Appendices Appendix A: Ecosystem Representation in Designated Wilderness Areas in Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests Appendix B: Transportation Infrastructure and Access on National Forests and Grasslands A Literature Review Appendix C: A Primer on Impacts of Forest Roads on Water Quality and Quantity in California Appendix D: Viability Evaluation for California Spotted Owl SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 140 Appendix A Ecosystem Representation in Designated Wilderness Areas in Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests Ecological Importance of Ecosystem Representation Wilderness and other protected areas (PAs) are the cornerstones of most regional, national, and international efforts to conserve biological diversity and ecological processes of natural ecosystems (Bertzky et al. 2012). PAs are effective in reducing the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of natural habitats (Bruner et al. 2001; Naughton-Treves et al. 2005) and slowing the rate of extinction of threatened species that occur therein (Butchart et al. 2012). Recognizing the importance of PAs, Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) calls for at least 17% of the world’s terrestrial areas to be conserved by 2020 (Woodley et al. 2012). PAs, however, can help achieve biodiversity targets only if they are located in the right places— that is, they are ecologically representative of terrestrial ecosystems. The “representation” approach to conservation assumes that for PAs to conserve genetic, species, and community diversity—as well as the composition, structure, function, and evolutionary potential of natural systems—they must encompass the full variety of ecosystems (Olson & Dinerstein 1998; Margules & Pressey 2000). Protection of ecological communities will protect the species that rely on them and the natural ecological processes that are characteristic of those ecosystems (Rodrigues et al. 2004; Bunce et al. 2013). CBD has developed several indicators to evaluate the ecological representativeness of the global protected areas network, one of which is the percentage of terrestrial ecosystems protected by 2020 (Woodley et al. 2012). As we commemorate the 50thanniversary of The Wilderness Act (signed into law on September 3, 1964), it is important to take inventory of the lands that have been designated as wilderness and evaluate how well the U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) represents the biological diversity of America’s publicly owned and managed federal lands, both nationally and regionally. In short, we believe that increasing the ecosystem diversity represented in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) should be a priority for the next 50 years of The Wilderness Act. The Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests host many ecosystems currently under-represented at local and national scales and therefore possess a ripe opportunity to increase the diversity of ecosystems in the NWPS. Methods and Analysis of Ecosystem Representation Because an assessment of ecological representation was missing from the forest assessments and bioregional assessment, we conducted an analysis of ecosystem representation in wilderness at the national- and forest-level scales to provide the best available information for forest planning and development of alternatives. SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 Appendix A-1 For analysis of ecological representation, we used U.S. Geological Survey Gap Analysis Program (GAP) national land cover data version 2 (USGS 2011), which provides seamless, detailed (30 m resolution) information on vegetation and land use patterns of the United States using consistent satellite base data and classification systems. The ecological system level data are “cross-walked” to the six highest levels of the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS 2008)—the foundation of the most detailed, consistent map of vegetative associations available for the U.S. We analyzed ecosystem representation at the 6th level (the finest scale at which consistent, spatially-explicit land-cover data are available) of the NVCS, which is hierarchically ordered as follows: 1. Class 2. Subclass 3. Formation 4. Division 5. Macrogroup 6. Group (a.k.a. ecological system)—which we refer to in this study as “ecosystem” 7. Alliance 8. Association We obtained spatial data of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) from the Wilderness Institute, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, through wilderness.net, which maintains the most up-to-date spatial data on wilderness areas. To map federal land area, we used the U.S. Protected Areas Database (PAD-US) version 1.3 (USGS 2012), which is a geodatabase of the national inventory of U.S. terrestrial and marine protected areas that are dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity and to other natural, recreation, and cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The geodatabase includes geographic boundaries, land ownership, land management, management designation, parcel name, area, and protection category. We overlaid the NWPS and all federal lands with land cover data in a Geographic Information System (ArcGIS 10.2) to calculate the total area of each ecosystem within wilderness and federal land. This was part of a national assessment that we have conducted (Dietz et al. In review). We also present here underrepresented types from the Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo at the forest level. Because wilderness areas are designated only from federal land, we calculated “ecosystem representation” at the federal level in NWPS using equation 1. (area of an ecosystem in NWPS / area of the ecosystem on federal land) * 100(equation 1) Similarly, for analyses of ecosystem representation at the forest level, we used equation 2. (area of an ecosystem in NWPS on the national forest / area of the ecosystem on that forest) * 100 (equation2) SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 Appendix A-2 For example, when we say “boreal aspen-birch forest has 19% representation in NWPS”, we mean that 19% of all federal land of that ecosystem type is protected as wilderness in NWPS. We brought the wilderness inventory into Arc (from the zipped file “Wilderness _ Inventory.gdb.zip”) for the California early adopter forests and created a new shapefile that included only those areas listed as “Yes” in the field “In_Inventory”). We then clipped each of these areas to each forest (Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia). We also extracted land cover data to each forest boundary. We calculated the percent of each ecosystem within the NWPS based on all area occurring on federal land (area in NWPS / total area of federal land) and all area occurring on each forest (area in NWPS on forest / total area on forest). We then classified representation for each scale into four classes (<5, 5-9.9, 10-(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:17)(cid:28)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:149)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:80)(cid:68)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:58)(cid:72)(cid:3) considered ecosystems with <19.9% of its total area in the NWPS as inadequately represented. These maps are available as geo-pdfs that are georeferenced and can be brought into a GPS application on a mobile device, and coordinates can be obtained from the pdf. We then tabulated the area of each ecosystem occurring within each wilderness inventory area by each forest. Because the wilderness inventory areas did not include a unique identifying name, we used the OBJECTID from the original datasource for all spatial and tabular data organizing purposes. The ecosystem by wilderness inventory matrices for each forest can be found in “Ecosystem Composition of Wilderness Inventory Areas in California Early Adopters.xlsx”). Values within the matrix are the estimated hectares of each ecosystem occurring within each wilderness inventory area. We used these data to calculate the proportion (%) of each wilderness inventory area that is composed of ecosystems inadequately represented in NWPS by each of the 3 lower representation classes (<5, 5-9.9, 10-19.9%) and for both scales of representation. Results The attached maps and tables show the following for each forest: Map 1 “California Early Adopters Representation Maps compressed”: Each unit (polygon) in the final wilderness inventory of lands that may be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, outlined in yellow and numbered by the OBJECTID from the original USFS spatial data. [forest boundary shaded grey] Map 2: Color depiction of equation 1 (above), which shows the level of representation in the NWPS of each ecosystem at the national scale. For example, areas shown in red depict ecosystems that are represented in NWPS at less than 5% of all available federal land. [forest boundary shaded grey; inventory units outlined in black] Map 3: Color depiction of equation 2 (above), which shows the level of representation in the NWPS of each ecosystem at the forest-level scale. For example, areas shown in red depict ecosystems that are represented in NWPS on that forest at less than 5% of all available land on that forest. Tables 1-3 “Representation Tables”: Proportion (%) of each wilderness inventory area composed of underrepresented ecosystems on the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests based on SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 Appendix A-3 federal- or forest-level representation. Representation of each ecosystem was quantified based on all available area on federal land and individual forests. All ecosystems with < 20% representation in the NWPS at each scale was binned into 3 levels of representation (<5%, 5- 9.9%, and 10-19.9%). These tables allow one to prioritize potential wilderness inventory units by proportion of land area that is composed of under-represented ecosystems—at three levels. Excel Tables 1-3 “Ecosystem Composition of Wilderness Inventory Areas in California Early adopters”: Values within the matrix are the estimated hectares of each ecosystem occurring within each wilderness inventory area. These tables allow one to see the specific ecosystem composition of each inventory unit. This spreadsheet was attached as in a zip file to these comments. Excel Tables 1-9 “California Early Adopters Ecosystems Rep”: Complete list of ecosystems for each CA early adopter forest and the proportion in wilderness at the forest level and national scale; tabs showing representation breakdowns at the three levels (<5%, 5-9.9%, and 10-19.9%) at the forest-level and national scales. These tables allow one to see which ecosystems are under- represented at the forest-level and national scales. This spreadsheet was attached as in a zip file to these comments. Recommendations We urge the three California early adopter forests to use the representation information in the attached tables and maps to evaluate the importance of each roadless area in achieving diverse ecosystem representation in wilderness at the regional and national scales. We believe that this information is the best available science on ecosystem representation of currently designated wilderness areas and how representation can be enhanced with future wilderness designations. The agency is legally required to use best available science per NFMA: 219.3 Role of science in planning. The responsible official shall use the best available scientific information to inform the planning process required by this subpart. In doing so, the responsible official shall determine what information is the most accurate, reliable, and relevant to the issues being considered. The responsible official shall document how the best available scientific information was used to inform the assessment, the plan decision, and the monitoring program as required in §§ 219.6(a)(3) and 219.14(a)(4). Such documentation must: Identify what information was determined to be the best available scientific information, explain the basis for that determination, and explain how the information was applied to the issues considered. Under-represented areas should receive special consideration for wilderness recommendation to achieve the goals set out in the NFMA regulations and directives. Ultimately, the primary goal in forest planning, as described in the NFMA regulations is to “guide management of NFS lands so that they are ecologically sustainable and contribute to social and economic sustainability; consist of ecosystems and watersheds with ecological integrity and diverse plant and animal communities; and have the capacity to provide people and communities with ecosystem services and multiple uses that provide a range of social, economic, and ecological benefits for the present and into the future.” (219.1 (c)). (emphasis added) SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 Appendix A-4 Sufficient ecosystem representation in the National Wilderness Preservation System is crucial to achieving ecological integrity of the diverse plant and animal communities found in the three California early-adopter forests. If you have any questions about the analysis or data, or would like to have the data in another format, please contact Matt Dietz at (415) 710-7064 or [email protected]. SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 Appendix A-5 Literature Cited Bertzky, B., Corrigan, C., Kemsey, J. et al. (2012). Protected planet report 2012: tracking progress towards global targets for protected areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and UNEP- WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E. & da Fonseca, G.A.B. (2001). Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science, 291, 125-128. Bunce, R.G.H., Bogers, M.M.B., Evans, D. et al. (2013). The significance of habitats as indicators of biodiversity and their links to species. Ecol. Indic.,33, 19-25. Butchart, S.H.M., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Evans, M.I. et al. (2012). Protecting important sites for biodiversity contributes to meeting global conservation targets. PLOS ONE, 7(3): e32529, 1-8. Dietz, M.S., R.T. Belote, G.H. Aplet, and J.L. Aycrigg. In Review. The world’s largest wilderness preservation system after 50 years: an assessment of ecosystem representation. Conservation Letters XX: xxx-xxx. Margules, C.R. & Pressey, R.L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405, 243-253. National Vegetation Classification System, Version 2, Feb. 2008. (2008). Vegetation Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee. FGDC-STD-005-2008. Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M.B. & Brandon, K. (2005). The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annu. Rev. Env. Res.,30, 219-252. Olson, D.M. & Dinerstein, E. (1998). The global 200: A representation approach to conserving the Earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conserv. Biol.,12, 502-515. Rodrigues, A.S.L., Andelman, S.J., Bakarr, M.I. et al. (2004). Effectiveness of the global protected areas network in representing species diversity. Nature, 428, 640-643. US Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program (GAP). (2011). National Land Cover, version 2, August 2011. Accessed 15 January 2014: http://gapanlysis.usgs.gov. US Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program (GAP). (2012). Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US), version 1.3, combined feature class, Nov. 2012. Accessed 15 January 2014: http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus. The Wilderness Act. (1964). Public Law 88-577, 16 U.S.C. 1131-1136, 88thCongress, Second Session, September 3, 1964. Woodley, S., Bertzky, B., Crawhall, N. et al. (2012). Meeting Aichi target 11: What does success look like for protected area systems? Parks, 18, 23-36. SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 Appendix A-6 1211 1195 1361 1208 1357 1355 1179 1072 1068 1339 1342 1332 10121039 1312 1164 995 1311 1161 1376 1159 1308 944 1301 1156 1297 11561154 1295 1155 1276 1148 1275 1147 1281 1258 1248 1140 1246 1242 1116 1115 1236 1112 1110 1108 1232 1106 1099 1098 1092 1081 143214581080 1458 Wilderness Inventory 1458 Inyo National Forest SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 Appendix A-7 Federal Representation in NWPS < 5 5 - 9.9 10 - 19.9 ≥ 20 SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 Appendix A-8 Inyo NF Representation in NWPS < 5 5 - 9.9 10 - 19.9 ≥ 20 SFL et al. comments on Notice of Intent and Detailed Proposed Action 9-29-14 Appendix A-9