wilderness	Coordinator,	NWRS		 										Date
3 |	Page

TABLE	OF	CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 4

History	of	establishing	the	wilderness 7

Refuge	purposes 8

Geographic	setting 9

Ecological	setting 11

DOCUMENTS	CONSULTED 15

STAFF	CONSULTED 15

PROCESS	USED	FOR	IDENTIFYING	MEASURES 16

WILDERNESS	CHARACTER	MONITORING	MEASURES 17

1.	UNTRAMMELED	QUALITY 19

2.	 NATURAL	QUALITY 27

3.	UNDEVELOPED	QUALITY 30

4.		SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	UNCONFINED	RECREATION	QUALITY 39

OTHER	POTENTIAL	MEASURES 52

									I.	MEASURES	SUGGESTED	FOR	FUTURE	USE 52

								II.	MEASURES	NOT	USED 53

CONCLUSIONS 57

APPENDICES 58

APPENDIX	A	– Priority	ranking	of	all	measures	considered 59

APPENDIX	B	– Summary	of	effort	required	for	wilderness	character	monitoring 65

APPENDIX	C	– Data	sources	and	protocols	for	all	measures	used 71

APPENDIX	D	– Instructions	for	downloading	and	processing	GINA	data	for	measure	2.2 78

APPENDIX	E	– What	is	a	Trammeling	Action? 84
4 |	Page

INTRODUCTION

The	Wilderness	Act	of	1964	was	established	to	protect	natural	lands	from	the	seemingly	endless	threat	

of	“expanding	settlement	and	growing	mechanization.”2 The	primary	mandate	of	the	Wilderness	Act,	

Section	4(b),	states	that	“each	agency	administering	any	area	designated	as	wilderness	shall	be	

responsible	for	preserving	the	wilderness	character	of	the	area.”		Today,	many	wilderness	field	and	

program	managers	perceive	steady	erosion	in	wilderness	character	caused	by	widespread	threats3

, but	

lack	a	consistent	definition	of	wilderness	character	and	the	means	to	measure its	loss, preservation	or	

the	unintended	impacts of	their	stewardship.	

In	2006,	an	Interagency	Wilderness	Character	Monitoring	Team (IWCMT) – representing	the	Department	

of	the	Interior	Bureau	of	Land	Management,	U.S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service,	National	Park	Service,	U.S.	

Geological	Survey (USGS)	and	the	U.S.	Forest	Service	(USFS)	from	the	Department	of	Agriculture – was	

established	to	promote	wilderness	stewardship	and	develop	a	standard	definition	of	wilderness	

character	and	strategy	for	monitoring	trends	in	wilderness	character.		The	IWCMT identified	5	qualities	

of	wilderness	character	based	on	the	language	of	the	Wilderness	Act2

:

Untrammeled

“An	area	where	the	earth	and	its	community	of	life	are	untrammeled	by	man”

Undeveloped

“An	area	of	undeveloped	Federal	land	...	without	permanent	improvements	or	human	

habitation”

Natural

“Protected	and	managed	so	as	to	preserve	its	natural	conditions”

Solitude	or	Primitive	and	Unconfined	Recreation

“Has	outstanding	opportunities	for	solitude	or	a	primitive	and	unconfined	type	of	recreation”

Other Features of	Value

“May	also	contain	ecological,	geological,	or	other	features	of	scientific,	educational,	scenic,	or	

historical	value”

																																																												 2 1964.	Wilderness	Act. 3 Cole,	D.N.	2002.	Ecological	impacts	of	wilderness	recreation	and	their	management.	In	Wilderness	Management:	Stewardship	and	Protection	

of	Resources	and	Values	(J.C.	Hendee	and	C.P.	Dawson,	editors).	Third	Edition.	Golden,	CO:	Fulcrum	Publishing:	413-459.

Cole,	D.N.;	Landres,	P.B.	1996.	Threats	to	wilderness	ecosystems:	impacts	and	research	needs.	Ecological	Applications	6:168-184.

Hendee,	J.C;	Dawson,	C.P.	2001.	Stewardship	to	address	the	threats	to	wilderness	resources	and	values.	International	Journal	of	Wilderness	

7(3):4-9.

Landres	P.;	Marsh,	S.;	Merigliano,	L.;	Ritter,	D.;	Norman,	A.	1998.	Boundary	effects	on	national	forest	wildernesses	and	other	natural	areas.	In	

Stewardship	Across	Boundaries	(R.L.	Knight	and	P.B.	Landres,	editors).	Washington,	DC:Island	Press:	117-139.

3 Landres,	P.;	Barns,	C.;	Dennis,	J.G.;	Devine,	T.;	Geissler,	P.;	McCasland,	C.S.;	Merigliano,	L.;	Seastrand,	J.;	Swain,	R.		2008.		Keeping	it	Wild:		An	

Interagency	Strategy	to	Monitor	Trends	in	Wilderness	Character	Across	the	National	Wilderness	Preservation	System.		81	pages.		USDA	Forest	

Service,	Rocky	Mountain	Research	Station	General	Technical	Report	RMRS-GTR-212,	Fort	Collins,	CO.
5 |	Page

These	qualities	apply	to	all	designated	wilderness	areas	– regardless	of	their	size,	location,	administering	

agency,	or	other	unique	place-specific	attributes	– because	they	are	based	on	the	legal	definition	of	

wilderness.	In	addition	to	the	five tangible	qualities	there	are	also	important	intangible	aspects	of	

wilderness	character	that	would	be	difficult	or	even	impossible	to	quantify	or	monitor.	These	intangible	

aspects	are	diverse	and	include	the	scenic	beauty,	spiritual	experience,	immensity	of	an	area,	and	the	

opportunity	for	self-discovery,	self-reliance,	and	challenge	that	comes	from	wilderness	settings.	

Currently,	these	intangible	aspects	of	wilderness	can	only	be	addressed	in	narrative	form.	

Wilderness	character	may	be either	preserved	or	degraded	by	the	actions	or	inaction	of	managers.	The	

challenge	of	wilderness	stewardship	is	that	decisions	and	actions	taken	to	protect	one	aspect	of	

wilderness	character	may	diminish	another	aspect.	Furthermore,	the	accumulated	result of	seemingly	

small	decisions	and	actions	may	cause	a	significant	gain	or	loss	of	wilderness	character	over	time.	

Because	of	this	complexity,	preserving	wilderness	character	requires	that	managers	document	decisions	

and	any associated	impacts.	

In	2008,	the	IWCMT	published	an	interagency	strategy	for	monitoring	trends	in	wilderness	character	

across	the	National	Wilderness	Preservation	System	titled	Keeping	it	Wild.	The	framework	is	based	on	

the	qualities	of	wilderness	character	defined	above.	Each	quality	is	divided	into	a	hierarchical	set	of	

monitoring	questions,	indicators,	and	measures	to	assess	trends	in	wilderness	character.	While	the	

qualities,	monitoring	questions	and	indicators	are	nationally	consistent,	measures	are	specific	and	

sometimes	unique	to	individual	wilderness	areas (Figure	1).	

Figure	1.	Keeping	it	Wild Hierarchical	Framework

This	approach	balances	national	and	local	needs	for	monitoring	by	defining	locally	relevant	measures	

whose	trends	can	be	compiled	at	higher	levels	for	national	or	regional	reporting.	This	interagency	

monitoring	strategy:		

Wilderness	Character	

QualiPes	

Monitoring	

QuesPons	

Indicators	

Measures	 Locally	Relevant

Nationally	Consistent
6 |	Page

§ Provides	on-the-ground	information	to	assess	trends	and	make	defensible	decisions;

§ Provides	regional	and	national	information	to	evaluate	policy	effectiveness;

§ Communicates	a	positive	and	tangible	vision	for	what	wilderness	is	within	the	agency	and	with	

the	public;

§ Allows	managers	to	understand	consequences	of	decisions	and	actions	in	wilderness;

§ Evaluates	and	documents the	effects	of	actions	taken	inside	the	wilderness	and	effects	from	

threats	outside	the	wilderness

§ Provides	invaluable	information	for	planning;

§ Synthesizes	data	into	a	single,	holistic	assessment	of	wilderness	character;

§ Guards	against	legal	vulnerability;

§ Improves	on-the-ground	wilderness	stewardship.	

Under	this	monitoring	strategy,	wilderness	character	in	a	particular	wilderness	cannot,	and	will	not,	be	

compared	to	that	of	another	wilderness.	Each	wilderness	is	unique	in	its	legislative	and	administrative	

direction,	and	in	its	social	and	biophysical	setting.	Therefore,	comparing	wilderness	character	among	

different	wildernesses	is	inappropriate.	The	purpose	of	this	monitoring	strategy	is	to	offer	a	consistent	

means	for	documenting	trends	in	wilderness	character	and	wilderness	management	within	a	wilderness,	

not	across	wildernesses.	This	strategy	has	proved	to	be	an	effective	tool	for	wilderness	managers	with	

limited	resources.

The	following	report	establishes	a	baseline	condition	and	monitoring	strategy	for	the	Arctic	National	

Wildlife	Refuge	wilderness	based	the	interagency	strategy	outlined	in	Keeping	It	Wild. A	Wilderness	

Character	Monitoring	Database (WCMD) accompanies this	document	including	entries	for	all	measures	

and	baseline	data	specific	to	this refuge.

A	view	of	the	Brooks	Range	Mountains	in	the	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	(USFWS).
7 |	Page

HISTORICAL	AND	ADMINISTRATIVE	SETTING OF	THE	ARCTIC	REFUGE WILDERNESS

History	of	establishing	the	wilderness

The	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	was designated in	1980	by provisions	in the	Alaska	National	

Interest	Lands	Conservation	Act	(ANILCA).		The	act	expanded the	original Arctic	National	Wildlife	Range	

and	renamed	it	the	Arctic	National	Wildlife	Refuge.		At	8	million	acres,	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	is	the	

second	largest	wilderness	area	in	the	United	States (Figure	2).		Within	the	vast 19	million	acre	Arctic	

Refuge,	designated	wilderness	comprises	more	than	40% by	area (Figure	3).				

The	legislative	history	of	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	begins	with	the	movement	to	establish	the	

original Arctic	Wildlife	Range. In	the	mid-1950s,	national	and	Alaskan	conservationists	and	sportsmen	

embarked	on	a	long,	hard-fought	campaign	to	preserve	the	northeast	corner	of	Alaska,	initially	referred	

to	as	“The	Last	Great	Wilderness.”

4

		Concerned	by	the	rapid	loss	of	wildlands	in	the	lower	48	states	

following	World	War	II,	proponents	sought	to	establish	a	vast	ecosystem-scale	conservation	unit,	

intended	to	be	unprecedented	not	only	in	size,	but	also	in	the	range	of	values	and	opportunities	its	

preservation	would	perpetuate.

Olaus	and	Margaret	Murie	of	the	Wilderness	Society,	and	other	leaders	of	the	effort,	decided	

that	status	as	a	national	wildlife	range,	administered	by	the	FWS,	would	be	most	politically	feasible	and	

most	likely	to	protect	the	area’s	special	values	and	opportunities.	In	1957,	the	Fairbanks-based	Tanana	

Valley	Sportsmen’s	Association	petitioned	the	US	Department	of	the	Interior to	establish	the	Arctic	

Range.	Their	proposal	requested	perpetuation	of	the	area’s	“primeval	features,”	“maintenance	of	

undisturbed	ecological	conditions,”	and	“preservation	of	wilderness	conditions.”

5 Innumerable	

conservation,	civic,	scientific,	and	sportsmen’s	organizations	joined	in	lobbying	for	the	area’s	

preservation.

Although	there	was	widespread	support	for	the	proposal,	there	were	many	opponents	as	well,	

and	the	issue	was	hotly	debated	in	Alaska	and	elsewhere.	The	Alaska	Department	of	Mines,	the	

Anchorage	Chamber	of	Commerce,	and	both	of	Alaska’s	senators	were	among	those	that	voiced	their	

opposition.	Critics	argued	the	proposal	would	hinder	development	of	the	area	and	limit	game	

management	options,	among	other	concerns.	

However	on December	6,	1960,	the	Eisenhower	administration	established	the	8.9-million-acre	

Arctic	National	Wildlife	Range	through	Public	Land	Order	2214.	Its	brief	statement	of	purpose	

proclaimed	that	the	Range	was	established	“to	preserve	unique	wildlife,	wilderness,	and	recreational	

values.”	Never	before	had	a	wildlife	range	or	refuge	been	established	to	“preserve	.	.	.	values.”6

		Setting	

aside	Arctic	Wildlife	Range was	an	important	milestone	for	the	wilderness	movement	and	provided	

momentum	for	the	passage	of	the	Wilderness	Act	in	1964.		Although	designated	wilderness	was	not	

																																																												 4 Collins,	G.,	and	L.	Sumner.	1953.	Northeast	Alaska:	The	Last	Great	Wilderness.	Sierra	Club Bulletin,	October	1953. 5 Tanana	Valley	Sportsmen’s	Association.	1959.	Statement	submitted	to	U.S.	Congress,	Senate, Committee	on	

Interstate	and	Foreign	Commerce,	Subcommittee	on	Merchant	Marine and	Fisheries,	Hearings,	S.	1899,	A	Bill	to	

Authorize	the	Establishment	of	the	Arctic Wildlife	Range,	Alaska,	86thCongress,	1stsession,	Part	2,	29	October	

1959.	Washington, D.C.:	GPO,	1960:	293-296. 6 Kaye,	R.	2006.	Last	Great	Wilderness:	The	campaign	to	establish	the	arctic	national	wildlife refuge.	University	of	

Alaska	Press,	Fairbanks,	Alaska,	USA.
8 |	Page

established	in	what	would	become	Arctic	Refuge	until	ANILCA	was	passed	in	1980, the	area	was	

managed	to	preserve	wilderness	values.		The	Arctic	National	Wildlife	Refuge	Wilderness	was	renamed	

the	Mollie	Beattie	Wilderness	in	1996	after	the	first	woman	director	of	the	US	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service.		

In	the	1960’s	the	Arctic	Wildlife	Range	received	few	visitors, and	the	refuge	was	not	even	staffed	

until	1969.	Visitation	increased in	the	1970s	because	of	increased	international	attention	after	oil	was	

discovered	in	Prudhoe	Bay	in	1968	and	the	beginning	of	commercial	air	taxi	service.		Since	then	an	

increasing number	of	commercial	air	taxis	and	guides,	as	well	as	road	access	from	the	Dalton Highway	

have allowed greater access	to	the	refuge.		Today,	people	from	around	Alaska,	the	nation,	and	the	world	

visit	Arctic	Refuge.	Visitors	participate	in	a	variety	of	activities,	such	as	river	floating,	hiking,	backpacking,	

camping,	long-distance	expeditions,	mountaineering,	dogsledding,	berry	picking,	wildlife	observation,	

and	photography.	Hunting	is	also	a	popular	activity	on	the	refuge.	Most	recreational	hunters	visit	the	

Refuge	to	hunt	Dall’s	sheep,	caribou,	moose,	and/or	brown	bears.		

Visitors	may	experience	wilderness	qualities	and	opportunities	that	are	unique	relative	to	most	

protected	areas	in	North	America.	With	relatively	few	visitors	for	its	vast	area	the	refuge	provides	the	

possibility	to travel	and	explore	the	Arctic	environment for	days	or	weeks	without	seeing	another	

person.	The	wilderness allows the	unique	opportunity	to	plan	multiday	expedition	trips	and	remain	

entirely	inside designated	wilderness.	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness is a	place	where	people	may	experience	

and	appreciate	remarkable	scenery,	diverse	wildlife	resources,	remoteness,	and	vast	wilderness.7

		

Refuge	purposes

Section	302.	(7)	(B)	of	ANILCA	states	that	the	purposes	of	Arctic	Refuge are:

(i)	to	conserve	fish	and	wildlife	populations	and	habitats	in	their	natural	diversity	including,	but	

not	limited	to,	the	Porcupine	caribou	herd	(including	participation	in	coordinated	ecological	

studies	and	management	of	this	herd	and	the	Western	Arctic	caribou	herd),	polar	bears,	grizzly	

bears	muskox,	Dall's sheep,	wolves,	wolverines,	snow	geese,	peregrine	falcons	and	other	

migratory	birds	and	Arctic	char	and	grayling;

(ii)	to	fulfill	the	international	treaty	obligations	of	the	United	States	with	respect	to	fish	and	

wildlife	and	their	habitats;

(iii)	to	provide,	in	a	manner	consistent	with	the	purposes	set	forth	in	subparagraphs	(i)	and	(ii),	

the	opportunity	for	continued	subsistence	uses	by	local	residents;	and

(iv)	to	ensure,	to	the	maximum	extent	practicable	and	in	a	manner	consistent	with	the	purposes	

set	forth	in	paragraph	(i),	water	quality	and	necessary	water	quantity	within	the	refuge.

The	purpose	of	congressionally	designated	wilderness	as	defined	by	the	Wilderness	Act	of	1964	(16	

U.S.C.	1131-1136),	Section	2(a):	

																																																												 7 Christensen	Research.	2009.	Arctic	National	Wildlife	Refuge	visitors	study:	the characteristics,	experiences,	and	

preferences	of	Refuge	visitors.	Christensen	Research,	U.	S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service,	and	The	Aldo	Leopold	

Wilderness	Research Institute,	Missoula,	Montana,	USA.
9 |	Page

“For	this	purpose	there	is	hereby	established	a	National	Wilderness	Preservation	System	to	be	

composed	of	federally	owned	areas	designated	by	the	Congress	as	“wilderness	areas,”	and	these	

shall	be	administered	for	the	use	and	enjoyment	of	the	American	people	in	such	manner	as	will	

leave	them	unimpaired	for	future	use	and	enjoyment	as	wilderness,	and	so	as	to	provide	for	the	

protection	of	these	areas,	the	preservation	of	their	wilderness	character,	and	for	the	gathering	

and	dissemination	of	information	regarding	their	use	and	enjoyment	as	wilderness...”	

Special	access	and	access	to	inholdings	in	the Arctic	Refuge Wilderness	is	required	by	section	1110	(a)	of	

ANILCA:

(a)	Notwithstanding	any	other	provision	of	this	Act	or	other	law,	the	Secretary	shall	permit,	on	

conservation	system	units	national	recreation	areas,	and	national	conservation	areas,	and	those	

public	lands	designated	as	wilderness	study,	the	use	of	snowmachines	(during	periods	of	

adequate	snow	cover,	or	frozen	river	conditions	in	the	case	of	wild	and	scenic	rivers),	

motorboats,	airplanes,	and	non- motorized	surface	transportation	methods	for	traditional	

activities	(where	such	activities	are	permitted	by	this	Act	or	other	law)	and	for	travel	to	and	from	

villages	and	homesites.	Such	use	shall	be	subject	to	reasonable	regulations	by	the	Secretary	to	

protect	the	natural	and	other	values	of	the	conservation	system	units,	national	recreation	areas,	

and	national	conservation	areas,	and	shall	not	be	prohibited	unless,	after	notice	and	hearing	in	

the	vicinity	of	the	affected	unit	or	area,	the	Secretary	finds	that	such	use	would	be	detrimental	to	

the	resource	values	of	the	unit	or	area.	Nothing	in	this	section	shall	be	construed	as	prohibiting	

the	use	of	other	methods	of	transportation	for	such	travel	and	activities	on	conservation	system	

lands	where	such	use	is	permitted	by	this	Act	or	other	law.		

BIOPHYSICAL	SETTING	OF	THE	ARCTIC	REFUGE WILDERNESS

Geographic	setting

Arctic	Refuge	lies	across	the	spine	of	the	Brooks	Range	Mountains	in	the	northeast	corner	of	

Alaska (Figure	2).	The	refuge spans	roughly	200	miles	north	to	south	from	the	Beaufort	Sea	to	the	

Porcupine	and	Chandalar	Rivers,	and	180	miles east	to	west,	at	its	greatest	extent, from	Canada	to	the	

Sagavanirktok	River	drainage	near	the	Dalton	Highway.		The	designated	wilderness	extends	west	from	

the	Canadian	border	about	120	miles (Figure	3).		In	the	northeast,	the	wilderness	extends	all	the	way	to	

the	Arctic	Ocean	for	approximately	30	miles	of	coastline.		Further	west	beyond	those	30	miles, the	

coastal	plain is	not	designated	wilderness.		This undesignated area	is	referred	to	as	the 1002 area	after	a	

special ANILCA	provision.		The	1002	area	is	managed	as	wilderness	until	it	is	officially	designated	by	

congress	or	opened	for	oil	and	gas	development.

The	Brooks	Range	represents	the	northernmost	extension	of	the	Rocky	Mountains.	The	range	

consists	of	a	wide	belt	of	mountain	ridges,	several	of	which	are	named, that	arc	gently	east	to	west	

across	the	Refuge.	The	long,	central,	northeast-trending	crest	of	the	Philip	Smith	Mountains (one	of	the	

several	named	Brooks	Range	ridges) forms the	continental	drainage	divide.		The	Arctic	Ocean	receives	

rivers	on	the north	side of	the	Brooks, while	the	southern	side	flows	out	to	the	Pacific	Ocean	via	the	

Yukon	River.		Mountain	summits in	the	Philip	Smith	Mountains are	generally	from	4,000	to	6,000	ft;	

7,000	to	8,000	ft	in	the	Franklin	Mountains;	and	8,000	to	9,000	ft	in	the	Romanzof	Mountains.	The	four	
10 |	Page

highest peaks	in	the	Brooks	Range	are	found	in the	Romanzof	Mountains,	the	highest	being	9,050	ft	

Mount	Isto.		

The	Brooks	Range was	extensively	glaciated	during	the	Pleistocene	epoch,	but today only	small,	

scattered	alpine	glaciers	persist	above	6,000	ft in	the	Philip	Smith, Franklin	and	Romanzof	Mountains.		

The	Romanzof	Mountains	glaciers	covered	over	140	mi2 in	1956	but	have	been	losing	mass	since	the late	

19th	century and	many	glaciers	are	expected	to	disappear	in	the	next	50	years.

8 Glacier	studies	began	

on	the	Refuge	in	1957	on	McCall	Glacier	near	Mt.	Hubley,	which	has	the	longest	history	of	research	of	

any	U.S.	Arctic	glacier.

9 McCall	Glacier	has	retreated	more	than	2,600	ft since	the	late	1800s.10 Currently,	

glacier	melt	water	contributes	considerably	to	the	summer	flow	of	several	North	Slope	rivers,	

particularly	the	Hulahula,	Jago,	and	Okpilak	Rivers and	the	glaciers	loss	is	expected	to	have	a	strong	

influence	on	downstream	ecosystems. 11

A	mountain	glacier	in	Arctic	National	Wildlife	Refuge	(USFWS).

																																																												 8 Nolan,	M.,	R.	Churchwell,	J.	Adams,	J.	McClelland,	K.D.	Tape,	S.	Kendall,	A.	Powell,	K.	Dunton,D.	Payer,	and	P.	

Martin.	2011. Predicting	the	impact	of	glacierloss	on	fish,	birds,	floodplains,	and	estuaries	in	the	Arctic	National	

Wildlife	Refuge.	Pages	49-54	in	C.N.	Medley,	G.	Patterson,	and	M.J.	Parker,	eds.	Proceedings	of	the	Fourth	

Interagency	Conference	on	Research	in	the	Watersheds.	USGS.	Scientific	Investigations	Report	2011-5169.

9 Weller,	G.,	M.	Nolan,	G.	Wendler,	C.	Benson,	K.	Echelmeyer,	and	N.	Untersteiner.	2007.	InfoNorth:	Fifty	years	of	

McCall	glacier	research:	From	the	international	geophysical	year	1957–58	to	the	international	polar	year	2007–08.	

Arctic	60:101-110.

10 Nolan,	M.,	A.	Arendt,	B.	Rabus,	and	L.	Hinzman.	2005.	Volume	change	of	McCall	glacier,	arctic	Alaska,	USA,	1956-

2003.	Annals	of	Glaciology	42:409-416. 11 Nolan,	M.,	R.	Churchwell,	J.	Adams,	J.	McClelland,	K.D.	Tape,	S.	Kendall,	A.	Powell,	K.	Dunton,D.	Payer,	and	P.	

Martin.	2011. Predicting	the	impact	of	glacierloss	on	fish,	birds,	floodplains,	and	estuaries	in	the	Arctic	National	

Wildlife	Refuge.	Pages	49-54	in	C.N.	Medley,	G.	Patterson,	and	M.J.	Parker,	eds.	Proceedings	of	the	Fourth	

Interagency	Conference	on	Research	in	the	Watersheds.	USGS.	Scientific	Investigations	Report	2011-5169.
11 |	Page

The	glacier	history	of	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	is	still	manifested	in	breathtaking	rivers	and	

valleys	that	draw	many	visitors	to	experience	them	through	recreational	float	trips.		The	headwaters	of	

several	major	rivers	can	be	found	in	the	wilderness	high	in	the	Brooks	Range	flowing	out	both	north	and	

south.		The	Sheenjek,	the	East	Fork	of	the	Chandalar,	and	Colleen	Rivers	flow	south	from	the	Brooks	

Range	until	they	meet	the	Porcupine	or	Yukon	Rivers.		On	the	north	side,	the	Kongakut,	Jago,	Okpilak,	

and	Hulahula	Rivers	flow	to	the	Arctic	Ocean.		On	either	side	of	the	range,	the	initial	course	of	each	river	

is	situated	in	scenic	glacier-carved	valleys.		The	valleys	are	perfect	U-shapes	with	wide	floors	that	

abruptly	meet	the	steep,	sharp	ramparts	of	the	valley	walls.		The	walls	are	bare	exposed	rock	that	

dramatically	present	the	uplifted,	tilted,	folded	and	faulted	geology	of	the	Brooks	Range	Mountains.		

Along	the	course	of	each	of	the	main	rivers	smaller	streams	flow	out	through	notches	cut	in	the	steep	

valley	walls	to	meet	the	main	rivers,	but	not	before	they	drop	their	sediment	in	huge	radial-shaped	

alluvial	fans	on	the	valley	bottom.		

Sheenjek	River	valley	in	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness (USFWS)

After	several	days	of	floating	further	downstream	on	either	the North	Slope	and	south	of	the	

Brooks,	visitors	almost	abruptly	depart	the	mountainous	Brooks	Range.		Downstream	from	the	

North	Slope	the	highlands	give	way	to	a	great	expanse	of	tundra	and	low	hills	before	reaching	the	

Arctic	Ocean.		On	the	south	side	some rounded	hills	persist	as	well	but	along	with	open	tundra	

spruce	trees	have	colonized	the	valleys	in	the	wilderness	area.		Although	they	share	similar	

features,	each	major	river	valley	that	begins	in	the	Brooks	Range	Mountains	has	its	own	unique	

character	and	all	offer	amazing	wilderness	landscapes	to	explore.
12 |	Page

Ecological	setting

Arctic	Refuge Wilderness contains	a	unique	juxtaposition	of	ecosystems	compared	to	the	rest	of	

northern	Alaska.		The	southern	portions	of	the	Arctic	Refuge	border	the	Yukon	Flats,	which	have	the	

highest	summer	temperatures	in	Alaska.		In	contrast,	the	northern	portion	of	the	refuge,	along	the	

Beaufort	Sea,	experiences	some	of	the	coldest	summer	temperatures.		North	of	the	Brooks	Range,	the	

Beaufort	Sea	Coastal	Plain	and	Brooks	Range Foothills	ecoregions	are	treeless	tundra,	composed	mainly	

of	hardy	dwarf	shrubs,	sedges,	and	mosses.	Within	the	Brooks	Range	Mountains,	barren	rock	and	

sparse,	dry	alpine	tundra	predominate.	Mountain	valleys	contain	moist	tundra	and,	along	river	courses,	

areas	of	shrub	willow	thickets.		South	of	the	Brooks	Range	mountains,	the	biological	environment	is	

more	complex.	Spruce	forests	are	widespread in	the	lowlands	south	of	the	wilderness	area,	but	spruce	

woodlands	also	extend	far	into	the	valleys	inside	the	wilderness	area.	Open	tundra	is	present	

throughout	the	wilderness as	well	and	covers	vast	expanses	of	uplands	on	the	south	side.	Dense	shrub	

thickets	occur	on	floodplains,	near	treeline,	and	on	glacial	moraines.	Treeless	bogs	and	muskeg	areas	are	

found	mostly	along	major	river	floodplains.		Wilderness	designation	clearly	befits	this	landscape	filled	

with	diverse wild ecosystems,	punctuated	by	the	Brooks	Range	divide,	cold	waters	of	the	Arctic	Ocean	

and	the	extreme	temperatures	of	interior	Alaska.

The	variety	of	unaltered	habitats	in	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	supports	a	great	diversity	of	highinterest	arctic	and	subarctic	wildlife,	including	whales,	seals,	polar	and	brown	bears,	wolves,	wolverines,	

muskoxen,	moose,	Dall’s	sheep,	and	wide-ranging	caribou.	The	huge	migrations	and	concentrated	

calving	of	the	Porcupine	Caribou	herd	is	iconic	of	the	wilderness.		The	Porcupine	Caribou herd ranges	

across	an	astounding	130,000	square	mi	of wildlands	in	the	US	and	Canada.		Their calving	grounds	on	

the	coastal plain	of	Arctic	Refuge	makes	it	one	of	the	most	important	areas	for	the	herd.	Besides	being	

known for	large	charismatic	mammals,	Arctic	Refuge	also	supports	42	species	of	fish	and	201	species	of	

birds,	of	which	109	are	known to	breed	in	the	Refuge.
Figure	2.	A	location	map	for	Arctic	National	Wildlife	Refuge	in	northeast	Alaska with	inholding	and	wilderness	area	boundaries.
Figure	3.		Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	with	major	rivers	shown.		
DOCUMENTS	CONSULTED	

Kaye,	Roger.	2006.	Last	Great	Wilderness.	University	of	Alaska	Press,	Fairbanks,	AK.

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.	

US	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service.	2013.	Arctic National	Wildlife Refuge:	Revised Comprehensive	Conservation	

Plan		- DRAFT.	

US	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service.	1973.	Arctic	National	Wildlife	Range,	Alaska	Wilderness	Study	Report.	

STAFF	CONSULTED

Brian	Glaspell – Refuge	Manager

Paul	Banyas	– Maintenance	Worker

Heather	Bartlett – Federal	Wildlife	Officer	/	Pilot

Joanne	Bryant	– Community	Liaison

Greta	Burkart	– Aquatic	Biologist

Peter	Butteri	– Fire	Management	Officer

Cathy	Curby	– Wildlife	Interpretive	Specialist,	Web	Manager

Heidi Helling	– Fish	and	Wildlife	Biologist

Janet	Jorgenson	– Botanist

Roger	Kaye	– Wilderness	Specialist

Anne	Marie	LaRosa	– Deputy	Refuge	Manager

Dave	Payer	– Supervisory	Ecologist

Jen	Reed	– Visitor	Services	Coordinator

Alfredo	Soto	– Refuges	Operations	Specialist

Dave	Sowards	–Pilot	

Hollis	Twitchell	– Assistant	Refuge	Manager	/	Pilot	/	LE	Officer

Eric	Wald	– Wildlife	Biologist (Caribou,	Moose,	and	Sheep)
16 |	Page

Gail	Wheeler-Hannis	– Refuge	Clerk

PROCESS	USED	FOR	IDENTIFYING	MEASURES

The	process	to	identify	measures	began	with	a	review	of	the	Arctic Refuge	Comprehensive	

Conservation	Plan	(CCP)	and	annual	narratives.		These	documents	provided	an	understanding	of	the	

unique	values	of	the	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	and	provided	some	details	on	active	projects	that	could	

provide	data	for	measures.		In	the	process	of	this	initial	work, a	list	of	measures	was	developed	from	the	

Excel	document	“Potential	Measures	for	FWS	WCM—2013.xlsx,” which	was	part	of	the	electronic	

resources	provided	to	Wilderness	Fellows	at	training.		This	list	of	generic	measures	was	whittled	down	

and	amended	for	the	first	draft	of	measures	for	the wilderness character	monitoring	program	at	Arctic.

Once	this	initial	draft	of	measures	was	created, staff	meetings	were	organized	to	discuss	

potential measures	for	each of	the	five wilderness	character	monitoring	qualities.		Each	meeting	began	

with	a	short	presentation	on	the	quality	and	tips	for	choosing	measures.		Following	the	presentation the	

potential	measures	were	discussed	and	new	measures	and	data	sources	were	brainstormed.		After	each

meeting,	minutes	were	generated	based	on staff	discussion	and	the	potential	measure	list	was	refined	

based	on	staff	consensus.		Also	following each	staff	meeting,	particular	staff members were sometimes	

consulted	based	on	their	area	of	expertise to further develop	measure	descriptions	and	collection	

protocol.		The	measures	for	some	qualities	could	not	be	resolved	in	a	single	meeting	so	follow	up	

discussions	were	held.		At	all	times	in	the	process	an	up	to	date	list	of	potential	measures	and	meeting	

minutes	were	available	on	the	refuge’s	shared	drive	for	staff	to	review.			

After	potential	measures	for	every	quality	had	been	discussed,	staff	filled	out	a survey	where	

they	scored	each	potential	measure	based	on	significance,	vulnerability,	reliability	and	feasibility.		All

staff	surveys were	averaged	together	to	provide	a	collective	ranking of all	potential	measures	(See	

Appendix A).		The	collective	ranking	was	used	as	a	tool	in	one	final	meeting	with	all	staff	to	finalize	the	

list	of	measures.		During	the	final meeting,	staff	went	through	every	measure,	made	adjustments	to	

measure	names	or	descriptions and	decided	which	measures	would	stay	in	the	active	list	of	measures	

for	the	final	report.		In	this	way	staff	discussed	every	measure	at	least	twice	and	the	best	attempt	was	

made	to	reach	consensus	on	measures	that	would	be	ideal	to	represent	the	wilderness	character	of	the	

Arctic	Refuge Wilderness and	provide	useful	information	to	managers.				
17 |	Page

WILDERNESS	CHARACTER	MONITORING	MEASURES

This	section	describes	in	detail	the	measures	chosen	to	monitor	the	Arctic	Refuge Wilderness.	

Background	information,	collection	protocol,	baseline	data,	and	the	data	source	are	described	for	each	

measure.		Additional	details	such	as	frequency,	significant change,	weight,	condition	of	baseline	data	

(good,	caution,	or	poor),	and	data	adequacy	are	also	addressed.		The	frequency	of	a	measure	is	how	

often	the	data	are	collected	and	entered	into	the	Wilderness	Character	Monitoring	Database	(WCMD),	

usually	every	one	or	five	years.		The	significant	change	tells	how	much	a	measure’s	data	must	change	

from	a	previous	data	entry	to	suggest	a	change	in	trend	of	wilderness	character	for	that	measure.		A	

measure’s	weight	tells	how	important	that	measure	is	relative	to	the other	measures	within	a	particular	

indicator.		The	sum	of	the	weights	of	each	measure	within	an	indicator	equals	100%.		Baseline	data	

represent	the	current	condition	of	the	measure:		whether	the	data	reflects	a	good	or	poor	condition	of	

wilderness	character,	or	indicates	that	while	the	effect	is	neither	good	nor	poor,	there	is	concern	about	

what	these	data	say	about	the	wilderness’	character.		In	most	cases	the	frequency,	significant	change,	

weight,	and	baseline	condition	for	each	measure	were	assigned	by	the	wilderness	fellow	and	approved	

by	the	wildlife	refuge	specialist	and/or	deputy	project	leader.	

Data	adequacy	is	defined	as	the	reliability	of	the	data	to	assess	trends	in	the	measure.		The	

intention	behind	evaluating	data	adequacy	is	to	understand	where	improvements	in	data	collection	

need	to	be	made	and	not	to	evaluate	how	well	an	individual	measure	represents	a	particular	aspect	of	

wilderness	character.	For	example,	if	the	data	indicate	a	degrading	trend	in	a	particular	indicator	and	the	

data	adequacy	is	deemed	“low,”	this	would	suggest	that	the	trend	be	interpreted	conservatively,	not	

discounted	entirely,	and	that	greater	efforts	be	expended	in	future	years	to	acquire	more	or	better	data.		

To	determine	the	data	adequacy	of	each	measure	for	this	report,	two	related	but	distinct	

aspects	of	data	adequacy	are	subjectively	evaluated:		data	quantity	and	data	quality.	Data	quantity	

refers	to	the	level	of	confidence	that	all	appropriate	data	records	have	been	gathered.		Data	quality	

refers	to	the	level	of	confidence	about	the	source(s)	of	data	and	whether	the	data	are	of	sufficient	

quality	to	reliably	identify	trends	in	the	measure.		Data	quantity	and	quality	are	subjectively	evaluated	

for	each	measure	according	to	categories	found	in	Tables	1	and	2	below.	

Each	wilderness	character	monitoring	measure	for	Arctic	Refuge Wilderness	has	an	Excel	file	

where	data	will	be	recorded	before	updating	the	WCMD	MS	Access	database.		The	Excel	file	that	

belongs	to	each	measure	is	set	up	to	calculate	index	values	(if	required)	or	simply	act	as	the	repository	

for	data.		The	Excel	files	are	kept	together	in	the	wilderness	character	monitoring	folder	on	the	Arctic

NWR	shared	drive	at	T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness	Character	Monitoring.		

The	electronic	path	to each	measure’s	Excel	file	is	found	under	the	header,	“Data	Collection	File”	in	the	

measure	definitions	below.	
18 |	Page

Table	1.	Data	Quantity

Complete

This	category	indicates	a	high	degree	of	confidence	that	all	data	

records	have	been	gathered.		For	example,	to	assess	the	occurrence	

of	nonindigenous	invasive	plants,	a	complete	inventory	of	the	

wilderness	was	conducted	or	all	likely	sites	were	visited.	

Partial

This	category	indicates	that	some	data	are	available,	but	the	data	are

generally	considered	incomplete	(such	as	with	sampling).		For	

example,	to	assess	the	occurrence	of	nonindigenous	invasive	plants,	

a	partial	inventory	was	conducted	or	a	sampling of	sites	was	

conducted	where	these	plants	are	likely	to	occur.

Insufficient

This	category	indicates	even	less	data	records	have	been	gathered	or	

perhaps	this	measure	is	not	dependent	on	actual	field	data.		For	

example,	no	inventory	for	nonindigenous	invasive	plants	has	been	

conducted,	and	visitor	use	was	not	assessed	anywhere.		

Table	2.	Data	Quality

High

This	category	indicates	a	high	degree	of	confidence	that	the	quality	

of	the	data	can	reliably	assess	trends	in	the	measure.		For	example,	

data	on	the	occurrence	of	nonindigenous	invasive	plants	is	from	

ground-based	inventories conducted	by	qualified	personnel;	for	

visitor	use,	data	would	come	from	visitor	permit	data.

Moderate

This	category	indicates	a	moderate	degree	of	confidence	about	the	

quality	of	the	data.		For	example,	data	on	invasive	plants	could	come	

from	national	or	regional	databases;	for	visitor	use,	data	could	come	

from	direct	visitor	contacts.		

Low

This	category indicates	a	low	degree	of	confidence	about	the	quality	

of	the	data.		For	example,	data	on	invasive	plants	and	visitor	use	

could	come	from	professional	judgment.		
1.	UNTRAMMELED	QUALITY

Table	3.	Untrammeled	Quality

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

Monitoring	

Question Indicator Measure Frequency,		Data	Adequacy

Baseline	

Value

Condition,	

Weight

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	Number	of	actions	to	

manipulate	plant,	

wildlife,	insects,	fish,	

pathogens,	soil,	water

1	year,	High 0 Good,	34%

1.2	Index	of	suppression	

or	control	taken	on	

naturally	ignited	

wildfires

1	year,	High 0 Good,	33%

1.3	Number	of	research,	

survey,	and	monitoring	

projects	that	manipulate	

plants,	wildlife	or	habitat

1	year,	High 0 Good,	33%

Actions	not

authorized	by	

the	Federal	

manager	that	

manipulate	

the	

biophysical	

environment

1.4	Number	of	

unauthorized	actions	to	

manipulate	plant,	wildlife,	

insects,	fish,	pathogens,	

soil,	water,	or	fire

1	year,	Low 0 Good,	50%

1.5	Number	of	hunting	

regulations	with	clear	

intent	to	manipulate	

predator	populations	inside	

wilderness

1	year,	High 0 Good,	50%

A	lone	grizzly	bear	smells	the	air	and	checks	its	surroundings	as	it	travels	up	a	sunny	hillside	in	the	Arctic	

Refuge	Wilderness	 (Photo:	USFWS).
20 |	Page

		1.		UNTRAMMELED	QUALITY INDICATOR:		Actions	authorized	by	the	federal	land	

manager	that	manipulate	the	biophysical	environment

Measure:		1.1	Number	of	actions	to	manipulate	plants,	wildlife,	insects,	or	fish

Background	&	Context

There	are	currently	no	actions	taken	by	refuge	

staff	to	manipulate	the	ecosystem	in	the	

wilderness	or	anywhere	in	the	refuge,	except	

for limited	wildfire	suppression.		No	foreseeable	

reasons	exist	for	staff	to	take	additional	actions	

that	manipulate	the	earth	or	community	of	life.		

Should	the	FWS	decide	to	aggressively	manage	

the	effects	of	climate	change	or	manipulate	the	

ecosystem	for	some	other	reason,	future	

managers	should	carefully	weigh	actions	that	

degrade the	untrammeled	quality.		Possible	

trammeling	actions	include,	prescribed	burns,	

invasive	species	control, or	plant	seeding.

In	the	past	the	FWS	also	authorized	predator	

control	and culling	actions	for	a	variety	of	

reasons.		Should	refuge	staff	revert	to these	

management	methods,	potentially	to	manage	

the	effects	of	climate	change,	staff	should	

monitor	these	trammeling	actions	in	this	

measure.

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	is	a simple	count	of	actions	

authorized or	conducted	by	refuge	staff	that	

manipulates plant,	wildlife,	insects	or	fish in	the	

Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness.		Note	that	wildfire	

suppression	is monitored in	measure	1.2 rather	

than	this	measure.		Biological	staff	or	the	refuge	

manager	should	be	aware	of	projects that	

manipulate	plants,	wildlife,	insects	or	fish and	

could	tally	the	number	of actions.		Minimum	

Requirement	Analyses (MRAs) should	be	

consulted	if	refuge	staff	are	unsure	of	recent	

trammeling	actions	taken	in	wilderness.		

In	the	future,	if	an	authorized trammeling	

occurs	a	criterion	may	need	to	be	created	to	

standardize	what	constitutes	“one”	action.	For	

example,	starting	multiple	prescribed	burns	at	

various	locations	in	the	wilderness	would	count	

as	multiple	actions	rather	than	just	one	

collective	action.		The	method	for	determining	

what	constitutes	“one”	action	should	be	

created	by	staff	and	kept	standard	if	and	when	

trammeling	actions	ever	occur.		Record	the	

number	of	actions	in	this	measure’s	data	

collection	Excel	file	and	in	the	WCMD	MS	

Access	Database

Definitions

§ Authorized	action:		an	action	that	is	

conducted or	approved by	Arctic	Refuge	

staff

Data	Source

Refuge	manager,	biological	staff or	MRAs

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel Data	

Files\1	Untrammeled	Quality\1.1	Number	of	

actions	to	manipulate	plants,	wildlife,	insects,	or	

fish.xls

Data	Adequacy

High

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	High

Frequency

1	Year

Baseline	Value

0*

*Throughout	this	report	“0”	will	always	mean	

“zero,”	and	missing	data	will	be	indicated	with	

“N/A.”		Also,	all	baseline	data presented are	for	

the	year	2013	unless otherwise noted.

Significant	Change

Any	change	would	be	significant
21 |	Page

		1.		UNTRAMMELED	QUALITY INDICATOR:		Actions	authorized	by	the	federal	land	

manager	that	manipulate	the	biophysical	environment

Measure:		1.2	Index	of	fire	management	actions	in	wilderness

Background	&	Context

The	Arctic	Refuge Wilderness	are	classified	for	

“Limited”	fire	protection.		Limited	protection	

means	that	the	standard	response	to	a	fire	is	

monitoring.		Suppression	action	is	typically	only	

taken	on	fires	that	may	threaten	allotments	

inside	the	refuge	and	wilderness	area.		The

suppression actions	taken	on	these	fires	would	

fall	into	3	categories	that	include,	point	

protection,	partial	suppression	and	full	

suppression.		Point	protection	would	take	place	

on	or	in	the	vicinity	of	an	allotment	to	allow the	

fire	to	burn	around,	but	not	inside an	allotment,

to	the	extent	possible	and	safe	for	the	fire	crew.		

Partial	suppression	would	be	a	more	aggressive	

attack	near an	allotment,	but	likely	on	refuge	

land with	a	goal	to	partially	halt	a	fire	that	

would	burn	in	the	direction	of	an	allotment.		

Full	suppression	is	the	most	aggressive	and	

would	aim	to	fully	suppress	and	put	out	a	fire	

burning	near	an	allotment.		

For	each	of	the	three	suppression	types,	

smokejumpers	or	helitack	crews	are	mobilized	

to	take	various	suppression	actions	such	as,	saw	

lines,	burn	outs,	hose	lays	and	water

application,	or	direct	attack	of	the	fire,	as	in	

stomping	out	a	slow	burning	tundra	fire.		

Extensive	digging	of	fire	lines	is	not	a	method	

typically employed	by	fire	crews	in	Alaska.		The	

baseline	value	for	2013,	is	0,	because	no	fires	

occurred	in	the	wilderness	in	2013.		Wildfires	in	

the	wilderness	are	not	very	common	but	have	

occurred	in	the	past.							

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This measure	is	an	index	score	based	on	the	

actions	taken	on	fires	inside	the	wilderness	

area.		Data	for	this	measure	are collected	by	

consulting	the	Refuge	Fire	Management	Officer	

for	a	count	of	fires	that	burned	inside the	

wilderness	in	the	past	year.		If	any	fires	

occurred, more	details	on	the	actions	taken	

should	be	collected	and	the	Fire	Management	

Officer	can assign	a	score	for	the	suppression	

action	taken	on	each	fire	from	the	index	(Table	

4).

Once	this	information	is	collected,	these	data	

should	be	recorded	in	the	Excel	file	called	“1.2	

Index	of	fire	management	actions	in	

wilderness.xls”	Each	year	has	a	column	to	tally	

fires	by	each	management	type	taken	and	

automatically	generate	the	overall	index	score.		

The	index	score	should	be	entered	into	the	

WCMD	MS	Access	Database.

Definitions

§ Smokejumper	crew:		a	wildland	firefighter	

crew	that	parachutes	into	the	backcountry	

to	combat	wildfires

§ Helitack	crew:	a	wildland	firefighter	crew	

that	is	deployed	to	remote	areas	by	

helicopter	

§ Monitoring:		the	standard	fire	protection	

plan	for	Arctic	NWR	that	normally includes	

one	observation	overflight	per	week.

§ Allotment:	lands	held	privately	by	Alaska	

Natives	

Data	Source

Refuge	Fire	Management	Officer

If	the	Fire	Management	Officer	is	unavailable,	

the Alaska	Interagency	Coordination	Center	

Online	GIS	Map	can	be	consulted.

http://afsmaps.blm.gov/imf_fire/imf.jsp?site=fi

re

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	

Files\1	Untrammeled	Quality\1.2	Index	of	fire	

management	actions	in	wilderness.xls

Data	Adequacy

High

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	High
22 |	Page

Frequency

1	year

Baseline	Value

There	were	no	fires	in	2013	for	the	baseline	

year	so	it	scored	“0.”	

Significant	Change

Any	change	in	this	index	in	a	given	monitoring	

cycle	should	degrade	or	improve	this	measure.		

Any	suppression	actions	taken	beyond	

monitoring would	degrade	the	untrammeled	

quality.		

Table	4 Scoring	index	for	management	actions	taken	on	fires	that	occur	within	wilderness

Management	Action Description	 Score	

Monitoring No	control	action	taken.	Only	monitoring	with	approximately	

one	overflight	per	week.	 0

Point	Protection

Suppression	inside	or	in	the	close	vicinity	of	an	allotment	that

aims to	cause	a	fire	to	burn	around, but	not	on	an	allotment	to	

the	extent	possible	and	safe	for	wildland	fire	personnel.			

3

Partial	Suppression

More	aggressive	suppression	that	takes	place	on	wilderness	

lands	near	an	allotment	with	a	goal	of	partially	halting	or	

deflecting	a	fire	that	would	threaten	an	allotment.

6

Full	Suppression The	most	aggressive	suppression	that	aims	to	fully	suppress	

and	put	out	a	fire	on	wilderness	land. 10
23 |	Page

		1.		UNTRAMMELED	QUALITY INDICATOR:		Actions	authorized	by	the	federal	land	

manager	that	manipulate	the	biophysical	environment

Measure:		1.3	Number	of	research,	survey,	and	monitoring	projects	that	

manipulate	plants,	wildlife	or	habitat

Background	&	Context

Arctic	Refuge offers	unique	opportunities	for	

research	in	an	unaltered	arctic	environment.		

Research	and	monitoring	may	have	positive	

effects	on	refuge	management	practices	or

even	be	beneficial	for	another	quality	of	

wilderness	character.		However,	research	

activities conducted	inside	the	Arctic	Refuge

Wilderness	could	degrade	the	untrammeled	

quality	of	wilderness	character	depending	on	

the	methods	and	actions	taken	by	researchers.		

Research	projects that	are	considered	a	

trammeling	may	include	research	that disturbs

the	ground	surface,	uses	exclusion	fences,	alters	

vegetation exceptionally,	or	research	that	

handles,	tranquilizes, or collars	wildlife.		Any	

other	actions taken	for	a	research	project that	

somehow	manipulate	populations,	or	processes	

in	the	wilderness would	degrade	the	

untrammeled	quality.	

A single	trammeling	action	conducted	alone	for	

a	research	project may	be	considered	

insignificant	compared	to	the large scale	of	

wilderness	in	Arctic	Refuge.	However, the	sum	

of multiple	small	actions	can	threaten	the

untrammeled	quality	of	wilderness.		If	there	are	

any questions	about trammeling	actions,	

consult	the	document	“What	is	a	Trammeling	

Action”	found	in	Appendix	E.

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol	

This	measure	is	a	count	of	the	number	of	

research	projects	conducted	by	refuge	staff	or	

non-staff	researchers	that	manipulate	wildlife,

plants or	habitat	in	wilderness.		Unit	biologists	

and	refuge	staff	responsible	for	issuing	permits	

should	be	consulted	for	this	measure.	A	staff	

person	should	count the	number	of	research	

projects that	included	a	trammeling action from	

Special	Use	Permits	(SUPs)	and MRAs.		Record	a	

brief	description	in	this	measure’s	data	

collection	Excel	file	and	record	the total	number	

of	projects	in	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.

Data	Source

SUPs	and	MRAs

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	

Files\1	Untrammeled	Quality\1.3	Number	of	

research,	survey,	and	monitoring	projects.xls

Data	Adequacy

High

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	High

Frequency

1	Year

Baseline	Value

0

Significant	Change

Any	change	would	be	significant
24 |	Page

		1.		UNTRAMMELED	QUALITY INDICATOR:	Actions	NOT	authorized	by	the	federal	land	

manager	that	manipulate	the	biophysical	environment

Measure:		1.4	Number	of	unauthorized	actions	to	manipulate	plant,	wildlife,	

insects,	fish, pathogens,	soil,	water,	or	fire

Background	&	Context

Unauthorized	trammeling	actions are	not	

approved	by	Arctic	Refuge	management.	

Although	staff	do	not	believe	any	unauthorized

trammeling	actions	have	occurred	in	wilderness	

recently,	this	could	change	in	the	future.		

Unauthorized actions	could	be	conducted	by	

visitors,	unapproved	researchers,	state	agencies	

or	other	federal	agencies.		Some	potential	

unauthorized actions	that manipulate	the	

environment	include,	human-ignited	fires	and	

the	introduction	of	non-native	species.

If	the	Alaska	Department	of	Fish	and	Game

(ADFG) or	other	government	agencies	conduct

predator	control	or	animal	culling	inside	the	

wilderness	without	refuge	management	

consent,	an	unauthorized	trammeling will	have

occurred and	should be	counted	in	this	

measure.		To	determine	if	a	particular	

unauthorized action	degrades	the	untrammeled	

quality	of	wilderness	consult	the	“What	is	a	

Trammeling	Action”	document	found	in	

Appendix	E.	

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol	

This	measure	is	a count	of	unauthorized	actions

inside	wilderness that	manipulate	the

biophysical	environment.		Data	for	this	measure	

comes	from	several	sources	including,	(1)

citations	issued	by	refuge law	enforcement	

officers	for violations	that	manipulate	the	

biophysical	environment;	(2)	staff	knowledge	of	

known	or	suspected	unauthorized	trammeling	

actions;	and	(3)	publications	by	state	or	federal	

agencies	documenting	unauthorized	

trammeling	actions.		

As	with	measure	1.1, if trammeling	actions

begin	to	occur regularly a	criterion	may	need	to	

be	created	to	standardize	what	constitutes	

“one”	action.		The	method	for	determining	

what	constitutes	“one”	action	should	be	

created	by	staff	and	kept	standard	if	and	when	

trammeling	actions	ever	occur.		Record	the	

number	of	actions and	a	description	of	actions

in	this	measure’s	data	collection	Excel	file,	but	

only	record	the	total	number	of	trammeling	

actions	during	the	1	year	monitoring	cycle in	

the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.

Definitions

§ Unauthorized	Action:		an	action	not	

approved	by	Arctic	Refuge	management	

that	could	be	conducted by	visitors,	

state	agencies	or	other	federal	

agencies.		

Data	Source

Refuge	manager,	law	enforcement	citation	

records,	ADFG	publications

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	

Files\1	Untrammeled	Quality\1.4	Unauthorized	

manipulations.xls

Data	Adequacy

Low

Data	Quantity:	Incomplete,	Data	Quality:	Low

Data	quantity	and	quality	are	incomplete and	

low,	respectively	because	staff	do	not	have	the	

ability	to	closely	track	violations	in	the	large	

refuge.

Frequency

1	year

Baseline	Value

0	

Significant	Change

Any	change	would	be	significant
25 |	Page

		1.		UNTRAMMELED	QUALITY INDICATOR:	Actions	NOT	authorized	by	the	federal	land	

manager	that	manipulate	the	biophysical	environment

Measure:	1.5	Number	of	hunting	regulations	with	clear	intent	to	manipulate	

predator	populations	inside	wilderness

Background	&	Context

Intensive	management	may	take	the	form	of	

lethal	predator	control	but	it	may	also	include	

hunting	regulations	that	encourage	the	taking	

of	predators	such	as	wolf,	grizzly	bear	and	black	

bear.		Examples	of	hunting	regulations	that	

promote	predator	removal	may	include:	

increased	bag	limits;	extended seasons;	eased	

permit	requirements;	or	economic	incentives	

for	predator	species	hunting.		These	hunting	

regulations	sometimes	have	the	stated	intent	to	

decrease	predator	populations	in	order	to	

increase	ungulate	or	other	game	animal	

populations.		When	the	manipulative	intent	of	a	

hunting	regulation	is	obvious	it	should	be	

counted	as	a	degradation	of	the	untrammeled	

quality	of	wilderness	character.			

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

Staff	already	monitor	proposed regulations	that	

affect	the	refuge.		For	this	measure,	staff	will	

more	closely	monitor	and	count	the hunting	

regulations	made	by either	state	or	federal	

regulatory	bodies	that	have	the	stated	purpose	

to	manipulate	predator	populations	with the	

goal	of	changing	game	animal	populations.	It	

applies	for	regulations	in	Alaska	game	

management	units	(GMU)	25A	and	26C,	which

cover	the	wilderness.		

Hunting	regulation	changes	can	be	made	either	

by	the	Alaska Board	of	Game	or	the	Federal	

Subsistence	Board.		In	each	regulatory	body,	

proposals	are	accepted	from	the	public	and	

considered	by	the	board	annually.		If	a	new	

regulation	does	not	adequately	explain	its	

intent,	the	proposal	that	corresponds	with	the	

regulation	can	be	consulted	to	examine	its	

rational.		If	the	proposal	shows	intent	to	

manipulate,	it	can	be	counted.		

However,	a	regulation	should	only	be	counted	if	

it	is	abundantly	clear	that	the	intent	of	the	

regulation	is	to	manipulate	predator and	game

populations	for	a management	goal.		The	

regulation	cannot	be	counted	in	this	measure	if	

the	intent	to	manipulate	is	not	clearly	stated	by	

the	regulatory	body	or	the	associated	proposal.		

If	there	is	doubt	then	it	should	not	be	counted.

For	example,	if	hunting	regulations	were	

amended	to	lengthen	the	wolf	hunting	season	

and	the	stated	purpose	of	the	change	was	to	

decrease	wolf	numbers	and	increase	the	

Caribou	population,	this is	a	clear	trammeling	

and	should	be	counted.		However,	if	the	wolf	

hunting	season	was	lengthen	and	the	stated	

intent	of	the	change	was	to	make	the	wolf	

season	better	coincide	with	sheep	hunting	

season	then	it	should	not	be	counted.		The	

intent	to	manipulate	is	not	clear.		

Record	the	number and	description of	

regulations	that	are	considered	a	trammeling	in	

measure’s	data	collection	Excel	file,	but	only	

record	the	total	number	in	the	WCMD	MS	

Access	Database.

Definitions

§ Alaska	Board	of	Game:	is	a	state	regulatory	

body	appointed	by	the	governor	of	Alaska	to	

conserve	and	develop	Alaska’s	wildlife	resources.	

The	board	takes	proposals	for	hunting,	fishing	

and	trapping	regulation	changes	from	the	public	

and	considers	and	enacts	regulation	changes	

§ Federal	Subsistence	Board:	 is	a	federal	

regulatory	body	that	manages	and	regulates	

subsistence	activities	on	federal land	in	Alaska.		

The	board	takes	recommendations	on	regulation	

changes	from	Regional	Advisory	Councils	(RACs)	

and	enacts	those	changes	unless	they	lack	

evidence	or	are	damaging	to	subsistence

activities or	resources.

Data	Source
26 |	Page

The	refuge	wilderness	specialist	or	a	biologist	

who	is	knowledgeable	in	hunting	regulation	

changes should	be	consulted	for	this	measure.		

The	published	federal	subsistence	board	and	AK	

board	of	game	hunting	regulation	amendments	

and	proposals	will	also	need	to	be	consulted	to	

check	the	stated	intent	of	each	regulation	

change.

The	changes	made	annually	by	the	Alaska	Board	

of	Game	are	available,	along	with	the	written	

proposals,	online	at:		

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ga

meboard.main

Proposed	changes	to	the	Federal	Subsistence	

regulations	are	published	by	region	at	

<http://www.doi.gov/subsistence/library/meeti

ng_books/index.cfm>.		Consult	the	North	Slope	

and	Eastern	Interior	RAC	Meeting	notes.	

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	

Files\1	Untrammeled	Quality\1.5	Number	of	

hunting	regulations	with	clear	intent	to	

manipulate.xls

Data	Adequacy

High

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	Medium

Frequency

1	year

Baseline	Value

0	

Significant	Change

Any	change	would	be	significant
27 |	Page

Table	5.	Natural	Quality

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

Monitoring	

Question Indicator Measure Frequency,Data	Adequacy

Baseline	

Value

Condition,	

Weight

What	are	

the	trends	in	

terrestrial,	

aquatic,	and	

atmospheric	

natural	

resources	

inside	

wilderness?

Plant	and	

animal	

species	and	

communities

2.1	Number	of	nonnative	plants,	animals	

and	pathogen	species 5	years,	Low 0 Good,	

100%

Physical	

resources

Biophysical	

processes

2.2 Vegetation	

greenness	and	length	

of	growing	season	

indicator	of	climate	

change

1	year,	High 0.32 Good,	

100%

Caribou	and	wolf	tracks	in	Arctic	National	

Wildlife	Refuge	(USFWS).

Muskox	can	still	be	found	in	Arctic	National

Wildlife	Refuge.		During	the	long	Arctic	winter	

Muskoxen	reduce	their	activity	and	movements	

to	conserve	energy	(USFWS).11

																																																												 11 Reynolds, P.E. 1998a. Ecology of a reestablished 

population of muskoxen in northeastern Alaska. 

Dissertation. University of Alaska-Fairbanks. 105 pp.

2.	 NATURAL QUALITY
28 |	Page

		2.	NATURAL	QUALITY Plant	and	animal	species	and	communities

Measure:	2.1	Number	of	non-native	plant,	animal and	pathogen	species

Background	&	Context

As	of	2013,	there	are	no	documented	nonnative	species	present	in	the	Arctic	Refuge	

Wilderness.		A	future	occurrence	of	non-native	

species	in	the	wilderness	area	is	possible.		Any	

visits	to	the	wilderness	area	by	refuge	staff	in	

the	future	should	include	observations	for	nonnative	species,	especially	if	they	are	discovered	

elsewhere	in	Arctic	Refuge.		

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	is	a	simple	count	of	non-native	

plant,	animal	or	pathogen	species	found in	the	

wilderness.		The	species	count	can	come	from	

three	sources	including,	(1)	staff observation,	

(2)	findings at	long-term	ecological monitoring	

plots	in	wilderness, or	(3) the	Alaska	Natural	

Heritage	Program’s	Alaska	Exotic	Plants	

Information	Clearinghouse	(AKEPIC).		The	

AKEPIC provides an	online	GIS	map	of	locations	

where	non-natives	have	become	established in

Alaska.		Each	of	these sources should	be	

checked	to	see	if	any	non-native	species have	

been	found	inside	the	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness.		

The	AKEPIC map	can	be	found	at	this	URL:	

http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/maps/akepic/ .

The	number	of	non-native	species	found, and	

their	names	should	be	recorded	in	this	

measure’s	data	collection	Excel	file.		However,	

only	the total	number	of	non-native	species	

should	be	entered	into	the	WCMD	MS	Access	

Database.

Definitions

§ Non-Native	Species: a	species that	is	not	

native	to	Alaska,	although plant species	

common	to	Beringia	can	be	considered	

native	for	this	measure.

Data	Source

Refuge	biological staff,	and	the	AKEPIC	online	

GIS	map	of	non-native	plant	species.

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	

Files\2	Natural	Quality\2.1	Number	of	nonnative	plants,	animals	and	pathogen	species.xls

Data	Adequacy

Medium

Data	Quantity:	Partial,	Data	Quality:	Moderate

The	data	quantity	and	quality	is	partial	because	

there	is	no	practical	way	to	monitor	every	acre	

of	Arctic	Refuge	for	non-native	species.	

Frequency

5	years

Baseline	Value

0

Significant	Change

Any	change	would	be	significant
29 |	Page

2.	NATURAL	QUALITY Biophysical	processes

Measure:		2.2 Vegetation	greenness	and	length	of	growing	season	indicator	of	

climate	change

Background	&	Context

Vegetation	communities	are	expected	to	

change	as	a	result	of	a	warming	climate	in	the	

arctic.		This	could	be	expressed	in	species	

changes	or	growth	pattern	changes	such	as	

increased	greenness or	length	of	growing	

season.		The	trend	in	these	vegetation	

characteristics	provides	a	climate change

indicator	that	is	more	sensitive	to	long-term	

shifts	rather	than	short-term	weather	or	climate	

cycles.

		

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	uses	two	satellite	remote	sensing	

data	products	publically	available	from	the	

Geographic	Information	Network	of	Alaska	

(GINA),	which	is	run	by	the	University	of	Alaska.		

The	first	data	set	is a measure	of	annual	peak	

greenness	from a Normalized	Difference	

Vegetation	Index	(NDVI).		The	second	data	set	is	

the	annual	length	of	the	growing	season.			

Vegetation	ecologists	commonly	use	these	two	

remote	sensing	data	types	when	monitoring	

vegetation	change.

The	two	data	sets	should	be	downloaded from	

GINA’s	GIS	server	and	then	clipped	to	the	

wilderness	area	in	ArcGIS.		The	average annual

value	of annual	peak	greenness	and	length	of	

growing	season	should	be found	for	the	

wilderness and	entered	into	this	measure’s	

Excel	data	file.		In	the	Excel	file	a	regression	

analysis	of	both data	set	will	yield	two	p-values

to	test	if	a	significant	trend	exists.		A	significant	

change in	this	measure	occurs	if	the	p-value for	

either	regression equals	0.1	or	less.		Only	enter	

the	more	significant	p-value	into	the	WCMD	MS	

Access	Database.		Additional	detailed	data	

collection	and processing	instructions	can	be	

found	in	Appendix	D.

Baseline	Value

Max	Greenness	p-value	= 0.85

Length	of	Growing	Season	p-value	= 0.32

Data	Source

GINA NDVI	maps

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	

Files\2	Natural	Quality\2.2	Vegetation	

greenness	and	length	of	growing	season	

indicator	of	climate	change.xlsx

Data	Adequacy

High

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	High

Frequency

1	year

Significant	Change

Significant	change	occurs	if	a	trend	with	a pvalue	<0.10 is	recorded	for either	data	set.
30 |	Page

3.	UNDEVELOPED QUALITY

Table	6.	Undeveloped	Quality

Wilderness	retains	its	primeval	character	and	influence,	and	is	essentially	without	permanent	

improvement	or	modern	human	occupation.

Monitoring	

Question Indicator Measure Frequency,Data	Adequacy

Baseline	

Value

Condition,	

Weight

What	are	the	

trends	in	nonrecreational	

development	

and	

mechanization	

inside	

wilderness?

Nonrecreational	

installations,	

structures,	

developments

3.1	Index	of	authorized	

physical	structures,	

installations,	or	

developments

5	years,	High 7 Good,	

50%

3.2	Index of	Collars,	and	

both	visible	and	not	

visible	transmitters	in	

the	wilderness

5	years,	Low 8.6 Good,	

50%

Inholdings 3.3	Index	of	inholdings	

within	wilderness	 5	years,	High 42 Good,	100%

Use	of	motor	

vehicles,	

motorized	

equipment,	

and	

mechanical	

transport

3.4	#	of	authorized	

helicopter	uses 1	year,	Medium 2 Good,	25%

3.5	Air	Taxi	and	

Transporter	fixed	wing	

aircraft	use

1	year,	Medium 103	

(2009)

Good,	

25%

3.6	#	of	fixed	wing	

aircraft	landing	sites 1	year,	Medium 30 Good,	25%

3.7	Authorized	motor	

and	mechanical	use 1	year,	Medium 1 Good,	25%

Collared	caribou	(USFWS). Structures	in	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	(USFWS).
31 |	Page

3.	UNDEVELOPED	QUALITY Non-recreational	installations,	structures	

and	developments

Measure:		3.1	Index	of	authorized	physical	structures,	installations,	or	

developments

Background	&	Context

Physical	structures,	installations	and	

developments	in	wilderness	degrade	the	

undeveloped	quality	of	wilderness	character.		

There	are	several	administrative	structures	

inside	the	Arctic	Refuge Wilderness	from	before	

wilderness	designation	and	a	few	scientific	

installations.		The number	and	type	of	

authorized	installations may	change	over	time	

so	it	is	important	to	monitor.	

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

For	this	measure	an	index	is	used	because	

authorized	structures	such	as	buildings	and	

weather	stations	should	not	be	equally	

weighted	(Table	7).	Authorized	developments	

that	are	not	primarily	for	a	recreation	purpose	

are	monitored	under	this	measure,	whereas	

developments	for	a	recreation	purpose	are	

monitored	under	the	solitude	or	primitive	and	

unconfined	recreation	quality.		This	index	

should	be	expanded	when	new	types	of	

installations	occur.		Note	that	this	measure	does	

not	include	wildlife	collars	or	transmitters,	

which	are	counted	in	measure	3.2.

Data	Source

SUPs,	and	MRAs

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	

Files\3	Undeveloped	Quality\3.1	Authorized	

Installations.xls

Data	Adequacy

High

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	High

Frequency

5	years

Baseline	Value

0.01

Significant	Change

Changes	to	the	overall	index	score	of	0.5 or	

greater is	significant.	Minor	changes	in	the	

number	of	small	installations	have	a	negligible	

effect	on	wilderness	character

Table	7.		2013	Index	for	authorized	physical	developments

Authorized	Installation

#	present	or	

potentially	in	

Wilderness Weight Index	value

Administrative	Structure 4 x1 4

Permitted	Structure 0 x1 0

Weather	Station	 1 x0.5 0.5

Tent	Platform	type	

structure

1 x0.5 0.5

*

INDEX	TOTAL: 5

*Future	installations	could	be	weighted	relative	to	their	impact	to	the	undeveloped	quality	compared	to	the	

structures	currently	listed.
32 |	Page

3.	UNDEVELOPED	QUALITY Non-recreational	installations,	structures	

and	developments

Measure:		3.2	Index	of	Collars,	and	both	visible	and	not	visible	transmitters	in	the	

wilderness

Background	&	Context

The	GPS	collars,	radio	collars	and external or	

internal transmitters	installed	on	or	inside

wildlife	to	track	their	movements	are	

installations	that	degrade	the	undeveloped	

quality	of	wilderness	character.		Although	this	

research	may	be	important	for	understanding	

and	protecting	various	aspects	of	the	natural	

quality	of	wilderness	character, because these

devices	are	installations	the	trend	in	their	use	

should	be	monitored.	

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This measure	is	an	index	of	the	collars	and	

visible	and	not	visible	transmitters	installed	on	

wildlife	found	inside	the	Arctic	Refuge

Wilderness.		These	collars	or	transmitters	can	

either	be	installed	on	or	inside	terrestrial	or	

aquatic	wildlife.		An	index	is	used	because	some	

of	the	tracked	species	are	transient and	only	

inhabit	the	wilderness	seasonally.		A	refuge	

biologist	can	provide	the	number	of	collared	or	

transmitter	monitored	animals that	are	inside	

wilderness.		Biological	staff	can	also	estimate	

the	percentage	of	time	each	species are	located	

in	the	wilderness	so the	number	of	collars	or	

transmitters	can	be	weighted	appropriately	in	

the	index.		

The	data	collection	Excel	file	for	this	measure	is	

set	up	to	calculate	the	index	score.		A	staff	

person	should	include	a	description	of	the	

collared	or	transmitter	monitored	wildlife	in	the	

Excel	file	but	only	enter	the	overall	index	score	

into	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.

Data	Source

Biological	staff

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	

Files\3	Undeveloped	Quality\ 3.2	Index	of	

Collars,	and	both	visible	and	not	visible	

transmitters	in	the	wilderness.xls

Data	Adequacy

Low

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	

Moderate

The	data	quality	is	moderate because	the	index	

requires	some	estimation	for index weighting	

transient	collared	or	transmitter	monitored	

species.

Frequency

5	years

Baseline	Value

8.6

Significant	Change

A	change	greater	than	50%	of	the	2013	baseline	

is	significant.

Table	8.		2013	Index	for	collars	and	both	visible	and	not	visible	transmitters	in	wilderness

Species

#	present	in	

Wilderness*

Fraction	of	

time	in	

Wilderness	 Index	value

Caribou 86 x0.1 8.6

0 x0.X* 0

Index	Total: 0

*Staff	should	estimate	a	weight	for	future	species	based	on	time	in	wilderness.
33 |	Page

3.	UNDEVELOPED	QUALITY Inholdings

Measure:		3.3	Index	of	inholdings	within	wilderness

Background	&	Context

Certain	lands	within	the	boundaries	of	the	

Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	are	allotments	that	

are	privately	held	by	Alaska	Natives.		Since	

inholdings	within	designated	wilderness	are	not	

subject	to	the	same	management	rules,	these	

lands	can	be	developed	for	various	purposes	at	

the	landowner’s	discretion,	and	thereby	can	

have	an	impact	on	the	surrounding	wilderness.		

The	undeveloped	quality	is	degraded	if	the	

number	and	impact	of	inholdings	increases.		As	

of	2013,	there	are	38	inholdings,	and	4

structures	on	inholdings,	within the	borders	of	

the	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness.	

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	is	an	index	value	for	inholdings	

that	includes	the	number	of	inholdings,	and	the	

number	of	structures.		In	the	index,	structures	

are	score	as	1, and	each inholding	also	counts	

as 1.	The	collection	protocol	for	this	measure	

includes	asking	the	refuge	manager	if	any	

changes	in	inholding	land	status	have	occurred	

and	if	any	new	structures	have	been	built.		

Refuge	pilots	and	the	fire	management	officer	

should	be	asked	about	new	structures	on	

inholdings.		Once	this	information	is	collected,	

data	should	be	recorded	in	the	Excel	file	called	

“3.3	Inholding	DATA.xls.”	Each	year	(2013,	

2018,	2023,	etc.)	have	their	own	sheet	in	the	

Excel	document.		The overall index	value	should	

be	entered	into	the	WCMD	MS	Access	

Database.

Definitions

§ Inholding:	a	private	property unit that	

occurs	inside	the	boundary	of	a	wilderness	

area

Data	Source

The	refuge	manager	should	know	about	

inholding	changes	and	the	refuge	pilots,	fire	

management	officer,	or	fire	maps	should	be	

consulted for	new	structures.	If	changes	to	the	

status	of	lands	are	unknown,	the	FWS	Lands	

Mapper,	an	online	GIS	tool,	can	be	consulted	

for	information	at:	http://ifw7rosde/refstat/

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	

Files\3	Undeveloped	Quality\3.3	Index	of	

Inholdings.xlsx

Data	Adequacy

High

Data	Quantity:	Partial,	Data	Quality:	Moderate		

The	data	quantity	is	partial because	it	is	not	

completely	certain	that	all	inholding	structures	

are	inventoried.	

Frequency

5	years

Baseline	Value

42

(#	of	inholdings =	38;	#	of	inholding	structures =	4)	

Significant	Change

Any	change	would	be	significant
34 |	Page

3.	UNDEVELOPED	QUALITY Use	of	motor	vehicles,	motorized	equipment,	

and	mechanical	transport

Measure:		3.4	Number	of	authorized	helicopter	uses

Background	&	Context

Helicopter	use	in	wilderness	degrades	the	

undeveloped	quality	of	wilderness	character.		

Helicopters	have	been	used	in	Arctic	Refuge	for	

law	enforcement,	scientific	research	and	trash	

removal.		Monitoring	the	number	of	authorized	

helicopter	uses	inside	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	

is	the	best	available way	to	track	this	concern.		

In	2013,	there	were	2	authorized	helicopter	

uses	in	wilderness	for	scientific	research.		This	

measure	does	not	include	helicopter	use	by	the	

Alaska	State	Troopers	in	wilderness	or	

overflights	without	landings	because	they	are	

not	authorized	by	the	refuge	and	cannot	be	

monitored.

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This measure	is a count	of	the	number	of	

helicopter	uses	that	the	refuge authorizes	

through SUPs or	for	FWS	staff.		The	number	of	

times	helicopter	use in	wilderness	is	authorized

each	year should be	counted	from	SUPs	and	

MRAs. Record	this	number	in	this	measure’s	

Excel	file	and	in	the	WCMD MS	Access	

Database.

Data	Source

SUPs	and	MRAs

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	

Files\3	Undeveloped	Quality\3.4	Number	of	

authorized	helicopter	uses.xls

Data	Adequacy

Medium

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	High

Frequency

1	year

Baseline	Value

2

Significant	Change

Any	change	would	be	significant
35 |	Page

3.	UNDEVELOPED	QUALITY Use	of	motor	vehicles,	motorized	equipment,	

and	mechanical	transport

Measure:		3.5	Air	Taxi	and	Transporter	fixed	wing	aircraft	use

Background	&	Context

Section	1110	of	ANILCA	provides	special	

provisions	that	allow	the use	of	snowmachines	

(during	periods	of	adequate	snow	cover,	or	

frozen	river	conditions),	motorboats,	and	

airplanes	for	traditional	activities	(where	such	

activities	are	permitted	by	ANILCA	or	other	law)	

and	for	travel	to	and from	villages	and	

homesites.		However,	the	use	of	these	

motorized	vehicles	still	degrade	wilderness	

character	and	it	is	useful	for	managers	to	

monitor	the	trend	in	their	use.

The	majority	of	aircraft	use	in	the	Arctic	Refuge

Wilderness	is	by	air	taxi	and	transporters.		Most	

visitors	use	these	commercial	services	to	access

the	refuge.		This	aircraft	activity	is	also	easiest	

to	monitor	due	to	client	use	reports	that	

commercial	operators	are	required to	provide	

to	the	refuge.		There	are	no	means	to	monitor	

private	aircraft	use	in	the	refuge	at	this	time. 				

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	is	a	count	of	the	total	client	drop	

offs	that	occur	annually in	wilderness.		The	

measure	uses	the	Client	Use	MS	Access	

Database	to	generate	an	annual	report	of	drop	

offs	in	the Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness.		Rather	

than	attempting	to	tally	the	number	of	flights	

for	each	client,	the	staff	person	collecting	these

data	should	simply	count	each	drop	off	line	in	

the	report	and	record	this	number	in	this	

measure’s	Excel	file	and	in	the	WCMD MS	

Access	Database.

Definitions

§ Air	taxi:	a	airplane	operator	who	transports	

hikes,	boaters	and	other	non-hunting	clients

§ Transporter:	An airplane	operator	who	

transport	hunters,	their	gear,	meat	and	

trophies,	but	provide	no	guiding.		

Data	Source

Client	Use Report MS	Access	Database

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	

Files\3	Undeveloped	Quality\3.5	Air	Taxi	and	

Transporter	fixed	wing	aircraft	use.xls

Data	Adequacy

Medium

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	

Moderate

Data	quality	is	moderate because	this	measure	

only	counts	the	number	of	clients	dropped	off	

in	wilderness	rather	than	actual	number	of	

flights	required	to	drop	them	off.	However,	this	

measure	will	still	address	the	changing	

frequency	of	airplane	use	in	the	wilderness.

Frequency

1	year

Baseline	Value

103	(2009)

Significant	Change

Change	greater	than	10%	would	be significant
36 |	Page

3.	UNDEVELOPED	QUALITY Use	of	motor	vehicles,	motorized	equipment,	

and	mechanical	transport

Measure:		3.6	Number	of	fixed	wing	aircraft	landing	strips

Background	&	Context

Although	Section	1110	of	ANILCA	allows	the use	

of	aircraft	for	traditional activities	in Alaskan	

wilderness	areas,	the	use	of	an aircraft in	

designated	wilderness	and	the	associated	

impacts	of	aircraft	use	(i.e.	airstrips)	still

degrade	wilderness	character.		Additional	

landing	strips in	wilderness degrade	the	

undeveloped	quality	and	could	have

implications	for	visitor	solitude,	and	the	natural	

quality.		

Some	aircraft	like	small	two	seat	Super	Cub	

planes	can	land	in	short	distances (less	than	

500ft) and	have	almost	unlimited	landing	

locations	in	Arctic	refuge.		Longer	landing	strips,	

typically	greater	than	500ft, that	get	use	by	

larger	four	seat	aircraft,	like	the	Cessna	185 or	

206,	are	more	likely	to	have	visible	impacts	on	

the	ground	surface.		A	combination	of	greater	

aircraft	traffic	and	heavier	loads	increase	the	

potential	for	noticeable	impacts	at	these	

airstrips.		Monitoring	the	trend	in	the	number	

of	these	Cessna	185-sized	airstrips	is	important	

for	tracking	aircraft	use	and	impacts	in	the	

Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness.

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	is	a	count	of	the	number	of,	

Cessna	185-sized (greater	than	500ft) landing	

strips	in	wilderness.		A	record	of	landing	strip	

locations	and	sizes	is	maintained	by	refuge	

pilots and	should be	sampled	for	the	

wilderness.		The	count	of	Cessna	185	landings	

strips	in	wilderness	should	be	entered	into	this	

measure’s	Excel data	file	and	the	WCMD	MS	

Access	Database.		If	the	record	of	landing	strips	

is	not	maintained,	then	at	the	next	monitoring	

cycle	in	5	years	this	measure	should	be	

removed.		

Data	Source

Refuge	Pilots

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	

Files\3	Undeveloped	Quality\3.6	Number	of	

fixed	wing	aircraft	landing	strips.xls

Data	Adequacy

Medium

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	

Moderate

Data	quality	is	rated	moderate because	the	data	

are	based	on	pilot	knowledge	and	observations.

Frequency

5	year

Baseline	Value

30

Significant	Change

Change	greater	than	5%	from	the	2013	baseline	

would	be	significant
37 |	Page

A ground	view	of	a backcountry	landing	strip	on	a	tundra	bench	adjacent	to	a	river	in	Arctic	Refuge	

(USFWS).

An	aerial	view	of	a	backcountry	landing	strip	on	an	alluvial	fan	located	in	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	

(USFWS).
38 |	Page

3.	UNDEVELOPED	QUALITY Use	of	motor	vehicles,	motorized	equipment,	

and	mechanical	transport

Measure:	3.7	Authorized	motor	and	mechanical	use

Background	&	Context

Occasionally Arctic	Refuge	managers must	

weigh	a	request	to	use	motorized	or	mechanical	

devices	in	the	wilderness for	research,	

commercial	or	administrative	reasons.		In	the	

past, the	refuge	has	received	requests	to	use	

gas	powered	generators	in	wilderness.		A	trend	

of	increasing	use	of	these	devices	would	

indicate	degrading	wilderness	character	

because	they	are	prohibited	by	the	wilderness	

act.		

Some	possible	motorized	or	mechanical	devices	

include,	motorized	generators,	motorized	

pumps,	bicycles,	or	wheelbarrows.		Objects like	

wrist	watches,	GPS	devices,	camping	stoves	or	

other	mechanical	devices	not	used	for	

transportation	are	not	prohibited	by	the	

wilderness	act	and	should	not	be	counted	in	

this	measure.			

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol	

This	measure	is	a	count	of	the	number	of	

authorizations	for	motor	or	mechanical	device	

use.		The	number	of	authorizations can	be	

found	by	consulting	SUP	and	MRA	documents.

Baseline	Value

1

Data	Source

SUPs	and	MRAs

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	

Files\3	Undeveloped	Quality\3.7	Authorized	

motor	and	mechanical	use.xls

Data	Adequacy

Medium	

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	High

Frequency

1	year

Significant	Change

Any	change	would	be	significant
39 |	Page

4.		SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	UNCONFINED	RECREATION	QUALITY

Table	9.	Solitude	or	Primitive	and	Unconfined	Recreation	Quality

Wilderness	provides	outstanding	opportunities	for	solitude	or	primitive	and	unconfined	recreation.

Monitoring	

Question Indicator Measure Frequency,Data	Adequacy

Baseline	

Value

Condition,	

Weight

What	are	the	

trends	for	

outstanding	

opportunities	

for	solitude	

within	

wilderness?

Remoteness	

from	sights	

and	sounds	of	

people	inside	

the	wilderness

4.1	Visitor	Study	Count	

of	other	groups	

encountered	by	

visitors

5	years,	

Medium

1.8

(2009) Good,	15%

4.2	Visitor	Study	Count	

of	the	#	of	air	planes	

encountered

5	years,	

Medium

4.4

(2009) Good,	14%

4.3	Visitor	Study	Count	

of	Evidence	of	other	

visitors’	impacts

5	years,	

Medium

1.1

(2009) Good,	15%

4.4	Visitor	Study	Count	

of	encounters	with	

refuge	staff	or	other	

law	enforcement

5	years,	

Medium

0.4

(2009) Good,	14%

4.5	#	of	abandoned	

property	or	trash	sites	

inside	the	wilderness

5	years,	

Medium 16 Good,	14%

4.6	Visitor	use	days	at	

select	high	traffic	sites 1	Year,	High N/A Good,	14%

4.7	#	of	commercial	

guides	in	wilderness	 5	Year,	High 19 Good,	14%

Remoteness	

from	occupied	

and	modified	

areas	outside	

the	wilderness

4.8	Viewshed	impacts	

from	developed	areas	

outside	the	wilderness	

5	years,	

Medium 0 Good,	100%

What	are	the	

trends	in	

outstanding	

opportunities	

for	primitive	

and	

unconfined	

recreation	

inside	

wilderness?

Facilities	that	

decrease	selfreliant	

recreation

4.9	Agency-provided	

facilities	in	the	

wilderness	that	

decrease	self-reliant	

recreation

5	years,	High 0 Good,	50%

4.10	#	of	sites	with	

obvious	visitor created	

trails	in	wilderness

5	years,	

Medium 7 Good,	50%

Management	

restrictions	on	

visitor	

behavior

4.11	Management	

restrictions	on	noncommercially	guided	

visitors

5	years,	High 0 Good,	

100%
40 |	Page

Abandoned	fuel	cans	in	Arctic	Refuge	(USFWS).

A	bench made	from	cut	boards hidden	in	a	stand	of	spruce	trees	in	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	(USFWS).
41 |	Page

4.	SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	

UNCONFINED	RECREATION

Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	of	people	

inside	the	wilderness

Measure:	4.1	Visitor	Study	count	of	other	groups	encountered	by	visitors

Background	&	Context

A	unique value of	the	Arctic	Refuge Wilderness	

is the	solitude opportunities in	a	vast	arctic	

landscape.		In	the	future,	increasing	visitation to	

the	refuge could	affect	the	high	quality	

opportunities	for	solitude that	visitors	currently	

experience. Managers can make	better	

stewardship	decisions	with baseline	information	

related	to the opportunities	for	solitude.

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	is	the	average	visitor	response	to	

a	question	posed	in a survey	for	the	Arctic	

Refuge	Visitor	Study.		The	question	asks visitors	

how	many	“other	groups	did	[they] encounter?”		

Although	the	Arctic	Refuge	visitor	study	did	not	

differentiate	between	wilderness	and	nonwilderness,	it	is	still	a	good	representation	of	

solitude	in	wilderness	because	visitor	

management	does	not	differ in	either	part	of	

the	refuge.		Measures	4.2,	4.3,	and	4.4	also	use	

this	Visitor	Study	as	a	data	source.		The	refuge	

plans	to	conduct	the	Visitor	Study	

approximately	every	five	years	and	always	

include	the	same	survey	questions	used	in	these

four measures.		A	staff	person	should	record	

the	average	response	for	this	Visitor	Study	

question in	the Excel	data	file for	this	measure

and	in	the	WCMD MS	Access	Database.

Data	Source

Visitor	Study

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness	Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	

Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	

Quality\4.1	4.2	4.3	4.4	Visitor	Study	DATA.xls

Data	Adequacy

Medium

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	

Moderate

The	quality	is	moderate	because	the	data	

source	is	based	on	visitor	surveys	and	does	not	

specify	only	wilderness	visitors’	responses.

Frequency

5 year

Baseline	Value

1.8

Significant	Change

Change	greater	than	20%	would	be	significant
42 |	Page

4.	SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	

UNCONFINED	RECREATION

Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	of	people	

inside	the	wilderness

Measure:	4.2	Visitor	Study	count	of	the	#	of	air	planes	encountered

Background	&	Context

The	sights	and	sounds	of	people	inside	

wilderness	degrades	the	opportunity	for	

solitude.		During	the busy summer	season,	small	

aircraft regularly fly	over	and	land	in	Arctic	

Refuge.		The	sight, and	moreover	the	sound	of	

aircraft in	wilderness	degrades	the	opportunity	

for	visitors	to	feel	remoteness from	modern	

society.

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	uses the	average	visitor	response	

to	the	Visitor	Study	question	that	asks how	

many	“air	planes	(not	jets) did	[they]

encounter?”		Although	the	Arctic	Refuge	visitor	

study	did	not	differentiate	between	wilderness	

and	non-wilderness,	it	is	still	a	good	measure of	

solitude	for	the wilderness	because	aircraft use	

is	not	managed	any	differently	in	either	part	of	

the	refuge.	 A	staff	person	should	record	the

average	response	for	this Visitor	Study question

in	the Excel	data	file for	this	measure and	in	the	

WCMD MS	Access	Database.

Data	Source

Visitor	Study

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness	Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	

Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	

Quality\4.1	4.2	4.3	4.4	Visitor	Study	DATA.xls

Data	Adequacy

Medium

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	

Moderate

The	quality	is	moderate	because	the	data	

source	is	based	on	visitor	surveys	and	does	not	

specify	only	wilderness	visitors’	responses.

Frequency

5 year

Baseline	Value

4.4

Significant	Change

Change	greater	than	20%	would	be	significant
43 |	Page

4.	SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	

UNCONFINED	RECREATION

Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	of	people	

inside	the	wilderness

Measure:	4.3	Visitor	Study	Count	of	Evidence	of	other	visitors’	impacts

Background	&	Context

The	evidence of	previous	visitors	inside	

wilderness	degrades	the	opportunity	for	

solitude.		Ideal	wilderness	is	meant	to	be	trailless, without	campsites	or	improvements	where	

a	person	can	have	a	totally	unique	experience	

with	nature.		Simple	reminders	that	other

modern people	have	been	in a	place	before	

you,	such	as	small	pieces	of	trash, can	greatly	

reduce	the	opportunity	to	have	a	remote	

wilderness	experience.		The impacts	of	previous	

visitors	even	if	they	are	small	and	will	slowly

erode	wilderness	character	overtime.	

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	is	the	average	visitor	response	to	

the	Visitor	Study	question	that	asks	visitors	how	

many	“times	did	[they] encounter	the	evidence	

of	other	visitors’	impacts?”		Although	the	Arctic	

Refuge	visitor	study	did	not	differentiate	

between	wilderness	and	not	wilderness,	it	is	

still	a	good	representation	of	solitude	in	

wilderness	because	visitor	management is	the	

same	in	either	part	of	the	refuge.			A	staff	

person	should	record	the	average	response	for	

this	Visitor	Study	question in	the Excel	data	file

for	this	measure and	in	the	WCMD MS	Access	

Database.

Data	Source

Visitor	Study

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness	Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	

Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	

Quality\4.1	4.2	4.3	4.4	Visitor	Study	DATA.xls

Data	Adequacy

Medium

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	

Moderate

The	quality	is	moderate	because	the	data	

source	is	based	on	visitor	surveys	and	does	not	

specify	only	wilderness	visitors’	responses.

Frequency

5	years

Baseline	Value

1.1

Significant	Change

Change	greater	than	20%	would	be	significant
44 |	Page

4.	SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	

UNCONFINED	RECREATION

Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	of	people	

inside	the	wilderness

Measure:	4.4	Visitor	Study	Count	of	encounters	with	refuge	staff	or	other	law	

enforcement

Background	&	Context

Wilderness	is	meant	to	provide	the	best

opportunity	for	solitude	anywhere,	and	even	

encounters	with	refuge	staff	or	non-FWS	law	

enforcement	degrade	the	opportunity	to	

experience	that	solitude.		Although	refuge	staff	

or	other	law	enforcement	may	have	important	

work	to	do	in	the	refuge,	they	still	degrade	the	

opportunity	for	visitors to	experience	a	high	

degree	of	solitude.		

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	is	the	average	visitor	response	to	

the	visitor	study	question	that	asks	how	many	

“times	did	you	encounter	refuge	staff	or	other	

law	enforcement?”		Although	the	Arctic	Refuge	

visitor	study	did	not	differentiate	between	

wilderness	and	not	wilderness,	it	is	still	a	good	

representation	of	solitude	in	wilderness	

because	refuge	staff	and	other	law	enforcement	

agencies	roughly	work	throughout	the	refuge	

equally.	A	staff	person	should	record	the	

average	response	for	this	Visitor	Study	question

in	the Excel	data	file for	this	measure and	in	the	

WCMD MS	Access	Database.

Data	Source

Visitor	Study

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness	Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	

Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	

Quality\4.1	4.2	4.3	4.4	Visitor	Study	DATA.xls

Data	Adequacy

Medium

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	

Moderate

The	quality	is	moderate	because	the	data	

source	is	based	on	visitor	surveys	and	does	not	

specify	only	wilderness	visitors’	responses.

Frequency

1	year

Baseline	Value

0.4

Significant	Change

Change	greater	than	20%	would	be	significant
45 |	Page

4.	SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	

UNCONFINED	RECREATION

Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	of	people	

inside	the	wilderness

Measure:	4.5	Number of	abandoned	property	or	trash	sites	inside	the	wilderness

Background	&	Context

Since	the	creation	of	the	Arctic	Refuge,

abandoned	property	or	trash on	refuge	lands	

has	been	an	issue	for	managers	to	contend	

with.		According	to	regulations,	property	left	in	

the	refuge	for	greater	than	365	days	becomes	

abandoned	property.		Once	property becomes	

abandoned	it	is	synonymous	with trash	because

it	is	a	reminder	of	humans	that	does	not	belong	

in	the	refuge.		If	refuge	LE	can	determine	the	

owner	of	abandoned	property	or	trash	they	will	

pursue	those	individuals	to	get	the	items	

removed,	but	if	owners	cannot	be	found	the	

responsibility falls	to	the	FWS.		

Abandoned	property	tends	to	be	a	problem	in	

Arctic Refuge due	to	its	large size and	

remoteness,	which	necessitates access	by	small	

aircraft.		Since	bush	planes	have	a	limited range	

and passenger	and	cargo	capacity,	fuel	cans,	

gear	or	other	items	are	commonly	cached	at	

various	locations	in	the	refuge	to	facilitate	

access.		Although	these	practices	are	certainly	

not	illegal	and	typically	required	for	visitors	to	

access	Arctic	Refuge,	invariably	some	items	are

forgotten	or	discarded.		Other	instances	of	trash	

in	the	refuge	are	due	to poor	practices of	leaveno-trace principles.	 Downed	aircraft	are	also	

counted	as	trash	or	abandoned	property	in	this	

measure.		Most	modern	crashes	are	promptly	

removed	by	the	owners	of	the	aircraft	but	that	

is	not	always	the	case.		Several	historical	

downed	aircraft	are	still	present	in	the	

wilderness.

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	is	a	count	of	the	number	of	sites	

in	the	wilderness	with	trash,	abandoned	

property or downed	aircraft.		Abandoned	

property,	trash	and	downed	aircraft	are	

monitored	in	the	trash	and	downed	aircraft	

database.		A	staff	person	should	inspect the

database every 5	years	for the	number	of	trash	

or	downed	aircraft	sites	in	wilderness.	The	total	

number	of	these	sites	inside	wilderness	should	

then	be	recorded	in	this	measure’s	Excel	data	

file	and	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.		

Data	Source

Refuge	Trash	MS	Access	Database

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness

\Wilderness	Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	

Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	

Quality\4.5	#	of	abandoned	property	or	trash	

sites	inside	the	wilderness.xls

Data	Adequacy

Medium

Data	Quantity:	Partial,	Data	Quality:	Moderate

Data	for	this	measure	is	partial	and	moderate	

because	due	to	the	size	of	Arctic	Refuge,	a	field

survey	for	trash	and	downed	aircraft	sites	is	

rarely conducted.		Known	sites	have	been	

reported	by	visitors	or	found	by	staff	while	they	

are	working	in	the	refuge.

Baseline	Value

16

Frequency

5 year

Significant	Change

Any	change	would	be	significant
46 |	Page

4.	SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	

UNCONFINED	RECREATION

Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	of	people	

inside	the	wilderness

Measure:	4.6	Visitor	use	days	at	select	high	traffic	sites

Background	&	Context

The	opportunities	for	solitude	can	be	degraded	

by	overcrowding	and	the	use	impacts	of	visitors.		

A	count	of	annual	visitor	use	days	at	select	high	

traffic	sites	is	the	best possible	measure	to	

address	this	concern.		Much	of	the	visitor	use	at	

these	high	traffic	areas	occur	during the	short	

arctic	summer,	but	for	the	purposes	of	

wilderness	character	monitoring	this	measure	

monitors	the	trend	in	overall	visitor	use	at	each	

site.		Peak	use	data	are	too	complicated	to	

collect	for	wilderness	character	monitoring,	but	

the	trend	in	overall	visitor	use	should	

correspond	to	the	peak	use.	

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	is	a	count	of	annual	visitor	use	

days	at	select	high	traffic	sites.		This	measure	

uses the client use	report	database which can	

be	queried	for	activity	in	the	wilderness	and

provide	data	on	drop	offs,	pick	ups	and	the	

number	of	visitors	in	each	party.		From	these	

data	a	minimum	number	of	visitor	use	days	at	

particular	high	use	drop	off	and	pick	up	sites	

can	be	found.		

To	make this	count,	a	staff	person	should	first	

query	the	Client	Use	MS	Access	Database	for	an	

annual	report	of	activity	in	wilderness.		Next,	

the	drop	offs	or	pickups	at	the	following	high	

traffic	sites should	be	highlighted	(1) Drain	

Creek,	(2) Caribou	Pass,	(3) Grassers,	(4) Upper	

Colleen	and	(5) Canning	River	Bend	(Arc-02).		

The number	of	individuals	dropped	off	or	picked	

up	at	these	sites should	then	be	tallied for	an	

estimate	of	visitor	use	days.		Enter	the	total	

number	of	visitor	use	days for	each	site	into	this	

measure’s	Excel	data	file	and	find	the	percent	

change	between	the	initial	data	collected	for	

year	2009.		If	the	percent	increase	in	visitor	use	

days	for	any	of	the	five	sites	is	greater	than	10%	

then	a	significant	change	has	occurred.		Enter	

percentage	value	from	the	site	with	the	

greatest	percent	increase	into	the	WCM	MS	

Access	Database.

It	is	important	to	remember	that	visitor	use	

days	collected	from	the	Client	Use	Database	

report	provides	a	minimum	estimate	of	the	

number	of	visitor	use	days	at	these	sites	

because	visitors	often	spend	multiple	days at	

put	in	or	take	out	locations	as	they	wait	for	

clear	weather.		Also,	visitors	with	their	own	

aircraft	are	not	counted	in	this	measure	

because	no	data	on	these	users	exists.			

Baseline	Value

N/A		

No	baseline	value	was	available	at	the	time	of	

writing this	report	because	the	measure is	

expressed	in	percent	change	and	only 2009	data	

were only	available due	to a database	problem.	

Data	Source

Client	Use	Database

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness

\Wilderness	Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	

Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\

4.6	Visitor	use	days	at	select	high	traffic	sites.xls

Data	Adequacy

Medium

Data	Quantity:	partial,	Data	Quality:	Moderate

Data	quality	is	moderate	and	partial because	

the	visitor	use	days	calculated	from	the	client	

use	database	only	provides	a	minimum	

estimate.	

Frequency

1	year

Significant	Change

Change	is	significant	if	the	percent	change	in	

the	sum	of	user	days	at	any	one	high	traffic	sites	

exceeds	15%.
47 |	Page

4.	SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	

UNCONFINED	RECREATION

Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	of	people	

inside	the	wilderness

Measure:	4.7	#	of	commercial	guides	in	wilderness

Background	&	Context

The	wilderness	act	allows	some	commercial	

services	in	designated	wilderness	such	as	guides	

because	they	help	people	to	access	and	

experience	wilderness.		As	of	2013,	there	are	a	

variety	of	permitted	guides	operating	in	Arctic	

Refuge	Wilderness	who	provide	hunting,	

educational,	wildlife	viewing	and	hiking	or	river	

trip	recreation	experiences	to	visitors.		

Increasing	numbers	of	guides	could	degrade	the	

opportunities	for	solitude	in	wilderness.		

Monitoring	the	trend	in	the	number	of permits	

issued	to commercial	guides	to	operate	in	

wilderness	addresses this	concern.

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	is	a	count	of	commercial	guides	

operating	in	wilderness.		It	includes	hunting,	

recreation,	education	and	wildlife	viewing	

guides	who are	issued	permits	to	operate	in	

wilderness.		If	the	permit	for	the	guide	does	not

include	the	wilderness	then it	should not count	

it	in	this	measure.		A	staff	person	

knowledgeable in	the	permits	issued	to	guides	

could	provide	information	for	this	measure	but	

the	permit	records	may	need	to	be	checked	if	

staff	are	unsure	of	the	geographic	extent	of	a	

guide’s	permit. Record	the	number	of	guides	

operating	in	wilderness	in	this	measure’s	Excel	

data	file	and	in	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.		

Definitions

Commercial	guides:	commercial	service	

providers	that	are	permitted	to	operate	on	

refuge	land	and	act	as	hunting,	recreational	or	

educational	guides.		

Baseline	Value

19

Data	Source

Permit	staff	person	and	permit	records

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness

\Wilderness	Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	

Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	

Quality\4.7	#	of	commercial	guides	in	

wilderness.xls

Data	Adequacy

Medium

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	

Moderate

Transporter	reported	data	are	not	always	

complete	so	the	data	quality	is	moderate.

Frequency

1	year

Significant	Change

Change	greater	than 20%	would	be	significant
48 |	Page

4.	SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	

UNCONFINED	RECREATION

Remoteness	from	occupied	and	modified	areas	

outside	the	wilderness

Measure:		4.8 Viewshed	impacts	from	developed	areas	outside	the	wilderness

Background	&	Context

Currently	there	are	no	viewshed	impacts	from	

areas	outside	the	Arctic	Refuge Wilderness.		

Large	developments	such	as	wind	turbines,	oil	

rigs	or	roads	are	most	likely	to	be	visible	for	a	

long	distance	and could potentially	impact	the	

opportunity	for	solitude	and	remoteness	inside	

the	wilderness.		

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This measure	is	a	simple	count	of	viewshed	

impacts	that	can	be	seen	from	the	wilderness.		

Data	for	viewshed	impacts	can	come	from	(1)	a	

count	of	new	large	developments	(i.e. oil	and	

gas	developments onshore	or	off	shore,	

windmills,	roads	and mines)	within	15 miles	of	

Arctic	Refuge Wilderness,	and	(2)	from	in	the	

field	observations	by	refuge	staff.	 Record	the	

number and	description	of	the	viewshed	impact	

in	this	measure’s	Excel	data	file,	but	only	the	

total	number in	the	WCMD	MS	Access	

Database.		

Baseline	Value

0

Data	Source

Refuge	staff

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness

\Wilderness	Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	

Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	

Quality\4.8	Viewshed	impacts	from	developed	

areas	outside	the	wilderness	DATA.xls

Data	Adequacy

Medium

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	

Moderate

The	data	quality	is	moderate because	staff	

rarely	visit	the	northern	border	of	the	

wilderness	to	see	new	viewshed	impacts,	

however most	potential	viewshed	impacts	will	

likely	be	from	substantial new	developments	

that	staff	will	be	aware	of.

Frequency

5	years	

Significant	Change

Any	change	would	be	significant

Point	Thomson	is	an	oil	development	west	of	Arctic	Refuge,	it	is	about 30	miles	from	the	wilderness

(Photo:	USFWS).		
49 |	Page

4.	SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	

UNCONFINED	RECREATION

Facilities	that	decrease	self-reliant	recreation

Measure:	4.9	Agency-provided	facilities	in	the	wilderness	that	decrease	selfreliant	recreation

Background	&	Context

Recreation	facilities	decrease	the	self-reliance

aspect	of	the	Opportunities	for	Solitude	or	

Primitive	and	Unconfined	Recreation	quality of	

wilderness.		The	FWS	provides	no	facilities	in	

the	wilderness	or	refuge,	but	could in	the	

future.	Facilities	provided	by	a	managing	agency	

could	include	things	like	improved	campsites,	

bridges,	landing	site	maps or	coordinates,	signs	

and	trail	markers.	If	the	FWS	ever	formally	

authorizes	one	or	more landing	strips in	order	

to	manage	airstrip	impacts	or	for	safety reasons

then	this would	also	count	as	a	facility	that	

decreases	self-reliance.				

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This measure	is	a	count	of	agency-provided	

facilities	that	are	recreation	related.		The	refuge	

manager	or	staff should	know	if	any	new	

facilities	have	been	installed	in	the	refuge	and	

MRAs	can	be	consulted	for	more	detail.		Record	

the	number	of	facilities	and	short	description	of	

the	facilities	in	this	measure’s	data	collection	

Excel file	but	only	record	the	total	number	in	

the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.			

Only	recreation	facilities	provided	by	the	FWS

should	be	counted	in	this	measure.	Other	nonrecreation	structures	or	developments	are	

addressed	in	measure	3.1	(Authorized	

installations	in	the	wilderness).

Baseline	Value

0

Data	Source

Refuge	Manager,	staff and	MRAs

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness	Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	

Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\

4.9	Agency-provided	facilities	in	the	wilderness	

that	decrease	self-reliant	recreation	DATA.xls

Data	Adequacy

High

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	High

Frequency

5	years

Significant	Change

Any	change	would	be	significant
50 |	Page

4.	SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	

UNCONFINED	RECREATION

Facilities	that	decrease	self-reliant	recreation

Measure:	4.10	Number of	sites	with	obvious	visitor created	trails	in	wilderness

Background	&	Context

The	FWS	does	not	maintain	any	trails	in	the	

Arctic	Refuge Wilderness and	staff	intend to	

keep	the	area trail-less	to	protect	wilderness	

character.		However,	there	are several	locations	

where	visitor created	trailing	has	become	an	

issue.		Although	human	trails	may	be	difficult	to	

differentiate	from	caribou	or bear trails,	human	

created	trails are	often	discernable because	

they travel	directly	to and	from human	points	of	

interest.		Some	examples	could	include	sites	

where	a	trail	develops	to	scout	for rapids	on	a

river	frequented	by	visitors or	trails	that	lead

away	from	a	heavily used	airstrip	to	view	points.				

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This measure	is	a	count	of	locations	where	user	

created	trailing	is	known	to	occur.		Data	

collection	relies	on	the	professional	judgment	of	

the	staff	member	most	aware	of	visitor use

issues.		At	the	time	of	writing	this	report	the	

refuge	lacks	a	systematic	program	for	field	

monitoring	of	social	trailing,	which	is	why	

professional	judgment	was	used.		The	number	

of	sites	and	the	name	of	the	locations	should	be	

recorded	in	this	measure’s	Excel	data	file,	and	

the	number	of	sites	should	be	entered	into	the	

WCMD	MS	Access	Database.

Baseline	Value

7

Data	Source

Refuge	staff	

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness	Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	

Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\

4.10	#	of	sites	with	obvious	user	created	trails	in	

wilderness	DATA.xls

Data	Adequacy

High

Data	Quantity:	Partial,	Data	Quality:	Moderate

Frequency

5	years

Significant	Change

Any	change	would	be	significant
51 |	Page

4.	SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	

UNCONFINED	RECREATION

Management	restrictions	on	visitor	behavior

Measure:		4.11	Management	restrictions	on	non-commercially	guided	visitors

Background	&	Context

There	are	currently	no	management	restrictions	

in	place	for	non-commercially	guided	visitors	to	

the	Arctic	Refuge Wilderness but	that	could	

potentially	change	in	the	future.		As	of	2013,	

the	wilderness	area	has	no	closed	areas	or	

special	visitor	use	requirements	unique	to	the	

wilderness	area.		Management	restrictions	on	

visitor	behavior is	an	Indicator	for	the solitude	

or	primitive	and	unconfined	recreation	quality

because	any	restrictions	that	limit	the	

unconfined	aspect	of	recreation	in	wilderness	

degrade	wilderness	character.		A	measure	that	

tracks	management	restrictions	is	therefore	

important	to	include.		Although	unconfined	

recreation	is	the	ideal,	restrictions	may	become	

necessary	to	protect	other	qualities	of	

wilderness	character as	visitor	use	increases.		By	

tracking	management	restrictions	and	the	

measures	in	the	other	4	qualities,	managers	will	

be	able	to	see	the	wilderness	character	

tradeoffs	they	make.

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This measure	is	a	count	of	management	

restrictions	for	non-commercially	guided	

visitors	to	the	wilderness	area.		The	refuge	

manager	or	visitor	outreach	staff	can	provide	

the	data	for	this	measure.		The	number	of	

management	restrictions	and	their	description	

should	be	recorded	in	this	measure’s	Excel	data	

file,	and	the	total	number	of	restrictions	should	

be	entered	into	the	WCMD	MS	Access	

Database.

Definitions

§ Non-commercially	guided	visitors:		visitors	

who	are	not	guided	for	recreation	or	

hunting	purposes.

§ Restriction:	Any	permit	rules	or	other	

requirements	and	limitations	imposed	on	a	

visitor	to	the	wilderness	area	besides	State	

hunting	and	fishing	regulations	or	other	

basic	regulations	already	in	place	in	the	rest	

of	the	refuge.	Examples	include,	but	are	not	

limited	to,	closed	wilderness	areas,	permits,	

fire	restrictions,	and	limits	on	group	size.

Baseline	Value

0

Data	Source

Refuge	staff	knowledgeable	about	permit	

requirements	for	visitors	or	closed	areas.

Data	Collection	File

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wi

lderness	Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	

Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	

Quality\4.11 Management	Restrictions	DATA.xls

Data	Adequacy

High

Data	Quantity:	Complete,	Data	Quality:	High

Frequency

5	years

Significant	Change

Any	change	would	be	significant
OTHER	POTENTIAL	MEASURES

I.	MEASURES	SUGGESTED	FOR	FUTURE	USE	

These	measures	could	be	useful	in	the	future	but	were	not	included	because	they	either	lack	a	reliable	

data	source	or	the	concern	they	address	is	not	especially	vulnerable	to	change	today

Undeveloped

Indicator: Non-recreational	structures,	installations,	or	developments

Measure:	3.X Index	of	unauthorized	physical	structures,	installations,	or	developments

Background	&	Context

This	measure	is	similar	to	measure	3.1	(Index	of	

authorized	physical	developments)	except	it	

applies	to	user-created	structures,	installations,	

and	developments	that	have	not	been	

authorized	by	the	Federal	land	manager	

(therefore	illegal)	or	those	that	do	not	require	

authorization.		Two	unauthorized	structures

currently	exist	at	“Fish	Hole	2” in	the	Arctic	

Refuge	Wilderness,	but	this	number	is	unlikely	

to	change.		Examples	could	include	fences,	

trails,	roads,	fixed	instrumentation	sites,	game	

cameras,	trail	markers,	or	sign	posts.	

Reason	Not	Used

At	the	time	of	writing	this	report	staff	did	not	

think	unauthorized	installations	in	Arctic	Refuge	

Wilderness	was	vulnerable	for	change.		Also,	

when	unauthorized	structures	or	other	

installations	are	found	on	the	refuge	they	are	

normally	removed	by	staff	so	they	may	never	

accumulate	to	be	recorded	in	this	measure.		If	

unauthorized	installations	become a	problem	in	

the	wilderness	then	this	measure	could	be	

added	to	the	wilderness	character	monitoring	

program.

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol	

This	measure	would	be	a	count	or	weighted	

index	of	unauthorized	installations	in	

wilderness.

Data	Source

Refuge	staff			

Data	Adequacy	

Low	

Opportunities	for	solitude	or	primitive	and	unconfined	recreation

Indicator: Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	of	people	inside	the	wilderness

Measure: 4.X	Campsite	condition	at	heavy	use	access	or	take	out	locations

Background	&	Context

In	several	locations	in	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	

there	appears	to	be	degrading	campsite	

conditions	due	to	repeated	visitor	use.		The	

majority	of	campsites	that	show	the	impacts	of	

visitor	use	are	located	at	high	traffic	put	in	and	

take	out	aircraft	landing strips.		Impacts	include	

tent	rings,	fire	rings,	trailing,	and	improperly	

disposed	of	human	waste.		At	the	time	of	

writing	this	report	staff	are	developing	a	

standardized	inventory	and	monitoring	program	

for	the	campsites	associated	with	high	traffic	

aircraft	landing	strips.		

Reason	Not	Used

The	program	for	monitoring	and	scoring	human	

impacts	at	campgrounds	in	the	refuge	is	

currently	being	developed.		When	a	

standardized	monitoring	program	is	in	place,	a

measure	to	monitor	wilderness	campsite	

conditions could	be	added	to	the	active	list	of	

measures.	

Data	Source		

Campsite	Monitoring	Program
II.	MEASURES	NOT	USED	

These	measures	were	considered	for	wilderness	character	monitoring,	but	are	not	likely	to	be	used	in	the	

future	due	to	considerable	challenges	developing	a	measure	with	reliable	data	or	due	to	a	lack	of	

vulnerability.

Natural

Indicator: Plant	and	animal	species	and	communities

Measure: 2.X	Presence	of	species	of	particular	concern	or	interest		

Background	&	Context

This	measure	would	be meant	to	monitor a	

particular	species	that	contributes to	wilderness

character	and	whose population	health is	a	

major	concern	for	the	FWS.	Although	this	

measure could	draw	on	population	data,

alternatively	it	could	be	a	simple measure	that

tracks the	overall	number	of species	in	the	

wilderness	that	have	been	designated	as

threatened	or	endangered	species.

Reason	Not	Used

Polar	bears	and ice	seals	were	considered	for	

monitoring but	ultimately	not	used	because	

staff	were	not	convinced	that	these species	

should	represent	overall	wilderness	character	

because	they	are	marine	mammals	that	only	

occasionally	use	designated	wilderness.		The	

alternative count	of total threatened	or	

endangered species	was	explored	but	also	could	

not	be	developed	as satisfactory	measure of	

wilderness	character.

Natural

Indicator: Plant	and	animal	species	and	communities

Measure: 2.X	Presence	of	selected	species

Background	&	Context

This	measure	would	be	similar	to	the	above	

measure	but	applied	to	any	species	or	group	of	

species	that	contributes	to	wilderness	

character.

Reason	Not	Used

The measure	could	not	be	used	because	staff	

could	not	find	a	species	or	group	of	species	with	

reliable	population	or	presence/absence	data	

that	could	represent	wilderness	character.		A	

measure	for	the	presence/absence	of	Dall’s

Sheep	in	the	wilderness was	the leading	

potential	measure,	but data	for	Dall’s Sheep	

presence/absence	was	lacking so	the	measure	

could	not	be	used.		There	was	also	concern	that	

a	single	species	would	not	be	representative	of	

the	status	of	wilderness	character	in	the	vast	

Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness.

Natural

Indicator: Physical	resources

Measure: 2.X Water	quality	index

Background	&	Context

The	water	quality	and	quantity of the	Arctic	

Refuge	Wilderness	is important for	the	

ecosystem,	subsistence	activities	and	recreation	

opportunities.	Degradation	of	water	quality	or	

reduced	flows in	Arctic	Refuge	could	degrade	

the	natural	quality	of wilderness	character.		

Water	quality	and	quantity degradation in	the	

Arctic	Refuge	could	be	caused by a	changing	

climate	or the	fall	out	of air	pollution from	

lower	latitudes.

Reason	Not	Used

The	monitoring	program	for	water	quality in	the	

refuge does	not	currently	lend	itself	to	a	simple	

wilderness	character	monitoring	measure.		

Water	quantity	data	are	available on	one	river	

from	a	USGS	gauge	station, but	the	station	is	

not	likely	to	continue	operating.
Natural

Indicator: Physical	resources

Measure: 2.X	Air	quality

Background	&	Context

The	natural	quality	of	wilderness	character	is	

degraded	when pollution	affects	the	air	quality

of	designated	wilderness.		The	Arctic	seasonally	

experiences	a	phenomenon	known	as	Arctic	

Haze,	where	a	reddish	brown	haze	settles	in	the	

air,	often	in	the	springtime.		Pollution	from	the	

mid-latitudes	is transported	to	the	higherlatitudes	where	it	persists	as	a	haze	because	of	

a	lack	of	precipitation	or	turbulent	air	to	

disperse	it.		

In	addition	to	global	air pollution,	new	oil	and	

gas,	or	mining	operations	west	of	the	

wilderness	will	likely affect	the air	quality	of	

Arctic	Refuge.		The	refuge	is	designated	by	the	

EPA	with	Class	II	air	quality	protection,	which	

permits moderate	deterioration,	associated	

with	well-managed	population	growth.		The

Wilderness	Act	however,	requires	the	FWS to	

protect	and preserve	the	wilderness	character	

of	designated	areas,	including	pristine	air	

quality.		

Reason	Not	Used

A	measure	was	not	used	for	air	quality	because

no	air	quality	monitoring	program	currently	

exists	in	Arctic	Refuge.		No	reliable	baseline	for	

air	quality	is	available. The	nearest	air	quality	

monitoring station,	operated	by	the	NPS, is	

located	in	Bettles,	AK	about 200	miles	

southwest	of	the	wilderness.

Undeveloped

Indicator: Use	of	motor	vehicles,	motorized	equipment,	or	mechanical	transport

Measure: 3.X	FWS	fixed	wing	aircraft	use

Background	&	Context

Motor	vehicle	use	in	wilderness	is	prohibited	in	

the	wilderness	act	and	use	of	motorized	

vehicles	in	wilderness	by	the	FWS would	benefit	

from	monitoring.

Reason	Not	Used

This	measure	was	not	used	because	the	amount	

of	FWS	aircraft	use	in	wilderness	is	minor	

compared	to	the	aircraft	use	by	visitors	and	

commercial	operators	in	wilderness.		The	data	

collection	for	FWS	aircraft	use	in	wilderness	

would	also	require	time	consuming	data	

processing	in	GIS	software,	which	would	be	

excessive	for	a	single	measure.

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol	

This	measure	would	have	sampled the	number	

of	hours	of	flight	time	in	wilderness	by	FWS	

aircraft	from	the	“flight	following” GPS	data	

recorded	on	every FWS flight.

Opportunities	for	solitude	or	primitive	and	unconfined	recreation

Indicator: Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	of	people	inside	the	wilderness

Measure: 4.X	Percent	of	wilderness	away	from	access	locations	or	river	travel	route

Background	&	Context

The	opportunity	for	solitude	in	wilderness	is	

degraded	by	encounters	with	other	visitors	and	

overflight	by	aircraft.		Some	areas	in Arctic	

Refuge	Wilderness,	along	popular	boating	rivers	

or	near backcountry	airstrips receive	more	

visitors	and	air	traffic.		The	potential	for	solitude	

along	these	popular	rivers	and	airstrips is	less.		

However,	in	valleys	without	airstrips	and	lesser	

used	rivers,	the	potential for	ideal	wilderness	

solitude	is	greater.		This	measure	would	

monitor the	percentage	of	wilderness that

remains	isolated	from	major	river	routes	and	

airstrips.					

Reason	Not	Used

This	measure	was	not	used	because	concerns	

about	solitude	were	captured	in	other	

measures	and	it	would	likely	prove	time	

consuming	for	staff	to	gather	these GIS	based	
55 |	Page

data.		However,	if	the	refuge	ever	considered	

limiting	access	to	certain	parts	of	wilderness	to	

preserve	a	high	quality	of	wilderness	character,	

this	may	be	a	useful	exercise	to	determine	the	

most	remote	and secluded	places	in	the	

wilderness.		As	new	airstrips	are	developed	or	

new	rivers	become	popular	for	recreation	in	the	

future,	it	is	possible	that	areas	in	wilderness	

that	provide	an	opportunity	for	exceptional	

solitude	may	erode.

Measure	Description	&	Collection	Protocol

This	measure	would	have	developed	a	map	of	

visitor	and	aircraft	use	in	the	wilderness.		GIS	

software	could	be	used	to	create	buffers	

around	major	visitor	travel	sites,	rivers	and	

Cessna	185-sized	backcountry	airstrips.		The	

areas	outside	the	buffered	areas	would	be	

considered	places	where	the	opportunity	for	

solitude	was	greatest.

Opportunities	for	solitude	or	primitive	and	unconfined	recreation

Indicator:	Remoteness	from	occupied	and	modified	areas	outside	the	wilderness

Measure:		4.X Night	sky	visibility	or	light	pollution

Background	&	Context

Light	pollution	and	the	visibility	of	lights	from	

within	a	wilderness	degrades	visitor

opportunities	for	solitude because	they	are	

reminders	of	modern	civilization.		Although	

managers	have	little	ability	to	control	light	

pollution	outside	of	a	refuge,	monitoring	the	

severity	of	light	pollution	would	provide	a	

baseline	and	inform	managers	how	it	affects	

wilderness	character	over	time.

Reason	Not	Used

This	measure	was	not	used	because	a	feasible	

method	for	monitoring	light	pollution	could not	

be	determined.		It	was	highly	unlikely	that	staff	

would	visit	the	wilderness	in	the	dark	winter	

months	to	make	an	assessment	of	visible	lights	

or	overall	light	pollution.		Staff	also	decided	that	

measure	4.8	(Viewshed	impacts	from	developed	

areas	outside	the	wilderness)	would	sufficiently	

capture	the	lighted	developments	that	would	

be	counted	in	this	potential measure.

Opportunities	for	solitude	or	primitive	and	unconfined	recreation

Indicator:	Remoteness	from	occupied	and	modified	areas	outside	the	wilderness

Measure:		4.X Soundscape	Point	Thomson

Background	&	Context

Solitude	and	the	sense	of	isolation	from	modern	

developments is	degraded	by	sounds	that	can	

travel	into	designated	wilderness.		In	the	Arctic	

Refuge	Wilderness	the	noise	related	to	oil	and	

gas	development	outside	the	wilderness	has	the	

potential	to	degrade	wilderness	character.		A	

sound	study	was	conducted	in	the	mid	2000’s	

for	sounds	caused	by	the	oil	industry	

developments	at	Point	Thomson,	located	about	

30	miles	northwest	of	the	Arctic	Refuge	

Wilderness.		This	study	collected	a	baseline	of	

sound that	could	potentially	be	used	for	

wilderness	character	monitoring.

Reason	Not	Used

This	measure	was	not	used	because	the	

baseline	study	still	needs	to	be	analyzed and	

there	is	no	plans	currently	to	repeat	

soundscape	monitoring	near	Point	Thomson.		If	

the	FWS conducts	regular	soundscape	

monitoring	in	the	wilderness	in	the	future	it	

could	be	incorporated	into	wilderness	character	

monitoring.

Opportunities	for	solitude	or	primitive	and	unconfined	recreation

Indicator: Facilities	that	decrease	self-reliant	recreation

Measure: 4.X #	User-created	recreation	facilities

Background	&	Context User-created	recreation	facilities	degrade	the	

opportunities	for	self-reliant	recreation	and	
56 |	Page

solitude.		User-created	recreation	facilities	

could	include	campfire	rings,	tent	rings,	

benches,	or	trail	markers.		These	facilities are	

occasionally	found	in	the	wilderness	often	near	

airstrips	or	popular	river	campsites.

Reason	Not	Used

This	measure	was	not	used	because	usercreated	recreation	facilities	were	not	perceived	

by	staff	to	be	a	major	problem	and	also	because	

it	would	be	problematic	to	monitor.		Often	

whenever	these	user-created	facilities	are	

found	they	are	removed	or	broken	down	by	

staff	and	never	enter	into	a	database	or	other	

reporting	system	that	would	allow	easy

monitoring	as	a	wilderness	character	measure.		

If	staff	find	that	user-created	recreation	

facilities	become	more	serious	threat	to	

wilderness	character	then	a	measure	could	be	

developed	to aid	managers	and	track	

degradation	to	wilderness	character.

Opportunities	for	solitude	or	primitive	and	unconfined	recreation

Indicator: Management	restrictions	on	visitor	behavior

Measure: 4.X	Management	restrictions	on	commercially	guided	visitors

Background	&	Context

Management	restrictions	on	visitors	degrades	

the	opportunity	for	an	unconfined	type	of	

wilderness	recreation.		There	are	currently	

several	restrictions applied	to	visitors	who	are	

commercially	guided,	such	as	group	size	limits.		

Reason	Not	Used

This	measure	was	not	used	because	it	is	not	

likely	that the	number	of	restrictions to	change	

in	the	future.		Staff	could	not	envision	any	new	

restrictions	so	there	would	be	little	utility	for	

managers	to	monitor	the	number	of	restrictions	

on	commercially	guided	visitors.	
CONCLUSIONS

The	measures	selected	in	this	report	are	the	best	possible	representation	of	the	tangible	

values	of	wilderness	character	for	the	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness.		Although	measures	were	

constrained	by	data	sources	and	feasibility,	they	should	prove	to	be	an	effective	tool	for	managers.		

Each	measure	corresponds	to	the	indicators,	monitoring	questions	and	qualities	that	make	up	the	

national	framework	of	wilderness	character	monitoring	and	will	provide	important	information	on	

wilderness	character	to	the	US	Fish	and Wildlife	Service	and	the	public.		By	following	this	

monitoring	plan, managers	will	be	able	to	see	how	the	tangible	qualities	of	wilderness	character	are	

improving	or	degrading	over	time.		Additionally,	by	defining	measures	for	the	tangible	qualities,	

managers	can	see	how	each	quality	is	related	and	understand	that	a	decision	affecting	one	quality	

can	affect	another	quality.		For	example,	a	decision	to	limit	public	use	to	protect	vegetation	

improves	the	natural	quality,	but	degrades	the	aspect	of	the	opportunities	for	solitude	or	primitive	

and	unconfined	recreation	quality.

The	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	currently	has	a	high	level	of	wilderness	character	with	limited	

human	influences.	If	managers	continue	making	decisions	as	they	have	in	the	past,	some	aspects,	

such	as	the	untrammeled	quality,	may	remain	in	an	excellent	condition	well	into	the	future.		

Unfortunately,	refuge	managers	cannot	control	some	of	the	major	threats	to	wilderness	character,	

such	as	developments	that	will	degrade	the	wilderness	air	quality	and	viewshed	or	the	effects	of	

anthropogenic	climate	change.		Other	measures	require	careful	vigilance	by	staff	and	will	likely	

require	difficult	decisions	if	visitation	to	certain	high	traffic	areas	in	the	wilderness	continues	to	

increase.		The	chosen	measures	are,	however,	defined	to	collect	valid	trends	and	provide	useful	data	

to	inform	decisions	on	those	challenges.		Numerous	measures	in	this	monitoring	plan	had	scores	of	

zero	and	were	collected	to	document	the	strong	baseline	of	wilderness	character	and	to	ensure	that	

good	management	decisions	continue	into	the	future.

The	wilderness	character	of	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	also	encompasses	intangible	values,	

which	are	not	amenable	to	measurement	in	this	monitoring	program,	but	are	equally	important	as	

the	tangible	values.		The	intangible	values	include	strong	symbolic	meanings	and	ideals	of	humility,	

restraint,	and	respect	shown	by	managers	and	society.		The	founders	of	the	wilderness	movement	

were	acutely	aware	and	concerned	about	the	intangible	and	symbolic	values	in	their	writings	about	

the	land	that	would	become	Arctic	Refuge.	In	1959,	Olaus	Murie	wrote:

It	is	inevitable,	if	we	are	to	progress	as	people	in	the	highest	sense,	that	we	shall	become	ever	

more	concerned	with	the saving	of	the	intangible	resources,	as	embodied	in	this	move to	

establish	the	Arctic	Wildlife	Range12

Since	its	creation	the	refuge	has	taken	on	a	number	of	symbolic	meanings.		One	meaning	describes	the	

refuge	as	a	last vestige	of	America’s	wild	frontier that	has	vanished	elsewhere.		Since	its	designation in	

1980, the	wilderness	has	also	been	made	to	symbolize	questions	of	energy	use	and	consumption	in	

modern	society,	as	the	refuge’s	1002	area,	located adjacent	to	the	designated	wilderness,	still waits	for	

congressional	action	to	allow resource	development or	designate	the	area	as	wilderness.

13		Although	

these	intangible	values of	wilderness	character	in	the	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	are difficult to	monitor,	

these	values	can	at	least	be	partly	protected	by	preserving the	tangible	qualities outlined	in	this	plan.		

Pervasive	in	nearly	all	the	symbolic	meanings	is	a	sense	that	the	Arctic	Refuge	and	its	wildness	is	a	

bequest	to	future	generations.14		By	instituting	this	long-term	monitoring	program,	managers	and	the	

public	now	have	a	baseline	by	which	we	can	gauge	if	the	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness	that	is passed	down	

to	those	future	generations	is	truly	preserved	as	“The	Last	Great	Wilderness.”

																																																												 12 Murie,	Olaus	J.	1959a	Testimony	before	the	Merchant	Marine	and	Fisheries	Subcommittee	on	S.	1899,	A	Bill	to	

Establish	the	Arctic	Range.	U.S.	Congress,	Senate,	Committee	on	Interstate	and	Foreign	Commerce.	S.	1899,	86th	

Congress,	1st	session,	part	1,	1959	(Washington,	D.C.:GPO,	1960)	58-59 13 Kaye,	R.	2010.	Celebrating	a	wilderness	legacy.	International	Journal	of	Wilderness,	16,	1. 14 Kaye,	R.	2006.	Last	Great	Wilderness:	The	campaign	to	establish	the	arctic	national	wildlife refuge.	University	of	

Alaska	Press,	Fairbanks,	Alaska,	USA.
58 |	Page

APPENDICES
59 |	Page

APPENDIX	A	– Priority	ranking	of	all	measures	considered

Directions:		In	each	row,	write	the	potential	measure	in	the	left	column	under	the	appropriate	indicator.		Add	or	delete	rows as	needed.		Use	the	criteria	

and	ranking	guide	below	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.

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	points,		Medium	=	2	points,		Low	=	1	point

B.	Level	of	vulnerability	(measures	an	attribute	of	wilderness	character	that	currently	is	at	risk,	or	might	likely	be	at	risk	over	10-15	years):		High	=	3	

points,		Medium	=	2	points,		Low	=	1	point

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	points,		Medium	=	2	points,		Low	=	1	point

D. Degree	of	feasibility	(the	measure	is	related	to	an	existing	effort	or	could	be	monitored	without	significant	additional	effort):

High	=	1	point,		Low	=	0	point	(if	0	is	given,	do	not	use)

POTENTIAL	MEASURE

Criteria	for	Prioritizing	Potential	Measures OVERALL	

SCORE A.	 Comments

Significance

B.	

Vulnerability

C.	

Reliability

D.	

Feasibility

UNTRAMMELED	QUALITY

Indicator: Authorized	actions	that	manipulate	

the	biophysical	environment

Measure: 1.1	Number	of	actions	to	manipulate	

plant,	wildlife,	insects,	fish,	pathogens,	soil,	

water

2.6 1.7 2.8 1.00 8.1

Indicator: Authorized	actions	that	manipulate	

the	biophysical	environment

Measure: 1.2	Index	of	suppression	or	control	

taken	on	naturally	ignited	wildfires

2.3 2.1 2.8 1.00 8.3
60 |	Page

POTENTIAL	MEASURE

Criteria	for	Prioritizing	Potential	Measures OVERALL	

SCORE A.	 Comments

Significance

B.	

Vulnerability

C.	

Reliability

D.	

Feasibility

Indicator: Authorized	actions	that	manipulate	

the	biophysical	environment

Measure: 1.3	Number	of	research,	survey,	and	

monitoring	projects	that	manipulate	plants,	

wildlife	or	habitat

2.3 1.7 2.8 1.00 7.8

Indicator: Unauthorized	actions	that	manipulate	

the	biophysical	environment

Measure: 1.4	Number	of	unauthorized	actions	

to	manipulate	plant,	wildlife,	insects,	fish,	

pathogens,	soil,	water,	or	fire

2.3 1.3 1.4 0.57 5.6

Indicator: Unauthorized	actions	that	manipulate	

the	biophysical	environment

Measure: 1.5	Number	of	hunting	regulations	

with	clear	intent	to	manipulate	predator	

populations	inside	wilderness

2.3 2.3 2.1 0.71 7.4

NATURAL	QUALITY

Indicator: Plant	and	animal	species	and	

communities

Measure: 2.1	Number	of	non-native	plants,	

animals	and	pathogen	species

2.7 2.4 1.7 0.71 7.6

Indicator: Plant	and	animal	species	and	

communities

Measure: 2.X	Presence	of	selected	species

2.3 1.9 2.1 0.86 -

Not	used

Indicator: Plant	and	animal	species	and	

communities

Measure: 2.X	Presence	of	species	of	particular	

concern	or	interest		

2.0 1.9 2.3 0.86 7.0

Not	used	–

Indicator: Physical	resources

Measure: 2.X Water	quality	index

2.7 2.0 2.2 1.00 7.9 Not	used

Indicator: Physical	resources

Measure: 2.X	Air	quality

2.5 2 1 0 - Not	used
61 |	Page

POTENTIAL	MEASURE

Criteria	for	Prioritizing	Potential	Measures OVERALL	

SCORE A.	 Comments

Significance

B.	

Vulnerability

C.	

Reliability

D.	

Feasibility

Indicator: Biophysical	processes

Measure:	2.3	Vegetation	greenness	and	length	

of	growing	season	indicator	of	climate	change

2.0 2.0 1.8 0.67 6.5

UNDEVELOPED	QUALITY

Indicator: Non-recreational	structures,	

installations,	or	developments

Measure:	3.1	Index	of	authorized	physical	

structures,	installations,	or	developments

2.7 1.9 3.0 1.00 8.6

Indicator: Non-recreational	structures,	

installations,	or	developments

Measure: 3.2	Index	of	Collars,	and	both	visible	

and	not	visible	transmitters	in	the	wilderness

2 2 2 1 7

Indicator: Non-recreational	structures,	

installations,	or	developments

Measure:	3.X Index	of	unauthorized	physical	

structures,	installations,	or	developments

2.4 2.0 2.0 0.57 7.0

Not	used

Indicator:	Inholdings

Measure:	3.3	Index	of	inholdings	within	

wilderness

2.3 2.0 2.9 1.00 8.1

Indicator: Use	of	motor	vehicles,	motorized	

equipment,	or	mechanical	transport

Measure:	3.4	#	of	authorized	helicopter	uses

2.1 1.9 2.3 0.83 7.2

Indicator: Use	of	motor	vehicles,	motorized	

equipment,	or	mechanical	transport

Measure: 3.5	Air	Taxi	and	Transporter	fixed	

wing	aircraft	use

2.3 2.1 1.7 1.00 7.1

Indicator: Use	of	motor	vehicles,	motorized	

equipment,	or	mechanical	transport

Measure: 3.6	#	of	fixed	wing	aircraft	landing	

sites

2.1 2.0 1.6 0.57 6.3
62 |	Page

POTENTIAL	MEASURE

Criteria	for	Prioritizing	Potential	Measures OVERALL	

SCORE A.	 Comments

Significance

B.	

Vulnerability

C.	

Reliability

D.	

Feasibility

Indicator: Use	of	motor	vehicles,	motorized	

equipment,	or	mechanical	transport

Measure:	3.7	Authorized	motor	and mechanical	

use

1.7 1.3 1.8 0.60 5.4

Indicator: Use	of	motor	vehicles,	motorized	

equipment,	or	mechanical	transport

Measure: 3.X FWS	fixed	wing	aircraft	use

1.6 1.3 2.3 1.00 6.1

Not	Used:	not	

a	major	

concern	

currently

SOLITUDE	OR	PRIMITIVE	AND	UNCONFINED	RECREATION	QUALITY

Indicator: Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	

of	people	inside	the	wilderness

Measure: 4.1	Visitor	Study	Count	of	other	

groups	encountered	by	visitors

2.7 2.6 2.3 1.00 8.6

Indicator: Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	

of	people	inside	the	wilderness

Measure: 4.2	Visitor	Study	Count	of	the	#	of	air	

planes	encountered

2.6 2.7 2.1 1.00 8.4

Indicator: Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	

of	people	inside	the	wilderness

Measure: 4.3	Visitor	Study	Count	of	Evidence	of	

other	visitors’	impacts

2.9 2.7 2.4 1.00 9.0

Indicator: Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	

of	people	inside	the	wilderness

Measure: 4.4	Visitor	Study	Count	of	encounters	

with	refuge	staff	or	other	law	enforcement

2.1 2.0 2.3 1.00 7.5

Indicator: Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	

of	people	inside	the	wilderness

Measure: 4.5	#	of	abandoned	property	or	trash	

sites	inside	the	wilderness

2.7 2.4 1.6 0.71 7.4
63 |	Page

POTENTIAL	MEASURE

Criteria	for	Prioritizing	Potential	Measures OVERALL	

SCORE A.	 Comments

Significance

B.	

Vulnerability

C.	

Reliability

D.	

Feasibility

Indicator: Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	

of	people	inside	the	wilderness

Measure: 4.6	Visitor	use	days	at	select	high	

traffic	sites

2.6 2.9 2.4 0.86 8.7

Indicator: Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	

of	people	inside	the	wilderness

Measure: 4.7	#	of	commercial	guides	in	

wilderness

2.3 2.3 3.0 1.00 8.6

Indicator: Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	

of	people	inside	the	wilderness

Measure: 4.X	Campsite	condition	at	heavy	use	

access	or	take	out	locations

2.7 2.7 2.0 0.86 8.3

Not	used

Indicator: Remoteness	from	sights	and	sounds	

of	people	inside	the	wilderness

Measure: 4.X	Percent	of	wilderness	away	from	

access	locations	or	river	travel	routes

2.4 2.3 2.0 0.71 7.4

Not	used

Indicator:	Remoteness	from	occupied	and	

modified	areas	outside	the	wilderness

Measure:	4.8	Viewshed	impacts	from	developed	

areas	outside	the	wilderness

2.1 1.9 2.7 0.83 7.5

Indicator:	Remoteness	from	occupied	and	

modified	areas	outside	the	wilderness

Measure:		4.X Night	sky	visibility	or	light	

pollution

3.0 2.5 3.0 0.33 8.8

Not	used

Indicator:	Remoteness	from	occupied	and	

modified	areas	outside	the	wilderness

Measure:		4.X Soundscape	Point	Thomson

2.5 2.5 3.0 0.17 8.2

Not	used

Indicator: Facilities	that	decrease	self-reliant	

recreation

Measure: 4.9	Agency-provided	facilities	in	the	

wilderness	that	decrease	self-reliant	recreation

2.0 1.7 3.0 1.00 7.7
64 |	Page

POTENTIAL	MEASURE

Criteria	for	Prioritizing	Potential	Measures OVERALL	

SCORE A.	 Comments

Significance

B.	

Vulnerability

C.	

Reliability

D.	

Feasibility

Indicator: Facilities	that	decrease	self-reliant	

recreation

Measure: 4.10	#	of	sites	with	obvious	visitor

created	trails	in	wilderness

2.4 2.4 2.0 0.71 7.6

Indicator: Facilities	that	decrease	self-reliant	

recreation

Measure: 4.X #	User-created	recreation	facilities

2.1 1.7 2.0 0.67 6.5

Not	used

Indicator: Management	restrictions	on	visitor	

behavior

Measure: 4.11	Management	restrictions	on	

non-commercially	guided	visitors

2.5 2.2 2.5 0.86 8.0

Indicator: Management	restrictions	on	visitor	

behavior

Measure: 4.X	Management	restrictions	on	

commercially	guided	visitors

2.2 2.0 1.8 0.57 6.6

Not	used

Other	Features	Quality	(if	applicable)

Indicator: Loss	of	statutorily	protected	cultural	

resources	

Measure:	5.X	Number	of	authorized	removals	of	

cultural	resources

2.0 1.7 2.7 0.83 7.2

Not	used
65 |	Page

APPENDIX	B	– Summary	of	effort	required	for	wilderness	character	monitoring

Quality Indicator Measure

Type	of	

Data	

Source

Time	spent	

gathering	

data	for	each	

measure	(in	

whole	hours)

Measure	

Frequency	

(years) Comments

Untrammeled Authorized	

actions

1.1	Number	of	

actions	to	

manipulate	plant,	

wildlife,	insects,	

fish,	pathogens,	

soil,	water

Staff,	

MRAs,	SUPs

1 1

Untrammeled Authorized	

actions

1.2	Index	of	

suppression	or	

control	taken	on	

naturally	ignited	

wildfires

Staff 2 1

Untrammeled Authorized	

actions

1.3	Number	of	

research,	survey,	

and	monitoring	

projects	that	

manipulate	plants,	

wildlife	or	habitat

Staff,	

MRAs,	SUPs

1 1

Untrammeled Unauthorized	

actions

1.4	Number	of	

unauthorized	

actions	to	

manipulate	plant,	

Staff,	

Computer

1 1
66 |	Page

Quality Indicator Measure

Type	of	

Data	

Source

Time	spent	

gathering	

data	for	each	

measure	(in	

whole	hours)

Measure	

Frequency	

(years) Comments

wildlife,	insects,	

fish,	pathogens,	

soil,	water,	or	fire

Untrammeled Unauthorized	

actions

1.5	Number of	

hunting	regulations	

with	clear	intent	to	

manipulate	

predator	

populations	inside	

wilderness

Computer 3 1

Natural Plant	and	

animal	

species

2.1	Number	of	nonnative	plants,	

animals	and	

pathogen	species

Staff 1 5

Natural Biophysical	

processes

2.3	Vegetation	

greenness	and	

length	of	growing	

season	indicator	of	

climate	change

Computer 4 1

Undeveloped Nonrecreational	

structures,	

installations,	

3.1	Index	of	

authorized	physical	

structures,	

installations,	or	

Staff,	

MRAs,	SUPs

2 5
67 |	Page

Quality Indicator Measure

Type	of	

Data	

Source

Time	spent	

gathering	

data	for	each	

measure	(in	

whole	hours)

Measure	

Frequency	

(years) Comments

and	

developments

developments

Undeveloped Nonrecreational	

structures,	

installations,	

and	

developments

3.2 Index of	Collars,	

and	both	visible	

and	not	visible	

transmitters	in	the	

wilderness

Staff,	

MRAs,	SUPs

1 5

Undeveloped Inholdings 3.3	Index	of	

inholdings	within	

wilderness	

Staff,	

Computer

1 5

Undeveloped Use	of	

motorized	or	

mechanical

3.4	#	of	authorized	

helicopter	uses

Staff 1 1

Undeveloped Use	of	

motorized	or	

mechanical

3.5	Air	Taxi	and	

Transporter	fixed	

wing	aircraft	use

Computer 4 1

Undeveloped Use	of	

motorized	or	

mechanical

3.6	#	of	fixed	wing	

aircraft	landing	

sites

Computer 3 1

Undeveloped Use	of	

motorized	or	

mechanical

3.7	Authorized	

motor	and	

mechanical	use

MRAs,	SUPs 1 1
68 |	Page

Quality Indicator Measure

Type	of	

Data	

Source

Time	spent	

gathering	

data	for	each	

measure	(in	

whole	hours)

Measure	

Frequency	

(years) Comments

Solitude	+ Remoteness	

from	inside

4.1 Visitor	Study	

Count	of	other	

groups	

encountered	by	

visitors

Report 0.25 5

Solitude	+ Remoteness	

from	inside

4.2	Visitor	Study	

Count	of	the	#	of	air	

planes	encountered

Report 0.25 5

Solitude	+ Remoteness	

from	inside

4.3	Visitor	Study	

Count	of	Evidence	

of	other	visitors’	

impacts

Report 0.25 5

Solitude	+ Remoteness	

from	inside

4.4	Visitor	Study	

Count	of	

encounters	with	

refuge	staff	or	

other	law	

enforcement

Report 0.25 5

Solitude	+ Remoteness	

from	inside

4.5	#	of	abandoned	

property	or	trash	

sites	inside	the	

wilderness

Computer 5 5 This	measure	will	take	many hours	if	the	trash	

database	isn’t	kept	up		to	date
69 |	Page

Quality Indicator Measure

Type	of	

Data	

Source

Time	spent	

gathering	

data	for	each	

measure	(in	

whole	hours)

Measure	

Frequency	

(years) Comments

Solitude	+ Remoteness	

from	inside

4.6	Visitor	use	days	

at	select	high	traffic	

sites

Computer 3 1

Solitude	+ Remoteness	

from	inside

4.7	#	of	commercial	

guides	in	

wilderness	

Computer,	

Paper

2 5

Solitude	+ Remoteness	

from	outside

4.8	Viewshed	

impacts	from	

developed	areas	

outside	the	

wilderness	

Staff 1 5

Solitude	+ Facilities	that	

decrease	selfreliant	

recreation

4.9	Agencyprovided facilities	

in	the	wilderness	

that	decrease	selfreliant	recreation

MRAs 1 5

Solitude	+ Facilities	that	

decrease	selfreliant	

recreation

4.10	#	of	sites	with	

obvious	visitor

created	trails	in	

wilderness

Professional	

Judgment

2 5

Solitude	+ Management

restrictions	

4.11	Management	

restrictions	on	nonStaff 1 5
70 |	Page

Quality Indicator Measure

Type	of	

Data	

Source

Time	spent	

gathering	

data	for	each	

measure	(in	

whole	hours)

Measure	

Frequency	

(years) Comments

on	visitor	

behavior

commercially	

guided	visitors

Total	Time	Estimate	for	data	collection	by	staff	

Task Time	Required

(hours)

#	of	

measures

Comments

1)	Staff	prep	for	WCM	data	

collection

16 Time	required	for	staff	person	to	become	familiar	with	WCM	

report,	electronic	files,	and	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.

2)	1	year	frequency	measures	 24 11 measures If	measures	that	have	data	with	a	1	year	frequency	are	not	

collected	annually	it	will	likely	take	several	more	hours	each	5	

years	to	collect	all	the	annual	data.

3)	5	year	frequency	measures	 18 14 measures

4)	Trend	calculation	and	

reporting

24

5	Year	Total 82 25	 measures Approximately	2	weeks	of	one	staff	person’s	time,	1	to	2	hours	of	

other	staff	members’	time
71 |	Page

APPENDIX	C	– Data	sources	and	protocols	for	all	measures	used

Keeping	Track	of	Wilderness	Character	Monitoring	Measures

Measure Detailed	Description	of	the	Data	Source(s)

and	Protocols	for	How	the	Data	Were	Gathered

Untrammeled	Quality

1.1	Number	of	

actions	to	

manipulate	

plant,	wildlife,	

insects,	fish,	

pathogens,	soil,	

water

Data	Source:	Refuge	manager,	biological	staff,	or	SUPs	and	MRAs

Protocol:	Ask	knowledgeable	person	if	any	actions	that	manipulated	plants,	wildlife,	

insects	or	fish	occurred	in	the	last	year.	If	necessary	consult	any	available	SUPs	or	

MRAs.	Record	result	in	this	measure’s	Excel	file	and	in	the	WCMD	MS	Access	

Database.

Data	Collection	File:	T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness

Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	Files\1	Untrammeled	Quality\1.1	Number	of	

actions	to	manipulate	plants,	wildlife,	insects,	or	fish.xls

1.2	Index	of	

suppression	or	

control	taken	

on	naturally	

ignited	

wildfires

Data	Source:	Refuge	fire	management	officer,	or online	at:	

http://afsmaps.blm.gov/imf_fire/imf.jsp?site=fire if	the	fire	management	officer	is	

unavailable.

Protocol:	Data	for	this	measure	are collected	by	consulting	the	Refuge	Fire	

Management	Officer	for	a	count	of	fires	that	burned	inside the	wilderness	in	the	past	

year.		If	any	fires	occurred, more	details	on	the	actions	taken	should	be	collected.		

Have	the	Fire	Management	Officer	assign	a	score	for	the	suppression	action	taken	on	

each	fire	from	the	index	(Table	4).		Once	this	information	is	collected,	these	data	

should	be	recorded	in	the	Excel	file	called	“1.2	Index	of	fire	management	actions	in	

wilderness.xls”	Each	year	has	a	column	to	tally	fires	by	each	management	type	taken	

and	automatically	generate	the	overall	index	score.		The	index	score	should	be	

entered	into	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness

Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	Files\1	Untrammeled	Quality\1.2	Index	of	fire	

management	actions	in	wilderness.xls

1.3	Number	of	

research,	

survey,	and	

monitoring	

projects	that	

manipulate	

plants,	wildlife	

or	habitat

Data	Source:	SUPs	and	MRAs

Protocol: Count	the	number	of	research	projects	conducted	by	refuge	staff	or	nonstaff	researchers	that	manipulate	wildlife, plants or	habitat	in	wilderness.		Unit	

biologists	and	refuge	staff	responsible	for	issuing	permits	should	be	consulted	for	this	

measure.	A	staff	person	should	collect	the	number	of	research	projects that	included	

a	trammeling action	and	a	brief	description	in	this	measure’s	data	collection	Excel	file	

and	enter	the	total	number	of	projects	into	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File:	T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness

Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	Files\1	Untrammeled	Quality\1.3	Number	of	

research,	survey,	and	monitoring	projects.xls

1.4	Number	of	

unauthorized	

actions	to	

manipulate	

plant,	wildlife,	

insects,	fish,	

Data	Source:	Refuge	manager,	law	enforcement	citation	records,	ADFG	publications

Protocol:	This	measure	is	a	count	of	unauthorized	actions	inside	wilderness that	

manipulate	the	biophysical	environment.		Data	for	this	measure	comes	from	several	

sources	including,	(1)	citations	issued	by	refuge law	enforcement	officers	for

violations	that	manipulate	the	biophysical	environment;	(2)	staff	knowledge	of	known	

or	suspected	unauthorized	trammeling	actions;	and	(3)	publications	by	state	or	

federal	agencies	documenting	unauthorized	trammeling	actions.		
72 |	Page

Measure Detailed	Description	of	the	Data	Source(s)

and	Protocols	for	How	the	Data	Were	Gathered

pathogens,	soil,	

water,	or	fire

Record	result	in	this	measure’s	Excel	file	and	in	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness

Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	Files\1	Untrammeled	Quality\1.4	

Unauthorized	manipulations.xls

1.5	Number	of	

hunting	

regulations	

with	clear	

intent	to	

manipulate	

predator	

populations	

inside	

wilderness

Data	Source: The	refuge	wilderness	specialist	or	a	biologist	who	is	knowledgeable	in	

hunting	regulation	changes should	be	consulted	for	this	measure.		The	published	

federal	subsistence	board	and	AK	board	of	game	hunting	regulation	amendments	and	

proposals	will	also	need	to	be	consulted	to	check	the	stated	intent	of	each	regulation	

change.

The	changes	made	annually	by	the	Alaska	Board	of	Game	are	available,	along	with	the	

written	proposals,	online	at:		

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.main

Proposed	changes	to	the	Federal	Subsistence	regulations	are	published	by	region	at	

<http://www.doi.gov/subsistence/library/meeting_books/index.cfm>.		Consult	the	

North	Slope	and	Eastern	Interior	RAC	Meeting	notes.	

Protocol:	Closely	monitor	and	count	the hunting	regulations	made	by either	state	or	

federal	regulatory	bodies	that	have	the	stated	purpose	to	manipulate	predator	

populations	with the	goal	of	changing	game	animal	populations.	The	monitoring

applies	for	regulations	in	Alaska	game	management	units	(GMU)	25A	and	26C,	which

cover	the	wilderness. Record	the	number and	description of	regulations	that	are	

considered	a	trammeling	in	measure’s	data	collection	Excel	file,	but	only	record	the	

total	number	in	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.		.		

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness

Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	Files\1	Untrammeled	Quality\1.5	Number	of	

hunting	regulations	with	clear	intent	to	manipulate.xls

Natural	Quality

2.1	Number	of	

non-native	

plants,	animals	

and	pathogen	

species

Data	Source:	Refuge	biological staff,	and	the	AKEPIC	online	GIS	map	of	non-native	

plant	species at	http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/maps/akepic/

Protocol: The	number	of	non-native	species	found, and	their	names	should	be	

recorded	in	this	measure’s	data	collection	Excel	file.		However,	only	the total	number	

of	non-native	species	should	be	entered	into	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database. The	

species	count	can	come	from	three	sources	including,	(1)	staff	observation,	(2)	

findings at	long-term	ecological monitoring	plots	in	wilderness, or	(3) the	Alaska	

Natural	Heritage	Program’s	Alaska	Exotic	Plants	Information	Clearinghouse	(AKEPIC).

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness

Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	Files\2	Natural	Quality\2.1	Number	of	nonnative	plants,	animals	and	pathogen	species.xls

2.2 Vegetation	

greenness	and	

length	of	

growing	season	

indicator	of	

Data	Source:	GINA NDVI	maps

Protocol: This	measure	uses	two	satellite	remote	sensing	data	products	publically	

available	from	the	Geographic	Information	Network	of	Alaska	(GINA),	which	is	run	by	

the	University	of	Alaska.		The	first	data	set	is a measure	of	annual	peak	greenness	

from a Normalized	Difference	Vegetation	Index	(NDVI).		The	second	data	set	is	the	

annual	length	of	the	growing	season.			Vegetation	ecologists	commonly	use	these	two	

remote	sensing	data	types	when	monitoring	vegetation	change.
73 |	Page

Measure Detailed	Description	of	the	Data	Source(s)

and	Protocols	for	How	the	Data	Were	Gathered

climate	change

The	two	data	sets	should	be	downloaded from	GINA’s	GIS	server	and	then	clipped	to	

the	wilderness	area	in	ArcGIS.		The	average	annual	value	of	annual	peak	greenness	

and	length	of	growing	season	should	be found	for	the	wilderness	and	entered	into	

this	measure’s	Excel	data	file.		In	the	Excel	file	a	regression	analysis	of	both data	set	

will	yield	two	p-values to	test	if	a	significant	trend	exists.		A	significant	change in	this	

measure	occurs	if	the	p-value	for	either	regression equals	0.1	or	less.		Only	enter	the	

more	significant	p-value	into	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.		Additional	detailed	

data	collection	and	processing	instructions	can	be	found	in	Appendix	D.

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness

Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	Files\2	Natural	Quality\2.2	Vegetation	

greenness	and	length	of	growing	season	indicator	of	climate	change.xlsx

Undeveloped	Quality

3.1	Index	of	

authorized	

physical	

structures,	

installations,	or	

developments

Data	Source:	SUPs,	and	MRAs

Protocol: For	this	measure	an	index	is	used	because	authorized	structures	such	as	

buildings	and	weather	stations	should	not	be	equally	weighted	(Table	7).	Authorized	

developments	that	are	not	primarily	for	a	recreation	purpose	are	monitored	under	

this	measure,	whereas	developments	for	a	recreation	purpose	are	monitored	under	

the	solitude	or	primitive	and	unconfined	recreation	quality.		This	index	should	be	

expanded	when	new	types	of	installations	occur.		Note	that	this	measure	does	not	

include	wildlife	collars	or	transmitters,	which	are	counted	in	measure	3.2.

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness

Character	Monitoring\WCM Excel	Data	Files\3	Undeveloped	Quality\3.1	Authorized	

Installations.xls

3.2	Index of	

Collars,	and	

both	visible	

and	not	visible	

transmitters	in	

the	wilderness

Data	Source:	Biological	staff

Protocol: This measure	is	an	index	of	the	collars	and	visible	and	not	visible	

transmitters	installed	on	wildlife	found	inside	the	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness.		These	

collars	or	transmitters	can	either	be	installed	on	or	inside	terrestrial	or	aquatic	

wildlife.		An	index	is	used	because	some	of	the	tracked	species	are	transient and	only	

inhabit	the	wilderness	seasonally.		A	refuge	biologist	can	provide	the	number	of	

collared	or	transmitter	monitored	animals that	are	inside	wilderness.		Biological	staff	

can	also	estimate	the	percentage	of	time	each	species are	located	in	the	wilderness	so

the	number	of	collars	or	transmitters	can	be	weighted	appropriately	in	the	index.		

The	data	collection	Excel	file	for	this	measure	is	set	up	to	calculate	the	index	score.		A	

staff	person	should	include	a	description	of	the	collared	or	transmitter	monitored	

wildlife	in	the	Excel	file	but	only	enter	the	overall	index	score	into	the	WCMD	MS	

Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness

Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	Files\3	Undeveloped	Quality\ 3.2	Index	of	

Collars,	and	both	visible	and	not	visible	transmitters	in	the	wilderness.xls

3.3	Index	of	

inholdings	

within	

Data	Source: The	refuge	manager	should	know	about	inholding	changes	and	the	

refuge	pilots,	fire	management	officer,	or	fire	maps	should	be	consulted for	new	

structures.	If	changes	to	the	status	of	lands	are	unknown,	the	FWS	Lands	Mapper,	an	

online	GIS	tool,	can	be	consulted	for	information	at:	http://ifw7rosde/refstat/
74 |	Page

Measure Detailed	Description	of	the	Data	Source(s)

and	Protocols	for	How	the	Data	Were	Gathered

wilderness	 Protocol: Fill	out	the	index	value	for	inholdings,	which	includes	the	number	of	

inholdings,	and	the	number	of	structures.		In	the	index,	structures	are	score	as	1, and	

each inholding	also	counts	as 1.	The	collection	protocol	for	this	measure	includes	

asking	the	refuge	manager	if	any	changes	in	inholding	land	status	have	occurred	and	if	

any	new	structures	have	been	built.		Refuge	pilots	and	the	fire	management	officer	

should	be	asked	about	new	structures	on	inholdings.		Once	this	information	is	

collected,	data	should	be	recorded	in	the	Excel	file	called	“3.3	Inholding	DATA.xls.”	

Each	year	(2013,	2018,	2023,	etc.)	have	their	own	sheet	in	the	Excel	document.		The

overall index	value	should	be	entered	into	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness

Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	Files\3	Undeveloped	Quality\3.3	Index	of	

Inholdings.xlsx

3.4	#	of	

authorized	

helicopter	uses

Data	Source:	SUPs	and	MRAs

Protocol:	This measure	is a count	of	the	number	of	helicopter	uses	that	the	refuge

authorizes	through SUPs or	for	FWS	staff.		The	number	of	times	helicopter	use in	

wilderness	is	authorized each	year should be	counted	from	SUPs	and	MRAs. Record	

this	number	in	this	measure’s	Excel	file	and	in	the	WCMD MS	Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness

Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	Files\3	Undeveloped	Quality\3.4	Number	of	

authorized	helicopter	uses.xls

3.5	Air	Taxi	and	

Transporter	

fixed	wing	

aircraft	use

Data	Source:	Client	Use Report	MS	Access	Database

Protocol: This	measure	is	a	count	of	the	total	client	drop	offs	that	occur	annually in	

wilderness.		The	measure	uses	the	Client	Use	MS	Access	Database	to	generate	an	

annual	report	of	drop	offs	in	the	Arctic	Refuge	Wilderness.		Rather	than	attempting	to	

tally	the	number	of	flights	for	each	client,	the	staff	person	collecting	these data	should	

simply	count	each	drop	off	line	in	the	report	and	record	this	number	in	this	measure’s	

Excel	file	and	in	the	WCMD MS	Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness

Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	Files\3	Undeveloped	Quality\3.5	Air	Taxi	and	

Transporter	fixed	wing	aircraft	use.xls

3.6	#	of	fixed	

wing	aircraft	

landing	sites

Data	Source:	Refuge	Pilots

Protocol:	This	measure	is	a	count	of	the	number	of,	Cessna	185-sized (greater	than	

500ft) landing	strips	in	wilderness.		A	record	of	landing	strip	locations	and	sizes	is	

maintained	by	refuge	pilots and	should be	sampled	for	the	wilderness.		The	count	of	

Cessna	185	landings	strips	in	wilderness	should	be	entered	into	this	measure’s	Excel	

data	file	and	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.		If	the	record	of	landing	strips	is	not	

maintained,	then	at	the	next	monitoring	cycle	in	5	years	this	measure	should	be	

removed.		

Data	Collection	File:	T:\\Wilderness\Wilderness	Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	

Character	Data\3	Undeveloped	Quality\3.6	#	of	landing	sites	and	floatplane	lakes	used

3.7	Authorized	

motor	and	

mechanical	use

Data	Source:	SUPs	and	MRAs

Protocol: This	measure	is	a	count	of	the	number	of	authorizations	for	motor	or	

mechanical	device	use.		The	number	of	authorizations	can	be	found	by	consulting	SUP	

and	MRA	documents.

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness

Character	Monitoring\WCM	Excel	Data	Files\3	Undeveloped	Quality\3.7	Authorized	
75 |	Page

Measure Detailed	Description	of	the	Data	Source(s)

and	Protocols	for	How	the	Data	Were	Gathered

motor	and	mechanical	use.xls

Solitude	or	Primitive	and	Unconfined	Quality

4.1	Visitor	

Study	Count	of	

other	groups	

encountered	by	

visitors

Data	Source:	Visitor	Study

Protocol: This	measure	is	the	average	visitor	response	to	a	question	posed	in	a	survey	

for	the	Arctic	Refuge	Visitor	Study.		The	question	asks visitors	how	many	“other	

groups	did	[they] encounter?”	Record	the	average	response	for	this	Visitor	Study	

question in	the Excel	data	file for	this	measure and	in	the	WCMD MS	Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File:		T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\		Wilderness	

Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\4.1	

4.2	4.3	4.4	Visitor	Study	DATA.xls

4.2	Visitor	

Study	Count	of	

the	#	of	air	

planes	

encountered

Data	Source:	Visitor	Study

Protocol:	This	measure	is	the	average	visitor	response	to	a	question	posed	in	a	survey	

for	the	Arctic	Refuge	Visitor	Study.		The	question	asks visitors	how	many	“air	planes	

(not	jets) did	[they]	encounter?”	 Record	the	average	response	for	this	Visitor	Study	

question in	the Excel	data	file for	this	measure and	in	the	WCMD MS	Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File:	T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\ Wilderness	

Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\4.1	

4.2	4.3	4.4	Visitor	Study	DATA.xls

4.3	Visitor	

Study	Count	of	

Evidence	of	

other	visitors’	

impacts

Data	Source:	Visitor	Study

Protocol: This	measure	is	the	average	visitor	response	to	a	question	posed	in	a	survey	

for	the	Arctic	Refuge	Visitor	Study.		The	question	asks visitors	how	many	“times	did	

[they]	encounter	the	evidence	of	other	visitors’	impacts?”		Record	the	average	

response	for	this	Visitor	Study	question in	the Excel	data	file for	this	measure and	in	

the	WCMD MS	Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File:	T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\ Wilderness	

Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\4.1	

4.2	4.3	4.4	Visitor	Study	DATA.xls

4.4	Visitor	

Study	Count	of	

encounters	

with	refuge	

staff	or	other	

law	

enforcement

Data	Source:	Visitor	Study

Protocol: This	measure	is	the	average	visitor	response	to	a	question	posed	in	a	survey	

for	the	Arctic	Refuge	Visitor	Study.		The	question	asks visitors	how	many	“times	did	

you	encounter	refuge	staff	or	other	law	enforcement?”		Record	the	average	response	

for	this	Visitor	Study	question in	the Excel	data	file for	this	measure and	in	the	WCMD

MS	Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\ Wilderness	

Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\4.1	

4.2	4.3	4.4	Visitor	Study	DATA.xls

4.5	#	of	

abandoned	

property	or	

trash	sites	

inside	the	

wilderness

Data	Source:	Refuge	Trash	MS	Access	Database

Protocol: This	measure	is	a	count	of	the	number	of	sites	in	the	wilderness	with	trash,	

abandoned	property	or	downed	aircraft.		Abandoned	property,	trash	and	downed	

aircraft	are	monitored	in	the	trash	and	downed	aircraft	database.		A	staff	person	

should	inspect	the	database	every	5	years	for	the	number	of	trash	or	downed	aircraft	

sites	in	wilderness.	The	total	number	of	these	sites	inside	wilderness	should	then	be	

recorded	in	this	measure’s	Excel	data	file	and	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.		

Data	Collection	File:	T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness \Wilderness	

Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\4.5	#	

of	abandoned	property	or	trash	sites	inside	the	wilderness.xls
76 |	Page

Measure Detailed	Description	of	the	Data	Source(s)

and	Protocols	for	How	the	Data	Were	Gathered

4.6	Visitor	use	

days	at	select	

high	traffic	

sites

Data	Source:	Client	Use	Database

Protocol: This	measure	uses	the	client	use	report	database	which	can	be	queried	for	

activity	in	the	wilderness	and	provide	data	on	drop	offs,	pick	ups	and	the	number	of	

visitors	in	each	party.		From	these	data	a	minimum	number	of	visitor	use	days	at	

particular	high	use	drop	off	and	pick	up	sites	can	be	found.		

To	make	this	count,	first	query	the	Client	Use	MS	Access	Database	for	an	annual	

report	of	activity	in	wilderness.		Next,	the	drop	offs	or	pickups	at	the	following	high	

traffic	sites	should	be	highlighted	(1)	Drain	Creek,	(2)	Caribou	Pass,	(3)	Grassers,	(4)	

Upper	Colleen	and	(5) Canning	River	Bend	(Arc-02).		The	number	of	individuals	

dropped	off	or	picked	up	at	these	sites	should	then	be	tallied	for	an	estimate	of	visitor	

use	days.		Enter	the	total	number	of	visitor	use	days	for	each	site	into	this	measure’s	

Excel	data	file	and	find	the	percent	change	between	the	initial	data	collected	for	year	

2009.		If	the	percent	increase	in	visitor	use	days	for	any	of	the	five	sites	is	greater	than	

10%	then	a	significant	change	has	occurred.		Enter	percentage	value	from	the	site	

with	the	greatest	percent	increase	into	the	WCM	MS	Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness \Wilderness	

Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\4.6	

Visitor	use	days	at	select	high	traffic	sites.xls

4.7	#	of	

commercial	

guides	in	

wilderness	

Data	Source:	Permit	staff	person	and	permit	records

Protocol: This	measure	is	a	count	of	commercial	guides	operating	in	wilderness.		It	

includes	hunting,	recreation,	education	and	wildlife	viewing	guides	who	are	issued	

permits	to	operate	in	wilderness.		If	the	permit	for	the	guide	does	not	include	the	

wilderness	then it	should	not	count	it	in	this	measure.		Record	the	number	of	guides	

operating	in	wilderness	in	this	measure’s	Excel	data	file	and	in	the	WCMD	MS	Access	

Database.		

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness \Wilderness	

Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\4.7	#	

of	commercial	guides	in	wilderness.xls

4.8	Viewshed	

impacts	from	

developed	

areas	outside	

the	wilderness	

Data	Source:	Refuge	staff

Protocol: This measure	is	a	simple	count	of	viewshed	impacts	that	can	be	seen	from	

the	wilderness.		Data	for	viewshed	impacts	can	come	from	(1)	a	count	of	new	large	

developments	(i.e. oil	and	gas	developments onshore	or	off	shore,	windmills,	roads	

and	mines)	within	15 miles	of	Arctic	Refuge Wilderness,	and	(2)	from	in	the	field	

observations	by	refuge	staff.		Record	the	number and	description	of	the	viewshed	

impact	in	this	measure’s	Excel	data	file,	but	only	the	total	number in	the	WCMD	MS	

Access	Database.		

Data	Collection	File:	T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness \Wilderness	

Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\4.8	

Viewshed	impacts	from	developed	areas	outside	the	wilderness	DATA.xls

4.9	Agencyprovided	

facilities	in	the	

wilderness	that	

decrease	selfreliant	

Data	Source:	Refuge	Manager,	staff and	MRAs

Protocol: This	measure	is	a	count	of	agency-provided	facilities	that	are	recreation	

related.		The	refuge	manager	or	staff	should	know	if	any	new	facilities	have	been	

installed	in	the	refuge	and	MRAs	can	be	consulted	for	more	detail.		Record	the	

number	of	facilities	and	short	description	of	the	facilities	in	this	measure’s	data	

collection	Excel	file	but	only	record	the	total	number	in	the	WCMD	MS	Access	

Database.
77 |	Page

Measure Detailed	Description	of	the	Data	Source(s)

and	Protocols	for	How	the	Data	Were	Gathered

recreation Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\ Wilderness	

Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\ 4.9	

Agency-provided	facilities	in	the	wilderness	that	decrease	self-reliant	recreation	

DATA.xls

4.10	#	of	sites	

with	obvious	

visitor created	

trails	in	

wilderness

Data	Source:	Refuge	staff	

Protocol: This measure	is	a	count	of	locations	where	user	created	trailing	is	known	to	

occur.		Data	collection	relies	on	the	professional	judgment	of	the	staff	member	most	

aware	of	visitor	use	issues.		At	the	time	of	writing	this	report	the	refuge	lacks	a	

systematic	program	for	field	monitoring	of	social	trailing,	which	is	why	professional	

judgment	was	used.		The	number	of	sites	and	the	name	of	the	locations	should	be	

recorded	in	this	measure’s	Excel	data	file,	and	the	number	of	sites	should	be	entered	

into	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\ Wilderness	

Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	Character	Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\ 4.10	

#	of	sites	with	obvious	user	created	trails	in	wilderness	DATA.xls

4.11	

Management	

restrictions	on	

noncommercially	

guided	visitors

Data	Source:	Refuge	staff	knowledgeable	about	permit	requirements	for	visitors	or	

closed	areas.

Protocol: This measure	is	a	count	of	management	restrictions	for	non-commercially	

guided	visitors	to	the	wilderness	area.		The	refuge	manager	or	visitor	outreach	staff	

can	provide	the	data	for	this	measure.		The	number	of	management	restrictions	and	

their	description	should	be	recorded	in	this	measure’s	Excel	data	file,	and	the	total	

number	of	restrictions	should	be	entered	into	the	WCMD	MS	Access	Database.

Data	Collection	File: T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\ Wilderness	

Character	Monitoring\Wilderness	Character Data\4	Solitude	Recreation	Quality\4.11

Management	Restrictions	DATA.xls
APPENDIX	D	– Instructions	for	downloading	and	processing	GINA	data	for	measure	2.2

1)	For	the	first	step	open	ArcGIS,	connect	to	the	GINA	GIS	Server and	download	data	as	seen	in	the	images	below.

a)	Select	“add	data”	and	then	select	“GIS	Server”	from	the	drop	down.

b) Double	click	on	“Add	WCS	Server”
79 |	Page

c)	Add the	GINA	AVHRR	data	server	URL, http://docs.gina.alaska.edu/ndvi/avhrr.html to	the	URL	box.		Select	“1.0.0”	from	the	“Version”	dropdown.	

Click	OK.
80 |	Page

d)	The	GINA	WCS	server	should	appear	in	the	“Add	Data”	options	as	seen	below.		Highlight	and	press	“Add,”	and	select	the	years	of	data	required	and	

press	“Add.”
81 |	Page

2)	In	this	step	clip	the	raster	to	the	wilderness	and	find	the	average	value	for	peak	greenness	and	length	of	growing	season	as	shown	by the	images	

below.

a)	Search	“Raster	Clip”	in	the	search	plane	and	double	click	the	top	tool	“Clip	(Data	management).”		

b)	In	the	“Clip”	window,	select	the	data	you	downloaded	as	the	“Input	raster”	and	select	a	shapefile	that	contains	the	wilderness	boundary	for	the	

“Output	Extent.”		(shapefile	can	be	found	in	wilderness	gis	layers	folder)		

c)	Be	sure	to	check	the	box	next	to	“Use	Input	Features...”		

d)	Click	the	file	icon	next	to	“Output	Raster	dataset,	name	and	store	the	clipped	raster	in	a	new	folder	in:	

T:\Administration\Management\Wilderness\Wilderness Character	Monitoring\Arctic	WCM	GIS_Final\NDVI_Data\AVHRR\Wilderness	Only\

e)	Click	“OK”
82 |	Page

f)	Double	click	the	clipped	raster	to	bring	up	“Layer	Properties”	and	go	to	the	“Symbology”	tab.

g)	Changed	“Band”	to	band	#	5	for	Growing	Season	Length	(days).

e)	Press	“Apply”	and	refresh	the	map

e)	Change	the	Stretch	type	in	the	drop	down	to	any	option	and	click	the	“Histograms”	button	to	the	right.
83 |	Page

g) From	the	Statistics	box	in	the	Histogram	window	collect	the	mean	value	and	add	it	to	this	measure’s	Excel	data	file.

h)	Return	to	step	2(f)	but	select	band	#7	for	Max	Greenness	in	step	2(g).

3)		Recalculate	regression	statistics	in	this	measure’s	Excel	data	file	and	follow	measure	definition	instructions	for	determining	significant	change.	
84 |	Page

APPENDIX	E	– What	is	a	Trammeling	Action?	

WHAT	IS	A	TRAMMELING	ACTION?

Peter	Landres,	Aldo	Leopold	Wilderness	Research	Institute

The	purpose	of	this	short	document	is	to	provide	guidelines	and	examples	to	clarify	what	is	and	is	not	a	

trammeling	action.		This	document	does	not	discuss	how	to	weight	such	actions,	how	to	find	or	record	

the	data	for	these	actions,	or	any	other	aspect	of	using	this	information	in	wilderness	character	

monitoring.		These	guidelines	and	examples	are	intended	to	capture	about	90%	of	the	cases	and	provide	

sufficient	guidance	for	local	staff	to figure	out	the	novel	and	rarer	cases	as	they	occur.		

The	following	definitions	are	used	in	this	document:

• Trammeling	action:		an	action	that	intentionally	manipulates	“the	earth	and	its	community	of	

life”	inside	a	designated	wilderness	or	inside	an	area that	by	agency	policy	is	managed	as	

wilderness.

• Intentional:		done	on	purpose;	deliberate;	willful

• Manipulation:		an	action	that	alters,	hinders,	restricts,	controls,	or	manipulates	“the	earth	and	

its	community	of	life”	including	the	type,	amount,	or	distribution	of	plants,	animals,	or	physical	

resources	inside	a	designated	wilderness	or	inside	an	area	that	by	agency	policy	is	managed	as	

wilderness.

• Intentional	manipulation:		an	action	that	purposefully	alters,	hinders,	restricts,	controls,	or	

manipulates	“the	earth	and	its	community	of	life.”

Based	on	these	definitions,	trammeling	occurs	when	a	manager	makes	a	decision	and	takes	action	that	

intentionally	manipulates	the	natural	quality.		Once	action	is	taken	the	effect	on	the	natural	quality	

cannot	typically	be	halted	or	stopped	or	reversed,	and	therefore	the	effect	typically	persists	from	the	

moment	of	the	action	onwards	over	time.		Because	of	this	persistent	or	permanent	effect	on	“the	earth	

and	its	community	of	life,”	managers	need	to	think	long	and	hard	about	these	types	of	decisions.

Trammeling	actions	are	often	considered	only	in	terms	of	how	they degrade	the	untrammeled	quality,	

but	the	agency	takes	all	sorts	of	such	actions	for	many	different	reasons	that	support	or	sustain	the	

other	qualities	of	wilderness	character.		For	example,	actions	taken	to	protect	and	sustain	the	natural	

quality	include	controlling	or	eradicating	non-native	species,	restoring	degraded	habitat,	or	protecting	

species	from	harm	such	as	installing	gates	across	caves	to	prevent	people	from	entering.		Resource	

management	actions	in	wilderness	almost	always	involve	tradeoffs,	and	while	there	may	be	valid	and	

good	reasons	for	taking	trammeling	actions,	these	actions	nonetheless	degrade	the	untrammeled	
85 |	Page

quality.		The	framework	of	wilderness	character	simply	allows	agency	staff	to	be	transparent	about	

these	tradeoffs,	for	example	the	tradeoffs	that	might	be	involved	in	actions	taken	to	improve	the	natural	

quality	that	degrade	the	untrammeled	quality.		The	goal	of	using	the	framework	of	wilderness	character	

is	to	help	agency	staff	make	the	decision	that	is	deemed	best	overall	for	preserving	wilderness	

character.

TYPES	OF	TRAMMELING	ACTIONS

There	are	two	broad	classes	of	trammeling	actions,	those	that	are	authorized	by	the	federal	land	

manager	and	those	that	are	not.		Under	each	of	these	broad	classes	there	are	several	subclasses	that	

reflect	whether	the	action	is	taken	on	a	biological	resource,	a	physical	resource,	and	whether	the	effect	

of	the	action	is	on	a	biological	or	physical	resource.		Almost	always	the	concern	is	for	actions	that	occur	

inside	a	designated	wilderness,	but	one	subclass	provides	examples	of	actions	taken	outside	a	

designated	wilderness	that	would	be	included	as	a	trammeling	action	because	the	intention	is	to	affect	

biological	or	physical	resources	inside	the	wilderness.

Agency	authorized	trammeling	actions – actions	authorized	by	the	federal	wilderness	land	manager	as	

well	as	actions	by	other	agencies,	organizations,	or	individuals	that	have	been	approved	or	permitted	by	

the	federal	land	manager

1. Actions	taken	inside	the	wilderness	on	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife	to	intentionally	and	

directly	affect	this	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife.		Examples	include:

a. Removing	or	killing	native	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife

b. Adding	or	restoring	native	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife

c. Adding	non-native	vegetation	for	erosion	control

d. Adding	non-native	fish	and	wildlife

e. Spraying	chemicals	to	control	non-native	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife

f. Releasing	biocontrol	agents	to	control	non-native	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife

g. Collecting	vegetation	for	scientific	study

h. Collecting	or	capturing	and	releasing	fish	and	wildlife	for	scientific	study

i. Collecting	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife	for	commercial	purposes

j. Enclosing	or	excluding	fish	and	wildlife	from	an	area	to	protect	vegetation	or	to	study	

the	effects	of	enclosing	or	excluding	fish	and	wildlife	on	protecting	vegetation	or	

animals

k. Adding	pesticides	to	water	to	eliminate	non-native	fish

2. Actions	taken	inside	the	wilderness	on	a	physical	resource	to	intentionally	and	directly	affect	

this	physical	resource.		Examples	include:

a. Suppressing	naturally-ignited	fire

b. Lighting	fire	(under	management	prescription)	to	reduce	fuels	or	for	other	purposes

c. Constructing	or	maintaining	a	dam	or	diversion	structure	to	alter	the	quantity	or	

seasonal	flow	of	water

d. Constructing	a	road	to	allow	access	to	mineral,	oil,	or	gas	leases;	communication	sites;	

or	inholdings
86 |	Page

3. Actions	taken	inside	the	wilderness	on	a	physical	resource	that	intentionally	affects	the	physical	

resource	to	directly	or	indirectly	affect	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife.		Examples	include:

a. Installing	a	gate	across	a	cave	that	will	protect	bats	but	exclude	other	animals	from	

using	the	cave

b. Constructing	or	maintaining	a	range	allotment	fence

c. Constructing	a	dam	to	exclude	non-native	species	from	moving	up	or	down	a	stream

d. Installing	guzzlers	to	provide	water	for	wildlife

e. Lighting	fire	(under	management	prescription)	or	any	other	vegetation	manipulation	to	

improve	wildlife	habitat

f. Adding acid-buffering	limestone	to	water	to	neutralize	the	effects	of	acid	deposition	on	

aquatic	flora	and	fauna

4. Actions	taken	outside	the	wilderness	on	a	physical	or	biological	resource	to	intentionally	and	

directly	affect	that	resource	inside	a	wilderness.		Examples	include:

a. Cloud	seeding	that	occurs	above	the	wilderness,	and	is	therefore	outside	it,	to	

intentionally	increase	precipitation	inside	the	wilderness

b. Damming	a	river	outside	a	wilderness	to	intentionally	create	a	lake	or	water	storage	

area	inside	the wilderness

c. Killing	fish	and	wildlife	outside	the	wilderness	to	intentionally	affect	the	population	or	

distribution	of	this	species	inside	the	wilderness

d. Planting	or	stocking	fish	and	wildlife	outside	the	wilderness	to	intentionally	or	

foreseeably	affect	the	population	or	distribution	of	this	species	inside	the	wilderness	

because	of	known	habitat	inside	the	wilderness

Unauthorized	trammeling	actions – citable	and	other	actions	taken	by	other	agencies,	organizations,	or	

individuals	that	have	not	been	authorized,	approved,	or	permitted	by	the	federal	wilderness	land	

manager

1. Actions	taken	inside	the	wilderness	on	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife	to	intentionally	and	

directly	affect	this	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife.		Examples	include:

a. Adding	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife	by	a	federal	agency	(other	than	the	federal	land	

managing	agency),	a	state	agency,	or	the	public

b. Removing	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife	by	a	federal	or	state	agency	or	the	public

c. Inclosing	or	excluding	fish	and	wildlife	to	study	the	effects	of	inclosing	or	excluding	on	

vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife

2. Actions	taken	inside	the	wilderness	on	a	physical	resource	to	intentionally	and	directly	affect	

this	resource.		Examples	include:

a. Modifying	water	flow	to	store	water	or	alter	the	timing	of	water	flow

b. Setting	arson	fire

3. Actions	taken	inside	the	wilderness	on	a	physical	resource	that	intentionally	affects	the	physical	

resource	to	intentionally	(either	directly	or	indirectly)	affect	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife.		

Examples	include:

a. Modifying	water	resources	to	provide	water	for	wildlife
87 |	Page

4. Actions	taken	outside	the	wilderness	on	vegetation	or	fish	and	wildlife	to	intentionally	and	

directly	affect	the	occurrence	or	distribution	of	these	or	other	species	inside	a	wilderness.		

Examples	include:

a. Releasing	species	outside	a	wilderness	with	the	intention	to	affect	a	population	whose	

range	expands	into	the	wilderness

b. Killing	wildlife	outside	of	the	wilderness	with	the	intention	to	affect	populations	whose	

ranges	expand	into	the	wilderness

FLOWCHART

In	addition	to	the	examples	above,	the	flowchart	below	is	intended	to	help	agency	staff	determine	when	

an	action	should	be	considered	a	trammeling	action.		In	this	flowchart,	all	of	the	examples	described	

above	would	typically	fall	under	the	far	left	branch	as trammeling	actions,	although	they	may	occur	

under	the	middle	branch	of	maybe	being	a	trammeling	action	depending	on	the	circumstances.		The	

flowchart	begins	with	the	question	“Is	there	an	opportunity	for	restraint?”	because	at	root	the	idea	

behind	“untrammeled”	is	the	legislative	and	policy	mandate	that	managers	use	restraint	in	wilderness	

stewardship.		Simply,	if	there	is	no	opportunity	for	managerial	restraint,	or	for	managers	to	try	and	

restrain	unauthorized	action	taken	by	others,	then	there	is	no	impact	to	the	Untrammeled	Quality	even	

though	there	may	be	large	impacts	to	the	Natural	Quality.		This	question	is	placed	first	in	the	flowchart	

to	help	avoid	confusing	those	actions	and	their	effects	for	which	managers	typically	lack	the	opportunity	

for	restraint	and	where	there	is	no	intention	to	manipulate	wilderness,	such	as	global	climate	change,	air	

pollutants,	and	many	others,	from	actions	that	intentionally	affect	“the	earth	and	its	community	of	life”	

and	that	managers	do	have	an	opportunity	to	influence.

In	some	situations	managers	may	assume	that	they	do	not	have	the	opportunity	for	restraint,	for	

example	taking	action	to	restore	habitat	for	a	listed	endangered	species,	or	spraying	herbicides	to	

eradicate	an	invasive	non-native	plant	that	is	degrading wildlife	habitat,	or	transplanting	an	extirpated	

species	back	into	the	wilderness,	or	suppressing	a	naturally-ignited	fire	to	save	timber	or	homes	

adjacent	to	the	wilderness.		However,	even	in	these	situations	managers	are	choosing	to	take	action	as	

well	as	the	type	and	intensity	of	action.		In	addition,	there	are	many	situations	where	managers	must	

choose	to	take	an	action	that	supports	one	law	(such	as	the	Endangered	Species	Act)	that	degrades	

another	(in	this	case	the	Wilderness	Act),	or	they	must	make	difficult	tradeoffs	because	of	agency	policy.		

In	all	of	these	situations	there	is	an	opportunity	for	restraint,	and	these	guidelines	and	flowchart	should	

help	managers	be	consistent	and	transparent	in	making	these	decisions.

If	there	is	an	opportunity	for	restraint,	the	manager	must	then	consider	the	intent	of	the	action.		Intent	

is	notoriously	difficult	to	discern,	but	in	many	cases	deciding	whether	an	action	is	an	intentional	trammel	

is	straightforward,	while	in	other	cases	it	is	more	complex	and	nuanced.		These	nuanced	cases	typically	

involve	some	type	of	action	where	the	intent	is	not	to	manipulate	the	“earth	and	its	community	of	life”	

but	to	have	some	other	outcome	that	is	limited	in	its	scope	and	effect.		On	the	flowchart	these	

situations	are	under	the	question	“Will	the	action	have	a	foreseeable	and	substantial	effect	on	the	earth	
88 |	Page

and	its	community	of	life?”		These	nuanced	cases	may	be	confusing	because	even	though	the	primary	

intent	is	not	to	manipulate	species	or	physical	resources,	action	is	nonetheless	intentionally	being	taken	

and	there	may	be	a	foreseeable	and	substantial	effect	on	“the	earth	and	its	community	of	life.”

In	the	table	below,	several	hypothetical	situations	illustrate	how	an	action	may	or	may	not	be	a	

trammeling	depending	on	the	scope	and	scale	of	the	action	and	its	effects.		Each	bullet	in	the	table	

presents	a	situation	where	the	action	being	taken	likely	would,	or	would	not,	be	considered	a	

trammeling.		For	every	real	situation,	agency	staff	need	to	think	through	whether	the	proposed	action	

will	have	a	foreseeable	and	substantial	effect	on	“the	earth	and	its	community	of	life”	and	if	their	

answer	is	“yes”	then	it’s	a	trammeling	action,	and	if	the	answer	is	“no”	then	it’s	not	a	trammeling	action.		

Also,	in	this	table	an	action	may	not	be	a	trammeling	but	it	still	may	affect	other	qualities	of	wilderness	

character.		For	example,	installing	rebar	monumentation	would	likely	not	be	a	trammeling,	but	such	

installations	would	likely	degrade	the	Undeveloped	Quality.

Action Likely	Not	a	Trammeling	 Likely	a	Trammeling

Building	system	

trail

• Routing	a	trail	needs	around	a	rock	

slide	that	obliterated	the	former	trail

• Building	a	bridge	across	a	stream	to	

prevent	stream	bank	erosion

• Installing	a	small	section	of	corduroy	

across	a	wet	area	to	prevent	

trenching

• Installing	in	water	bars

• Removing	rock	in	a	trail

• Building	rock-cribbing	to	support	a	

trail

• Routing	a	trail	through	an	area	of	

endangered	alpine	butterfly	habitat

• Building	a	large	amount	of	new	trail	

to	go	around	a	section	of	a	river	or	a	

cliff

• Building	a	trail	that	requires	extensive	

earth	movement	or	tree	cutting

Obliterating	

non-system	

trail

• Piling	vegetation	or	rocks	at	the	

beginning	and	end	of	trail	sections	

that	cut	a	switchback

• Piling	vegetation	or	rocks	to	block	

social	trails	around	campsites

• Obliterating	a	large	section	of	nonsystem	trail	that	requires	extensive	

earth	movement

Restoring	

campsites

• Restoring	a	single,	isolated	campsite

• Restoring	a	number	of	campsites	

(e.g.,	that	are	clustered	around	a	

lake)	that	doesn’t	require	degrading	

the	soil	or	vegetation	in	the	

surrounding	area

• Restoring	a	number	of	campsites	that	

does	require	moving	a	significant	

amount	of	soil	or	number	of	plants	in	

the	surrounding	area

Closing	caves • Installing	a	bat	gate	across	one	or	a	

few	caves	of	many	in	the	area

• Installing	bat	gates	across	all	the	

caves	in	an	area

Removing	

hazard	trees

• Removing	one	or	a	few	hazard	trees	

that	threaten	designated	campsites	

or	that	are	along	a	trail

• Removing	all	of	the	hazard	trees	over	

a	large	area

Treating	non- • Hand	pulling	a	small	area	of	non- • Spraying	any	herbicide
89 |	Page

Action Likely	Not	a	Trammeling	 Likely	a	Trammeling

native	invasive	

plants

native	invasive	plants

Permitting	

scientific	

activities

• Installing	research	plot	

monumentation,	such	as	rebar	stakes	

or	nails

• Installing	most	scientific	

instrumentation

• Collecting	a limited	number	of	

voucher	specimens	with	no	impact	

species	distribution	or	abundance

• Installing	enclosures	or	exclosures	

that	affect	the	movement	of	fish	and	

wildlife

• Installing	instrumentation	that	

disrupts	the	movement	or	behavior	

of	plants,	or	fish	and wildlife

• Collecting	voucher	specimens	that	

does	affect	the	species	distribution	or	

abundance