Florida Keys Wilderness - University of Montana · Florida Keys with a total of 250 species of plants identified in the pine rocklands of south Florida and the Lower Keys. Pine rocklands

_________________________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL KEY DEER, KEY WEST, AND GREAT WHITE HERON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

Florida Keys Wilderness A Report on Wilderness Character Monitoring August, 2012 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Molly McCarter

Wilderness.net Webmaster

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

“Notwithstanding mosquitoes, only a fool would fail to realize that our wilderness

backcountry keys are a proverbial paradise, places of solace free from man's machinations, treasures of inestimable value which are already relics of what the

Florida Keys used to be. These are magical keys: a few with dense hardwood hammock interiors; some laced with narrow winding tidal creeks; others lacking

dry land and delineated only by large red mangroves projecting from the saltwater. All are alive with the sounds of birds.” ∼ 1986 Florida Keys Refuges Annual Narrative ∼

Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

Setting of the Florida Keys Wilderness ........................................................................... 4

Geographic Setting ........................................................................................................... 4

Ecological Setting ............................................................................................................ 5

History of Establishing the Florida Keys Wilderness .................................................... 10

Refuge Purposes ............................................................................................................. 12

Documents Consulted ...................................................................................................... 14

Staff Consulted ................................................................................................................. 14

Process Used for Identifying Measures ......................................................................... 15

Measures Used ................................................................................................................. 16

Untrammeled Quality ..................................................................................................... 18

Natural Quality ............................................................................................................... 27

Undeveloped Quality ..................................................................................................... 54

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality ............................................ 62

Measures Not Used .......................................................................................................... 79

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 86

Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 88

Appendix A - Updates to be made at the end of calendar year 2012 ............................. 88

Appendix B - Priority ranking of all measures considered ............................................ 90

Appendix C - Summary of effort required for wilderness character monitoring .......... 94

Appendix D - Data sources and protocols for all measured used ................................ 103

_________________________________________________________________________________

McCarter | Florida Keys Wilderness 1

Introduction

This document was created as part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System Wilderness Character Monitoring Program of 2012. The goal of this program is to assist refuges in developing a wilderness stewardship and monitoring plan to preserve the wilderness resource at each refuge and is part of a national strategy for wilderness inventory and monitoring.

The Wilderness Act was signed into law on September 3, 1964 by President Johnson. The Act was Congress’s response to the evidence that the wild spaces of the United States, which once seemed endless, were in jeopardy due to industrialization which led to deforestation and development of these wild landscapes. The purpose of the Wilderness Act was “to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes.” The Act further states that “… each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character.” The Wilderness Act describes wilderness as having the following qualities.

Untrammeled

Wilderness is “...an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man...” and “...generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature”

–Wilderness Act of 1964 Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from the actions of modern human control or manipulation. Natural

Wilderness “...is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions”

– Wilderness Act of 1964 Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization. Undeveloped

Wilderness is “...an area of undeveloped Federal land...without permanent improvements or human habitation” and “...where man himself is a visitor who does not remain”

– Wilderness Act of 1964

_________________________________________________________________________________


Wilderness retains its primeval character and influence, and is essentially without permanent improvement or modern human occupation. Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

Wilderness “…has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation“

– Wilderness Act of 1964 Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. Other Features

Wilderness “…may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.”

– Wilderness Act of 1964

Wilderness preserves other tangible features that are of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

From this descriptive language in the Wilderness Act of 1964, in 2008 an interagency

team developed a monitoring framework that incorporates monitoring and preservation of these wilderness qualities and published it as Keeping It Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Wilderness Character Monitoring:

• 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 effects of actions taken inside the wilderness and effects from threats outside the wilderness

• Provides solid information for planning • Synthesizes data into single, holistic assessment • Provide legacy information that will endure over time when

personnel change • Guards against legal vulnerability • Creates improved on-the-ground wilderness stewardship

_________________________________________________________________________________


The Wilderness Act calls for wilderness managers to monitor and assess wilderness character. To do this, baseline conditions must be documented as a reference point for which change over time can be measured and evaluated. The monitoring strategy and measures that follow, which are based on the national strategy described in Keeping It Wild, includes an evaluation of current conditions and a plan for monitoring long-term trends in wilderness. Accompanying this report is a Wilderness Character Monitoring Database with entries specific to this refuge.

Florida Keys Wilderness (McCarter 2012)

_________________________________________________________________________________


Setting of the Florida Keys Wilderness Geographic Setting

The Florida Keys Wilderness is comprised of twenty-eight keys and mangrove islands that are within the boundaries of three national wildlife refuges: National Key Deer, Great White Heron, and Key West National Wildlife Refuges. The refuges’ approved acquisition boundaries cover vast amounts of land and water extending nearly 75 miles from the Seven Mile Bridge west to the Marquesas Keys. The islands and surrounding waters of these refuges, which include designated wilderness, are colloquially called ‘the backcountry.’ This geography presents a unique challenge to management and operation of the Lower Keys Refuges. Boat access to the majority of islands is dependent on weather and tides, and requires local knowledge and planning.

The Lower Florida Keys backcountry islands range in size from less than one acre to over

900 acres (i.e., Howe Key) with most keys less than 100 acres. The islands of Great White Heron NWR stretch gulf side of from north of Key West to East Bahia Honda Key. National Key Deer Refuge encompasses islands on both the Atlantic and gulf side from Cudjoe Key to the Seven Mile Bridge (note: the eastern portion of Great White Heron NWR over laps with the National Key Deer NWR, as shown in the Figure 1). West of Key West and accessible only by boat, Key West NWR consists of the Marquesas Keys and 13 other keys scattered over 375 square miles of open water. The chain of islands comprising the Marquesas Keys, approximately 20 miles from Key West, constitutes the most distant location of refuge lands from the mainline keys (islands linked by U. S. Highway 1).

Figure 1. Administrative boundaries and years of designation for the three Lower Keys National Wildlife Refuges

(USFWS)

_________________________________________________________________________________


Ecological Setting

The Florida Keys are a disturbance-based ecosystem, affected periodically by wind and flooding events associated with hurricanes, drought, and fire. Due to the small size of the islands, flat topography, low elevation, depth to groundwater, close proximity to the sea, and geological substrate, very slight differences in elevation yield marked differences in plant communities. Major cover types of the Florida Keys Wilderness include pine rockland, tropical hardwood hammock, freshwater wetlands, salt marsh transition, mangrove forest, inland salt ponds, beach ridge hammock, and beach and dune. Each of these major cover types includes multiple plant communities, providing for a diverse mosaic of habitats across the island landscapes.

Pine rockland (USFWS)

The pine rockland is a globally imperiled plant community found only in southern

Florida and the Bahamas, and represents less than 3 percent of its original extent due to logging, development, and significant ecological degradation. Most of the pine rockland is found on non-wilderness islands of the National Key Deer Refuge; however this habitat is also found on Little Pine Key within the Florida Keys Wilderness of Great White Heron/National Key Deer Refuges. This fire-dependent ecosystem has the highest plant diversity of all plant communities in the Florida Keys with a total of 250 species of plants identified in the pine rocklands of south Florida and the Lower Keys. Pine rocklands consist of an open canopy of slash pines (Pinus elliottii) with patchy understory and groundcover layers. Prescribed fire is the primary management tool used to maintain this unique community. While prescribed fire has been used on Little Pine Key in the past, the most current Fire Management Plan discourages the use of prescribed fire and promotes a natural fire regime because of its designation as wilderness.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Gumbo-limbo (Bursera simaruba) and Florida butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), plants found in the tropical

hardwood hammock of the Florida Keys (McCarter 2012) Tropical hardwood hammocks are another globally imperiled habitat. Most of the

tropical hardwood hammocks are found on non-wilderness islands of the National Key Deer Refuge, but small hammocks occur on a few wilderness backcountry islands within the Great White Heron/National Key Deer Refuges. This habitat occurs on uplands two to eight feet above sea level and are hardwood forests consisting of a wide diversity of evergreen and semi-deciduous trees and shrubs, many of West Indian origin. Human development has severely reduced and fragmented this habitat in the Florida Keys, deleteriously affecting forest nesting birds and fruit foragers, such as the state-listed white-crowned pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala).

Beach ridge hammocks occur on high sand berms, within a few feet above sea level,

created by storm surge and wind events. Beach ridge hammocks normally have relatively low plant diversity with a sparse understory, which may contain limber caper (Capparis flexuosac), Bahama nightshade (Solanum bahamense), and blackbead (Pithecellobium spp.), the host plant for the endangered Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri). Of all berm hammocks in Key West NWR, elevation is highest (6.5 to 10 feet) and size greatest on the northwest side of the Marquesas Keys. Within this hammock is the only viable population of yellowheart trees (Zanthoxylum flavum) in the United States.

Freshwater wetlands of the Lower

Florida Keys occur in shallow basins or lowlands either surrounded by higher upland forests or between upland areas and transition zones. Freshwater wetlands on Little Pine and Howe Keys in the Florida Keys Wilderness within the Great White Heron/National Key Deer Refuges contain freshwater year-round. Permanent freshwater wetlands are lacking in the Key West NWR, however ephemeral puddling of rainwater occurs on a very small scale where limestone caprock is exposed on Boca Grande Key.

Freshwater solution hole (USFWS)

_________________________________________________________________________________


Salt marsh (USFWS)

Salt marsh communities consist of halophytic (salt tolerant) species that have developed

biological and physiological mechanisms to adjust to a range in environmental conditions. In the Lower Keys, salt marsh transition communities occur primarily in the elevation transition zone between coastal mangrove forests and upland hardwood hammocks and pine rockland forests. The salt marsh transition community is used by a variety of resident and transient taxa and is an important habitat for the endangered Lower Keys marsh rabbit ((Sylvilagus palustris hefneri). Salt marsh is present on backcountry wilderness islands in the Great White Heron/National Key Deer Refuges.

Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) foraging on coastal mangrove (USFWS)

Mangrove islands comprise much of the wilderness-designated acreage in the Florida

Keys Wilderness. Mangrove communities range from tall, coastal forest to low, dense scrub communities, each variety providing different physical habitats, topology, niches, microclimates, and food sources for a diverse assemblage of animals. This community type is dominated by black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), or red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle). Elevation ranges from shallow submerged land to about four inches above sea level. The roots of these trees are usually either constantly submerged or inundated daily by the tides. Mangrove communities provide many ecosystem functions and are among the most biologically productive ecosystems in the world. Mangroves provide shoreline protection for the Florida Keys by acting as wave attenuation barriers for all points landward and

_________________________________________________________________________________


buffering the action of waves and storm surges. Mangroves assist in trapping and cycling various organic materials, chemical elements, and nutrients throughout the interconnected reef-seagrass-mangrove system. They are areas of carbon sequestration; mangroves remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it as carbon in plant materials and soils. Mangroves provide attachment surfaces for marine organisms which also filter water and cycle nutrients and provide food and nursery grounds for a multitude of economically important fish species. Mangrove tree canopies serve as rookeries, or nesting areas, for coastal birds including brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), great white herons (Ardea herodias occidentalis), and white-crowned pigeons.

Salt ponds are high-salinity, non-vegetated, shallow-water areas of at least an acre in size that occur landward of mangroves. Large salt ponds (greater than 3 acres) are found on the wilderness islands of Barracouta and Boca Grande Keys in the Key West NWR. The salt pond on Boca Grande Key is used year-round by wading birds and seasonally by piping plovers (Charadrius melodus), white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), black-necked stilts (Himantopus mexicanus), least terns (Sternula antillarum), royal terns (Thalasseus maximus), and sandwich terns (Thalasseus sandvicensis).

Salt pond (USFWS)

Beach and dune of the Florida Keys Wilderness (McCarter 2012)

The beach and dune communities are closest to the high-energy shoreline. Beaches,

formed primarily of calcareous remains from various shallow water marine organisms, are found on the wilderness islands of Man, Woman, Marquesas, and Boca Grande Keys in the Key West NWR. About 25 miles from Key West, an extensive network of low energy beaches and dunes characterizes the Marquesas Keys. Most of the beaches are accessible at high tide.

Climate of the Lower Florida Keys is characterized as Tropical-Maritime with a mean

annual temperature of about 25 degrees C (77 degrees F). The Florida Keys experience the highest level of solar radiation in the State of Florida. The southern latitude and maritime influences contribute to minimal seasonal variation. The coldest average monthly temperature, 20.5 degrees C (68.9 degrees F), occurs during January and the warmest mean monthly temperature, 28.8 degrees C (83.8 degrees F), occurs in August. Very low temperatures are unusual due to the moderating effects of the Florida current. Annual precipitation totals about 39

_________________________________________________________________________________


inches. Rainfall is seasonal with wet periods extending from May through October. There are two peaks in rainfall, the first in June and the second in September-October. The Florida Keys are within an area with high probability for tropical storms (39-74 mph winds) and hurricanes (greater than 74 mph winds). There is a one in seven chance of a hurricane striking the Keys in any given year. Prevailing winds are from the east, varying from due east in fall to east-southeast in spring and summer. Wind speeds average 10 to 12 mph.

Fossilized remnants of coral (McCarter 2012)

The geology of the Lower Florida Keys is very unique compared to the rest of Florida.

The islands are the fossilized remnants of coral reefs and sandbars that flourished during a period of higher sea levels. Today these remnants are known as Key Largo limestone and Miami oolite. Both Key Largo limestone and Miami oolite were in the process of being formed until about 100,000 years ago when sea levels dropped during the Wisconsin Glaciation. Miami oolite overlays the Key Largo limestone formation. Miami oolite was formed 125,000-100,000 years ago during the Pleistocene era in a high energy, shallow water environment containing an abundance of calcium carbonate. On some islands (e.g., Little Pine Key), this formation has been exposed and partially dissolved by rainfall and is characterized by numerous vertical solution holes. Any soils that are present are thin. Elevations range from sea level for many of the inundated mangrove islands (e.g., Little Crane Key) to a few feet above sea level (e.g., pine rocklands on Little Pine Key).

Water resources of the Florida Keys backcountry are dominated by a marine

environment. A complex network of narrow tidal creeks dissects many of the small mangrove islands throughout most of the Great White Heron NWR and among the Marquesas Keys in Key West NWR. There are four tides each day, two high and two low, although the degree of these tides is affected greatly by location. Lower Keys mean tide range is about 1.3 feet; spring tide range is about three feet.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Figure 2. Map of the Florida Keys Wilderness (USFWS)

_________________________________________________________________________________


History of Establishing the Florida Keys Wilderness

Congress designated wilderness areas in the Lower Florida Keys Refuges on January 3, 1975 (Public Law 93-632) to be managed under the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 890.892: 16 U.S.C. 1132). The original Florida Keys Wilderness was comprised of 4,740 acres including 2,019 acres in Key West NWR and 2,721 acres in the Great White Heron/National Key Deer Refuges. In 1882, Congress removed 25 acres of wilderness on Raccoon Key in exchange for 73 acres of new wilderness near Cudjoe Key (Public Law 97-211) to address an unresolved compatibility issue (Raccoon Key was used by the Charles River Breeding Laboratories to raise free-roaming rhesus monkeys for medical research). Accordingly, the Florida Keys Wilderness today comprises a total of 4,788 acres (note: the Lower Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan [2009] incorrectly states that the Florida Keys Wilderness totals 6,200 acres, but that figure double counted the wilderness acreage found on the same islands within the overlapping boundaries of Great White Heron NWR and National Key Deer Refuge).

The waters and submerged lands below the mean high tide line seaward that are found

within the boundaries of all of the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges are owned by the State of Florida and since 1990 have been co-managed by the State and NOAA as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. In 1992, the Service entered into a Management Agreement with the State of Florida that authorizes certain measures to be implemented within the state-owned waters to minimize wildlife disturbance and habitat destruction from non-wildlife-dependent recreational activities (this Management Agreement is also known as the Backcountry Management Plan). It prohibits personal watercraft, airboats, water skiing, hovercraft, and aircraft landings within the majority of Key West and Great White Heron NWRs. It also established idle speed, no motor, and no access buffer zones near critical wildlife habitats. These zones were subsequently incorporated as Wildlife Management Areas in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’s General Management Plan (1997). Actions to prevent or minimize the destruction or loss of marine resources are implemented under the State of Florida’s sovereign submerged land regulations and the National Marine Sanctuary Act. These zones and regulations are important for the character of the Florida Keys Wilderness because activity that occurs in marine waters surrounding wilderness islands impact land-based wilderness resources.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Refuge Purposes

The purposes of the refuges come from the executive orders and subsequent laws Congress passed as it established each refuge. There are also specific purposes Congress designated for managing the Refuge System as a whole. Each of the three refuges that comprise the Florida Keys Wilderness has different enabling legislation and purposes. This wilderness character monitoring plan has been designed with consideration of the distinct purposes of each refuge. The purposes of the refuges are as follows: Key West National Wildlife Refuge

• “... a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” Executive Order 923 dated August 8, 1908.

• “... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.” 16 U.S.C. 667b (An Act authorizing the transfer of certain real property for wildlife, or other purposes).

• “…so as to provide protection of these areas…and to ensure…the preservation of their wilderness character….” (Wilderness Act of 1964, Public Law 88-577)

Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge

• “... as a refuge and breeding ground for great white herons [white phase of the great blue heron], other migratory birds and other wildlife.” Executive Order 7993, dated Oct 27, 1938.

• “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)

• “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species .... or (B) plants ....” 16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

• “... suitable for–(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors....” 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 [Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended]

• “…so as to provide protection of these areas…and to ensure…the preservation of their wilderness character.…” (Wilderness Act of 1964, Public Law 88-577)

National Key Deer National Wildlife Refuge

• “... to protect and preserve in the national interest the Key deer and other wildlife resources in the Florida Keys.” 71 Stat. 412, dated Aug. 22, 1957

• “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species .... or (B) plants....” 16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)

• “... suitable for–(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species....” 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive

_________________________________________________________________________________


covenants imposed by donors....” 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 [Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended]

• “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources ....” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude....” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

• “... conservation, management, and … restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats … for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans....” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

• “…so as to provide protection of these areas…and to ensure…the preservation of their wilderness character.…” (Wilderness Act of 1964, Public Law 88-577)

The primary mission of the Lower Florida Keys Refuges, as stated in the Comprehensive

Conservation Plan (2009), is to maintain the population viability and prevent the extinction of species by managing the ecosystems in which they reside, pursuant to the original purposes for establishing the refuges and trust responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. The Lower Florida Keys Refuges provide habitat for 22 threatened and endangered species, as well as 9 federal candidate species.

Big Pine Partridge pea (Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis); Federal Candidate species (McCarter 2012)

_________________________________________________________________________________


Documents Consulted

The documents that follow were primarily useful in providing background information to the intricacies of the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges. Information from these documents was used to write the background sections of this report as well as the context descriptions of each measure. These documents, along with interviews with refuge staff, were the main sources used to help identify measures and also supplied data for some of the measures.

• Lower Florida Keys Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2009), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Management Agreement for Submerged Lands Within Boundaries of the Key West and

Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuges (1992), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [This document is locally known as the Backcountry Management Plan]

• The Florida Keys Environmental Story: A Panorama of the Environment, Culture, and

History of Monroe County, Florida (1997), Dan Gallagher

• Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report (2011), Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• An Assessment of the Archaeological and Historic Resources of the Florida Keys (1988), The Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.

• Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges Annual Narratives (All years that referred to the wilderness, 1969-2000), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

[A compilation of all the references to wilderness in annual narratives was created and stored on the shared drive, S:\Annual Narratives as “Wilderness Compilation - Annual Narratives”]

Staff Consulted

• Anne Morkill, Complex Manager • Thomas Wilmers, Wildlife Biologist • Chad Anderson, Wildlife Biologist • Erica Henry, Researcher, North Carolina State University • Phillip Hughes, Ecologist • Kate Perry, Biological Technician • Steve Berger, Law Enforcement

_________________________________________________________________________________


Process Used for Identifying Measures

My first weeks at the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges were spent introducing refuge staff to my project and utilizing all resources and avenues to best understand the dynamics of the Florida Keys and the roles of the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges. I gave a presentation to refuge staff about wilderness character monitoring and the tasks that I would be accomplishing during my time there. This provided an opportunity for several refuge staff to give suggestions on which measures could be included in the monitoring protocol. I also had individual meetings with refuge staff, including the complex manager and refuge biologists, so that I could assess what refuge monitoring priorities were as well as data sources. I also visited wilderness islands with a wildlife biologist within my first few days of working. During this time I was reading refuge documents (see ‘Documents Consulted’). These provided insight into the field work being conducted on the refuge and provided an introduction to some of the unique issues in the Florida Keys Wilderness.

The timing of my arrival also served as a unique advantage; within the first week of my

arrival to the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, I participated in joint public scoping meetings that were held to review upcoming revisions to NOAA’s marine zoning and regulations and the USFWS’s Backcountry Management Plan. These meetings were greatly useful in introducing me to high-priority issues affecting backcountry islands and surrounding marine waters and also helped me understand what federal agencies’ and the public’s priorities were with the management of the Florida Keys wilderness islands.

Throughout this introductory and research period, I was drafting a list of measures. As I

met with refuge staff (via formal and informal meetings in the field) this list was refined according to how practical each measure was, the availability and acquirement of data for each measure, and how important measures were to refuge staff and to the character of the Florida Keys Wilderness (see ‘Measures Not Used’ and ‘Prioritizing Measures Worksheet’).

Once I had an ample understanding of monitoring priorities of the Florida Keys

Wilderness, I scheduled meetings with appropriate refuge staff (primarily the refuge/complex manager and refuge biologists) to discuss specific measures based on each staff’s expertise. These meetings allowed me to further refine measure definitions and provided me with baseline data. Measures were added or eliminated based on data availability, reliability, and reasonableness.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Measures Used

Because of a wide diversity in habitat types and communities among the islands of the Florida Keys Wilderness, twenty-three measures were selected to determine trends in the wilderness’ character over time. Some measures speak only to an element or condition found on one or few islands, but was considered important enough to the character of the entire wilderness to be included as a measure. Other measures speak more broadly about conditions that could occur and change over all the islands. See the descriptions of each measure for a detailed explanation about the area to which each measure applies.

Many measures were adapted from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (Forest Service) Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character (2009) or the Bureau of Land Management’s Measuring Attributes of Wilderness Character: BLM Implementation Guide Version 1.5 (year unknown).

For each measure a weight, significant change, and data adequacy is assigned. The “weight” of a measure 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%. The “significant change” tells how much a measure’s data point must change from a previous data entry to suggest a change in trend of wilderness character for that measure. Weights significant changes for each measure were assigned by the wilderness fellow and approved by the refuge manager.

Data adequacy is evaluated and reported for all the measures in this report. 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 downward trend in a particular indicator and the data adequacy is deemed “low,” these factors 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 quantity is subjectively evaluated for each measure and assigned one of three categories:

1. 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. Similarly, to assess visitor use, all islands were inventoried. This category is represented graphically by a solid left half-circle.

2. Partial. This category indicates a moderate degree of confidence that all data records have been gathered. 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. Similarly, visitor use was assessed at selected islands. This category is represented graphically by a left half-circle with a thick horizontal line in the middle.

3. Insufficient. This category indicates a low degree of confidence that all records have been gathered. For example, no inventory for nonindigenous invasive plants has been conducted, and visitor use was not assessed anywhere. This category is represented graphically by an empty left half-circle.

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 quality is subjectively evaluated for each measure and assigned one of three categories:

1. 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. This category is represented graphically by a solid right half-circle.

2. 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. This category is represented graphically by a right half-circle with a thick horizontal line in the middle.

3. 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. This category is represented graphically by an empty right half-circle.

Data Adequacy Data Quantity Data Quality

Complete Partial Insufficient High Moderate Low

Graphical representation of the different categories of data quantity and data quality.

After a thorough description of each measure, the 2012 baseline data is included.

_________________________________________________________________________________


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

Monitoring Question

Indicator Measure Data Adequacy 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. Total acreage (per island) receiving larvicide for mosquito control

33%

1-2. Days (per island) entomological technicians inspected/set traps for mosquito surveillance on wilderness islands per year

33%

1-3. Gallons of herbicide used to control invasive exotic plants in wilderness

34%

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

1-4. Index of user-created trails and clearings

100%

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 1-1] Total acreage (per island) receiving larvicide for mosquito control Context: The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District is charged, under Florida Statute 388, with maintaining mosquito populations at levels low enough to permit economic development and to safeguard the public health of District residents. The benefits of mosquito control include the control of nuisance mosquitoes and protection of public health. The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District has been authorized under a Special Use Permit to conduct mosqutio larvicide missions on offshore wilderness islands of the National Key Deer/Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuges since 2003. The objective of these missions is to reduce the mosquito population using a more environmentally-friendly insecticide in order to effectively minimize the need to apply adulticides adjacent to human-inhabited islands where the more toxic broad spectrum insecticides impact several non-target butterfly species. All larvicidal treatments were done using either Vectobac G or Vectobac GS, granular bacterial larvicides (Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis, also known as Bti). Depending on the size of the breeding area, the larvicide was applied either by hand or by helicopter.

Figure 3. Backcountry refuge islands where mosquito surveillance and mosquito larvicide application is permitted.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Description: This measure is a reporting of the total wilderness acreage receiving Bti larvicide treatment by ground (hand) and aerially (helicopter) that is reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service by the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District each year as a requirement of its annual Special Use Permit. The total acreage that each island is treated for the entire year is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database. Data Source: A Progress Report From The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District To The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2011), Florida Keys Mosquito Control District. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: All records of larvicide application to wilderness are known and reported to the refuge. Acreage is accurately recorded, therefore the quality of this data is high. Significant Change: It was determined that an increase or decrease of the acres treated with larvicide by 25% would cause a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character. Notes

• This data is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database annually. • The acreage reported by this measure includes multiple treatments to the same acres.

Data – Florida Keys Wilderness Table 1. Total wilderness acreage receiving Bti larvicide treatment by ground (hand) and aerially (helicopter).

Wilderness Island 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Annette Key 2082 2183 915 1313 1666 1539 1482

Horseshoe Key 0 16 44 11 0 28 10

Howe Key 704 919 965 1000 1907 1676 1545

Little Pine Key 2768 3297 2336 2887 2378 2574 3537

Middle Johnson Key 0 43 0 0 36 0 400

Water Key 794 993 831 1152 1300 1440 1075

Total 6348 7451 5091 6363 7287 7257 8049

*2012 Baseline Data will be reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service by the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District each year as a requirement of its annual Special Use Permit.

Data to date was unknown and therefore a placeholder could not be put into the database.

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 1-2] Days (per island) entomological technicians inspected/set traps for mosquito surveillance on wilderness islands per year Context: The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District is charged, under Florida Statute 388, with maintaining mosquito populations at levels low enough to permit economic development and to safeguard the public health of District residents. The benefits of mosquito control include the control of nuisance mosquitoes and protection of public health. The Florida Keys Mosquito Control has been authorized under a Special Use Permit to conduct mosquito surveillance on offshore wilderness islands of the National Key Deer/Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuges since 2003. Based on the results of their surveillance, a larvicide mission (Measure 1-1) may be triggered. For surveillance purposes, dry-ice (CO2) baited light traps were placed on both the offshore islands as well as on human-inhabited islands once a week. Description: This measure is a reporting of the days entomological technicians inspected/set traps on wilderness islands that is reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service by the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District each year as a requirement of its annual Special Use Permit. The total days that each island is visited by technicians for the entire year is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database. Data Source: A Progress Report From The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District To The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2011), Florida Keys Mosquito Control District. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: All records of entomological technician visits to wilderness are known and reported to the refuge. Visits are accurately recorded, therefore the quality of this data is high. Significant Change: It was determined that an increase or decrease of the number of days that mosquito control technicians set traps by 25% would cause a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character. Notes

• This data is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database annually. • The days reported by this measure includes multiple islands visited during the same

day, therefore this number will likely be higher than 365.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness Table 2. Days (per island) entomological technicians inspected/set traps for mosquito surveillance on wilderness islands per year.

Wilderness Island 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Annette Key 130 117 107 100 129 107 127

Horseshoe Key 51 52 52 41 60 30 54

Howe Key 78 70 68 61 75 64 85

Little Pine Key 124 113 101 105 129 100 149

Middle Johnson Key 2 16 24 10 12 1 7

Water Keys 123 106 99 96 118 105 147

Total 508 474 451 413 523 407 569

*2012 Baseline Data will be reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service by the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District each year as a requirement of its annual Special Use Permit.

Data to date was unknown and therefore a placeholder could not be put into the database.

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 1-3] Gallons of herbicide used to control invasive exotic plants in wilderness Context: The first year of monitoring this will be 2012 when an invasive species control crew comes to work in the backcountry. Light chemical treatment of invasive exotic plants in the wilderness has been conducted regularly, but the refuge hasn't been tracking these applications on a wilderness scale. Use of herbicides is reported annually as per the Pesticide Use Policy, but this data is lumped for each refuge; therefore, specific use on wilderness islands has not been delineated before now. Exotic plants that are treated in the Florida Keys Wilderness include leatherleaf (Colubrina asiatica), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia), lead tree (Leucaena leucocephala), seaside mahoe (Thespesia populnea), beach naupaka (Scaevola sericea), and bowstring hemp (Sansevieria hyacinthoides). Description: A reporting of the gallons of herbicide used to control exotics in wilderness. Data Source: Refuge biologist. If data is compiled in a report, this source should be cited here. Data Adequacy: Data adequacy is expected to be high. All herbicide use in wilderness will be tracked to the nearest gallon. Significant Change: It was determined that an increase or decrease of herbicide use in wilderness by 25% would cause a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character. Interpreting changes in data as a shifting trend in wilderness character should be done on an individual basis. Notes

• Data in this measure should be monitored and recorded in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database annually.

• An increase in the data for this measure should cause a decrease in the data for the measure monitoring invasive plant abundance and distribution, thus having an overall ‘offsetting stable’ trend in wilderness character for these two measures. Trends should be tracked appropriately.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 3. Gallons of herbicide used to control invasive exotic plants in wilderness.

Refuge Wilderness Island Name Gallons of

Herbicide Used

Key

Wes

t NW

R

Marquesas Keys Boca Grande Key Woman Key Little Mullet Key Cottrell Key Big Mullet Key Archer Key Barracouta Keys Mule Key Joe Ingram Key Crawfish Key Man Key

Gre

at W

hite

Her

on /

Nat

iona

l Key

Dee

r NW

R

Little Swash Keys Water Keys

Howe Key Cutoe Key Big Spanish Key Little Spanish Key Annette Key Mayo Key Little Pine Key Mangrove Little Pine Key Water Key Johnson Keys Horseshoe Keys West Bahia Honda Key

*2012 Baseline Data will be complete at the end of the calendar year and should be recorded in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database after December, 2012.

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 1-4] Index of user-created trails and clearings Context: Most of the wilderness islands are closed to public access to protect the sensitive wildlife resources or they are virtually inaccessible because they are mangrove islands. However, portions of Boca Grande, Woman, and the Marquesas Keys in Key West NWR are open to wildlife-dependent recreations uses by the public. Boca Grande Key has a chronic history of public use problems, including vegetation clearing to create illegal campsites. This trammeling is especially impactful on this island because Boca Grande harbors three species of nesting sea turtles as well as wintering piping plovers. Such trammeling has improved since the creation of the Backcountry Management Plan (1992), but problems persist. Clearings not only trammel plant species when they are created, but may mislead wilderness visitors to believe such clearings are designated campsites.

Mosquito control staff also create trails in wilderness islands in the National Key Deer/Great White Heron NWRs, but these trails are hard to distinguish from Key deer trails and therefore are not included in this measure. The impact by mosquito control staff to the untrammeled quality of wilderness is adequately captured by the measure monitoring the days entomological technicians set traps in wilderness per year (Measure 1-2). Description: Each trail or clearing is classified by its size according to the table below. A score is assigned according to the trail/clearing size. The score for each trail/clearing is summed. This sum is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database.

Trail/ Clearing

Size (square feet)

Score

< 200 sq. ft. 1 200-1000 sq. ft. 2

>1000 sq. ft. 3 Data Source: Refuge biologist. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: All wilderness islands were visited to assess for trail and clearing presence. Confidence in the quality of the data is high within the coverage categories assigned for this measure. Significant Change: Any additional trail or clearing or any reduction in size of present trails and clearings would be a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character. Notes

• The use of broad categories is a crude measure, but it is unlikely that most wilderness areas have more accurate data on the abundance and distribution of these species. It should be possible to use field experience coupled with professional judgment to assign broad categories.

_________________________________________________________________________________


• Data for this measure will be gathered every five years, though proper stewardship will require far more frequent monitoring.

• These sites should be visited in 5 years to assess whether natural re-growth has reduced the size of these clearings.

• An increase in this value over time could be caused by actions not under the control of a wilderness manager, but nonetheless impacts the untrammeled character of the wilderness.

Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 4. Index of user-created trails and clearings.

Location Type (Trail/Clearing) Size Score Total

Woman Key clearing <200 sq. ft. 1 1

Boca Grande

clearing <200 sq. ft. 1 3 clearing <200 sq. ft. 1

clearing <200 sq. ft. 1

Marquesas

clearing <200 sq. ft. 1

6 clearing <200 sq. ft. 1 clearing <200 sq. ft. 1 clearing >1000 sq. ft. 3

Data Source: Thomas Wilmers, refuge biologist.

2012 Baseline Data: 10

Clearings on Boca Grande Key (USFWS)

_________________________________________________________________________________


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

Monitoring Question

Indicator Measure Data Adequacy Weight

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

Plant and animal species and communities

2-1. Index of the percent of wilderness acreage that is occupied by invasive exotic plant species

25%

2-2. Presence of invasive exotic animal species on wilderness islands

25%

2-3. Presence of keystone indigenous plant species

25%

2-4. Index of the status of select indigenous animal species

25%

Physical resources

2-5. Air quality: Ozone air pollution

20%

2-6. Air quality: Total nitrogen wet deposition

20%

2-7. Air quality: Total sulfur wet deposition

20%

2-8. Air quality: Visibility

20%

2-9. Eutrophic condition of marine sanctuary waters surrounding

20%

_________________________________________________________________________________


wilderness islands Biophysical processes

2-10. Index of the status of plant communities and cover types

50%

2-11. Cumulative change at dune erosion measurement sites

50%

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 2-1] Index of the percent of wilderness acreage that is occupied by invasive exotic plant species Context: At present, invasive exotic plant distribution in wilderness is sparse. Within the natural communities of the wilderness where they do exist, invasive exotic plants displace native species and alter ecosystem structure and functions. Non-native plants that occur in the Florida Keys Wilderness include leatherleaf (Colubrina asiatica), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia), lead tree (Leucaena leucocephala), seaside mahoe (Thespesia populnea), beach naupaka (Scaevola sericea), and bowstring hemp (Sansevieria hyacinthoides). There is some concern among refuge staff that an exotic mangrove species that was discovered and is currently contained in Miami (120 miles north) may eventually pose a threat to the Florida Keys Wilderness in the future. Description: Each wilderness island is scored by the estimated percent of wilderness acreage that is occupied by invasive exotic plant species. Values are assigned according to the table below. Scores for each wilderness island are summed to generate a total score for the entire wilderness. This sum is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database.

Wilderness Island

Estimated percent of the wilderness on which non-

native plants are found

Score

None = 0% 0 Very Low (or Spot) = <1% 1 Low = 1-5% 2 Moderate = 5-20% 3 High = 20-35% 4 Very High = 35-65% 5 Extreme = >65% 6

Data Source: Refuge biologist. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: All wilderness islands were visited by refuge biologist to assess invasive exotic plant distribution. Since the percentage of the distribution of non-natives on each wilderness island is estimated, confidence in the quality of the data is moderate within the coverage categories assigned for this measure. Significant Change: It was determined that if the extent of non-native plants increases from no or very low abundance and distribution (non-natives found on less than 1% of an island, a score of 0 or 1, the baseline condition) to moderate abundance and distribution (non-natives found on 5-20% of a wilderness island, a score of 3), this would be significant enough to be considered a degradation of wilderness character. On the contrary, if an island’s non-native plants are eradicated or go from a higher percentage category to any lower percentage category, this would be an improvement of wilderness character. Interpreting changes in data as a shifting trend in wilderness character should be done on an individual basis.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Notes • Once data are initially collected, periodic review and updates every 5 years should be

sufficient to track changes over time, but more frequent monitoring may be appropriate to prioritize management actions.

• Over time, an increase in this value is a decrease in this indicator of wilderness character.

The use of broad categories is a crude measure, but it is unlikely that most wilderness areas have more accurate data on the extent of invasive species. It should be possible to use field experience coupled with professional judgment to assign broad categories. However, initial data collection should be as complete as possible in order to reliably identify trends over time.

This methodology makes no distinction as to the relative threats of the various species present. Such determinations are advisable prior to taking control actions.

Invasive exotic plant species can spread into a wilderness from natural transport (e.g. birds, wind, ocean currents) or from human-caused actions not in the wilderness. An increase in the number of invasive exotic plant species over time could be caused by actions not under the control of a wilderness manager, but is an impact to naturalness nonetheless.

Wilderness islands with no uplands (i.e. mangrove islands), and therefore no opportunity for invasive plant establishment, are not included in monitoring.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 5. Index of the percent of each wilderness island that is occupied by invasive exotic plant species

Refuge Wilderness Island

Name

Estimated Percent of the wilderness on which non-native plants are found

Areal Extent Score

Key

Wes

t NW

R

Marquesas Keys <0.001 1 Boca Grande Key <0.001 1 Woman Key <0.001 1 Little Mullet Key 0 – No Uplands NA Cottrell Key 0 – No Uplands NA Big Mullet Key 0 – No Uplands NA Archer Key 0 – No Uplands NA Barracouta Keys 0 – No Uplands NA Mule Key 0 0 Joe Ingram Key 0 – No Uplands NA Crawfish Key <0.001 1 Man Key <0.001 1

Gre

at W

hite

Her

on /

Nat

iona

l Key

Dee

r NW

R Little Swash Keys 0 – No Uplands NA

Water Keys <0.001 1 Howe Key <0.001 1 Cutoe Key 0 – No Uplands NA Big Spanish Key 0 – No Uplands NA Little Spanish Key 0 – No Uplands NA Annette Key <0.001 1 Mayo Key <0.001 1 Little Pine Key Mangrove 0 – No Uplands NA Little Pine Key <0.001 1 Water Key <0.001 1 Johnson Keys <0.001 1 Horseshoe Keys <0.001 1 West Bahia Honda Key 0 – No Uplands NA


2012 Baseline: 13

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 2-2] Presence of invasive exotic animal species on wilderness islands Context: Invasive exotic animal species are present on virtually every island in the Florida Keys Wilderness. These opportunistic species are even able to survive on mangrove islands with no uplands. Non-native animals in the Florida Keys Wilderness include the green iguana (Iguana iguana), black rat (Rattus rattus), and shiny cowbird (Molothrus bonariensis). Description: The number of invasive exotic animal species is determined for each wilderness island. A threat level score posed by these species is also assigned for each wilderness island that hosts non-native animal species according to the table below. Threats considered include those posed to the critical habitat and/or food sources of sensitive and/or rare species; terrestrial, aquatic, and atmospheric natural resources and processes; etc. The number of non-natives species present on a wilderness island is multiplied by this score. The resulting products for each island are summed to generate a total score for the entire wilderness. This sum is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database.

Wilderness Island

Number of Non-Native Animal Species Present

Threat Level

Score Total

Low/ None

1

Medium 2 High 3

Definitions

• Low/None: species considered together pose no or a low threat to the character of the wilderness on that particular wilderness island.

• Medium: species considered together pose a moderate threat to the character of the wilderness on that particular wilderness island.

• High: species considered together pose a great threat to the character of the wilderness on that particular wilderness island.

Data Source: Refuge biologist. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: For some wilderness islands, non-native animal presence is not known. Therefore, data quantity is not complete. For islands that data is known, the confidence in this data is high based on sightings and nesting activity. Significant Change: Any true change (increase or decrease) in the number of non-native animal species or the threats that these species pose to wilderness character would be significant enough to indicate a change in trend of wilderness character. However, because the accuracy of this data is not high and the species presence for each island is not complete, a range in what would be considered stable was determined based on the baseline value. Any numbers reported outside of

_________________________________________________________________________________


this range would be an improvement or degradation of wilderness character. Interpreting changes in data as a shifting trend in wilderness character should be done on an individual basis.

Score: < 21 21-27 > 27 Trend: Improving Stable Degrading

Notes

• Once data are initially collected, periodic review and updates every 5 years should be sufficient to track changes over time, but more frequent monitoring may be appropriate to prioritize management actions.


• Non-indigenous invasive species can spread into a wilderness from human-caused actions not in the wilderness. An increase in the number of non-indigenous species over time could be caused by actions not under the control of a wilderness manager, but is an impact to naturalness nonetheless.

Iguana and iguana burrow in Florida Keys Wilderness (USFWS)

Iguana burrows distributed over 28 linear km in Key West NWR

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 6. Index of invasive exotic animal species present on wilderness islands

Refuge Wilderness Island

Name

Number of Non-Native

Animal Species Present

List of Species*

Threat Score

Total (# Non-Native

Species X Threat Score)

Key

Wes

t NW

R

Marquesas Keys 3 I,B,C 1 3 Boca Grande Key 2 I,B 1 2 Woman Key 1 I 1 1 Little Mullet Key 1 B 1 1 Cottrell Key 1 B 1 1 Big Mullet Key Unknown Archer Key 1 I 1 1 Barracouta Keys 2 I,B 1 2 Mule Key 1 B 1 1 Joe Ingram Key 1 B 1 1 Crawfish Key 2 I,B 1 2 Man Key 2 I,B 1 2

Gre

at W

hite

Her

on /

Nat

iona

l Key

Dee

r NW

R

Little Swash Keys Unknown Water Keys 2 I,B 1 2 Howe Key Unknown Cutoe Key Unknown Big Spanish Key Unknown Little Spanish Key Unknown Annette Key 1 B 1 1 Mayo Key 1 B 1 1 Little Pine Key Mangrove Unknown Little Pine Key Unknown Water Key 1 B 1 1 Johnson Keys 1 B 1 1 Horseshoe Keys 1 B 1 1 West Bahia Honda Key Unknown B 1

Data Source: Thomas Wilmers, refuge biologist. * I = Green Iguana, B = Black Rat, C = Shiny Cowbird

2012 Baseline: 24

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 2-3] Presence of keystone indigenous plant species Context: To capture the status and trends of indigenous plant communities in the Florida Keys Wilderness, three “keystone” plants were selected for monitoring: (1) sea oats (Uniola paniculata), a common stabilizing dune plant; (2) bay cedar (Suriana maritima), another dune plant; and (3) yellowheart (Zanthoxylum flavum), a state listed endangered plant only found on one island in the Florida Keys Wilderness. Plant species were chosen for monitoring based on their high relevance to the natural character of the Florida Keys Wilderness. Threats to these species and their habitat are primarily from sea level rise and increased storm surges associated with climate change. Description: Presence and absence of each species on each wilderness island is recorded. The number of islands on which each species is found is summed to generate a number that represents an index of the total presence of all three keystone species throughout the Florida Keys Wilderness. This sum is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database. Definitions

• Indigenous: a species which originally inhabited the area now designated as wilderness. • Extirpated: an indigenous species which no longer exists in this wilderness, but is

believed to still exist elsewhere. Data Source: Refuge biologists. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: All data records have been gathered for each species chosen for monitoring in this measure. A simple record of the presence/absence of these species on each wilderness island makes for high confidence in the quality of the data. Significant Change: Any change in this data would be a significant enough impact to be interpreted as a change in trend of wilderness character. Notes

• Data for this report will be gathered every five years, though proper stewardship will require far more frequent monitoring. Every five years, the number of islands on which these species is found will be compared to the presence in 2012.

• Over time, a decrease in this value is a decrease in this indicator of wilderness character.

• A decrease in this value over time could be caused by actions not under the control of a wilderness manager, but nonetheless impacts naturalness.

• Changes in this reported value must be interpreted very carefully.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 7. Presence of keystone indigenous plant species on islands of the Florida Keys Wilderness.

Refuge Wilderness Island Name Sea Oats (X = Presence) Bay Cedar Yellowheart

Key

Wes

t NW

R

Marquesas Keys X X X Boca Grande Key X X Woman Key X X Little Mullet Key Cottrell Key Big Mullet Key Archer Key Barracouta Keys Mule Key Joe Ingram Key Crawfish Key Man Key X X

Gre

at W

hite

Her

on /

Nat

iona

l Key

Dee

r NW

R

Little Swash Keys Water Keys Howe Key X Cutoe Key Big Spanish Key Little Spanish Key Annette Key X Mayo Key X Little Pine Key Mangrove Little Pine Key X Water Key X Johnson Keys X Horseshoe Keys X West Bahia Honda Key

TOTAL 4 11 1 Data Source: Thomas Wilmers & Chad Anderson, refuge biologists.

2012 Baseline: 16

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 2-4] Index of the status of select indigenous animal species Context: Species were chosen based on the Refuge Complex’s long-term biological monitoring efforts. Species chosen for inclusion in wilderness character monitoring are:

• Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) • Atlantic Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) • Atlantic Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) • Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) • Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) • White Crowned Pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala) • Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) • Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri) • Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) • Magnificent Frigatebirds (Fregata magnificens) • Miami Blue Butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri) • Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens) • Great White Heron (Ardea herodias occidentalis)

White crowned pigeon (USFWS)

Key deer (McCarter 2012)

Lower Keys marsh rabbit (USFWS)

_________________________________________________________________________________


Below are summaries and excerpts from reports on current monitoring of some of the species chosen for inclusion in this measure.

Distribution and Number of Nesting Eastern Brown Pelicans in the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge, 1987-2002. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Wilmers, 2003.

The greatest habitat threat to brown pelicans is the disturbance of nesting pelicans by boaters. From 1987-2002, all islands in the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges were checked for nesting Eastern Brown Pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis carolinesis) by boat. Nesting colonies were found on only four islands: two islands in the Marquesas Keys (wilderness) and Cottrell Key (wilderness) in the Key West National Wildlife Refuge (KWNWR), and East Bahia Honda Key in Great White National Wildlife Refuge (GWHNWR).

Distribution and Number of Piping Plovers in Key West National Wildlife Refuge, 1991-2002. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Wilmers, 2003.

From 1991-2002 Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) were counted irregularly during all months in the Key West National Wildlife Refuge (wilderness). Plovers were sighted on four islands and one tidal flat, with a peak of 29 plovers observed on Woman Key. On Woman Key, disturbance of Piping Plovers by pets and humans is a chronic problem that merits immediate attention. Disturbance of wintering Piping Plovers by humans and pets is a serious management concern.

Flight-line counts of nesting white-crowned pigeons (Patagioenas leucocephala) and the impact of hurricanes in the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, 2000-2011. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Wilmers, 2011.

The white-crowned pigeon nesting population in the U.S. is limited to a single county. Flight-line counts of White-crowned Pigeon are performed to obtain an index of the number of nests. Increased frequency and severity of hurricanes and droughts caused by climate change pose great threats to white-crowned pigeons, affecting their nesting and upland foraging areas. First Record of Roseate Terns Nesting in the Key West National Wildlife Refuge: A By-Product of Hurricane Wilma. Florida Field Naturalist, Florida Ornithological Society. Wilmers & Lyons, 2007.

Hurricane Wilma (October, 2005) obliterated the sole natural Roseate Tern nesting site and one of only two active colonies that year. Shortly afterwards, it was discovered that the

_________________________________________________________________________________


hurricane had created a sand island 0.1km west of Boca Grande Key. In 2006, a Roseate Tern incubating one egg was observed on this sand island. Notes on Roosting Magnificent Frigatebirds on Selected Islands in the Key West National Wildlife Refuges, 1999. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Wilmers.

From 1969 to 1987, the sole nesting colony of nesting Magnificent Frigatebirds (Fregata magnificens) in the U.S. was in the Marquesas Keys in Key West National Wildlife Refuge (wilderness). Nesting last occurred there in 1989, when 6 nests were deserted in early March. Magnificent Frigatebirds roost monitoring continues on selected islands in the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges. Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens) use of lagoons in the lower Florida Keys. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Wilmers.

The Reddish Egret is the rarest wading bird in the U.S. It is restricted to a narrow band of coastal habitat. Substantive data on its population size and trend are lacking throughout Florida because the birds nest on mangrove islands beneath the tree canopy and cannot be seen during an aerial survey. Monitoring of the species is conducted. Distribution and Population Trend of Nesting Great White Herons (Ardea herodias occidentalis) in the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, 1986-2009. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Wilmers, 2010.

Great White Heron (Ardea herodias occidentalis) nests were monitored systematically on 42 islands in two adjacent national wildlife refuges: Key West (KWNWR) and Great White Heron (GWHNWR). Nesting occurred one or more years on 38 islands. Hurricanes Georges and Wilma severely damaged refuge islands and altered the distribution of rookeries. After the latter storm’s passage, the number of nests for 2 consecutive years was lower than that of any other year. Given an extremely limited range, a serious long-term decline in the number of nests, and a projected rise in the number of severe hurricanes, the Great White Heron is imperiled. Lower Florida Keys Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009.

Boca Grande Key and five islands in the Marquesas Keys harbor the state-endangered Miami blue butterfly. Once thought to be extinct in the United States, only a tiny population (<100 individuals) occurs outside the refuge. The refuge population

_________________________________________________________________________________


numbered more than 1,000 individuals during recent surveys (November 2006-April 2007), where it was found only in dunes and low shrubs bordering refuge beaches. During the surveys, damage to beach vegetation by human visitors was documented on Boca Grande Key and three of the Marquesas beaches. Monitoring of the Miami blue butterfly continues in conjunction with North Carolina State University.

Description: This measure monitors the population trends and threats for each species. Each species is classified by its population status and habitat threat with scores assigned by category. Scores are multiplied together for each species monitored under this measure, and the resulting products for each species are summed to generate a total score. This sum is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database.

Species Population Status

Score Habitat Threat Level

Score Total

Increasing 1 Low/ None

1

Stable 2 Medium 2 Decreasing 3 High 3 Extirpated 4

Definitions

• Indigenous: a species which originally inhabited the area now designated as wilderness. • Threatened: a species determined by federal agencies to be likely to become endangered

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. • Endangered: a species determined by federal agencies to be in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. • Increasing: species population is naturally increasing (i.e., increases are not due to a

species crowding into the wilderness because of habitat degradation elsewhere) • Stable: species population appears stable. If only presence or absence data is known,

stable would indicate presence. • Decreasing: species population is decreasing. • Extirpated: an indigenous species which no longer exists in this wilderness, but is

believed to still exist elsewhere. • Low/None: critical habitat of the species is not at risk either within the wilderness or

outside the wilderness in the immediate area • Medium: critical habitat of the species is at moderate risk either within the wilderness or

outside the wilderness in the immediate area. • High: critical habitat of the species is at high risk with improvement difficult or unlikely.

Data Source: Refuge biologists. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\).

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data Adequacy: There is a moderate degree of confidence in the quality of this data; some scores are assigned based on rigorous monitoring of the species, other scores are assigned based on best professional judgment. Significant Change: Any true change (increase or decrease) in the status and/or threats to the species chosen for monitoring would be significant enough to indicate a change in trend of wilderness character. However, since this data is based on a scoring system (which, while based on actual monitoring of the species is still subject to subjectivity), it was determined that the data would have to change by more than one integer to be considered significant. A range in what would be considered stable was determined based on the baseline value. Any numbers reported outside of this range would be an improvement or degradation of wilderness character. Interpreting changes in data as a shifting trend in wilderness character should be done on an individual basis.

Score: <56 56-66 >66 Trend: Improving Stable Degrading

_________________________________________________________________________________


Notes • Data for this report will be gathered every five years, though proper stewardship will

require far more frequent monitoring. • Data should represent species status and threat level for populations in wilderness

only. • This measure monitors the current population trends and threats for each species.

Trends for each species will be re-entered every five years and will be compared to species’ trends from the baseline year.


• The use of broad categories is a crude measure, but it is unlikely that most wilderness areas have more accurate data on the abundance and distribution of these species. It should be possible to use field experience coupled with professional judgment to assign broad categories.

• The population status and habitat threat level portions of this measure may be subjective. Status classification should be documented as completely as possible to assure adequate comparisons over time with changing staff. The ancillary information should include common and scientific names of the species included in this measure, as well as an indication as to how confident the reporting office is in the species’ status.

• A decrease in this value over time could be caused by actions not under the control of a wilderness manager, but nonetheless impacts naturalness.

• Changes in this reported value must be interpreted very carefully. As it is likely that few wilderness areas have had a complete biological survey, an increase in the value reported for this measure may well be the result of adding species to be tracked rather than deterioration in the status of already-tracked species. In addition, an increase in the score might result from a Candidate species being listed, with no change in its in-wilderness status. Therefore, interpret trends carefully.

• If a species occurs in the wilderness, but data isn’t collected on the species, the status and habitat threat level should not be estimated. Note the species in the table of listed species but do not include it in monitoring.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 8. Index of the status of select indigenous animal species

Species Listing Population

Status Score

Habitat Threat Level Score

Total (Status Score

X Habitat Score)

Data Source (refuge staff)

Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta)

THR (fed), THR (state) 3 3 9 Thomas

Wilmers Atlantic Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas)

END (fed), END (state) 1 3 3 Thomas

Wilmers Atlantic Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)

END (fed), END (state) 2 3 6 Thomas

Wilmers Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) SSC (state) 3 1 3 Thomas

Wilmers Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

THR (fed), THR (state) 2 3 6 Thomas

Wilmers White Crowned Pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala)*KWNWR

THR (state) 3 2 6 Thomas Wilmers

White Crowned Pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala)*GWHNWR

THR (state) 2 2 4 Thomas Wilmers

Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii)

THR (fed), END (state) 2 3 6 Thomas

Wilmers Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri)

END (fed), END (state) 2 2 4

Phillip Hughes

Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium)

END (fed), END (state) 2 2 4

Chad Anderson

Magnificent Frigatebirds (Fregata magnificens) - roosts

Not listed 2 1 2 Thomas Wilmers

Miami Blue Butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri)

END (fed), THR (state) 2 2 4

Erica Henry

Reddish egret (Egretta rufescens) SSC (state) 2 1 2 Thomas

Wilmers Great White Heron (Ardea herodias occidentalis)

Not listed 2 1 2 Thomas Wilmers


_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 2-5] Air quality: Ozone air pollution Description: Air pollutants can harm natural and scenic resources in the refuge such as surface waters, plants, soils, fish, birds, animals, and visibility. To assess the effects of air quality on wilderness character, four unique air quality measures are included for monitoring: Ozone (ppb), Total-Nitrogen deposition (kg/ha), Total Sulfur deposition (kg/ha), and Visibility (dV). These values are presented as 5-year averages. Description: Fourth highest 8-hour average ozone concentration in parts per billion (ppb). Data is provided for both the Key West National Wildlife Refuge and the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge; an average of these two data is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database. Data Source: National Wildlife Refuge System’s Natural Resource Program Center, Inventory and Monitoring Department. Data Adequacy: All air quality data collected by the Natural Resource Program Center is used to determine the quality of air for the Florida Keys Wilderness. Since air quality data is not collected on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, data is interpolated between monitors and therefore the quality of the data is medium. Significant Change: Any change to/from one of the following categories would be a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character.

Ozone ppb Status < 60 ppb Good

61-75 Moderate > 76 Significant Concern

Notes

- Data will be entered into the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database every five years. Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012

Air quality: Ozone air pollution (ppb)

Date of Data Key West NWR Great White Heron NWR

Average (reported in the

database) 2001-2005 66.1 64.8 65.45 2005-2009* 68.2 67.6 67.9

*(used as the 2012 Baseline) Data Source: Jill Webster, USFWS Environmental Scientist, Branch of Air Quality

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 2-6] Air quality: Total nitrogen wet deposition Description: Air pollutants can harm natural and scenic resources in the refuge such as surface waters, plants, soils, fish, birds, animals, and visibility. To assess the effects of air quality on wilderness character, four unique air quality measures are included for monitoring: Ozone (ppb), Total-Nitrogen deposition (kg/ha), Total Sulfur deposition (kg/ha), and Visibility (dV). These values are presented as 5-year averages. Description: Concentration of nitrogen in atmospheric wet deposition (i.e. rain, snow), in units kilogram per hectare (kg/ha). Data is provided for both the Key West National Wildlife Refuge and the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge; an average of these two data is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database. Data Source: National Wildlife Refuge System’s Natural Resource Program Center, Inventory and Monitoring Department. Data Adequacy: All air quality data collected by the Natural Resource Program Center is used to determine the quality of air for the Florida Keys Wilderness. Since air quality data is not collected on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, data is interpolated between monitors and therefore the quality of the data is medium. Significant Change: Any change to/from one of the following categories would be a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character.

Total nitrogen (kg/ha)

Status

<1 kg/ha Good 1-3 Moderate > 3 Significant Concern

Notes


Air quality: Total nitrogen (kg/ha)



database) 2001-2005 2.4 2.4 2.4 2005-2009* 3.1 3.1 3.1


_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 2-7] Air quality: Total sulfur wet deposition Description: Air pollutants can harm natural and scenic resources in the refuge such as surface waters, plants, soils, fish, birds, animals, and visibility. To assess the effects of air quality on wilderness character, four unique air quality measures are included for monitoring: Ozone (ppb), Total-Nitrogen deposition (kg/ha), Total Sulfur deposition (kg/ha), and Visibility (dV). These values are presented as 5-year averages. Description: Concentration of sulfur in atmospheric wet deposition (i.e. rain, snow), in units kilogram per hectare (kg/ha). Data is provided for both the Key West National Wildlife Refuge and the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge; an average of these two data is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database. Data Source: National Wildlife Refuge System’s Natural Resource Program Center, Inventory and Monitoring Department. Data Adequacy: All air quality data collected by the Natural Resource Program Center is used to determine the quality of air for the Florida Keys Wilderness. Since air quality data is not collected on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, data is interpolated between monitors and therefore the quality of the data is medium. Significant Change: Any change to/from one of the following categories would be a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character.

Total sulfur (kg/ha)

Status

<1 kg/ha Good 1-3 Moderate > 3 Significant Concern

Notes


Air quality: Total sulfur (kg/ha)



database) 2001-2005 2.9 2.8 2.85 2005-2009* 3.4 3.5 2.45


_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 2-8] Air quality: Visibility Description: Air pollutants can harm natural and scenic resources in the refuge such as surface waters, plants, soils, fish, birds, animals, and visibility. To assess the effects of air quality on wilderness character, four unique air quality measures are included for monitoring: Ozone (ppb), Total-Nitrogen deposition (kg/ha), Total Sulfur deposition (kg/ha), and Visibility (dV). These values are presented as 5-year averages. Description: Scenic conditions that determine how well and how far a wilderness visitor can see based on the amount of small particles in the air, in units deciview (Dv). Data is provided for both the Key West National Wildlife Refuge and the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge; an average of these two data is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database. Data Source: National Wildlife Refuge System’s Natural Resource Program Center, Inventory and Monitoring Department. Data Adequacy: All air quality data collected by the Natural Resource Program Center is used to determine the quality of air for the Florida Keys Wilderness. Since air quality data is not collected on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, data is interpolated between monitors and therefore the quality of the data is medium. Significant Change: Any change to/from one of the following categories would be a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character.

Visibility (dV) Status < 2 dV Good

2-8 Moderate > 8 Significant Concern

Notes


Air quality: Visibility (dV)



database) 2001-2005 7.2 6.6 6.9 2005-2009* 9.5 8.9 9.2


_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 2-9] Eutrophic condition of marine sanctuary waters surrounding wilderness islands Context: The administrative boundary of the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges includes many thousands of acres of marine waters. While there is no designated marine wilderness, these waters surround all of the Florida Keys Wilderness. Many land-based resources of the Florida Keys Wilderness depend on the quality of the marine waters surrounding them. The backcountry of the Lower Florida Keys Refuges is predominantly shallow water habitat with seagrass beds, scattered coral heads, and small patch reefs. Tidal flats provide essential foraging habitat for wading birds that hunt small fish and crustaceans during low tide cycles.

Figure 4. Boundary of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary surrounding all Florida Keys National Wildlife

Refuges. Description: This measure is a reporting of NOAA's results from a condition report of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Data on the status and condition of water quality, seagrass habitat, and coral reef habitat are collected annually by NOAA and its partners under the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program. The eutrophic condition of marine waters is based on inputs from land, phytoplankton bloom events, and the threats that these pose to sanctuary resources. The condition is rated as Good, Good/Fair, Fair, Fair/Poor, or Poor. Data Source: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report (2011), Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Data Adequacy: All water quality data collected under NOAA’s Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program in the sanctuary waters surrounding wilderness islands was used to determine the eutrophic condition of these waters.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Significant Change: Any change in this data to a different quality of marine waters around wilderness islands would indicate a shift in natural conditions that would signify a changing trend in wilderness character. Notes

• This data will be entered as often as NOAA identifies the conditions of sanctuary waters.

Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 The following table summarizes the “State of Sanctuary Resources” section of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report (2011). The first column lists questions used to rate the condition and trends for qualities of water, habitat, living resources, and maritime archaeological resources. The Rating column consists of a color, indicating resource condition, and a symbol, indicating trend (see key for definitions). The Basis for Judgment column provides a short statement or list of criteria used to justify the rating. The Description of Findings column presents the statement that best characterizes resource status, and corresponds to the assigned color rating.

Status: Good – Good/Fair – Fair – Fair/Poor – Poor Trends

Conditions appear to be improving ↑ Conditions do not appear to be changing

--

Conditions appear to be declining ↓ Table 9. Eutrophic condition of Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary waters Monitoring Question

Rating Basis for Judgment Description of Findings

What is the eutrophic condition of sanctuary waters and how is it changing?

Fair/Poor

--

Long-term increase in inputs from land; large, persistent phytoplankton bloom events, many of which originate outside the sanctuary but enter and injure sanctuary resources.

Selected conditions have caused or are likely to cause severe declines in some but not all living resources and habitats.

2012 Baseline: Fair/Poor

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 2-10] Index of the status of plant communities and cover types Context: Major cover types of the Florida Keys Wilderness include pine rockland, tropical hardwood hammock, freshwater wetlands, salt marsh transition, mangrove forest, inland salt ponds, beach ridge hammock, and beach and dune. Each of these major cover types includes multiple plant communities, providing for a diverse mosaic of habitats across the island landscapes. See the ‘Ecological Setting’ section of this report for an explanation of each cover type. See the ‘Ecological Setting’ section of this report for a more detailed description of each cover type. According to a refuge factsheet on climate change, a nine inch rise in sea level recorded over the past century in Key West has already begun impacting refuge habitats. Freshwater dependent habitats are changing due to saltwater intrusion into the groundwater lenses. On the backcountry islands, vital saline ponds are being slowly breached and converted into tidal lagoons, altering the diversity of invertebrate and fish assemblages. There have been shifts in plant community composition along the coastal fringe due to higher spring tides from an incremental sea level rise as well as storm events. For example, widespread mortality of slash pine trees resulted from saltwater inundation due to Hurricane Wilma’s storm surge in 2005. The extent and distribution of each plant community type may change over time in response to environmental conditions that may shift due to natural events (e.g. sea level rise, storm surge) as well as refuge management actions (e.g. exotic plant control).

Description: Each plant community is classified by its status with a score assigned by category. The scores for each plant community are summed to generate a total score reported for this measure. This sum is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database.

Plant Community/ Cover Type

Status Score

Increasing 1 Stable 2

Decreasing 3 Extirpated 4

_________________________________________________________________________________


Definitions • Increasing: plant community type is increasing. • Stable: plant community type appears stable. If only presence or absence data is known,

stable would indicate presence. • Decreasing: plant community type is decreasing. • Extirpated: a plant community type no longer exists in this wilderness, but is believed to

still exist elsewhere. Data Source: Refuge biologists. GIS cover type layers were used as a reference. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: All records of all wilderness islands were consulted when determining this data. There is a moderate degree of confidence in the quality of this data since scores are assigned based on best professional judgment. Significant Change: Any change in this data would be a significant enough impact to be interpreted as a change in trend of wilderness character. Interpreting changes in data as a shifting trend in wilderness character should be done on an individual basis. Notes

• This data will be reevaluated and entered into the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database every five years.

• The trends for each community type in 2012 will be compared to the trends for each community type in five years.

Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 10. Index of the status of plant communities of the Florida Keys Wilderness.

Plant Community/ Cover Type Status Score

Pine Rockland 3 Tropical Hardwood Hammock 2 Freshwater Wetlands 3 Salt Marsh Transition 1 Mangrove Forest 1 Inland Salt Pond 1 Beach Ridge Hammocks 3 Beach and Dune 3

Data Source: Thomas Wilmers & Chad Anderson, refuge biologists.


_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 2-11] Cumulative change at dune erosion measurement sites Context: According to a refuge factsheet on climate change, a nine inch rise in sea level recorded over the past century in Key West has already begun impacting refuge habitats. Storm events have damaged beaches and dune vegetation along vulnerable shorelines, reducing optimal habitat for nesting sea turtles and foraging shorebirds. This measure is an attempt to capture the change in wilderness character caused by sea level rise. Description: At each site, a PVC pole is installed at the landward edge of the dune. With a 100ft tape measure, the dune is measured starting at this fixed position at the landward edge extending to the seaward edge of the dune. Measurements are taken at least once a year. The cumulative change from the first year each site is measured from the most recent measurement is determined. The average cumulative change for all sites is calculated. This average is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database. Data Source: Refuge biologist. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: Dune erosion data is only collected at one location at Boca Grande Key. While dune loss at this location is likely indicative of the loss over the entire wilderness, is does not accurately capture this. More dune erosion measurement sites should be established at Woman Key and the Marquesas. Sites could be established based on the location of species that will be significantly impacted by sea level rise, such as Miami blue butterfly habitat or sea turtle nesting sites. The data that is collected at the Boca Grande site is accurate, so the quality of the data is high but is insufficiently complete for the entire wilderness. Significant Change: A 10% increase or decrease in cumulative loss would indicate a shift in natural conditions that would signify a changing trend in wilderness character. It cannot be stated with confidence that an increase or decrease in this data would always indicate an improving or degrading trend in wilderness character; a shift either way could indicate a shift in natural conditions, and therefore generalizations cannot be defined. Interpreting changes in data as a shifting trend in wilderness character should be done on an individual basis. Notes

• This data will be measured and entered into the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database annually.

• More dune erosion measurement sites should be established at Woman Key and the Marquesas Keys and added to the database in subsequent years.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 11. Change at dune erosion measurement sites.

Site Date Width (feet)

Cumulative Change

BG51 9/5/2008 51

-22 10/21/2008 37 3/30/2009 29

BG79

9/5/2008 79

-35 10/21/2008 63 3/30/2009 56 7/15/2012 44

BG45 9/5/2008 45

-34 10/21/2008 20 3/30/2009 11


**As of August 2012, there has been -30.33 feet of cumulative change at dune erosion measurement sites. Two additional sites (BG51 and BG45) need data measurements for 2012. This value (-30.33) was entered into the database as a placeholder, but should be

updated at the end of this year to reflect a true 2012 baseline.

Severe erosion at Boca Grande Key (USFWS)

_________________________________________________________________________________


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

improvement or modern human occupation. Monitoring

Question Indicator Measure Data Adequacy Weight

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

Non-recreational installations, structures, developments

3-1. Count of non recreational structures, installations, developments

50%

3-2. Number of signs within wilderness boundary

50%

Inholdings 3-3. Acres of inholdings within wilderness

100%

Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, and mechanical transport

3-4. Index of administrative mechanical transport and motorized equipment use in wilderness

100%

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 3-1] Count of non recreational structures, installations, developments Context: Very few developments exist in the Florida Keys Wilderness, and it is likely that no new developments will be added. Existing developments will be left to degrade naturally and will never be administratively removed. Description: Each development in wilderness is counted. The development type and location is noted, but only a count of developments is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database. Data Source: Refuge biologist, refuge manager. Data Adequacy: All wilderness islands were visited to assess for structure presence. A simple count of these structures makes for high confidence in the quality of the data. Significant Change: Any additional development in wilderness would be a significant enough impact to be interpreted as a change in the trend of wilderness character. Notes

• Data will be reevaluated every five years, but it is unlikely that data will ever change. Therefore this measure will likely always report a stable trend.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 12. Developments in the Florida Keys Wilderness.

Location

Development Type

Notes

Annette Key

Guzzler

Rain catchment guzzlers for Key Deer. Both were made to hold 1000 gallons water. One no longer functions. They are not maintained. Johnson Key Guzzler

Marquesas Keys Concrete slabs Remnants from old Navy observation tower that existed in the 1970s.

Data source: Thomas Wilmers, refuge biologist. Not counted as developments, but worth noting: In the mid-1990s, virtually all Marston matting (left from the 1960s) was removed from an

island in the Marquesas. Corroded pieces of a few panels still remain, but this is not considered significant enough to count as a development in wilderness. Marston matting is naturally decomposing.

Little Pine Key and Howe Key have naturally-existing freshwater solution holes. Approximately 5 of these waterholes (3-4 on Little Pine, 1 on Howe) had the mud dug out of them to make them deeper and last longer as a water source for Key Deer.


_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 3-2] Number of signs within wilderness boundary Context: Signs installed in the Florida Keys Wilderness include "Area Closed," “Refuge Boundary," "No Camping," and “No Pets Allowed” signs. These signs are necessary to inform wilderness visitors of permitted and restricted uses and are essential for protecting the wilderness resource. Description: Each sign in wilderness is counted. The sign location is noted, but only a count of signs is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database. Data Source: Refuge biologist, refuge manager. Data Adequacy: All signs in the wilderness are accurately recorded by the refuge. A simple count of these signs makes for high confidence in the quality of the data. Significant Change: Any additional signage in wilderness would be a significant enough impact to be interpreted as a change in trend of wilderness character. Notes

• Data will be reevaluated every five years.

Area closure sign at Boca Grande Key (McCarter 2012)

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 13. Signs in the Florida Keys Wilderness.

Location Number of Signs

Boca Grande Key 7 Woman Key 5 Marquesas Keys 9

Data source: Thomas Wilmers, refuge biologist. * Signs are often lost to vandalism or storms, but this is the amount that is considered necessary to accomplish refuge goals at this time.


Sign lost to beach erosion (McCarter 2012)

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 3-3] Acres of inholdings within wilderness Context: Since inholdings interior to designated wilderness are not given the same protections as wilderness lands around them, these lands can be developed for various purposes at the discretion of the landowner, and thereby have a large impact on the surrounding wilderness. There are no inholdings within the Florida Keys Wilderness. There are no privately-owned lands directly adjacent to the Florida Keys Wilderness. Description: Inholdings are private or other federal or state agency lands entirely within the wilderness boundary. This measure is a reporting of the acreage of inholdings found within the wilderness boundary. Data Source: Refuge manager. Data Adequacy: There is high confidence that no inholdings exist within the wilderness. All relevant refuge records were considered. Significant Change: Any change in this data would be a significant enough impact to be interpreted as a change in trend of wilderness character. Notes

• Data will be reevaluated every five years. • The undeveloped quality is degraded if the acreage of inholdings is increased.

Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Data source: Anne Morkill, refuge manager.


_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 3-4] Index of administrative mechanical transport and motorized equipment use in wilderness Context: The Wilderness Act discusses three forms of mechanization that degrade wilderness character: motor vehicles (aircraft and motorboats are included here), motorized equipment, and mechanical transport. Agency policies restrict the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, and mechanical transport, requiring authorizations for such use when deemed necessary. Motorized boats are used to access the Florida Keys Wilderness, but they do not technically enter the wilderness which starts at the mean high tide line. Mechanical transport and motorized equipment are not often used in the Florida Keys Wilderness except when such equipment is considered the minimum tool necessary to accomplish refuge goals and to protect the wilderness resource. Description: This single measure directly tracks the status and trends of all motorized and mechanized use that are authorized by the Federal land manager in wilderness. Not all equipment types have the same impact level associated with them. For example, a wheelbarrow has a significantly different impact level than a helicopter has. To account for these differences, an inherent weighting has been assigned to each equipment type based on its perceived impact to social and biophysical resources, as shown in the table below. Mechanized equipment and motorized equipment with a relatively low level of impact are assigned a value of 1, motorized equipment with a moderate level of impact is assigned a value of 2, and motorized equipment with a high level of impact is assigned a 3. A total use level value will be calculated for each motorized/mechanized use by multiplying the inherent weight of each type of equipment by the amount of actual use, as shown in the table below. The resulting products for each motorized/mechanized use are summed to generate a total score for the entire wilderness. This sum is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database.

Equipment Type Inherent Weight

Amount of Use Use

Weight Total

Battery-powered tool 1 One piece, 1 day 1

Wheelbarrow 1 Multiple pieces, 1 day

2 Chain saw 2

Generator 2 One piece, multiple days

2

Helicopter 3 Multiple pieces, multiple days

3

Definitions

• Mechanical Transport: Any contrivance for moving people or material in or over land or air, having moving parts, that provides a mechanical advantage to the user, and that is powered by a living or nonliving power source. This includes, but is not limited to, hang gliders, parachutes, bicycles, game carriers, carts, and wagons. It does not include wheelchairs when used as necessary medical appliances. It also does not include rafts, kayaks, canoes, or similar primitive devices without moving parts.

_________________________________________________________________________________


• Motorized Equipment: Machines that use a motor, engine, or other nonliving power sources. This includes, but is not limited to, such machines as chain saws, aircraft, generators, and motor vehicles. It does not include small battery or gas powered hand-carried devices such as shavers, wristwatches, flashlights, cameras, stoves, or other similar small equipment.

Data Source: Refuge biologist, refuge manager. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: All records of administrative mechanical and motorized uses were gathered. For 2012, data came primarily from interviews with refuge personnel. Methodology for accurate recording of administrative mechanical and motorized uses has been implemented for future record keeping. Significant Change: It was determined that an increase or decrease of administrative mechanical transport and motorized equipment use in wilderness by 25% would cause a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character. Notes

• This data will be reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database annually. • It should be noted that the specific weights are subjectively determined. Best

professional judgment was used when assigning weights. Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 14. Index of administrative mechanical transport and motorized equipment use in wilderness

Equipment Type Inherent Weight Amount of Use Use

Weight

Total Weight

(Inherent X Use)

Comments

Battery-powered tool

1 One piece, 1 day 1 1 All uses were for sign installation Wheelbarrow 1 One piece, 1 day 1 1

Generator 2 One piece, 1 day 1 2 Data source: Anne Morkill, refuge manager.


_________________________________________________________________________________


Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined

recreation. Monitoring

Question Indicator Measure Data Adequacy Weight

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

Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness

4-1. Average number of visitors in wilderness

33%

4-2. Average group size in wilderness

33%

4-3. Amount of trash debris on wilderness islands as measured by the pounds of debris removed

34%

Remoteness from occupied and modified areas outside the wilderness

4-4. Average number of watercraft in transit adjacent to wilderness

50%

4-5. Average number of aircraft flights over wilderness

50%

Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation

4-6. Number of recreation facilities provided by refuge

100%

Management restrictions on visitor behavior

4-7. Index of restrictions on visitor behavior

100%

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 4-1] Index of the average number of visitors in wilderness Context: While visitor numbers are of concern to wilderness management staff, the activity that these visitors are engaging in is also of concern to wilderness management staff. This measure accounts for both. Natural areas are influenced by both the extent and concentration of human activities. As discussed previously under Measure 1-5, most of the wilderness islands are closed to public access to protect the sensitive wildlife resources or they are virtually inaccessible because they are mangrove islands. However, portions of Boca Grande, Woman and the Marquesas Keys in Key West NWR are open to wildlife-dependent recreational uses by the public. The beaches of the Florida Keys Wilderness give wilderness visitors a place to walk, swim from shore, picnic, or rest and observe wildlife with minimal disturbance. Public access is restricted to daytime hours only. However, a number of ongoing activities are not wildlife-dependent or considered conducive with seeking a “wilderness experience,” therefore they were determined to be incompatible for the Florida Keys Wilderness islands and are consequently prohibited on refuge beaches open to public access: beach games (e.g., volleyball, frisbee, badminton, football, and catch); blaring of radios, stereos, music players or excessive noise (e.g., screaming and yelling); use of grills, barbecues, smokers, or fire pits; campfires and camping; use of portable generators; and littering or dumping of trash. Umbrellas, tents, and chairs may not be set-up, left behind, or used. Sun umbrellas, chairs, towels, and other beach accessories—all observed on refuge beaches—can damage vegetation and sea turtle nests and can also cause shading of nests and alter incubation temperatures. All trash must be packed-out and properly disposed of off-site. Pets are prohibited on all of the refuges’ backcountry islands, including the Florida Keys Wilderness. Unleashed dogs chase and can kill birds and Key deer and can quickly dig up a turtle nest. Alcohol consumption is prevalent on holiday weekends, escalating the risk of violent behavior. In 2006, a fight among a number of intoxicated visitors on Boca Grande Key required multiple agency law enforcement intervention to curtail the problem. There are many other public beaches managed by the state, county, or local municipalities specifically for recreation that provide adequate opportunities to conduct those activities that are prohibited on refuge beaches. The Service recognizes that public use of wilderness areas may lead to serious impairment of the wilderness resource. Description: Data is compiled from refuge staff (law enforcement, biologist) who collect visitor use data in conjunction with their other work duties. The number of visitors observed per visit to a wilderness location is recorded. When a total number of wilderness visitors is recorded on a visit, this number will be weighted to reflect whether the visitors were seeking a “wilderness” experience or “non-wilderness” experience. Multiply the number of visitors by 1 (one) OR 2 (two) according to the following use types:

• 1 – Most visitors were engaging in activities focused on recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical uses.

• 2 – Most visitors were engaging in activities contrary to these uses.

Data collectors are asked to document whether most of the visitors they observed were engaged in one of these types of activities. This determination is based specifically on the types of activities the visitors are engaged in, including but not limited to: picnicking [1], beach walking [1], other wildlife/nature-based activities

_________________________________________________________________________________


[1], water-based activities (such as swimming, wading, shoreline fishing) [1], loud music [2], or “partying” activities [2].

Wild

erne

ss V

isit

for

Mon

itori

ng

Number of Visitors

Visitor Activity Score

Total (# visitors X

score) 1 – Wilderness-

compatible activities

2 – Activities that are not compatible with wilderness

At the end of the year, the visitor scores for all visits to wilderness are summed and divided by the total number of visits to get an average score per day for a particular year. This average is recorded in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database.

Data Source: All refuge staff going into the field. Data entry and analysis sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: Visitor counts at refuge backcountry islands have not been done previously, with only anecdotal information noted in field reports or annual narratives. A data form was developed in 2012 to begin this monitoring effort in support of the Wilderness Character Monitoring Program. This datasheet is located in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Surveys to determine the number visitors to the wilderness occur irregularly (only when refuge personnel go into the field to accomplish other tasks). Therefore this data only yields a partial amount of the boats anchored for wilderness visits in a year (a ‘snapshot’). When surveys are conducted, for the time and place in which they are conducted, the accuracy (quality) is high. Significant Change: It was determined that an increase or decrease of this data by 25% would indicate a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character. This data is highly dependent on the number of times this data is collected throughout the year, so changes in this number from year to year should be interpreted carefully. Interpreting changes in data as a shifting trend in wilderness character should be done on an individual basis. Notes

• This data will be reported into the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database annually.


• This data shows a snapshot of this activity in a year, but it is unlikely that most wilderness areas have more accurate data on the extent of boat use in wilderness

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 15. Number of visitors to the Florida Keys Wilderness on days field work was conducted on wilderness islands (data from visitor use data forms).

Date of Visit Location Observer(s)

Number of People in

Wilderness

Most Visitor Activity Score

Calculation (# Visitors

X Most Visitor Activity Score)

7/19/2012 Boca Grande Molly 40 1 40 7/24/2012 Boca Grande Molly 24 2 48 7/28/2012 Marquesas Erica, Korrie, Sarah 6 1 6 7/28/2012 Boca Grande Erica, Korrie, Sarah 65 2 130 7/31/2012 Marquesas Molly 0 NA 0 7/31/2012 Boca Grande Molly 10 1 10 8/1/2012 Marquesas Erica, Chad 0 NA 0 8/1/2012 Boca Grande Erica, Chad 18 1 18 8/14/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 4 1 4 8/14/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 2 1 2 8/15/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 0 NA 0 8/15/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 0 NA 0 8/15/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 22 1 22 8/17/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 0 NA 0 8/18/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 21 1 21 8/18/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 0 NA 0 8/18/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 2 1 2 8/18/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 0 NA 0 AVERAGE

15.95

**As of August 2012, the average visitor use in wilderness score is 15.95. This value was

entered into the database as a placeholder, but should be updated at the end of this year to reflect a true 2012 baseline.

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 4-2] Index of the average group size in wilderness Context: The presence of large numbers of people on the small accessible areas of the Florida Keys Wilderness deprives all visitors of, as stated in the Wilderness Act of 1964, "...opportunities for solitude or a primitive or unconfined type of recreation." Conflicts among user groups are inevitable when large numbers of visitors are present in a confined area. Those seeking wildlife-dependent recreational activities are stymied in their pursuit because of the sheer density of people.

The largest crowds are typically found on Woman and Boca Grande Keys in the Key

West NWR, both of which are part of the Florida Keys Wilderness. The public is only allowed on the beach areas whereas the remainder of the islands beyond the dunes us closed to protect sensitive wildlife habitats. Because the beaches on Boca Grande and Woman Keys are extremely narrow, visitors walking on the beach pass within mere feet of other visitors on the island. On some summer weekends—especially on holiday weekends such as Memorial Day and July Fourth—acute overcrowding has been a long-term problem on Boca Grande Key on the island’s northwest side, which has the only deep water access to the beach. During some peak-use weekends, scores of boats and hundreds of people are concentrated in a 600-foot-long area, where the beach is either very narrow or fully inundated by tides. As a result, dune vegetation is damaged, destabilizing the beach and fostering erosion. Signs informing visitors not to enter the dunes or prohibiting pets are often ignored, especially when visitor numbers are high. The fragile dune area can be damaged or killed by visitors entering the dunes. When damaged, the disturbed conditions may spur the invasion of non-native grasses or forbs, which may then displace native species. Boca Grande Key, which harbors three species of nesting sea turtles as well as wintering piping plovers, has had a chronic history of public use problems, including large scale littering, vegetation clearing, and cooking fires. Crowds in excess of 40 persons are common. When crowds are present on an island, because of the sheer numbers of people involved, there seemingly is a greater chance of degradation of natural resources and noncompliance with established regulations (e.g., prohibitions on campfires, pets, littering, etc.).

Excessive public use of sensitive areas or small units may warrant special regulations to

limit the number of visitors or the duration of visits. Wilderness areas may be closed to all public use if such use is determined to be incompatible with refuge purposes. Defining a visitor carrying capacity in protected areas would be subjective, but it is considered to be very low on refuge beaches because: (1) the stabilizing dune vegetation is easily damaged by trampling; (2) the beaches are short and extremely narrow, thereby concentrating visitors; (3) overcrowding ruins the experience of visitors seeking a wilderness experience in a site designated for that purpose; (4) Miami blue butterfly host plants and sea turtle nesting habitat can be degraded by visitors walking on the dune vegetation; and (5) direct access to some beaches is limited by shallow water, thereby concentrating arriving visitors at deeper water access points. Description: Data on the numbers of groups of size categories is compiled by refuge staff (law enforcement, biologists) who collect visitor use data in conjunction with their other work duties. Scores are assigned to each group size category. Larger groups have a greater impact on wilderness character and therefore are assigned a higher score. At the end of the year, the group size scores for all visits to wilderness are summed and divided by the total number of visits to get

_________________________________________________________________________________


an average score per day for a particular year. This average is recorded in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database.

Wild

erne

ss V

isit

for

Mon

itori

ng

Group Size Number of Groups of this

Size

Score Total (# groups X

score) 0 People 0 1-2 People 1 3-5 People 2 6-10 People 3 >10 People* 4 Total (sum):

Data Source: All refuge staff going into the field. Data entry and analysis sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: Visitor counts at refuge backcountry islands have not been done previously, with only anecdotal information noted in field reports or annual narratives. A data form was developed in 2012 to begin this monitoring effort in support of the Wilderness Character Monitoring Program. This datasheet is located in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Surveys to determine the average group size in wilderness occur irregularly (only when refuge personnel go into the field to accomplish other tasks). Therefore this data only yields the average group size in wilderness for a portion of days in the year (a ‘snapshot’). When surveys are conducted, for the time and place in which they are conducted, the accuracy (quality) is high. Significant Change: It was determined that an increase or decrease of this data by 25% would indicate a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character. This data is highly dependent on the number of times this data is collected throughout the year, so changes in this number from year to year should be interpreted carefully. Interpreting changes in data as a shifting trend in wilderness character should be done on an individual basis. Notes

• This data will be reported into the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database annually.


• The use of broad categories is a crude measure and this data shows a snapshot of this activity in a year, but it is unlikely that most wilderness areas have more accurate data on the extent of boat use in wilderness

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 16. Group sizes of visitors to the Florida Keys Wilderness on days field work was conducted on wilderness islands (data from visitor use data forms).

Date of Visit Key Observer(s)

# Group size (1-2)

# Group size (3-5)

# Group size

(6-10)

# Group size

(>10)

7/19/2012 Boca Grande Molly 4 5 1 0 7/24/2012 Boca Grande Molly 0 0 0 2 7/28/2012 Marquesas Erica, Korrie, Sarah 0 2 0 0 7/28/2012 Boca Grande Erica, Korrie, Sarah 0 7 6 0 7/31/2012 Marquesas Molly NA NA NA NA 7/31/2012 Boca Grande Molly 1 2 0 0 8/1/2012 Marquesas Erica, Chad NA NA NA NA 8/1/2012 Boca Grande Erica, Chad 0 2 1 0 8/14/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 0 1 0 0 8/14/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 1 0 0 0 8/15/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica NA NA NA NA 8/15/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica NA NA NA NA 8/15/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 1 2 2 0 8/17/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica NA NA NA NA 8/18/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 4 3 0 0 8/18/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica NA NA NA NA 8/18/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 1 0 0 0 8/18/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica NA NA NA NA Average

1 2 0.83 0.17

Calculation – Multiplied by Score 1 4 2.5 0.67 Total (sum of all scores) 8.17

*NA = Not applicable because there were no visitors. This is not included in the calculation of the average group size.

**As of August 2012, the average group size in wilderness score is 8.17. This value was

entered into the database as a placeholder, but should be updated at the end of this year to reflect a true 2012 baseline.

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 4-3] Amount of trash debris on wilderness islands as measured by the pounds of debris removed Context: The presence of marine debris on wilderness islands is an impacti to the remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness. There is no practical way to monitor the amount of debris on wilderness islands, therefore a measure monitoring the effort to remove such debris was created. Trash comes primarily from outside offshore sources (not usually from wilderness users), but does have an impact on the character of the wilderness. Description: This data is a reporting of the data recorded by NOAA Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’s Team O.C.E.A.N. volunteer program. They record where debris is collected and how many pounds are removed. Only data from wilderness islands is included. Data Source: Team O.C.E.A.N. Shoreline Mangrove Cleanups (Excel spreadsheet from NOAA). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Team O.C.E.A.N. coordinators. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: Many agencies and organizations conduct cleanups in the Florida Keys Wilderness. There is no global database for all of these organizations to report to, therefore the data is only partially complete. Because of the collaborative relationship between NOAA and FWS in the Florida Keys, it is very easy to get this data from NOAA. If possible, data from other organizations conducting beach cleanups should be included in the future. Significant Change: It was determined that an increase or decrease of pounds of debris removed from wilderness by 25% would cause a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character. Interpreting changes in data as a shifting trend in wilderness character should be done on an individual basis. Notes

• This data will be reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database annually. • An increase in the pounds of debris removed from wilderness indicates an increase in

the effort to remove such debris from wilderness, and therefore would be interpreted as an improvement in wilderness character.

Abandoned lobster trap in wilderness; trash in interior uplands of Boca Grande Key (McCarter 2012)

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness Table 17. Amount of trash debris on wilderness islands as measured by the pounds of debris removed.

Year Cleanup Location Pounds Collected Total for Year

2007 Woman Key 1500

2752 Boca Grande 1252

2008

Marquesas 557

2670 Archer Key 1210 Woman Key 430 Boca Grande 473

2009 Boca Grande 400

1718 Woman Key 868 Woman Key 450

2010

Marquesas 1074

5870 Boca Grande 377 Marquesas 1229 Horseshoe 2431

Woman Key 759 2011 Marquesas 728 728

*As of August 2012, no debris has been removed from wilderness islands. A value of “0” was entered into the database as a placeholder, but should be updated at the end of this year to reflect a true 2012 baseline. 2012 Baseline Data will be reported to the FWS by

NOAA at the end of the calendar year and should be recorded in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database after December 2012.

Discarded oil on Marquesas (USFWS)

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 4-4] Average number of watercraft in transit adjacent to wilderness Context: The wilderness values in some areas of the refuges are being degraded by loss of solitude caused by motorized watercraft use adjacent to wilderness islands. These watercraft are visually and audibly detectable by the wilderness visitor. All navigable waters around refuge islands are owned by the State of Florida. Under a management agreement with the State of Florida, in-water buffer zones (i.e. idle speed, no motor, or no access) have been created around some refuge islands to reduce boater disturbance to wildlife in addition to the prohibition of jet skis, airboats, hovercraft, water skiing, and landing aircraft throughout all of Key West NWR and most of Great White Heron NWR (Figure 5). Boating impacts to wildlife include flushing birds off their nests or while foraging on tidal flats when approached too closely. Wading birds and nesting ospreys have been observed chaotically fleeing these vessels. Birds can be kept off their nests that can lead to overheating of eggs. Other watercraft impacts include anchoring on beaches and uplands that can cause damage to bird and sea turtle sites.

Figure 5. Watercraft zoning of the Florida Keys backcountry islands.

Description: Data is compiled from refuge staff (law enforcement, biologists) who collect visitor use data in conjunction with their other work duties. The number of watercraft audibly or visibly in transit adjacent to wilderness is recorded per visit to a wilderness location. At the end of the year, all watercraft transits adjacent to wilderness for all visits to wilderness is summed and divided by the total number of visits to get an average per day for a particular year. This average is recorded in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database. Data Source: All refuge staff going into the field. Data entry and analysis sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\).

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data Adequacy: Surveys to determine the number of watercraft in transit adjacent to wilderness occur irregularly (only when refuge personnel go into the field to accomplish other tasks). Therefore this data only yields a partial amount of watercraft in transit adjacent to wilderness in a year (a ‘snapshot’). When surveys are conducted, for the time and place in which they are conducted, the accuracy (quality) is high. Significant Change: It was determined that an increase or decrease of this data by 25% would indicate a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character. This data is highly dependent on the number of times this data is collected throughout the year, so changes in this number from year to year should be interpreted carefully. Interpreting changes in data as a shifting trend in wilderness character should be done on an individual basis. Notes


• This data shows a snapshot of this activity in a year, but it is unlikely that most wilderness areas have more accurate data on the extent of boat use adjacent to wilderness.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 18. Watercraft in transit adjacent to the Florida Keys Wilderness on days field work was conducted on wilderness islands (data from visitor use data forms).

Date of Visit Key Observer(s) # Watercraft

in Transit

7/19/2012 Boca Grande Molly 1 7/24/2012 Boca Grande Molly 2 7/28/2012 Marquesas Erica, Korrie, Sarah 1 7/28/2012 Boca Grande Erica, Korrie, Sarah 4 7/31/2012 Marquesas Molly 1 7/31/2012 Boca Grande Molly 1 8/1/2012 Marquesas Erica, Chad 0 8/1/2012 Boca Grande Erica, Chad 0 8/14/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 4 8/14/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 3 8/15/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 2 8/15/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 4 8/15/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 2 8/17/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 6 8/18/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 5 8/18/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 3 8/18/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 3 8/18/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 0 AVERAGE

2.33

**As of August 2012, the average number of watercraft in transit adjacent to wilderness is 2.33. This value was entered into the database as a placeholder, but should be updated at

the end of this year to reflect a true 2012 baseline.

Watercraft adjacent to wilderness islands for three-day recreational lobster mini season during the last week of July,

a peak time for tourism in the Lower Florida Keys (McCarter 2012)

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 4-5] Average number of aircraft flights over wilderness Context: The wilderness values in some areas of the refuges are being degraded by loss of solitude caused by aircraft flying over wilderness islands at low-levels. Aircraft include charters to the Dry Tortugas National Park as well as sight-seeing tours and military aircraft training. These aircraft are visually and audibly detectable by the wilderness visitor. Not only can these overflights have impacts to the wilderness visitor, but impacts to wildlife on wilderness islands are possible as well. Description: Data is compiled from refuge staff (law enforcement, biologists) who collect aircraft flight data in conjunction with their other work duties. The number of aircraft visibly flying over wilderness is recorded per visit to a wilderness location. At the end of the year, all flights over wilderness for all visits to wilderness is summed and divided by the total number of visits to get an average per day for a particular year. This average is recorded in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database. Data Source: All refuge staff going into the field. Data entry and analysis sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: Surveys to determine the number of aircraft flights over wilderness occur irregularly (only when refuge personnel go into the field to accomplish other tasks). Therefore this data only yields a partial amount of aircraft flights over wilderness in a year (a ‘snapshot’). When surveys are conducted, for the time and place in which they are conducted, the accuracy (quality) is high. Significant Change: It was determined that an increase or decrease of this data by 25% would indicate a significant enough impact to the wilderness to be interpreted as a degrading or improving trend in wilderness character. This data is highly dependent on the number of times this data is collected throughout the year, so changes in this number from year to year should be interpreted carefully. Interpreting changes in data as a shifting trend in wilderness character should be done on an individual basis. Notes


• This data shows a snapshot of this activity in a year, but it is unlikely that most wilderness areas have more accurate data on the extent of boat use adjacent to wilderness.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 19. Aircraft flights over the Florida Keys Wilderness on days field work was conducted on wilderness islands (data from visitor use data forms).

Date of Visit Key Observer(s) # Aircraft

Overflights

7/19/2012 Boca Grande Molly 4 7/24/2012 Boca Grande Molly 1 7/28/2012 Marquesas Erica, Korrie, Sarah 2 7/28/2012 Boca Grande Erica, Korrie, Sarah 2 7/31/2012 Marquesas Molly 2 7/31/2012 Boca Grande Molly 0 8/1/2012 Marquesas Erica, Chad 2 8/1/2012 Boca Grande Erica, Chad 2 8/14/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 1 8/14/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 0 8/15/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 5 8/15/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 2 8/15/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 1 8/17/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 4 8/18/2012 Boca Grande Molly, Erica 0 8/18/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 0 8/18/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 3 8/18/2012 Marquesas Molly, Erica 1 AVERAGE

1.78

**As of August 2012, the average number of aircraft flights over wilderness is 1.78. This value was entered into the database as a placeholder, but should be updated at the end of

this year to reflect a true 2012 baseline.

Sea plane arriving to Dry Tortugas National Park, west of the Florida Keys Wilderness. This plane makes several trips per day over wilderness islands. (McCarter 2012)

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 4-6] Number of agency-provided recreation facilities Context: Opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation are most outstanding where visitors must rely on their own skills to navigate and travel and where they have a high degree of freedom over their own actions and decisions. This measure tracks trends in durable or permanent facilities that are used primarily for recreational purposes, regardless of whether these are for resource protection or visitor convenience. At present, the Florida Keys Wilderness has no such facilities and it is highly unlikely that such facilities would be installed in the future. Description: Structures, installations, and developments that have a recreation purpose or use are monitored under this measure. Each structure is weighted equally. All recreation facilities at a site are counted separately. Any and all facilities are inconsistent with primitive recreation. Data Source: Refuge manager. Data Adequacy: All records of all wilderness islands are consulted when determining this data. Since these facilities would be administratively installed, data on these facilities would be very accurate. A simple count of these structures makes for high confidence in the quality of the data. Significant Change: Any change in this data would be a significant enough impact to be interpreted as a change in trend of wilderness character. Notes

• Data will be reevaluated every five years, but it is unlikely that data will ever change. Therefore this measure will likely always report a stable trend.

Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Data source: Anne Morkill, refuge manager.


_________________________________________________________________________________


[Measure 4-7] Index of restrictions on visitor behavior Context: Opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation are most outstanding where visitors must rely on their own skills to navigate and travel and where they have a high degree of freedom over their own actions and decisions. This measure tracks trends in restrictions that the agency places on visitor behavior inside wilderness. Visitors’ opportunities to experience freedom from management are significantly affected by the number and type of regulations in place.

The restrictions on visitor behavior in the Florida Keys Wilderness are in place to protect

other qualities of wilderness character. Public use of the sensitive areas and small units of the Florida Keys Wilderness warrant

special regulations to limit the duration of visits. Beach use is restricted to the following hours: 1/2-hour before sunrise and 1/2-hour after sunset year-round.

Because nearly all wilderness islands are dominated by mangrove forests, they afford no

opportunity for public use and are closed to public entry. The exceptions are the seven distinct beaches on the Marquesas Keys and the beaches on Woman and Boca Grande Keys, all located within the Key West NWR. The islands are remote; the nearest, Woman Key, is about 16 km west of Key West and the most distant, the Marquesas Keys, is about 40 km from this town. One-half of the beaches on Woman and Boca Grande Keys, islands harboring threatened piping plovers, were closed to human visitation in 1992 to protect wildlife from human-caused disturbance. All refuge beaches are narrow and inundated at high tide.

Visitors are not permitted to access the uplands of these islands because dune vegetation

is fragile and sensitive to trampling by humans. On Boca Grande Key and three islands in the Marquesas Keys, the vegetation includes the endangered Garber’s spurge. Landward of the narrow beaches are intricate networks of dunes and salt tolerant shrubs. Plants adapted to the dune environment form a fragile network holding the sand in place.

Two trust species may be adversely affected by public use of the islands - green sea

turtles and Miami blue butterflies. All green turtle nesting since 1990 on Boca Grande Key has occurred on the island’s northwest side, nearly always in the dune vegetation. The dune’s width has been progressively shrinking; its now-extreme narrowness looms increasingly as a threat to successful turtle nesting. Inadvertent walking above sea turtle nests can cause collapse and kill hatchlings; compaction of sand from foot traffic can preclude the emergence of hatchlings; pedestrian tracks and litter can impede movements by hatchlings. Boca Grande Key and five islands in the Marquesas Keys also harbor the endangered Miami blue butterfly.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Description: Each wilderness unit is scored on its visitor restrictions according to the table below. This weighted index of restrictions on visitor behavior assigns scores to the type of restriction with more onerous restrictions weighted more heavily. If a wilderness has more than one type of regulation within a given category, the score will be assigned that corresponds to the most restrictive regulation in place. Scores are summed for the entire wilderness to get an overall score of visitor restrictions. This sum is reported in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database.

Wilderness Unit Category Type of Restriction Score Total

Campfires No restriction 0 Designated site, setback 1 Total prohibition 2

Camping

No restriction 0 Setback 1 Assigned sites 2 Total prohibition 3

Fees

No fees 0 Fees charged of selected user type 1

Fees charged of all visitors 2

_________________________________________________________________________________


Wilderness Unit Category Type of Restriction Score Total

Permits

No permit or registration 0 Voluntary self-registration 1 Mandatory, nonlimiting permit or registration 2

Mandatory, use limited 3

Human Waste

No regulation 0 Pack out required 3

Length of

Stay No restriction 0 Length of stay limited 1

Swimming/

Bathing No restriction 0 Prohibited 2

Area Closure

No restriction 0 Partial closure 1 Total closure 3

Group Size

Limits No restriction 0 Group size limits in place 1

Dogs/Dome

sticated Animals

No restriction 0 Required to be on leash 1 Prohibited 2

_________________________________________________________________________________


Definitions • A score of 0: indicates no regulation within the category. • A score of 1: indicates some restriction but retention of some individual choice. A

score of 1 is also assigned in cases in which regulations are restrictive but affect only one segment of the population (e.g., group size limits generally will not affect most users, and leash laws affect only those with dogs).

• A score of 2: indicates that no choice is permitted. For example, assigned site policies that require visitors to select campsites before beginning their trip would receive a score of 2.

• A score of 3: is reserved for the most restrictive regulations: use limits, waste packout requirements, and area closures to all use.

Data Source: Comprehensive Conservation Plan, refuge manager. Data entry and analysis sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data Adequacy: All records of all wilderness islands are consulted when determining this data. Since these restrictions are imposed administratively, data on these restrictions is very accurate. Significant Change: Any change in this data would be a significant enough impact to be interpreted as a change in trend of wilderness character. Notes

• Data will be reevaluated every five years. • An increase in the index equates to an increase in management restriction of visitor

behavior. • Information about the purpose of each regulation will be important when interpreting

changes in the different indicators for the outstanding opportunity quality (e.g., whether restrictions were imposed to enhance solitude).

• It should be noted that the specific weights are subjectively determined. Best professional judgment was used when assigning weights.

Illegal campsites and unauthorized equipment in the Florida Keys Wilderness (USFWS)

_________________________________________________________________________________


Data – Florida Keys Wilderness – 2012 Table 20. Index of restrictions on visitor behavior.

Wilderness Unit Category Type of Restriction

Score Associated with this

Restriction

Score for

Unit

Mar

ques

as

Campfires Total prohibition 2

9

Camping Total prohibition 3 Fees No fees 0

Permits No permit or registration

0

Human Waste No regulation 0 Length of Stay Length of stay limited 1 Swimming/Bathing No restriction 0 Area Closure Partial closure 1 Group Size Limits No restriction 0 Dogs/Domesticated Animals

Prohibited 2

Boc

a G

rand

e


9



0

Human Waste No regulation 0 Length of Stay Length of stay limited 1 Swimming/Bathing No restriction 0 Area Closure Partial closure 1 Group Size Limits No restriction 0 Dogs/Domesticated Animals

Prohibited 2

Wom

an K

ey


9



0

Human Waste No regulation 0 Length of Stay Length of stay limited 1 Swimming/Bathing No restriction 0

_________________________________________________________________________________


Wilderness Unit

Category Type of Restriction Score Associated

with this Restriction

Score for

Unit Area Closure Partial closure 1 Group Size Limits No restriction 0 Dogs/Domesticated Animals

Prohibited 2

All

Oth

er K

ey W

est N

WR


11



0

Human Waste No regulation 0 Length of Stay Length of stay limited 1 Swimming/Bathing No restriction 0 Area Closure Total closure 3 Group Size Limits No restriction 0 Dogs/Domesticated Animals

Prohibited 2

Gre

at W

hite

Her

on N

WR


11



0

Human Waste No regulation 0 Length of Stay Length of stay limited 1 Swimming/Bathing No restriction 0 Area Closure Total closure 3 Group Size Limits No restriction 0 Dogs/Domesticated Animals

Prohibited 2

Data source: Anne Morkill, refuge manager.


_________________________________________________________________________________


Measures Not Used [Untrammeled - Authorized actions] Number of actions taken to collar, band, and/or mark animals within the wilderness boundary.

• Description: This measure would have included actions taken to track wildlife, collect voucher specimens, conduct health evaluation, or implant devices. In the past, invasive iguanas have been trapped for removal on wilderness islands, key deer have been collared, sea turtle nests are flagged, and transmitters have been installed on magnificent frigatebirds.

• Why measure was not used: These actions have rarely been conducted in wilderness and are not expected to occur in wilderness in the future. The exception to this is turtle nest marking, which does not actually affect the species or surrounding landscape; it is done strictly so that nests can be revisited for monitoring. When these actions were conducted in the past, it was in an effort to enhance other qualities of wilderness character. If these actions are proposed to be conducted in the Florida Keys Wilderness in the future, this measure should be reconsidered for inclusion in monitoring.

Trapped iguana in the Florida Keys Wilderness (USFWS)

[Untrammeled - Authorized actions] Acres of wilderness burned from prescribed burning.

• Description: Prescribed burning of pine rocklands, an endangered ecosystem, has been done in the Florida Keys Wilderness in the past. Radiocarbon dating reveals the long importance of fire in the Florida Keys pine rocklands [CCP]

• Why measure was not used: Little Pine Key has been prescribed burned in the past, but the most recent fire management plan states that no prescribed burning will occur there in the future because of its wilderness designation. If this plan is updated in the future to allow prescribed burning on Little Pine Key, this measure should be reconsidered for inclusion in monitoring.

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Untrammeled - Unauthorized actions] Number of nest abandonments due to human disturbance to nesting sites

• Description: Nest abandonment has been attributed to disturbance caused by boaters who approach nesting islands too closely, including kayakers and flats fishermen.

• Why measure was not used: This measure was not included in monitoring because the reliability of the data and the feasibility of collecting the data was considered to be very low. Data collection would require significant refuge staff effort and there would be low confidence in the quality of this data.

Osprey in the Florida Keys Wilderness (USFWS) Kayakers adjacent to wilderness island (USFWS)

[Untrammeled - Unauthorized actions] Sewage dumps in waters around wilderness

• Description: Sewage dumping into the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is illegal; the use of pumpout facilities is required.

• Why measure was not used: This measure was not included in monitoring because the reliability of the data and the feasibility of collecting the data was considered to be very low.

[Untrammeled - Unauthorized actions] Impacts to wilderness character from Cuban refugees.

• Description: The “wet foot, dry foot policy” states that anyone who flees Cuba and makes it to a United States shore ("dry feet") would be allowed to remain in the United States and could pursue residency. A Cuban caught on the waters between the two nations (i.e., with "wet feet") would be sent back to Cuba. One of the most easily accessible places for a Cuban migrant to acquire “dry foot” status is the Florida Keys Wilderness. Many boats and other debris abandoned by Cuban migrant landings exist in the Florida Keys Wilderness.

• Why measure was not used: This measure was not included in monitoring because the feasibility of collecting the data was considered to be very low; significant refuge effort would be required to collect this data. Refuge staff do not have the capacity to remove

_________________________________________________________________________________


these boats from wilderness islands; however the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission occasionally has special funds to remove derelict vessels.

Cuban refugees in the Florida Keys Wilderness (USFWS)

[Natural - Plant and animal species and communities] Percent of mangroves per wilderness island that are dead.

• Description: Each wilderness island is scored by the estimated percent of mangroves on that island that are dead. Values were assigned according to percentage categories of dead mangroves.

• Why measure was not used: This measure was initially considered as a means to monitor the quality of mangrove habitat for nesting birds. There are areas of dead mangroves that have not recovered from Hurricane Wilma in 2005, and thus no longer support wildlife. However, this measure was considered a repetition of data already represented by the measure “Index of the status of plant communities and cover types” (Natural – Biophysical Processes). One of the community types represented by this measure is mangroves. If the status of mangroves is considered to be important enough to wilderness character to be a stand-alone measure, this measure should be reconsidered for inclusion in monitoring.

Data for 2012 is included here as background information only; it is not included in monitoring for the Florida Keys Wilderness. Data source: Tom Wilmers, refuge biologist.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Wilderness Island

estimated percent of the mangroves on an island that

are dead

Score

Very Low (or Spot) = <1% 1 Low = 1-5% 2 Moderate = 5-20% 3 High = 20-35% 4 Very High = 35-65% 5 Extreme = >65% 6

Red mangrove roots (McCarter 2012)

_________________________________________________________________________________


Table 21. Percent of the mangroves that are dead on each wilderness island.

Refuge Wilderness Island Name Estimated Percent of the mangroves on an island that are dead

Score

Key

Wes

t NW

R

Marquesas Keys 7 3 Mooney Hbr. Key 25 4 Gull Keys 5 2 Boca Grande Key 6 2 Woman Key 10 3 Little Mullet Key 10 3 Cottrell Key 5 2 Big Mullet Key 7 3 Archer Key 5 2 Barracouta Keys 20 3 Mule Key 10 3 Joe Ingram Key 5 2 Crawfish Key 10 3 Man Key 3 2

Gre

at W

hite

Her

on /

Nat

iona

l Key

Dee

r NW

R

Little Swash Keys 10 3 Water Keys 5 2 Howe Key 3 2 Cutoe Key 3 2 Big Spanish Key 10 3 Little Spanish Key 5 2 Annette Key 3 2 Mayo Key 5 2 Little Pine Key Mangrove 5 2 Little Pine Key 2 2 Water Key 2 2 Johnson Keys 2 2 Horseshoe Keys 2 2 West Bahia Honda Key 5 2

_________________________________________________________________________________


[Natural – Physical resources] Water quality of surface freshwater wetlands

• Description: Monitoring of freshwater wetlands on backcountry islands was conducted in the 1980 and repeated in 2010-2011. Forty-two of the wetlands surveyed were on wilderness islands. These freshwater sources are important for wildlife, including Key deer, American alligator, and Lower Keys marsh rabbit. Freshwater wetlands are threatened by climate change, particularly sea level rise and storm surge.

• Why measure was not used: This measure was not included in monitoring because the reliability of the data and the feasibility of regularly collecting the data was considered to be very low. Including this measure as a recurring monitoring for wilderness character trends would require a significant amount of additional refuge effort. This project was conducted only twice in a 20-year peiod and required a large amount of funding and hiring of additional field staff. The recent effort was a special project funded by the American Recovery and Restoration Act. For the data to be meaningful, water quality data would have to be collected on a more regular basis to measure detectable changes.

[Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation – Remoteness inside] Average number of boats anchored for wilderness visit.

• Description: Data is compiled from refuge staff (law enforcement, biologists) who collect visitor use data in conjunction with their other work duties. The number of anchored boats per visit to a wilderness location is recorded. At the end of the year, all boats anchored in wilderness for all visits to wilderness is summed and divided by the total number of visits to get an average per day for a particular year. This average is recorded in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database.

• Why measure was not used: This measure was not included in monitoring because of its low significance. There is no other way to access the wilderness except via boat. Measures 4-1 and 4-2 for monitoring number of visitors and group size of wilderness visitors provides an adequate account of the number of boats anchored for a visit since each group must have arrived via boat.

[Other Features - Cultural resources] Loss of cultural resources

• Description: From the time that the Spanish arrived in Florida to when the English gained control of Florida in 1733, it is estimated that Native Americans on the peninsula had been reduced from 20,000 to only several hundred. The Everglades and Florida Keys were the last refuge of the South Florida tribes. In the late pioneer period (1865-1920) the Florida Keys had a major increase in homesteaders, particularly in the Lower Keys where freshwater was available and upland habitats provided good sites for growing vegetables and fruits for commercial sale. Both of these time periods could have provided some sites of cultural and/or historical significance in the Florida Keys Wilderness.

• Why measure was not used: Historic archeological investigations in the Florida Keys have been scant. An assessment of the archeological and historic resources of the Florida

_________________________________________________________________________________


Keys (see ‘Documents Consulted’) states that since the present day Florida Keys would have been part of a connected land mass of the southern peninsula prior to 18,000 years before present, any Paleo-Indian sites in the area of the Keys would probably be submerged. This report does not formally list any sites in the Florida Keys Wilderness nor does it recommend acquisition or preservation of any sites in the Florida Keys Wilderness. The refuge biologist described an old homestead site on the Marquesas Keys (complete with date palms, a cistern, and remnants of a brick structure), but this site was reduced to a single brick after hurricane Wilma in 2005.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Conclusions Sea level rise associated with climate change poses the biggest long-term threat to the

character of the Florida Keys Wilderness. Many existing climate models predict rising temperatures could raise global sea levels by roughly 3 feet by 2100. In southeast Florida, officials have agreed on the possibility of 9 to 24 inches of rise by 2060, and as much as 7 inches by 2030. As sea level rises and salt water encroaches onto the landscape of the Florida Keys Wilderness, land cover types will transition, greatly altering the character of the Florida Keys Wilderness.

Percent of Habitat Type Inundation in Monroe County with Different Scenarios of Sea Level Rise

Habitat Type Acres in Monroe County

1-Foot Sea Level Rise 2-Foot 3-Foot

Beach Berm 200 35.6% 60.6% 78.4% Buttonwood 4,127.45 85.5% 96.9% 98.7% Developed Land 13,343.24 5.6% 25.2% 52.6% Exotic 488.66 22.7% 52.7% 76.1% Freshwater Wetland 1,040.99 79.9% 95.4% 99.1% Hammock 8,684.51 18.4% 44.5% 60.7% Impervious Surface 3,047.71 3.7% 19.8% 41.1% Mangrove 31,955.77 94.5% 98.2% 98.7% Pineland 1,749.90 7.8% 43.7% 76.5% Salt Marsh 2,827.63 93.7% 96% 96.6% Scrub Mangrove 10,096.13 97.2% 97.6% 97.7% Undeveloped Land 2,505.63 25.8% 49.2% 68.7% Total 80,067.62 63% 73.9% 83.0%

Source: Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Inundation Mapping and Vulnerability Assessment (2011)

Another major concern to Florida Keys Wilderness managers is the current degradation to wilderness character caused by human use. The isolated beaches of the Florida Keys Wilderness attract tourists and locals engaged in recreational activities that are not wildlife-dependent. These activities that are not compatible with wilderness values include “partying” activities such as loud music, alcohol consumption, and creation of illegal campsites and campfires. These activities disturb wildlife and are not compatible with the opportunities for solitude quality of wilderness. Enforcement of these activities is difficult given that there are only two Refuge Law Enforcement officers on staff for the entire refuge complex that spans more than 100 miles. However, this wilderness stewardship plan provides a proactive strategy to more adequately monitor such activities and will supplement any future efforts to further regulate visitor use activities in the Florida Keys Wilderness.

_________________________________________________________________________________


The wilderness character monitoring strategy described in this report adequately captures the character of the Florida Keys Wilderness. The measures selected, although not exhaustive, thoroughly capture the most important qualities of the Florida Keys Wilderness’ character. This thoroughness was accomplished because of the high interest and valuable assistance offered by refuge staff. Wilderness stewardship and preservation of wilderness character has been a long-standing priority to refuge staff, and therefore any administrative degradation to wilderness character is rare. The refuge's wilderness areas are of special importance because of the widespread commercial and residential development rampant in the Florida Keys.

Boca Grande Key (Wilderness.net)

_________________________________________________________________________________


Appendices Appendix A - Updates to be made at the end of calendar year 2012

At the end of the 2012 calendar year 2012, the following need to be resolved and updated in the database.

2012 Baseline Data: Data Not Entered for the Following Measures Measure Explanation

[Measure 1-1] Total acreage (per island) receiving larvicide for mosquito control

Data to date was unknown and therefore a placeholder could not be put into the database. 2012 Baseline Data will be reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service by the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District each year as a requirement of its annual Special Use Permit.

[Measure 1-2] Days (per island) entomological technicians inspected/set traps for mosquito control on wilderness islands per year

Data to date was unknown and therefore a placeholder could not be put into the database. 2012 Baseline Data will be reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service by the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District each year as a requirement of its annual Special Use Permit.

[Measure 1-3] Gallons of herbicide used to control exotics in wilderness

The first year of monitoring this will be 2012 when an invasive species control crew comes to work in the backcountry. Light chemical treatment of invasive exotic plants in the wilderness has been conducted regularly, but the refuge hasn't been tracking these applications on a wilderness scale and therefore a placeholder could not be put into the database. 2012 Baseline Data will be complete at the end of the calendar year and should be recorded in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database after December, 2012.

[Measure 2-5] Air quality data

2012 Baseline Data is to be collected, analyzed, and entered into the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database by the National Wildlife Refuge System’s Natural Resource Program Center (Fort Collins, CO).

_________________________________________________________________________________


2012 Baseline Data: Incomplete Data for the Following Measures (“to date”) Measure Explanation

[Measure 2-8] Cumulative change at dune erosion measurement sites

As of August 2012, there has been -30.33 feet of cumulative change at dune erosion measurement sites. Two additional sites (BG51 and BG45) need data measurements for 2012. This value (-30.33) was entered into the database as a placeholder, but should be updated at the end of this year to reflect a true 2012 baseline.

[Measure 4-1] Index of the average number of visitors in wilderness

As of August 2012, the average visitor use in wilderness score is 15.95. This value was entered into the database as a placeholder, but should be updated at the end of this year to reflect a true 2012 baseline.

[Measure 4-2] Index of the average group size in wilderness

As of August 2012, the average group size in wilderness score is 8.17. This value was entered into the database as a placeholder, but should be updated at the end of this year to reflect a true 2012 baseline.

[Measure 4-3] Effort to remove debris from wilderness islands as measured by the pounds of debris removed

As of August 2012, no debris has been removed from wilderness islands. A value of “0” was entered into the database as a placeholder, but should be updated at the end of this year to reflect a true 2012 baseline. 2012 Baseline Data will be reported to the FWS by NOAA at the end of the calendar year and should be recorded in the Wilderness Character Monitoring Database after December, 2012.

[Measure 4-4] Average number of watercraft in transit adjacent to wilderness

As of August 2012, the average number of watercraft in transit adjacent to wilderness is 2.33. This value was entered into the database as a placeholder, but should be updated at the end of this year to reflect a true 2012 baseline.

[Measure 4-5] Average number of aircraft flights over wilderness

As of August 2012, the average number of aircraft flights over wilderness is 1.78. This value was entered into the database as a placeholder, but should be updated at the end of this year to reflect a true 2012 baseline.

_________________________________________________________________________________


Appendix B - Priority ranking of all measures considered

WORKSHEET: PRIORITIZING POTENTIAL MEASURES OF WILDERNESS CHARACTER

DATA SHEET COMPLETED BY: ANNE MORKILL, REFUGE/COMPLEX MANAGER 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. Significance

B. Vulnerability

C. Reliability

D. Feasibility

UNTRAMMELED QUALITY Indicator: Authorized actions that manipulate the biophysical environment Measure: Gallons of chemical used or spots treated per year to control exotic plants.

2 2 2 1 7

_________________________________________________________________________________




B. Vulnerability

C. Reliability

D. Feasibility

Indicator: Authorized actions that manipulate the biophysical environment Measure: Days entomological technicians inspected/set traps on wilderness islands per year.

3 2 3 1 9

Indicator: Authorized actions that manipulate the biophysical environment Measure: Total acreage receiving larvicide for mosquito control.

3 3 3 1 10

Indicator: Unauthorized actions that manipulate the biophysical environment Measure: Index of user-created trails and clearings

3 3 3 1 10

NATURAL QUALITY Indicator: Plant and animal species and communities Measure: Abundance and distribution of non-native plant species

3 3 2 1 9

Indicator: Plant and animal species and communities Measure: Presence of non-native animal species on wilderness islands.

2 2 1 1 6

Indicator: Plant and animal species and communities Measure: Index of the status of indigenous plant species that are federally listed and/or of conservation interest

3 3 2 1 9

Indicator: Plant and animal species and communities Measure: Index of the status of indigenous animal species that are listed, or are candidates for listing, as threatened or endangered

3 3 2 1 9

Indicator: Physical resources Measure: Air Quality 3 1 1 1 6

Indicator: Physical resources Measure: Water Quality of surface freshwaters 3 3 1 0 7

_________________________________________________________________________________




B. Vulnerability

C. Reliability

D. Feasibility

Indicator: Physical resources Measure: Water Quality of surrounding ocean waters (NOAA data)

1 2 2 1 6

Indicator: Biophysical processes Measure: Index of the status of plant communities and cover types.

3 3 2 1 9

Indicator: Biophysical processes Measure: Cumulative change at beach erosion measurement sites.

3 3 3 1 10

UNDEVELOPED QUALITY Indicator: Non-recreational structures, installations, or developments Measure: Index of non recreational structures, installations, developments

3 1 3 1 8

Indicator: Non-recreational structures, installations, or developments Measure: Number of signs within wilderness boundary

3 3 3 1 10

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

Indicator: Use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport Measure: Index of mechanical transport and motorized equipment use in wilderness.

3 2 3 1 9

SOLITUDE OR PRIMITIVE AND UNCONFINED RECREATION QUALITY Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness Measure: Average number of visitors in wilderness

3 3 3 1 10

Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness Measure: Average group size in wilderness.

3 3 3 1 10

_________________________________________________________________________________




B. Vulnerability

C. Reliability

D. Feasibility

Indicator: Remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside the wilderness Measure: Number of clean ups at beaches or tons of trash collected

2 3 1 1 7

Indicator: Remoteness from occupied and modified areas outside the wilderness Measure: Average number of watercraft in transit adjacent to wilderness.

3 3 2 1 9

Indicator: Remoteness from occupied and modified areas outside the wilderness Measure: Average number of aircraft flights over wilderness per visit.

3 3 2 1 9

Indicator: Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation Measure: Number of recreation facilities provided by refuge.

3 1 3 1 8

Indicator: Management restrictions on visitor behavior Measure: Index of restrictions on visitor behavior 3 3 3 1 10

OTHER FEATURES QUALITY (if applicable) Indicator: Loss of cultural resources Measure: N/A

Indicator: Loss of paleontological resources Measure: N/A

_________________________________________________________________________________


Appendix C - 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)

Anticipated time to

gather data by refuge

staff in the future (rough

estimate)

Comments

Untrammeled Authorized actions

Total acreage (per island) receiving larvicide for mosquito control

Paper file

1 <1

Locating reports, compiling data from reports, and creating easy-reporting spreadsheet took some time, but now that this initial work is complete future data entry should require minimal time and effort.


Days (per island) entomological technicians inspected/set traps for mosquito surveillance on wilderness islands per year

Paper file

1 <1

Locating reports, compiling data from reports, and creating easy-reporting spreadsheet took some time, but now that this initial work is complete future data entry should require minimal time and effort.


Gallons of herbicide used to control invasive exotic plants in wilderness

TBD

TBD TBD

End of calendar year 2012 will be the first time data is collected and compiled.

_________________________________________________________________________________



Time spent

gathering data for


hours)

Anticipated time to



estimate)

Comments

Untrammeled Unauthorized actions

Index of user-created trails and clearings

Professional judgment, field work

1 3

Acquiring data from knowledgeable refuge biologist took minimal time, but it will take more time for refuge staff in the future because they will have to re-visit sites and make judgments about clearing/trail sizes. This can likely be accomplished in conjunction with other work that takes staff to the field (this is how present refuge biologist collected this data).

Natural Plant and animal species

Index of the percent of wilderness acreage that is occupied by invasive exotic plant species


2 3

Defining measure and determining where to get data took some time, but acquiring data from knowledgeable refuge biologist took minimal time. It will take more time for refuge staff in the future because they will have to re-visit islands and make judgments about coverage of non-natives. This can likely be accomplished in conjunction with other work that takes staff to the field (this is how present refuge biologist collected

_________________________________________________________________________________



Time spent

gathering data for


hours)

Anticipated time to



estimate)

Comments

this data).


Presence of invasive exotic animal species on wilderness islands

Professional judgment, field work 2 <1

Defining measure and determining where to get data took some time, but this is common refuge knowledge and should not take much time to gather data in the future.


Presence of keystone indigenous plant species


3 1

Defining measure and determining where to get data took some time, but acquiring data from knowledgeable refuge biologist took minimal time. It is unlikely that future data collection will take much time because this is common refuge knowledge, these species are monitored in conjunction with other refuge tasks, and there are only a few locations that may have to be revisited to determine presence.

_________________________________________________________________________________



Time spent

gathering data for


hours)

Anticipated time to



estimate)

Comments


Index of the status of select indigenous animal species

Professional judgment, current monitoring efforts 2 1

Defining measure, determining where to get data, gathering baseline data from multiple sources, and creating easy-reporting spreadsheet took some time, but now that this initial work is complete future data entry should require minimal time and effort.

Natural Physical resources

Air quality data I&M

NA <1

Data comes from national I&M reporting and was not available at the time of data entry. It is expected that this data will be easily accessible to refuge staff in the future and will require minimal effort to report it.

Natural Physical resources

Eutrophic condition of marine sanctuary waters surrounding wilderness islands

Paper file

2 <1

Defining measure and determining where to get data took some time, but now that this initial work is complete future data entry should require minimal time and effort since this is a simple reporting from NOAA records.

_________________________________________________________________________________



Time spent

gathering data for


hours)

Anticipated time to



estimate)

Comments

Natural Biophysical processes

Index of the status of plant communities and cover types

Professional judgment

3 2

The time that this measure takes to report depends on the effort used to acquire data and the quality of data being reported. If professional judgment is used, minimal time is expected. If analysis of GIS layer or aerial photography is done, this measure could take significantly more time to report. At this time, GIS layers/aerial photography was used to create a reference; it is expected that professional judgment about the trends in community types can be used to analyze data in the future.

Natural Biophysical processes

Cumulative change at dune erosion measurement sites

Field work

1 2

Acquiring data from knowledgeable refuge biologist took minimal time, but it will likely take more time for refuge staff in the future because they will have to re-visit sites and take measurements. This can likely be accomplished in conjunction with other work that takes staff to the field (this is how present refuge

_________________________________________________________________________________



Time spent

gathering data for


hours)

Anticipated time to



estimate)

Comments

biologist collected this data).

Undeveloped Non-recreational structures, installations, and developments

Count of non recreational structures, installations, developments

Common refuge knowledge

<1 <1

Interview with refuge staff.

Undeveloped Non-recreational structures, installations, and developments

Number of signs within wilderness boundary


<1 <1

Interview with refuge staff.

Undeveloped Inholdings Acres of inholdings within wilderness


<1 <1 Interview with refuge staff.

Undeveloped Use of motorized or mechanical

Index of administrative mechanical transport and motorized equipment use in wilderness

Professional judgment

<1 <1

This data came from an interview with refuge staff and was based on memory. Easy reporting data sheets were created so that this can be accurately tracked in the future.

_________________________________________________________________________________



Time spent

gathering data for


hours)

Anticipated time to



estimate)

Comments

Solitude + Remoteness from inside

Average number of visitors in wilderness

Field work

3 <1

Defining measure, creating data collection sheets, and creating easy reporting spreadsheets took quite some time. This data is collected in conjunction with other refuge tasks. The additional time that collecting this data will add to field work is only a few minutes for each survey. Over the year, the time allotted to collecting this data is greater, but per survey is less than one hour.


Average group size in wilderness

Field work

3 <1


_________________________________________________________________________________



Time spent

gathering data for


hours)

Anticipated time to



estimate)

Comments


Amount of trash debris on wilderness islands as measured by the pounds of debris removed

Paper file

2 <1

Defining measure, determining where to get this data, meeting with NOAA staff, and creating easy-reporting spreadsheet took some time, but now that this initial work is complete future data entry should require minimal time and effort.

Solitude + Remoteness from outside

Average number of watercraft in transit adjacent to wilderness

Field work

3 <1


Solitude + Remoteness from outside

Average number of aircraft flights over wilderness

Field work

3 <1

Defining measure, creating data collection sheets, and creating easy reporting spreadsheets took quite some time. This data is collected in conjunction with other refuge tasks. The additional time that

_________________________________________________________________________________



Time spent

gathering data for


hours)

Anticipated time to



estimate)

Comments

collecting this data will add to field work is only a few minutes for each survey. Over the year, the time allotted to collecting this data is greater, but per survey is less than one hour.

Solitude + Facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation

Number of recreation facilities provided by refuge

Common refuge knowledge 3 <1

Defining measure, meeting with refuge staff, and creating easy-reporting spreadsheet took some time, but now that this initial work is complete future data entry should require minimal time and effort.

Solitude + Mgmt restrictions on visitor behavior

Index of restrictions on visitor behavior

Common refuge knowledge 3 <1

Defining measure, meeting with refuge staff, and creating easy-reporting spreadsheet took some time, but now that this initial work is complete future data entry should require minimal time and effort.

Other Features

Loss of cultural resources

NA NA NA NA

_________________________________________________________________________________


Appendix D - Data sources and protocols for all measured used

FWS National Wildlife Refuge System Wilderness Fellows Keeping Track of Wilderness Character Monitoring Measures

Measure Priority (H, M, L)

Detailed Description of the Data Source(s) and Protocols for How the Data Were Gathered

Untrammeled Quality Total acreage (per island) receiving larvicide for mosquito control

H Florida Keys Mosquito Control District Progress Reports. This measure is a reporting of the total wilderness acreage receiving Bti larvicide treatment by ground (hand) and aerially (helicopter) that is reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service by the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District each year.

Days (per island) entomological technicians inspected/set traps for mosquito surveillance on wilderness islands per year

H Florida Keys Mosquito Control District Progress Reports. This measure is a reporting of the days entomological technicians inspected/set traps on wilderness islands that is reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service by the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District each year.

Gallons of herbicide used to control invasive exotic plants in wilderness

M Refuge biologist. End of calendar year 2012 will be the first time data is collected. If data is compiled in a report, this source should be cited here.

Index of user-created trails and clearings

H Refuge biologist. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Each trail or clearing is classified and scored by its size.

Natural Quality Index of the percent of wilderness acreage that is occupied by invasive exotic plant species

H Refuge biologist. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Each wilderness island is scored by the estimated percent of wilderness acreage that is occupied by non-native plant species. Scores for each wilderness island are summed to generate a total score for the entire wilderness.

Presence of invasive exotic animal species on wilderness islands

M Refuge biologist. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). The number of non-native animal species is determined for each wilderness island. A threat level score posed by these species is also assigned for each wilderness island

_________________________________________________________________________________




that hosts non-native animal species. The number of non-natives species present on a wilderness island is multiplied by this score. The resulting products for each island are summed to generate a total score for the entire wilderness.

Presence of keystone indigenous plant species

H Refuge biologists. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Presence and absence of sea oats (Uniola paniculata), bay cedar (Suriana maritima), and yellowheart (Zanthoxylum flavum) on each wilderness island is recorded. The number of islands on which each species is found is summed to generate a number that reports the total presence of all species on wilderness islands.

Index of the status of select indigenous animal species

H Refuge biologists. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). This measure monitors the population trends and threats for each species. Each species is classified by its population status and habitat threat with scores assigned by category. Scores are multiplied together for each species monitored under this measure, and the resulting products for each species are summed to generate a total score.

Air quality data H Inventory and Monitoring Department. This measure is made up of four air quality parameters: (1) ozone air pollution, (2) total nitrogen wet deposition, (3) total sulfur wet deposition, and (4) visibility.

Eutrophic condition of marine sanctuary waters surrounding wilderness islands

L Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report (2011), Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This measure is a reporting of NOAA's results from a condition report of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The eutrophic condition of marine waters is based on inputs from land, phytoplankton bloom events, and the threats that these pose to sanctuary resources. The condition is rated as Good, Good/Fair, Fair, Fair/Poor, or Poor. Data will be entered as often as NOAA identifies the conditions of sanctuary waters.

Index of the status of plant communities and cover types

H Refuge biologists. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Each

_________________________________________________________________________________




plant community is classified by its status with a score assigned by category. The scores for each plant community are summed to generate a total score reported for this measure.

Cumulative change at dune erosion measurement sites

H Refuge biologist. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). At each site, a PVC pole is installed at the landward edge of the dune. With a 100ft tape measure, the dune is measured starting at this fixed position at the landward edge extending to the seaward edge of the dune. Measurements are taken at least once a year. The cumulative change from the first year each site is measured from the most recent measurement is determined. The average cumulative change for all sites is calculated.

Undeveloped Quality Count of non recreational structures, installations, developments

H Refuge biologist, refuge manager. Each development in wilderness is counted.

Number of signs within wilderness boundary

H Refuge biologist, refuge manager. Each sign in wilderness is counted.

Acres of inholdings within wilderness

H Refuge manager. A reporting of the acreage of inholdings found within the wilderness boundary.

Index of administrative mechanical transport and motorized equipment use in wilderness

H Refuge biologist, refuge manager. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). This single measure directly tracks the status and trends of all motorized and mechanized use that are authorized by the Federal land manager in wilderness. An inherent weighting has been assigned to each equipment type based on its perceived impact to social and biophysical resources, as shown in the table. Mechanized equipment and motorized equipment with a relatively low level of impact are assigned a value of 1, motorized equipment with a moderate level of impact is assigned a value of 2, and motorized equipment with a high level of impact is assigned a 3. A total use level value will be calculated for each motorized/mechanized use by multiplying the inherent weight of each type of

_________________________________________________________________________________




equipment by the amount of actual use, as shown in the table. The resulting products for each motorized/mechanized use are summed to generate a total score for the entire wilderness.

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality Average number of visitors in wilderness

H All refuge staff going into the field. Data entry and analysis sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data is compiled from refuge staff (law enforcement, researchers) who collect visitor use data in conjunction with their other work duties. The number of visitors observed per visit to a wilderness location is recorded. When a total number of wilderness visitors is recorded on a visit, this number will be weighted to reflect whether the visitors were seeking a “wilderness” experience or “non-wilderness” experience. Multiply the number of visitors by 1 (one) OR 2 (two) according to the types of activity most visitors are engaged in. At the end of the year, the visitor scores for all visits to wilderness are summed and divided by the total number of visits to get an average score per day for a particular year.

Average group size in wilderness

H All refuge staff going into the field. Data entry and analysis sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data on the numbers of groups of size categories is compiled by refuge staff (law enforcement, researchers) who collect visitor use data in conjunction with their other work duties. Scores are assigned to each group size category. Larger groups have a greater impact on wilderness character and therefore are assigned a higher score. At the end of the year, the group size scores for all visits to wilderness are summed and divided by the total number of visits to get an average score per day for a particular year.

Amount of trash debris on wilderness islands as measured by the pounds of debris removed

M National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Team O.C.E.A.N. coordinators. Data entry sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). This data is a reporting of the data recorded by NOAA Team O.C.E.A.N. They record where debris was collected and how many pounds were

_________________________________________________________________________________




removed. Only data from wilderness islands is included.

Average number of watercraft in transit adjacent to wilderness

H All refuge staff going into the field. Data entry and analysis sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data is compiled from refuge staff (law enforcement, researchers) who collect visitor use data in conjunction with their other work duties. The number of watercraft audibly or visibly in transit adjacent to wilderness is recorded per visit to a wilderness location. At the end of the year, all watercraft transits adjacent to wilderness for all visits to wilderness is summed and divided by the total number of visits to get an average per day for a particular year.

Average number of aircraft flights over wilderness

H All refuge staff going into the field. Data entry and analysis sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Data is compiled from refuge staff (law enforcement, researchers) who collect aircraft flight data in conjunction with their other work duties. The number of aircraft visibly flying over wilderness is recorded per visit to a wilderness location. At the end of the year, all flights over wilderness for all visits to wilderness is summed and divided by the total number of visits to get an average per day for a particular year.

Number of recreation facilities provided by refuge

H Refuge manager. Structures, installations, and developments that have a recreation purpose or use are monitored under this question. Each structure is weighted equally. All recreation facilities at a site are counted separately.

Index of restrictions on visitor behavior

H Comprehensive Conservation Plan, refuge manager. Data entry and analysis sheets were created and stored in the “Wilderness” folder on the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges shared drive (S:\). Each wilderness unit is scored on its visitor restrictions. A weighted index of restrictions on visitor behavior assigns scores to the type of restriction with more onerous restrictions weighted more heavily. If a wilderness has more than one type of regulation within a given category, the score will be assigned that corresponds to the most restrictive regulation in place. Scores are summed for the entire wilderness to get an overall score of visitor restrictions.