Responsible official Daniel J. Jirón

Regional Forester

Rocky Mountain Region

740 Simms Street

Golden, CO 80401

Recommending Official Joseph G. Alexander

Forest Supervisor

Shoshone National Forest

808 Meadow Lane Avenue

Cody, WY 82414

For more information Olga Troxel

Acting Forest Planner

Shoshone National Forest

808 Meadow Lane Avenue

Cody, WY 82414

Telephone: 307.527.6241

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large 

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a 

complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

This document presents the decision regarding the selection of a revised land 

management plan for the Shoshone National Forest. It summarizes the reasons for 

choosing the selected alternative as the basis for the revised Forest plan, which will 

be followed for the next 10 to 15 years. The long-term environmental consequences 

contained in the final environmental impact statement are considered in this 

decision.
Record of Decision

Table of Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 1

My Decision.................................................................................................................................................... 1

Consideration of Objections....................................................................................................................... 2

Components of My Decision...................................................................................................................... 3

Rationale for My Decision.............................................................................................................................. 6

Other Alternatives Considered in Detail..................................................................................................... 6

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................................................... 7

Rationale for Selection of Alternative G-Modified .................................................................................... 7

Changes from Draft to Pre-Objection Draft.................................................................................................. 14

Changes Between Pre-Objection Draft and Final Decision.......................................................................... 15

Management Area and Suitable Use Changes.......................................................................................... 15

Francs Peak and Wood River................................................................................................................ 15

Dunoir Special Management Unit ........................................................................................................ 16

The Planning Process and Public Involvement............................................................................................. 16

Other Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 17

Identification of the Environmentally Preferred Alternative.................................................................... 17

Alternative with Highest Present Net Value............................................................................................. 19

Findings Required by Other Laws............................................................................................................ 19

Clean Air Act........................................................................................................................................ 19

Clean Water Act.................................................................................................................................... 19

National Historic Preservation Act ....................................................................................................... 19

Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................................................... 20

Healthy Forests Restoration Act ........................................................................................................... 21

Other Laws and Executive Orders........................................................................................................ 21

Implementation and Effective Date .............................................................................................................. 21

Site-specific Projects............................................................................................................................. 21

Potential Amendments or Adjustments to the Revised Plan......................................................................... 23

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix: Response to Reviewing Official’s Instructions........................................................................... 25

iii

Record of Decision

Introduction

This document presents the decision and summarizes the reasons for choosing the selected alternative 

based on the Shoshone National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), for the Shoshone

National Forest Revised Land Management Plan (LMP). The long-term environmental consequences 

contained in the FEIS are considered in this decision. A LMP is required by the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) and associated regulations.

The Shoshone National Forest consists of 2.4 million acres in Fremont, Hot Springs, Park, Sublette, and 

Teton counties. Approximately 56 percent of the Forest is designated wilderness and 28 percent inventoried 

roadless under the 2001 Roadless Rule. The Forest is part of the Greater Yellowstone Area, which is a 

large, nearly intact northern temperate zone ecosystem. The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee 

was formed in 1964 to allow representatives from the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) National 

Park Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

and the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service to pursue opportunities of mutual cooperation and coordination in 

the management of core Federal lands located within the Greater Yellowstone Area. This relationship added

depth to the LMP because elements were considered in context with other public lands within the area. 

This record of decision (ROD) only affects the lands administered by the Shoshone National Forest. It does 

not affect lands administered by the other agencies within the Greater Yellowstone Area. This LMP

establishes a framework for future decision-making by outlining a broad, interdisciplinary program for 

achieving the desired goals, objectives, and future conditions of the landscape for the next 10 to 15 years. 

The LMP does not make a commitment to the selection of any specific project and does not dictate day-today administrative activities needed to implement the Agency’s internal operations. However, by applying 

Forestwide management direction, the LMP is implemented through the design, execution, and monitoring 

of site-specific projects and activities.

My Decision

This record of decision (ROD) presents my decision to select a modified version of alternative G as

presented in the FEIS to serve as the basis for the revised LMP for the Shoshone National Forest. In 

making this decision I reviewed the range of alternatives, read the public comments, and considered the 

evaluation of the alternatives in the FEIS. I modified alternative G in the FEIS and draft ROD after 

considering comments during additional public meetings after the FEIS and draft ROD were published. I 

also considered the objections filed during the formal objection period and the instructions on the 

objections from the Objections Reviewing Officer.

This LMP and FEIS furthers the “all-lands” approach through collaboration with key stakeholders,

including other Federal landowners within the Greater Yellowstone Area, state and local governments, and 

American Indian tribes with an interest in the Shoshone National Forest. This coordination allowed for the 

revision to be consistent with the plans for the surrounding landscape.

By selecting alternative G-modified, I am approving a revised LMP for the Shoshone National Forest to 

provide a more a holistic approach toward the management of this landscape. In addition, alternative Gmodified best responds to the identified need for change in six major plan revision topics:

1. Recreation uses and opportunities

2. Special areas and designations

1
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

3. Vegetation management

4. Wildlife habitat management

5. Oil and gas development

6. Commercial livestock grazing

Furthermore, alternative G-modified best addresses the issues raised within each revision topic. It is 

responsive to the comments received and is a logical outgrowth of the analysis and public involvement 

efforts. Alternative G-modified strikes a balance among these resources, and does not emphasize any

particular element over another.

This LMP includes goals and objectives, standards and guidelines, management area direction, monitoring 

and evaluation direction, and recommendations for special area allocations. It identifies lands that are 

suitable for various uses.

This revised LMP and FEIS are programmatic and represent a broad management strategy for the 

Shoshone National Forest that provides direction for restoring and sustaining healthy forest and rangeland 

conditions. Standards and guidelines ensure that resources are managed in a sustainable manner. Needed 

course corrections or adjustments would be identified through monitoring and evaluation, and amendments 

to the LMP would be made as needed. This decision will remain in effect until the LMP is revised or 

amended.

My decision is being made pursuant to the 1982 Forest Service planning regulations, as allowed by the 

transition language of the current regulations, 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219.17(b)(3). A copy 

of the 1982 Planning Regulations is available at the Shoshone National Forest office or at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html.

Consideration of Objections

In accordance with subpart B of the current planning regulations at 36 CFR 219, individuals or entities who 

had participated in the planning process were given an opportunity to object to a January 2014 draft version 

of this ROD along with a draft Plan. During the formal objection period, 70 objections were submitted and 

10 people intervened as an interested person to one or more objection. After considering the objections and 

meeting with the objectors and interested persons, Jane L. Cottrell, Reviewing Officer for the Chief, sent 

me an objections response with instructions on December 15, 2014. These instructions addressed concerns 

related to potential wild and scenic rivers, potential wilderness, the Dunoir Special Management Unit, 

motorized travel, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, interactions between bighorn sheep and 

recreational pack-goats, wetlands and watershed management, Canada Lynx habitat and pre-commercial 

thinning, general wildlife viability, wildlife habitat management, oil and gas suitability, rangeland 

management, and social and economic analysis. Based on the instructions, I have modified portions of the 

Forest Plan and developed an errata to the FEIS. I have also clarified some of the analysis in the project 

file. My response to the instructions is in appendix A of this ROD.

I have discussed the required changes to the Plan with Reviewing Officer Cottrell and Forest Supervisor 

Joe Alexander. The Forest supervisor and I concur with the reviewing officer that the changes to the Plan 

in response to the objections are in the best interests of the American public and better help us meet the 

desired conditions for the Forest.

2
Record of Decision

Components of My Decision

There are six fundamental components of my LMP decision, as follows. 

1. Establishment of Forestwide multiple-use goals and objectives, including desired conditions (36 

CFR 219.11(b)–1982)

I am establishing goals, stated as desired conditions, and objectives, as listed and described in the 

Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan, for each resource or resource area.

Desired conditions encompass the overarching goals of land and resource management. They are 

statements of the social, economic, and ecological attributes and values toward which management 

strives to achieve, and characterize or exemplify the desired outcomes of land management. They 

describe how the area is expected to look and function in the future. Some desired conditions are 

general, while others are specific. 

Desired conditions are aspirations; they may only be achievable over the long term. Collectively, 

specific projects implemented subsequent to this Plan should contribute to maintaining and/or 

achieving desired conditions, but no single project should be expected to contribute to meeting all 

desired conditions. Identifying and establishing desired conditions is the central focus of this LMP.

Objectives are concise projections of measurable, time-specific intended outcomes. Objectives are a 

means of progressing toward maintaining and/or achieving desired conditions. As with desired 

conditions, they are aspirations, not commitments or final project decisions.

2. Establishment of Forestwide standards and guidelines (36 CFR 219.13 to 219.27–1982)

I am establishing standards and guidelines as listed and described in the Shoshone National Forest

Land Management Plan for each resource or resource area.

Standards and guidelines are criteria used in project design and implementation that protect resources 

and provide technical guidance for project and activity decision-making to help achieve desired 

conditions and objectives. They are project-level operational controls that help ensure that projects are 

implemented in ways that reduce environmental impacts.

A standard is an approach or condition determined to be necessary to meet desired future conditions 

and objectives, and/or to ensure the long-term viability of resources. A standard (worded as “must” or 

“shall”) describes a course of action that must be followed, or a level of attainment that must be 

reached. Deviations from standards would require analysis and documentation through a subsequent 

LMP amendment.

A guideline (worded as “should”) is presumptively a requirement to meet desired future conditions and 

objectives, and/or to ensure the long-term viability of resources. Guidelines are put forward in this plan 

in recognition that there may be circumstances that could generate or require alternative, more 

appropriate means for meeting desired future conditions and objectives, and/or to ensure the long-term 

viability of resources. It is also recognized that there may be limited individual circumstances where 

the need for a guideline no longer exists or the applicability of a guideline is otherwise altered (e.g., 

changes is surrounding land use that may render a guideline ineffective). In these situations a guideline 

has been determined to be more appropriate than a standard by allowing some flexibility in approach as 

conditions change and new information is obtained. The use of guidelines in this plan is an 

acknowledgement that a single ideal approach for meeting our desired future conditions and objectives, 

3
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

and/or ensuring the long-term viability of resources, may yet to be identified, and that there may be 

nuances in any given management situation that warrant a modified approach. If the responsible 

official for a project decision finds that deviation from a guideline is necessary, the responsible official 

must record the reasons for deviation as part of the project decision and explain how the intent of the 

guideline—as established by the desired future conditions and objectives, and/or need to ensure longterm viability of resources—is being met through alternative means. If the intent of the guideline is met 

through alternative means, a LMP amendment would not be required. 

3. Establishment of management direction (36 CFR 219.11(c)–1982)

I am establishing six management prescriptions, called management areas, which will guide the design 

and implementation of future actions. These are identified using a numbering scheme commonly used

in the Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest Service. This numbering scheme uses a scale from 

management area 1 comprising wilderness prescriptions to management area 8 describing developed 

sites. (management areas 6 and 7 are not used in this Plan). Management areas describe the level of 

management, investment and appearance of landscapes, and the suitable uses and activities that may 

occur within that area.

4. Determination of lands suitable for various uses and an allowable timber sale quantity

My decision specifically includes the determination of lands suitable for timber harvest (36 CFR 

219.14−1982) and an associated allowable sale quantity for the next 10 years on those acres (36 CFR 

219.16−1982); the determination of lands suitable for grazing and browsing (36 CFR 219.20–1982); 

and provisions for a broad spectrum of outdoor recreation opportunities (36 CFR 219.21–1982).

Suitable uses are described in the LMP for each management area and for some specific areas.

My decision identifies 127,009 acres as suitable for timber production. I am establishing an allowable 

sale quantity for the next 10 years on the suitable acres as 22,800 thousand cubic feet.

My decision also identifies 375,368 acres as suitable for grazing and browsing.

My decision identifies which areas are generally suitable for oil and gas surface development.

However, there may be restrictions and stipulations as part of the oil and gas leasing availability

decision which is separate from this Forest Plan decision.

5. Establishment of requirements for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the revised 

plan (36 CFR 219.11(d)–1982)

I am establishing monitoring and evaluation requirements as described in chapter 3 of the LMP. The 

monitoring plan provides a framework for adaptive management by establishing priorities and 

timelines for the evaluation of ecological, social, and economic conditions and trends that contribute to 

sustainability and reflect progress toward the land management goals of the Shoshone National Forest.

As part of the monitoring plan, we state that cooperating agencies can assist Forest personnel with

monitoring forest LMP and project implementation. Maintaining the knowledge base and relationship 

with state agencies and local elected officials will provide continuity in the adaptive management 

cycle, from development of the revised LMP to plan implementation.

6. Recommendations for additions to the Wilderness Preservation System, the Wild and Scenic River 

Systems, and establishment of new research natural areas or other administrative designated areas

(36 CFR 219.17(a), 219.18, 219.21, 219.25–1982)

4
Record of Decision

Recommendations for Wilderness. Because the majority of the Forest is already wilderness, and 

because I am seeking balance among uses of the Forest, I am not recommending additional areas for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The FEIS includes an evaluation of the 

potential wilderness areas (Appendix C, “Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness”). This 

evaluation was based on Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, which describes three tests—

capability, availability, and need—to evaluate the wilderness potential of an area. The Shoshone has a 

number of backcountry areas that could be additions to the wilderness system. There is also a large 

amount of high-quality wilderness designated on the Shoshone and on surrounding national forests. I 

have decided to continue protecting the characteristics of these backcountry areas with plan direction 

that does not include wilderness recommendations. This decision maintains these areas in the 

conditions for which they are valued, while still allowing recreation uses and restoration opportunities 

that would not be available within a designated wilderness.

Recommendations for the Wild and Scenic River System. In accordance with section 5(d)(1) of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), I have identified 16 river segments as “eligible” for potential 

inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System. This is the first step in a two-step process to 

recommend these areas. The second step is to determine the suitability of these segments. The 

Shoshone has postponed making the suitability determination (as is allowed by Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12 -83.1). The Shoshone National Forest is required to provide for the protection of 

river segments identified as eligible until a decision is made through a suitability study on the future 

use of the river and adjacent lands. Projects that affect the free-flowing characteristic of an eligible 

river would have to make a wild and scenic river suitability determination before the project could 

proceed. 

These rivers may eventually be designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System by the 

Secretary of the Interior, or as the result of an act of Congress (Secretarial designation requires that the 

state’s governor make application to the Secretary of the Interior). The identification of rivers as 

eligible or subsequently suitable through this land management planning process does not trigger any 

water rights or other protections under the WSRA. In order to manage the rivers for their potential 

inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System, existing authorities will be used to protect 

the identified river’s free-flowing character, water quality, outstanding remarkable values, and 

recommended classification. The Shoshone National Forest has one designated wild and scenic river, 

the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone Wild River.

Establishment of Research Natural Areas. I am identifying eight new research natural areas in 

addition to the existing Line Creek Plateau Research Natural Area. Formal designation will take place 

after the completion of an establishment report. The new research natural areas include Beartooth 

Butte, Lake Creek, Pat O’Hara, Bald Ridge, Grizzly Creek, Sheep Mesa, Arrow Mountain, and Roaring 

Fork.

Designations of Special Interest Areas. I am identifying three new special interest areas in addition to 

the existing Swamp Lake Botanical Area Special Interest Area. The new special interest areas are

Sawtooth Peatbed Geological Area, Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological Area, and Kirwin Historical 

Area.

Other Special Areas. I am establishing management direction for the following national trails: 

• Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) Corridor: Approximately 31 miles of the 

3,100-mile CDNST are located on the Shoshone National Forest in two sepatate sections. The 

5
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

northern section runs along the western edge of the Wind River Ranger District and the 

southern section traverses the southwestern edge of the Washakie Ranger District.

• Nez Perce National Historic Trail (NPNHT) Corridor: Approximately 147 miles of the 1,170-

mile NPNHT cross the Shoshone National Forest through the Clarks Fork Ranger District. The 

Shoshone portion comes out of Yellowstone National Park to the west and runs northeast, 

exiting the Forest in the vicinity of the Clarks Fork Canyon.

Rationale for My Decision

My decision to select alternative G-modified is based on a careful and reasoned comparison of the 

environmental consequences of, and responses to, issues and concerns identified for each alternative. I have 

considered public input resulting from scoping, comments on the DEIS, and during the objections process. 

I selected alternative G-modified because it best supports our commitment to retain and restore the 

ecological resilience of the Shoshone National Forest in order to achieve sustainable ecosystems that

provide a broad range of services and ecological benefits. 

The Shoshone National Forest conducted extensive public outreach from the initiation of this process in 

2005 to the present. This involved collaborating with numerous individuals, organizations, agencies, tribes, 

and local governments. Alternative G-modified provides for the best mix and balance of management 

strategies that are responsive to the issues, concerns, and opportunities expressed by our stakeholders.

Alternative G-modified establishes ambitious, but achievable, objectives for ecosystem 

maintenance/restoration and recreation opportunities and management. Specific components target 

restoration of watersheds and native plant communities while emphasizing the wide range of recreational 

opportunities and nationally renowned landscapes. The alternative provides opportunities for responsible 

resource use and commodity production that are valued by the surrounding communities. Alternative Gmodified reflects the public comments received on the DEIS and through the objections process, and 

provides the best multiple use approach for this unique landscape, while preserving a variety of choices for 

the American people into the future.

Other Alternatives Considered in Detail

Seven alternatives were considered in detail in the FEIS, including alternative G. These alternatives 

provide a range of responses to the plan revision topics and provide a basis of comparison of effects for 

considering environmental impacts. Alternative G was crafted in response to public comments on the six 

alternatives presented in the DEIS. The description of each of the alternatives not selected is provided 

below.

Alternative A represents the continuation of current management direction under the existing Shoshone 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986), as amended. Alternative A meets the NEPA 

and NFMA requirement (36 CFR 219.12(f)(7)) that a no-action alternative be considered. “No action” 

means that the alternative reflects the implementation of existing management goals, objectives, and 

management practices based on the existing land use plans. Alternative A also serves as the baseline for 

comparing and contrasting the impacts of the other alternatives. Alternative A is based on reasonably 

foreseeable actions, existing planning decisions and policies, and existing land use allocations and 

programs.

Alternative B represents the draft LMP at the time of the draft EIS. It responds to the identified purpose 

and need for change from the current Forest Plan. This alternative was developed in response to public 

6
Record of Decision

scoping that the vegetation resources need active management to achieve biological and habitat diversity, 

while still providing a sustainable output of other Forest uses and a diversity of recreation opportunities.

This alternative provides balance among the utilization of Forest resources, recreation opportunities, the 

conservation of habitat, and designation of special areas.

Alternative C emphasizes wilderness and protection of backcountry areas while moving toward desired 

conditions for Forest resources. Alternative C has an increased emphasis on natural disturbance processes. 

It identifies more opportunities for backcountry non-motorized recreation and more acres of management 

area 1 (wilderness) than any other alternative. This alternative was developed in response to public scoping 

recommending the Forest emphasize non-motorized, backcountry recreation and propose additional areas 

for wilderness designation.

Alternative D was developed in response to public scoping regarding the recommendation of a few, 

specific potential wilderness areas and the desire to emphasize non-motorized, backcountry recreation, 

natural processes, and undeveloped recreational settings. It also includes a continuation of commodity 

production and motorized recreation outside of backcountry areas.

Alternative E provides an emphasis on commodity production and motorized use while addressing issues 

shared by the public, local industry, and motorized user groups. Alternative E was developed in response to 

public scoping regarding the economic sustainability of local communities with an emphasis on expanding 

the commercial utilization of Forest resources into some backcountry areas.

Alternative F demonstrates the highest level of commodity production and motorized use possible within 

parameters, such as designated wilderness. Alternative F was developed in response to public scoping 

regarding the support of commodity production and motorized use of the Forest. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Several alternatives were considered during the planning process, but were eliminated from further detailed 

study. These alternatives are discussed in chapter 2 of the FEIS. The interdisciplinary team used prior

management experience, existing laws and regulations guiding National Forest System management, and 

public input when designing the alternatives considered in detail. Many of the suggestions proposed by 

interested parties and the public were used to develop and shape the analyzed alternatives—even if they 

were presented in an alternative that was not carried forward in its entirety.

Rationale for Selection of Alternative G-Modified

Alternatives A, E, and F are consistent with current law, but inconsistent with the 2001 Roadless 

Conservation Rule. Alternatives E and F were generated early in the revision process prior to the court 

rulings that resolved the status of the Roadless Rule. They were included in the FEIS in response to public 

comment that wanted the impacts of the Roadless Rule to be analyzed and for past public input to be 

considered. I decided it was more responsive to the public process to include these alternatives in the 

detailed analysis, although they could have been eliminated from detailed study.

Alternatives B, C, and D described above are consistent with current law and regulation and could be 

implemented by the Shoshone National Forest; however, alternative G-modified better aligns with the 

purpose and need for this plan revision. I find that alternative G-modified provides the best balance of 

public benefits based on its responsiveness to the issues raised regarding the six revision topics. Comments 

received during the formal review periods, as well as the feedback and input we continue to receive 

through informal channels, have confirmed that these six issues persist as the major concerns of those with 

a stake in the management of the Shoshone National Forest.

7
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Alternative G-modified provides a balanced response to the public concerns expressed throughout the 

revision process.

For those people who advocate for backcountry characteristics, wildlife habitat, and non-motorized 

experiences, alternative G-modified provides less area available for oil and gas surface occupancy, 

implements the grizzly bear conservation strategy, protects big game crucial winter range, and maintains 

the backcountry character of significant portions of the Forest, particularly the four backcountry areas most 

advocated for (Trout Creek, Francs Peak, Wood River, and Dunoir Special Management Unit).

For those who advocate for commodity production and motorized recreation, alternative G-modified

maintains winter motorized recreation, maintains timber harvest and livestock grazing at or above current 

levels, identifies areas suitable for possible summer motorized recreation expansion that fall outside of key 

backcountry areas, and maintains oil and gas development opportunities in the areas with current leasing 

interest.

For people who like the Forest the way it is, alternative G-modified maintains the current range of 

recreation opportunities, maintains the current backcountry nature of the Forest, and enhances opportunities 

that are underrepresented without impacting other user groups.

Below I explain how my decision responds to the issues around the six revision topics:

Issue 1: Recreation uses and opportunities—continuing emphasis on high-quality dispersed 

recreation opportunities

In alternative G-modified, large expanses of the Shoshone National Forest are managed as nonmotorized backcountry with tremendous recreation opportunities for the backcountry hiker, hunter, 

fisherman, horseman, camper and winter recreationist. The Forest has 1,141 miles of roads, 32 miles of 

summer motorized trails, 276 miles of snowmobile trails, and 1,652 miles of non-motorized trails. 

Alternative G-modified management allocations allow all existing motorized and non-motorized trails 

to be maintained. It continues to support a large diversity of recreation special use permits.

Based on public comment to the DEIS, alternative G-modified identifies areas that would be suitable 

for expanding summer motorized recreation in future travel management decisions. It focuses 

expansion in areas outside of secure habitat within the grizzly bear primary conservation areas. It 

maintains the non-motorized designations for key front country areas from the current plan that were 

identified during public comment on the DEIS. 

Alternative G-modified identifies large areas that are suitable for winter motorized use, while 

protecting big game crucial winter range and lynx habitat. It continues to allow existing winter 

motorized recreation in corridors through crucial winter range, where Wyoming Game and Fish 

assessments indicate that use is not adversely impacting wintering big game.

Restrictions on Recreational Pack Goats within Bighorn Sheep Habitat: Throughout the process, 

advocates for the use of recreational pack goats have been concerned about restrictions within bighorn 

sheep habitat.

A number of recreational pack goat users objected to my decision to prohibit pack goats on the 

majority of the Shoshone National Forest to prevent disease transmission to the Forest’s core native 

herds of bighorn sheep. They argued that they could restrain their pack animals and adopt mitigation 

measures to minimize contact with bighorn sheep. Forest Supervisor Joe Alexander and I appreciate 

8
Record of Decision

their fondness for this form of recreation and do not relish having to choose between pack goat use on 

the Forest and the health of core native bighorn sheep herds. 

However, I have chosen to err on the side of caution and remove the potential for disease transmission 

from domestic goats to bighorn sheep on the Shoshone National Forest. It is the Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ collective opinion that enough is known about potential pathogen 

transmission from domestic goats to wild sheep to warrant their separation. Therefore, our goal is to 

ensure a very low risk of disease transmission from domestic goats to the Shoshone’s core native 

bighorn sheep herds. Until further scientific information is available to prove otherwise, the 

conservation value of the Shoshone’s native bighorn sheep herds is far too great to allow domestic goat 

use within core native bighorn sheep habitat. Even one disease transmission event could be 

catastrophic to a bighorn sheep herd. 

Issue 2: Special areas and designations

Research Natural Areas and Special Interest Areas: The designation of eight new research natural 

areas in alternative G-modified would further the study of the biological diversity on the Shoshone 

National Forest. Areas of geologic and historical importance will similarly be recognized by the 

addition of three new special interest areas. In response to public comment to the DEIS, research 

natural area and special interest area boundaries in alternative G-modified were adjusted to include 

additional features and to exclude areas with uses that would be incompatible with area designation.

Sixteen river segments are identified as eligible for recommendation as wild and scenic rivers; their 

eligibility will be maintained until they are analyzed for suitability.

Potential Wilderness: Alternative G-modified does not recommend any additions to the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, but it does not preclude recommendation of the areas of most public 

interest in the future. Public comment on the DEIS indicated broad public support for maintaining the 

backcountry character of the Shoshone. Some members of the public wanted this character maintained,

but generally did not support additional wilderness designation because it limits the types of 

recreational uses and resource management options that can occur in these areas. Another segment of 

the public supports addition to wilderness designation as a means to ensure long-term protection of the 

areas.

In the objection response (see appendix), the Objections Reviewing Officer has asked me to clarify and 

expand on the logic, rationale, and supporting analysis for decisions related to wilderness 

recommendations, as well as how sources of public opinion were used. As I explained above, there is 

substantial public sentiment both for and against additional wilderness recommendations within the 

Forest. The FEIS describes the analysis of 32 separate areas that exhibit characteristics consistent with 

wilderness. Of these 32 areas, 4 distinct areas rose to the top for wilderness advocates: Francs Peak, 

Wood River, Trout Creek, and the Dunoir Special Management Area. 

I am aware that all of these areas exhibit high value wilderness character. But the wilderness decision 

is not solely a technical inventory process. Forest Supervisor Alexander and I have been transparent 

about our decision-making rationale on this topic from the beginning of the process. A majority of the 

Forest is already wilderness. For these other areas, I am pursuing a balanced position, where minimal 

backcountry use should be permitted in a semi-primitive condition, and where we would have 

management flexibility over the life of the Plan. At the same time, with reductions in mechanized and 

motorized use of these areas as a result of the objections process, I am keeping future wilderness 

designation options open. Future generations may see this differently, and management area 

prescriptions in the Plan do not alter the character of these areas.

9
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

I agree that the backcountry character of the Shoshone should continue to be protected. I also believe 

that the character of these areas can continue to be protected while allowing for some uses that would 

not be permitted in a designated wilderness area. This includes recreation uses such as unguided big 

game hunting for non-resident hunters.0F

1 Also the implementation of restoration activities would be 

more compatible if the areas are not designated as wilderness. Activities such as planting and 

prescribed fire for whitebark pine restoration and activities to restore native populations of Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout are easier to conduct outside of wilderness where the foregoing activities are precluded.

National Trails: Management for two national trails, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

(CDNST) and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail, is incorporated into the revised LMP with 

direction consistent with the respective comprehensive trail plans.

Objections were received on how management of the CDNST was handled in the plan revision. I want 

to address one aspect of those objections here. The objectors felt that a new location for the CDNST 

should have been established through the plan revision that fully meets the purposes of the trail to 

provide for a non-motorized experience. I never intended to address the relocation of the trail through 

the revision process. Rather, the plan revision focused on providing management direction for the trail 

consistent with the comprehensive management plan. Relocation of the trail will be addressed in a 

future project-level analysis focusing on the site-specific elements that such a project entails. That level 

of analysis is generally not appropriate for a programmatic-level analysis like the Plan revision. I 

believe that the management direction provided in the revised plan for the CDNST provides a good

basis for conducting a project-level analysis for relocation of the trail and provides a good framework 

for managing the trail consistent with the comprehensive plan until the trail is relocated.

Issue 3: Vegetation Management

Vegetation on the Shoshone provides diverse habitat for a variety of native plant and animal species, 

attractive settings for outdoor recreation, and resources for grazing and timber production. Impacts 

from insects and wildfire have dramatically changed vegetation conditions since 2000.

Restoration of ecosystems is a high priority for the Forest Service. Alternative G-modified facilitates 

restoration of areas impacted by bark beetle epidemics through a mix of active management, including

timber harvest, mechanical treatment, and prescribed fire, along with the provision for the role of 

natural processes in restoring ecosystem functions. Alternative G-modified emphasizes the 

management of vegetation and treatment of fuels to protect infrastructure and other values in the 

wildland-urban interface. Emphasis is included on restoration activities for whitebark pine and aspen 

communities. It includes direction to continue the ongoing treatment and monitoring of invasive plant 

species. Alternative G-modified designates 127,009 acres of suitable timber land for timber production.

Pre-Commercial Thinning and Incorporation of Northern Rockies Canada Lynx Management 

Direction: During the objections process, some objectors were concerned that the proposed Plan was 

not considering the flexibility to do pre-commercial thinning originally provided by the broader 

strategy for Canada Lynx management in the Northern Rockies. I want to clarify that this flexibility 

has been incorporated into the Plan.

People who objected to restrictions on pre-commercial thinning in lynx habitat were concerned that 

growth in young stands, especially lodgepole pine stands, would be reduced if not thinned. One 

objector felt that the Forest’s use of lynx amendment restrictions is not necessarily using best available 

science. In my decision, I am retaining direction developed through a previous plan amendment as part 

1 State law requires that non-resident hunters have a guide to hunt in designated wilderness areas.

10

 
Record of Decision

of the broader Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD). Very little will change in 

terms of management for lynx with this decision. The Shoshone National Forest contains 597,000 acres 

of mapped lynx habitat. The Forest is allowed to modify up to 6 percent or 35,820 acres of this habitat 

within the wildland-urban interface in order to reduce fuels. Stated another way, up to 35,820 acres of 

lynx habitat within the wildland-urban interface can be treated using a variety of silvicultural 

techniques including pre-commercial thinning for purposes of treating fuels. This was true under the 

1986 Plan and remains unchanged in the revised Plan.

The difference in the revised plan is that the Forest may pre-commercially thin on a maximum of 2,130 

acres of lynx habitat within the wildland-urban interface for any purpose (this is a total over the next 10 

to 15 years, not an annual acreage). The biological opinion returned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is clear that the 2,130 acres count towards the 6 percent limit and that pre-commercial thinning 

can only occur in the wildland-urban interface. 

Additional opportunities for pre-commercial thinning, as well as other silvicultural techniques in nonlynx habitat, exist on the Forest outside of the wildland-urban interface. These areas will be identified 

during project-level analysis. 

Objections Issues on the Ongoing Insect Epidemic: Objections, citing recently released literature, 

were received commenting that the Forest Plan did not incorporate the best available science on 

responding to the ongoing insect epidemic. A review of that literature did not reveal inaccuracies in the 

management guidance in the Forest Plan. What the review did reinforce was that the research 

community is not unanimous in their approach to addressing insect responses, but agrees that active 

management holds the best likelihood of reducing risk at the smaller scales addressed in the revised 

Plan. The uncertainty that exists in our knowledge on how to respond is best addressed at the project 

level were the analysis and monitoring can be directed at site-specific conditions.

Issue 4: Wildlife Habitat Management

As part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the Shoshone’s wildlife habitat is very important for 

wildlife requiring a large land base for survival. Under alternative G-modified, habitat for endangered, 

proposed, and candidate species would be managed consistently with established and approved 

recovery plans and appropriate conservation strategies. Management direction in the alternative Gmodified strives to maintain biodiversity over time across the Forest. 

The Final Conservation Strategy for Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area contains the best 

available science for the management of grizzly bear habitat. This Conservation Strategy has been 

incorporated into alternative G-modified.

As discussed earlier, alternative G-modified incorporates the direction from the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction Record of Decision. Alternative G-modified also contains provisions for 2,130 

acres of pre-commercial thinning in lynx habitat for the next 10 to 15 years.

Domestic goats will not be allowed in core native bighorn sheep range in response to concerns over 

disease transmission to bighorn sheep. 

Alternative G-modified incorporates monitoring of populations and/or habitat for federally protected 

species, Forest Service sensitive species, species of local concern, and management indicator species.

Issue 5: Oil and Gas Development

Alternative G-modified does not change the total acres available for leasing. However, it does limit oil 

and gas surface development to fewer acres. The Shoshone National Forest worked with the BLM and 

the State of Wyoming to have consistent oil and gas surface use along administrative boundaries. 

11
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Lands adjacent to the Wind River Indian Reservation will not have surface occupancy (designated no 

surface occupancy or NSO). Grizzly bear primary conservation areas and most crucial winter range 

will also be designated NSO. Alternative G-modified focuses surface development on lands with high 

potential for oil and gas development including areas with existing leases.

Objections were received commenting that oil and gas development within crucial winter range was 

handled differently than other management activities within crucial winter range. Plan direction is 

commonly handled differently depending on the administrative control available, the potential impacts 

or benefits of the activity, and the duration of the activity. Oil and gas development tends to be a longduration activity and generally has no beneficial impacts to crucial winter range. This is in contrast to 

activities such as timber harvest that have limited duration and can have beneficial impacts to winter 

range. 

In weighing the decision on what crucial winter range areas should be designated as suitable for oil and 

gas surface development (controlled surface use or CSU), I considered the likelihood that oil and gas 

occurred on the site, the possible impacts to winter range areas, and the input from the public and other 

agencies. I designated crucial winter range as suitable for oil and gas surface development where there 

was a high potential for oil and gas occurrence, in the vicinity of existing off-Forest oil and gas 

development, or in areas with existing oil and gas leases. In these areas the impacts to crucial winter 

range from development will be addressed through design criteria that limit timing and location of 

surface use. In crucial winter range areas where there was less likelihood of oil and gas occurrence, the 

plan does not permit surface development. This approach was generally supported by the public and 

the State of Wyoming.

Some local governments were less supportive of this approach including some of the objectors. Some 

of the public, including some objectors, point out that as technology changes there is the possibility that

access to oil and gas resources could increase. Because of this they say more areas should allow surface

development. I considered this viewpoint in my decision. It is important to point out that this plan is 

established for the next 10 to 15 years. I feel confident that the Plan direction is appropriate for that 

time period. I am also aware that things may change in the future. Therefore, I have allowed 

geophysical exploration to occur within crucial winter range subject to timing restrictions. This will 

allow companies to continue to explore the areas that they want, so that more information is available 

on oil and gas resource occurrence when the Plan is again revised. If any exploration finds new 

resources, my decision here can be amended in a Plan revision or in connection with an oil and gas 

leasing availability decision to consider the new situation. 

Issue 6: Commercial Livestock Grazing

Alternative G-modified designates 375,368 acres as generally suitable for grazing. Rangelands on the 

Shoshone are in good condition and alternative G-modified allows commercial grazing to continue at 

current levels. Alternative G-modified direction allows vacant allotments to be utilized as forage 

reserves.

Capability and Suitability: An objection was received on the Forest’s rangeland capability and 

suitability analysis based on the use of a maximum slope of 40 percent for cattle. The objector pointed 

out that in some places cattle graze areas with slopes greater than 40 percent. The concern is that by 

using 40 percent slopes as the cutoff, fewer acres will be determined capable for grazing by cattle.

Rangeland capability and suitability analysis for the Forest Plan was completed in accordance with the 

Rocky Mountain Region’s Desk Guide (Desk Guide). The Desk Guide specifies slopes less than 40 

percent for cattle use and slopes up to 60 percent for sheep. The Desk Guide allows national forests in 

12
Record of Decision

the region to modify the 40 percent figure to fit local situations where site-specific information 

validates such use and negative resource impacts are not occurring. The Shoshone National Forest does 

not have this type of data.

The following rationale is why the Forest used the general guidance in the Desk Guide concerning 

slope: 

• The Forest Plan capability and suitability analysis will have little effect on livestock industry 

opportunity and no direct impact to existing stocking rates or permitted use.

• Allotment specific information is not available documenting consistent cattle use outside the 

general slope guidelines.

• Observed cattle use on slopes greater than 40 percent was generally dependent on herder 

abilities, annual precipitation events, and other factors that could not be applied across all 

allotments or even from year to year on the same allotment.

• Where applicable, use by cattle on slopes greater than 40 pecent will be analyzed on an 

allotment-by-allotment basis during the NEPA process to develop allotment management plans.

Stocking rates, term grazing permits, and allotment management plans are adjusted in response to sitespecific monitoring and trend data, not modeling.

Other Issues Addressed in the Plan

Inventoried Roadless Areas and the 2001 Roadless Rule: Alternative G-modified is consistent with 

the 2001 Roadless Rule. Vegetation within roadless areas may be actively managed to the extent 

allowed by the 2001 Roadless Rule and management area direction.

Climate Change: The Shoshone National Forest participated in a Westwide climate initiative case 

study with Rocky Mountain Research Station. Management strategies for adapting to a changing 

climate are incorporated throughout alternative G-modified. Information from the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station’s 2012 publication, “Climate Change on the Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming: A 

Synthesis of Past Climate, Climate Projections, and Ecosystem Implications” and three vulnerability 

assessments on water quantity, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, and aspen communities, are incorporated 

into the Forest Plan.

Economic and Social Assessment: The Shoshone National Forest plays an important role in the 

economies and amenities of adjacent communities. Local- and state-elected officials, along with the 

public, stressed the importance of the economic, recreational, and scenic benefits provided to their 

communities by the Forest. The Shoshone National Forest is in large part a non-motorized, 

backcountry Forest with somewhat limited opportunities for the commercial development and 

extraction of natural resources. Recreation visitors, outfitters and guides, hunters, fishermen and others 

are important contributors to the economic health of local communities.

The Forest worked closely with economists at the University of Wyoming to analyze the economic 

benefits of the alternatives considered in the FEIS. The FEIS incorporated information from the 

University of Wyoming 2012 publication, “An Economic Profile of the Shoshone National Forest.”

Alternative G-modified provides positive impacts to employment and income for local economies; 

however, the differences among alternatives for economic impacts are slight. A 2007 Colorado State 

University study was also used for information regarding Forest visitation and recreational activity 

preferences.

13
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Changes from Draft to Pre-Objection Draft

As background, the following describes the evolution of my decision, starting with changes from the 2012 

draft Plan and DEIS to the 2014 pre-objection Plan and FEIS. Later in this ROD, I describe additional 

changes I made between the pre-objection Plan and FEIS to the final plan and this ROD.

Alternative G in the FEIS was crafted to respond to public comments received on the DEIS and is similar 

to alternative B. The main differences between the two alternatives include additional acres of winter 

motorized recreation outside of crucial winter range, changes to summer motorized recreation, changes to 

suitability for oil and gas surface development, and modification to special area boundaries.

In response to public comments, acres available for winter motorized recreation increased from 481,196

acres in alternative B to 592,430 acres in alternative G in the FEIS. Additional areas receiving current 

winter motorized use were identified and added to acres available. Other areas were considered for 

availability, but were not included because of potential impacts to big game crucial winter range.

Acres for summer motorized recreation decreased from 570,246 acres in alternative B to 529,019 acres in 

alternative G in the FEIS, based on response to public comment about the need to protect secure habitat 

within the grizzly bear primary conservation area (PCA). Areas outside the PCA were given additional 

consideration for availability. Alternative G maintained non-motorized designations for key front country 

areas that public comment wanted maintained from the current plan. 

Areas suitable for oil and gas surface development decreased from 402,849 acres in alternative B to 

129,059 acres in alternative G in the FEIS. Comments received from the public, the Wyoming Governor’s 

Office, and the Wind River Tribes included concerns about the allocations in alternative B that were 

suitable for oil and gas surface development. The Tribal Government did not want lands adjacent to the 

Wind River Reservation to be suitable for oil and gas surface development. Substantial public comment 

including comment from the Governor’s Office and other local government cooperators recommended that 

our designations be consistent with adjacent BLM lands. Public comments for the most part were 

unfavorable toward oil and gas development. 

We received a request to consider increasing the size of the Kirwin Special Interest Area to include all 

mining features and to also apply the designation to the nearby historic Double D Ranch. Alternative G in 

the FEIS provides for the addition of 4,121 acres for the Kirwin and Double D special interest areas. This 

change would not impact the range of management activities available in these areas.

The suitability of the Dunoir Special Management Unit (SMU) for mountain bike use was changed from 

not-suitable in alternative B in the DEIS, to suitable in alternative G in the FEIS (as described in the preobjection ROD). 

In the FEIS and pre-objection ROD, after considering the public comment on the DEIS for mountain bike 

use in the area, I decided to permit continued use of mountain bikes on 6.8 miles of the Pinnacle Trail 

within the Dunoir SMU. However, after reviewing additional public comment and discussing this issue 

with the Objections Reviewing Officer, I will now make the Dunoir SMU unsuitable for mountain bike use 

(see discussion later in this ROD).

The Shoshone National Forest wild and scenic river eligibility evaluation was revisited in response to 

public comments and four additional eligible segments were added and one was dropped. Alternative G

identifies 16 total river segments eligible for recommendation as wild and scenic.

14
Record of Decision

Finally, boundary modifications were made to the boundaries of the Sawtooth Peatbeds Special Interest 

Area, the Beartooth Butte Research Natural Area, and the Pat O’Hara Research Natural Area. In all 

cases the modifications were made to accommodate existing or potential future motorized use.

Changes Between Pre-Objection Draft and Final 

Decision

The modifications of alternative G to respond to objections are discussed in the appendix to this ROD.

Following is a summary of the major changes that have been made.

Management Area and Suitable Use Changes

I concur with the decision of the reviewing officer for the objections, that the following changes to 

management areas best serve the needs of the public while protecting the backcountry character of these 

areas:

• The Francs Peak and Wood River areas will remain non-motorized.

• Portions of the Lander Front will remain non-motorized.

• A small portion of the area west of Meeteetse will be suitable for surface use activities associated 

with oil and gas development.

• The Dunoir Special Management Unit will not be suitable for mechanized (bicycle) use (see 

below).

Francs Peak and Wood River 

I am modifying alternative G in the revised Plan to reflect a backcountry non-motorized management 

prescription for the Francs Peak and Wood River areas. In essence these areas match the management 

prescriptions in alternative B (the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS in 2012). 

Comments received from motorized users on the draft EIS led the Shoshone Forest Supervisor to conclude 

that additional opportunities for summer motorized and snowmobile users are needed. He assigned the 

interdisciplinary team with the task of looking for areas that could accommodate motorized use without 

negatively impacting other resources. The team felt that portions of the Wood River and Francs Peak 

roadless areas could potentially accommodate winter and summer motorized use without threatening the 

roadless character of the larger areas or resource values within them. 

During the objection process we heard from people on both sides of the issue. One of the loudest messages 

from our users is that these two areas are very special to many people regardless of their preference for 

motorized recreation. My decision to assign these areas to non-motorized management areas in the revised 

plan is based on factors including the high quality rating of wilderness characteristics, the quality winter 

range for elk, the importance of the moth site on Francs Peak for grizzly bears, and the roadless quality of 

the Wood River area. Therefore, the Forest will change these management areas from 3.3A and 3.3B to 1.3

or other non-motorized management areas, and adjust the boundaries in the final LMP where applicable.

This does not diminish the interest or need for the Shoshone National Forest to work with the 

snowmobiling and motorized recreation community. Therefore, I am directing the Shoshone National 

Forest to analyze alternative opportunities for user groups directly affected by this decision during the 

upcoming travel management planning effort.

15
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Dunoir Special Management Unit

In the draft EIS in 2012, the preferred alternative recommended the removal of mountain bikes from the 

Dunoir Special Management Unit (SMU) in order to “provide for non-vehicular access recreation” (Public 

Law 92-476). Between the draft and final several comments were received from members of the public 

concerning this decision. In the draft ROD, I came up with a compromise by designating a 6.8-mile 

mountain-bike loop that we call the Pinnacle Trail. This solution would limit bikes to one trail while 

providing for non-vehicular access recreation in the rest of the SMU. However, during the objection 

process and additional public meetings, there were numerous objections to this decision, principally related 

to the interpretation of the law designating the SMU. Based on my review of the SMU designation, 

consistent with the instructions of the Objections Reviewing Officer, I am interpreting the “non-vehicular 

access recreation” clause in the SMU designation as excluding bicycles. I am treating bicycles as a 

mechanized “vehicle.”

After reviewing the concerns of the public expressed during the objection period, and in accordance with 

the instructions from the Objections Reviewing Officer, my final decision is to exclude bicycles from use 

within the Dunoir SMU boundaries. Although bicycle use will be prohibited in the Dunoir Special 

Management Unit, I am directing the Forest Supervisor to analyze alternative opportunities for user groups 

directly affected by this decision during the upcoming travel management planning effort. 

The Planning Process and Public Involvement

I want to thank all of the individuals who participated throughout this revision process and shared their 

ideas and concerns during our multiple public meetings and comment opportunities. The level of 

involvement far exceeded requirements and typical expectations for public involvement processes. Because 

of this we were able to reach out across the spectrum of groups, governments, Tribes, and the general 

public to make sure this FEIS and LMP was developed around the issues that matter most to our 

constituents. The focus on features, uses, and conditions of the land resulted in thoughtful conversations 

and comments pertinent to the task at hand—revising a plan to guide decision-making on the Shoshone 

National Forest for years to come.

Preliminary work on the revision of the 1986 Forest Plan began in 2005. Public meetings were conducted 

from 2005 through 2009, when the revision was following previous 2005 and 2008 versions of planning 

regulations. This work was halted in June 2009, when a California District Court struck down the 2008 

version of the rule. We incorporated some information from these meetings that was not specific to the 

2005 or 2008 version of the planning rule.

The strategy for public participation during revision included frequent meetings with the public, 

collaboration with key stakeholders, and an ongoing relationship with local government cooperators,

including constant involvement and feedback on the revision process and content. The Forest Supervisor 

used many tools to keep the public informed about the revision process including a Forest Plan website, 

quarterly newsletters, news releases, and frequent face-to-face meetings. The Forest Supervisor consulted 

with 11 Native American Indian Tribes affiliated with the lands managed by the Shoshone National Forest.

The Forest met with the Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe on the Wind River Reservation and responded to 

their issues and concerns regarding the effects of proposed Forest management on the adjacent tribal lands.

On September 24, 2010, a notice of intent was published to revise the Shoshone National Forest Land 

Management Plan in the Federal Register. The notice recruited public comments on the revision topics and 

management of the Shoshone National Forest. In March 2011 four public meetings and a cooperator 

meeting were held to discuss the re-initiation of the revision process and the revision topics. In April 2011 

16
Record of Decision

local government cooperators and interested members of the public attended a series of seven workshops 

regarding existing Forest conditions.

An analysis of the management situation (AMS) was developed in 2011, and shared with the public and 

cooperators. This document was edited and finalized in 2012. The “need for change” as identified in the 

AMS, along with the revision topics, formed the basis for developing six alternatives for the draft EIS.

Between March 2011 and July 2013 a total of 12 public meetings and 10 cooperator meetings were held 

with the purpose of sharing issues, ideas ,and concerns regarding the drafting of a revised Shoshone

National Forest Land Management Plan. During 2012, workshops on the topics of climate change and bark 

beetles were held with the intent of providing information on these topics to the public. Field trips were 

held for the public to view the changing conditions occurring on the Forest from bark beetle infestations 

and to view and discuss issues surrounding all-terrain vehicle use on the Forest. The draft LMP and draft 

EIS were published in July 2012, and shared with the public for a 90-day comment period that was 

extended by 3 weeks in response to public request.

The Forest Service received 23,475 comment letters and emails from the public during the comment period 

on the draft LMP and draft EIS. Comments were received from individuals, non-government organizations,

and government agencies. After considering and responding to public comments on the draft LMP and draft 

EIS, the interdisciplinary team made changes to the documents and crafted the final alternative, alternative 

G.

Other Findings

Identification of the Environmentally Preferred Alternative

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require agencies to specify the alternative or 

alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). Forest Service 

policy (FSH 1909.15, Section 05) defines environmentally preferable as:

An alternative that best meets the goals of Section 101 of NEPA....Ordinarily this is the alternative that 

causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protects, preserves, and 

enhances historical, cultural, and natural resources.

Although the Act itself does not define the environmentally preferred alternative, it does suggest national 

environmental policy (42 U.S.C. 4331, section 101(b)). That policy calls for the continuing responsibility 

of Federal government to use all practicable means to improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs, 

and resources so that the nation may:

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustees of the environment for succeeding 

generations.

The needs and expectations of each generation evolve based on changing values and social and 

environmental circumstances. In keeping with input received from the public, alternative G-modified is 

largely based on a continuation of management from the past, while recognizing that uses and values 

have evolved and management of the Forest must evolve with those changes. Alternative G-modified

ensures the health of the Forest by balancing active management with the utilization of natural 

ecological processes. Alternative G-modified describes desired conditions that enhance and sustain the 

health of vegetation, soil, air, water, and wildlife, along with the guidance that will move the Forest 

toward these desired conditions.

17
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings.

The Shoshone National Forest has been and continues to be enjoyed by thousands of visitors every 

year, because it provides a safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing setting.

Alternative G-modified provides a wide range of opportunities for high-quality visitor experiences. 

Standards and guidelines are in place to ensure clean water, clean air, and visually pleasing 

surroundings.

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to 

health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.

This goal from NEPA is indicative of the Act’s recognition of the need for balance in managing the 

environment to produce environmentally preferred results which strongly aligns with the theme of 

alternative G-modified. Alternative G-modified provides a wide range of beneficial uses, such as 

timber production, livestock use, outfitter and guide permits, dispersed and developed recreation, and 

clean air and water. Standards and guidelines ensure that these uses do not result in undesirable or 

unintended consequences.

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our natural heritage and 

maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual 

choice.

This goal recognizes that humans are a natural aspect of our national heritage. The mix of management 

area allocations in alternative G-modified preserves the historic and natural aspects of the Shoshone 

National Forest and provides a variety of choices for the use and enjoyment of the Forest. Standards 

and guidelines ensure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Alternative G-modified

was developed in consultation with American Indian tribes and involvement of the public.

5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of 

living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities.

The public demands a variety of products and uses that can be provided by the Shoshone National 

Forest. Our challenge is in defining the balance sought in this NEPA goal, and I find that alternative Gmodified achieves that balance between resource use and protection. Resource uses are sustainable and 

contribute to economic health, and provide amenities.

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling 

of depletable resources.

Alternative G-modified is designed to enhance the health of the Forest’s renewable resources. Timber 

harvest areas as per regulations will be promptly reforested and lands where minerals have been 

extracted will be reclaimed in a timely manner.

Given these criteria, alternative G-modified is identified as the environmentally preferred alternative. This 

ROD discussed the decision process and the comparisons of the alternatives through a deliberative process. 

That process included the evaluation of present net value for each alternative and a finding of compliance 

with other laws. It is my assessment that alternative G-modified best meets the goals and the substantive 

requirements of section 101 of NEPA. Alternative G-modified will ensure the future health of the land by 

providing appropriate opportunities for active management to work in concert with natural ecological 

18
Record of Decision

processes. The maintenance of forest health and the physical resources is attained while securing the 

viability of plant and animal species into the future.

Opportunities for quality visitor experiences are plentiful. Alternative G-modified provides for a wide 

range of beneficial uses, such as timber production, livestock grazing, dispersed and developed recreation, 

and oil and gas development. Standards and guidelines within the revised LMP guard against undesirable 

and/or unintended outcomes. Alternative G-modified management area allocations preserve historic and 

natural aspects of the Forest and provide for the expression of a variety of individual preferences. I believe 

that alternative G-modified also achieves a balance between sustainable resource use and ecological 

sustainability that will best satisfy a variety of public needs and uses. This alternative provides for high 

quality, sustainable resource management. Enhancing forest health while providing sustainable resource 

production and recreation opportunities will continue to contribute to the vitality of local communities.

Alternative with Highest Present Net Value

The 1982 NFMA planning regulations at 36 CFR 219.12(j) require consideration of present net value for 

each alternative. Each alternative was analyzed for present net value, an analysis that includes all outputs, 

including timber, grazing, recreation and minerals, to which monetary values are assigned. The present net 

value is positive for all alternatives, indicating the alternatives are economically efficient. Alternative Gmodified has a relatively high present net value; however, the differences between alternatives for present 

net value are slight. Alternative D had the highest present net value, followed closely by alternatives Gmodified and B.

Findings Required by Other Laws

I have considered the statutes governing management of the Shoshone National Forest and I find that this 

decision represents the appropriate approach to meeting the current statutory duties of the Forest Service. 

Some of the most important laws are discussed in this section.

Clean Air Act

As discussed in chapter 3 of the FEIS, “Air Resources,” all lands managed by the Shoshone National Forest

are currently in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Compliance with air quality 

statutes is directed in the revised LMP: Air, Standard 1: “Meet State of Wyoming and Federal air quality 

standards and comply with local, State of Wyoming, and Federal air quality regulations and requirements.” 

The revised LMP monitoring strategy requires ongoing monitoring of indicators for the Clean Air Act and 

Wilderness Act.

Clean Water Act

The revised LMP contains direction to ensure all projects meet or exceed state best management practices 

prepared under guidance of the Clean Water Act. Direction for the protection of water resources is located 

in the standards and guidelines for water and soil in the revised LMP, chapter 1. Implementation of the 

revised Plan is expected to contribute to protecting or restoring the physical, chemical, and biological 

integrity of waters of the United States in accordance with the Clean Water Act.

National Historic Preservation Act

The revised LMP is a programmatic document and does not authorize any site-specific projects. The LMP 

does designate special interest areas, which include an area that will be managed with an emphasis on 

historic and cultural preservation and protection. Projects undertaken in response to direction in the LMP 

will fully comply with Plan standards and guidelines as well as the laws and regulations that require 

19
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

consideration of cultural resources. The revised LMP contains direction for cultural resource management, 

including direction to integrate cultural resource management with other resource management activities. 

Because the revised LMP does not authorize specific ground-disturbing or other potentially impacting 

activities, project-level section 106 (National Historic Preservation Act) consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) is not presently required. The Wyoming SHPO was involved in the revision 

process as a cooperator who reviewed proposed plan direction and provided feedback. It is my 

determination that the revised LMP complies with the National Historic Preservation Act, the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and other statutes that pertain to the protection of cultural 

resources.

Endangered Species Act

The revised LMP and FEIS address the potential effects of Forest-wide programmatic direction rather than 

site-specific projects. Projects developed under the direction of the revised LMP will require additional 

NEPA analysis to address effects to federally listed species. All projects will comply with the Endangered 

Species Act. In 2013 a biological assessment was prepared for the FEIS to evaluate the potential effects of 

the revised LMP on federally listed species and their habitats. In their letter received November 20, 2013, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with the determinations of effects to species 

analyzed in the biological assessment. The biological assessment determined that the preferred alternative 

“may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” the grizzly bear. It has also been determined that the preferred 

alternative “may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect” critical habitat for Canada lynx.

The Shoshone’s biological assessment was updated in 2015 to reflect the change of status of the gray wolf 

(Canis lupus) and the North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) under the ESA since the 2013 

biological assessment was written. 

On September 23, 2014, the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the delisting of 

wolves in Wyoming under the ESA. The effect of the decision is the reinstatement of Federal protections 

that were in place prior to the wolves’ 2012 delisting. Therefore, wolves are again listed as a nonessential 

experimental population in all of Wyoming. Take of wolves may be authorized only by the nonessential 

experimental population rules or by permits issued under section 10 of the ESA. All of Wyoming except 

the Wind River Indian Reservation again operates under the 1994 nonessential experimental population 

rule.

On August 13, 2014, the USFWS withdrew a proposal to list the North American wolverine in the 

contiguous United States as a threatened species under the ESA. After carefully considering the best 

available science, the USFWS has determined that the effects of climate change are not likely to place the 

wolverine in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. As a result, the wolverine does not meet 

the statutory definition of either a “threatened species” or an “endangered species” and does not warrant 

protection under the ESA.

Because wolverines were not listed under the ESA, they were not considered further in the 2015 revised 

biological assessment. However, the analysis of possible effects to wolverines from the revised Forest Plan 

has not changed from the original 2013 biological assessment. The wolverine was restored to the Regional 

Forester’s sensitive species list following the decision not to list under the ESA. This means it will continue 

to receive special management attention and consideration in programs and projects on the Shoshone 

National Forest.

Furthermore, although some actions anticipated by the Forest Plan may adversely impact some individual 

gray wolves, no action would result in jeopardy to gray wolves, nor cause a loss of species viability 

20
Record of Decision

rangewide. In addition, under the Forest Plan, the Shoshone National Forest will continue to carry out 

programs for the conservation of gray wolves. 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act

The revised LMP complies with and achieves the objectives of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

(HFRA), in accordance with section 102, Authorized Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects. LMP objectives

prioritize vegetative fuel treatment areas by hazard and communities recognized in HFRA. The standards

and guidelines were developed to achieve the HFRA objectives. In addition, the revised LMP focuses 

efforts, where possible, on improvement of forest health where ecosystem components are at risk from 

epidemic levels of insects or disease. It also references the priority areas identified in community wildfire 

protection plans.

Other Laws and Executive Orders

I find that the selected alternative, alternative G-modified, is in compliance with the following laws and 

Executive orders, as documented in the FEIS:

• Executive Order for Environmental Justice

• National Forest Management Act of 1976, as amended

• Mineral Leasing Act, as amended

• Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act

• Mining and Minerals Policy Act

• Executive Order for Protection of Migratory Birds

Implementation and Effective Date

Implementation of the approved plan may occur 30 calendar days after the legal notice of the final record 

of decision is published in the Federal Register.

Site-specific Projects

The following site-specific planning projects have been substantially developed using the direction from 

the 1986 Shoshone Forest Plan as amended. The decisions for these projects will be made under the 1986 

Forest Plan: 

Forestwide

• National Outdoor Leadership School Permit Reissuance

• Transitional Special Uses Permit Project

Washakie Ranger District

• Little Popo Agie Crossing and Reroute

For all other projects and for projects with decisions made on or after the implementation date described 

above, revised LMP direction will apply. In developing the revised LMP, implementing pre-existing 

decisions and the associated effects of that implementation were considered part of the baseline against 

which the alternatives were evaluated. Because we considered these earlier decisions in our effect analysis, 

their implementation is not in conflict with the revised LMP.

21
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), “permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use 

and occupancy” of National Forest System lands are required to be “consistent” with the current land and 

resource management plan. However, this requirement is not absolute. In the plan revision context, NFMA 

specifically qualifies the requirement in three ways: (1) these documents must be revised only “when 

necessary,” (2) these documents must be revised “as soon as practicable,” and (3) any revisions are “subject 

to valid existing rights.”

Use and occupancy agreements, which might require modification of pre-existing authorization, include 

those for timber harvesting and livestock grazing.

I have decided not to modify any existing timber sale contracts solely due to the revised LMP. These 

contracts will be executed according to their terms and these effects have been disclosed in the FEIS.

Existing timber contracts will, in most cases, be completed within 3 years. The decision is left to the Forest 

Supervisor to determine whether to modify decisions authorizing timber sales not currently under contract.

Other use and occupancy agreements are for a substantially longer term than timber contracts. For example, 

grazing permits are generally issued for a 10-year term. My discretionary decision is to require grazing 

permits to comply with the revised LMP’s standards and guidelines. The case law is clear that grazing 

permits are “privileges” rather than “rights,” and are subject to modification by their terms and under the 

grazing regulations.

Other classes of “use and occupancy” agreements will be reviewed to determine whether or when the 

Forest Supervisor should exercise discretion to bring them into compliance with the revised LMP. I find 

that the statutory criteria of “as soon as practicable” and excepting “valid existing rights” useful in 

exercising that discretion.

The Forest will undertake many management activities to implement the revised LMP. Many of these 

activities are site-specific and require analysis and disclosure of effects under NEPA. These site-specific 

analyses will be done during implementation of the revised LMP.

Site-specific analysis of proposed activities will determine what can be accomplished. The outcomes 

specified in the revised LMP are estimates and projections based on available information, inventory data, 

and assumptions. More information on the difference between programmatic and site-specific projects can 

be found in the planning record incorporated into this ROD by reference.

I am making this plan decision in accordance with the transition provisions of the current planning 

regulations which permit use of the 1982 regulations for the purpose of revising the plan. However, in 

accordance with the current regulations at 36 CFR 219.17(c), no obligations remain for project planning 

from the 1982 regulations except those that are specifically included in the revised LMP.

Travel Management Planning

The Forest intends to initiate travel management planning in accordance with the 2005 Travel Management 

Rule (36 CFR 212) later this year. As part of this effort to address issues that arose as part of the objection 

process, I am asking the Forest supervisor to consider analyzing additional opportunities for mountain 

biking. 

22
Record of Decision

Potential Amendments or Adjustments to the Revised 

Plan

The revised Plan can be amended or revised to adjust to changing circumstances (36 CFR 219.13). The 

amendment process provides the flexibility to adapt the decisions made today to the realities of tomorrow.

If monitoring indicates that something in the Plan is not working as anticipated, we may consider a specific 

amendment to adapt and improve the plan. These amendments may be “one time” or permanent 

amendments, depending on the circumstances. The Forest Service will involve interested people and 

organizations in all amendment processes.

Conclusion

I am pleased to announce this decision and bring this phase of the Shoshone National Forest Plan revision 

to completion. Over the next few years we have the opportunity to work together to achieve the desired 

conditions and objectives of the revised Plan. The strengths of the revised Plan are:

• Guidance informed by the best available science to insure that the biological and physical 

resources of the Shoshone National Forest are sustained for today and tomorrow.

• Recognition of the link between the Shoshone National Forest and the citizens of the United States, 

especially those who live in the communities in the shadow of the Forest.

• An opportunity for the revision cooperators group, the state and local governments, to continue to 

be a partner in the implementation, and improvements over time, of the revised Plan. 

The revised Plan is our strategic plan for ensuring the long-term health of the land. We will adapt the Plan 

based on what is learned from planning and implementation of projects. We will carefully monitor our 

activities, the condition of the land, the goods and services produced, and the effectiveness of the resource 

protection measures included in the revised Plan to ensure a healthy forest for future generations.

DANIEL J. JIRÓN, Regional Forester Date

23

Record of Decision

Appendix: Response to Reviewing Official’s Instructions

Note: The following table contains instructions from the Reviewing Official for objections received on the Shoshone’s draft revised Forest Plan and final EIS. 

It also contains or references the response to each instruction. 

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

A. Wild and 

Scenic Rivers

A-1. Amend the table for Dead Indian Creek in FEIS appendix D, 

attachment B (page 27) to reflect that a Prehistory outstandingly 

remarkable value was not found on Dead Indian Creek, and adjust the 

explanatory notes accordingly.

EIS Errata See FEIS, appendix D errata (Wild and Scenic River 

Eligibility Evaluation, September 2013, version 2). 

A-2. Clarify why the suitability study was delayed in the project record. 

Ensure consistency between the FEIS and the ROD. See also FEIS 

chapter 2 (page 51) and delete "to make" duplicate typo in the last 

sentence of the section on "Recommend All Eligible Rivers for 

Designation."

Project Record

EIS Errata

Record of 

Decision

The interdisciplinary team made the eligibility 

determinations after analyzing 35 rivers (see 

response to A-3). The next step is the suitability 

determination for eligible rivers. The Forest Service 

may make that determination in the Plan revision or 

delay it (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12(83.1)). 

The decision to delay the suitability study was based 

on a couple of factors. There was no broad 

consensus for designation of any particular river. 

Also, river suitability will be protected now and a final 

determination can be made in the future when the 

Forest has more complete information on trade-offs.

See Record of Decision, page 5.

See FEIS Errata.

A-3. Identify in the project record what region of comparison was applied 

to each outstandingly remarkable value, describe the analysis 

process/criteria used to evaluate outstandingly remarkable values at that 

region of comparison, and better support the findings for each river 

segment. 

Project Record Region of Comparison: Our intent was to use regional 

scales for determining eligibility, but we also noted 

when we thought the outstandingly remarkable values 

were of national importance. 

Analysis Process/Criteria: All perennial streams on 

the Forest were considered in the first screen. Based 

on information from the Nationwide Rivers Inventory; 

the American Rivers list; input from the public, nongovernmental organizations, and employees; the 

Shoshone National Forest planning team developed a 

list of 35 rivers that were then assessed by an 

interdisciplinary team. The rivers are listed in the 

25
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

updated appendix D (September 2013) to the FEIS. 

Criteria used to evaluate outstandingly remarkable 

values are also discussed in the updated appendix D.

See supporting document WS-01.

A-4. Correct FEIS appendix D, page 10, to clarify it is precisely because 

a river-related value is significant at a regional or national scale that 

makes it "outstandingly remarkable.” In addition, clarify this on page 8 of 

the new version of appendix D. Make sure the FEIS and Final LMP 

include the correct appendix.

FEIS Errata

(Appendix D)

See FEIS, appendix D errata (Wild and Scenic River 

Eligibility Evaluation, September 2013, version 2).

B. Potential 

Wilderness

B-1. Include the missing page for Togwottee Pass 02903, Deep Lake 

02911, North Boundary 02913, Reef 02914, High Lakes NF915, and

High Lakes addition NF915a to appendix C of the FEIS.

FEIS Errata See FEIS Errata for appendix C.

B-2. Complete and document the analysis required under FSH 1909.12, 

72.4 and 74, including a display that identifies and discloses the 

management area (MA) prescriptions for each of the potential wilderness 

areas by alternative.

FEIS Errata See FEIS Errata for appendix C.

B-3. Clarify and expand on the logic, rationale, and supporting analysis 

for decisions related to wilderness recommendations in the final ROD.

ROD See Record of Decision, page 9, “Potential

Wilderness” section.

B-4. Clarify and expand on the extent of the public opinion sources that 

were considered when making the draft decision to not recommend any 

wilderness designation and explain why areas similar to current 

designated wilderness areas were not recommended.

ROD See Record of Decision, page 9, “Potential 

Wilderness” section.

B-5. Acknowledge that there has been a significant delay in complying 

with the 1972 and 1984 statutory requirements to complete maps and 

legal descriptions of Dunoir Special Management Unit and High Lakes 

Wilderness Study Area and make a commitment to complete the work as 

soon as the Forest is funded to do so and is practicable. 

Response Table In modifying the plan we acknowledge that there has 

been a delay in complying with the 1972 and 1984 

requirements to complete maps and legal 

descriptions of the Dunoir Special Management Unit 

and High Lakes Wilderness Study Area. We 

understand the need to complete the work and will do 

so as funding is available and as soon as practical. 

Surveying and mapping will occur outside the Plan 

26
Record of Decision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

revision process.

C. Dunoir Special 

Management Unit

C-1. Prohibit mountain biking in all areas of Dunoir Special Management 

Unit.

ROD See Record of Decision, pages 14−15.

C-2. Modify recreation standard in LMP (page 140) to reflect change in 

direction.

LMP See LMP, page 141, “Standard MA1.6B-STAND-02.”

C-3. Clarify how public comment was incorporated in the final decision 

regarding Dunoir. 

ROD When the Forest released the draft EIS in 2012, the 

preferred alternative recommended the removal of 

mountain bikes from the Dunoir Special Management 

Unit in order to “provide for non-vehicular access 

recreation” (P.L. 92-476). 

Between the draft and final, several comments were 

received from members of the public concerning this 

decision. In the draft plan/final EIS the Forest 

designated a 6.8-mile mountain bike loop called the 

Pinnacle Trail in order to be responsive to comments. 

This solution would limit bikes to one trail while 

providing for non-vehicular access recreation in the 

rest of the special management unit. During the 

objection process the Forest received numerous 

objections to this decision that ranged from safety 

concerns for stock users to the interpretation of the 

special management unit designation. 

After careful consideration of the issue, objections, 

and opinions on both sides of the issue, the 

responsible official agreed with the reviewing officer 

that bicycle use should be removed from the Dunoir 

Special Management Unit.

27
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

See Record of Decision, page 15−16.

D. Motorized 

Travel in 

Roadless and 

Backcountry 

Areas

D-1. Clarify the rationale for exempting areas of big game crucial winter 

range from snowmobile closures. 

Response Table During the February 9, 2012, Government 

Cooperator’s meeting, county representatives raised 

the issue that big game crucial winter range should 

not all be treated the same in terms of restricting 

winter motorized recreation, especially in areas of 

existing snowmobile use. Maps of existing 

snowmobile use in big game crucial winter range 

were reviewed by Forest Service and Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department wildlife biologists on February 

29, 2012, and March 5, 2012. Biologists proposed 

exempting some existing snowmobile use in areas 

where it was determined that use is limited and not a 

detriment to crucial winter range. Examples of areas 

exempted include designated groomed and ungroomed snowmobile trails and access to cabin 

owners holding special use permits. Proposed 

exemptions were presented at the March 7, 2012,

Government Cooperator’s meeting and subsequently 

incorporated into alternative G in the revised plan. 

D-2. Clarify how the analysis, public comments, and public sentiments 

were used in development of alternative G. 

ROD Alternative G is a modified version of alternative B 

and was developed in response to public comment 

received on the DEIS. The alternative provides a 

diversity of Forest uses and emphasizes active 

management of suitable timber lands, protects wildlife 

habitat, maintains a diversity of recreation 

opportunities, and maintains the dominant 

backcountry character of the Forest (FEIS, page 80). 

Alternative G-modified is the post-objection process 

version of alternative G and incorporates instructions 

given by the objection reviewing official. It also 

reflects public comments received on the DEIS as 

well as on the FEIS through the objection process. 

This alternative was designed with specific 

components that target restoration of watersheds and 

native plant communities while emphasizing the wide 

28
Record of Decision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

range of recreational opportunities and nationally 

renowned landscapes. It provides opportunities for 

responsible resource use and commodity production 

that are valued by the surrounding communities.

See Record of Decision, page 1.

D-3. Work with WGFD to correct errors with classification of winter range 

in the Lander Front by remapping and removing motorized use in this 

area. 

LMP The Forest worked with the WGFD and made 

corrections to winter motorized use in winter range on 

the Lander Front. Maps have been updated.

See LMP, map K, page 4.

D-4. Apply alternative B to Francs Peak. MAs 3.3A and 3.3B in Francs 

Peak should be changed to MA 1.3.

LMP See LMP, map A, page 5.

D-5. Apply alternative B to Wood River, changing 3.3B to 1.3. LMP See LMP, map A, page 5.

E. Continental 

Divide National 

Scenic Trail 

(CDNST)

E-1. Revise the LMP and project record to include the Nature and 

Purposes for the CDNST.

LMP

Project Record

See LMP, chapter 2, MA direction for 3.6A; under

“Theme,” page 162.

Management of the CDNST is consistent with the 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

Comprehensive Plan (USDA Forest Service 2009). 

That plan describes the nature and purposes of the 

trail as: “The nature and purposes of the CDNST are 

to provide high-quality scenic, primitive hiking and 

horseback riding opportunities and to conserve 

natural, historic, and cultural resources along the 

CDNST corridor.”

E-2. Clarify map 41 and what it shows. Also provide an explanation that 

any future proposed re-routes of the CDNST would be reviewed during 

site-specific analysis. 

LMP

FEIS Errata

See LMP, page 162, third paragraph under “Setting.”

See FEIS Errata.

E-3. Clarify that the LMP revision is not changing nor did it contemplate 

changing the location of the CDNST; it merely provided for management 

of the trail consistent with the comprehensive management plan and 

provided a MA that would surround the trail 0.5-mile on either side.

ROD See Record of Decision, page 10, under “National 

Trails” heading.

29
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

F. Bighorn Sheep 

Management and 

Pack Goats

F-1. Clarify how direct contact from disease-carrying domestic sheep and 

goats is believed to contribute to the death of individual wild sheep, 

herds of wild sheep, and entire populations, and review the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Wild Sheep Working 

Group updated recommendations on disease transmission from 

domestic sheep and goats to wild sheep. Include review findings in the 

project record and clarify the reasons for special designation of the 

Shoshone National Forest bighorn sheep population. 

Project Record

ROD

The document titled “Risk Analysis of Disease 

Transmission between Domestic Sheep and Goats 

and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep” provides a 

thorough assessment of the risks to wild sheep from 

domestic sheep and goats. It reports that although 

there is no direct evidence of domestic goats, and 

specifically pack goats, infecting wild sheep with 

life/herd/population threatening diseases, there are an 

abundance of connected actions that lead to a 

reasonable conclusion that domestic sheep and goats 

are the vectors. The analysis also provides evidence 

that wild sheep are unpredictable in their movements 

and have been shown to travel great distances which 

can bring them into contact with domestic sheep and 

goats as well as other wild sheep. The methodology 

and conclusions in this document demonstrate 

consistency with national guidance for a risk analysis 

of this type as well as consideration of best available 

science, and recommendations from the WAFWA 

Wild Sheep Working Group and biologists from the 

WGFD.

See ROD, page 8, under heading “Restrictions on 

Recreational Pack Goats within Bighorn Sheep 

Habitat”, second paragraph.

See supporting document BHS-01.

F-2. Strengthen the project record by additional review of currently 

available scientific information on disease transmission from domestic 

sheep and goats to wild sheep such as Herndon, C.N.; Shanthalingam, 

S.; Knowles, D.P.; Call, D.R.; and Srikumaran, S. 2011. Comparison of 

passively transferred antibodies in bighorn and domestic lambs reveals 

one factor in differential susceptibility of these species to Mannheimia 

haemolytica-induced pneumonia. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 

18(7): 1133−1138. Include review findings in the project record.

Project Record Nine additional papers were reviewed in response to 

this instruction including the suggested paper. Six of 

the nine were published since 2014. The other three 

including Herndon, C.N., et.al. were published in 

2011.

See supporting document BHS-02

F-3. Enhance the BE with additional supporting documentation, 

specifically relative to cumulative effects and probability of disease 

transmission, specifically pages 50−55 of the BE.

Project Record See response to F-2. 

See document “2015 Amendment to Biological 

Evaluation”

30
Record of Decision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

The review of additional literature was included in the 

“2015 Amendment to the 2013 Biological Evaluation 

for the Revised Shoshone National Forest Land and 

Natural Resource Management Plan”, which is part of 

the project record.

F-4. Evaluate mitigation measures submitted by objectors, but use the 

following parameters; pack goats are not under constant control and may 

be asymptomatic and are still a viable threat to wild sheep populations.

Response Table An evaluation of potential mitigation measures 

discussed in the pack goat objectors’ letters was 

conducted and was added to the project record.

Mitigation measures submitted by objectors include:

Use of a permit system for pack goats. 

Limiting the number of pack goats per party.

Requiring that pack goats be leashed or in direct 

control by their owners on the trail.

Requiring that pack goats be highlined or 

restrained in campsites.

Prohibiting pack goats from drainages where 

bighorn sheep have the highest populations.

Requiring disease testing of pack goats before 

entering public lands and having a certification of 

the testing.

See supporting document BHS-03.

F-5. a) Clarify that the scope and scale of the social and economic 

effects to pack goat users was included in the Forest programmatic 

analysis of recreational use. 

b) Clarify that the analysis of disease transmission is not based on the 

work of the RADT or Payette Principles Committees, but rather the 

Shoshone National Forest’s own reworking and analysis of the data.

Response Table F-5. a) Social and economic analysis for the 

Shoshone National Forest Plan revision effort was 

performed using IMPLAN (Impact analysis for 

Planning) and FEAST (Forest Economic Analysis 

Spreadsheet Tool). IMPLAN is an input-output 

modeling system that allows the user to build regional 

economic models of one or more counties for a given 

year (see FEIS, chapter 3, under “Social and 

Economic” heading). Output is used to show relative 

differences between alternatives. 

Resource-specific data such as recreation visits, 

animal unit months for range, and timber volume 

harvested, were collected for the Shoshone National 

31
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

Forest as a whole and input into IMPLAN. Recreation 

information was derived from the National Visitor Use 

Monitoring survey. It’s not possible to develop sitespecific data or break the social/economic effects 

down to specific user groups. This is because there is 

considerable variability in how restrictions would be 

applied, and how users can substitute one activity for 

another one, or one place for another.

F-5. b) The analysis of disease transmission 

conducted for the Forest Plan DEIS and FEIS is in no 

way connected to the RADT Committee or the 

Payette Principles Committee. Biologists relied on the 

science developed for and displayed in the “Risk 

Analysis of Disease Transmission between Domestic 

Sheep and Goats and Rocky Mountain Bighorn 

Sheep, Shoshone National Forest 2013.” Pertinent 

information was extracted from the Payette’s risk 

assessment (USDA Forest Service 2006a) and 

brought forward into the Shoshone National Forest’s 

risk assessment. Findings and conclusions in the 

Shoshone National Forest’s risk assessment are 

based on data specific to the Shoshone National 

Forest’s bighorn sheep populations and their habitat. 

G. Wetlands and 

Watershed 

Management

G-1. The definition of wetlands found on page 654 should match the one 

on page 795 of the FEIS, which was taken directly from EO 11990 for the 

protection of wetlands. 

EIS Errata

LMP

Wetlands are defined as areas that are inundated by 

surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to 

support and that, under normal circumstances, do or 

would support a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic 

life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated 

soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and 

similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet 

meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural 

ponds.

See FEIS Errata.

See LMP, glossary, page 224, under “Wetland.”

G-2. In addition to EO11990, clarify any references to compliance with 

the Clean Water Act. 

LMP See LMP, page 27, fifth full paragraph.

32
Record of Decision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

H. Canada Lynx 

Habitat and Precommercial 

Thinning

H-1. Clarify there was no remapping for lynx critical habitat. Response Table Critical habitat designation for Canada lynx is the 

responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior. In a 

letter dated July 26, 2013, to the Shoshone National 

Forest and other national forests with occupied 

habitat, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

proposed revision of designated lynx critical habitat 

for the U.S. Distinct Population Segment. To assist in

this revision process the USFWS requested that any 

new survey, distribution, or occurrence data that the 

USFWS was not aware of be submitted to them.

The Shoshone National Forest did not have new 

biological data or any geographical reasons to be 

considered during this proposed revised designation. 

Therefore, during the 2013 request and during Forest 

Plan revision, no remapping of lynx critical habitat 

occurred.

H-2. Clarify how lynx observations on the Shoshone National Forest

contribute to the requirements that define the Forest as “occupied” by 

Canada lynx.

Response Table All lynx habitat on an entire Forest is considered 

“occupied” by lynx when, (1) there are at least two 

verified lynx observations or records since 1999 on 

the national forest unless they are verified to be

transient individuals; or (2) there is evidence of lynx 

reproduction on the national forest (Northern Rockies 

Lynx Management Direction [MRLMD] Biological 

Opinion, 2007).

The Shoshone National Forest was first designated 

as “occupied” under the Canada Lynx Conservation 

Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000) and 

is still considered occupied because of verified tracks 

found during the winters of 2004 and 2005 in the 

Togwottee Pass area adjacent to the Shoshone 

National Forest and on the Shoshone National Forest

in the Warm Springs Creek Watershed (Biological 

Assessment for the Shoshone National Forest Land 

and Natural Resource Management Plan 2013). 

Records of verified tracks in 2004 and 2005 meet 

criteria #1 of the occupied definition in the NRLMD.

33
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

H-3. Clarify how MA 5.1 is being carried out in lynx matrix habitat and the 

6 percent limitation.

Response Table

LMP

Management Area 5.1: Managed Forests and 

Rangelands: This MA contains both lynx and non-lynx 

habitat. Some non-lynx habitat also called matrix 

habitat has been designated as lynx “critical habitat”

by the Secretary of the Interior because of its 

potential to provide connective corridors between

patches of lynx habitat. 

The effects of the MA 5.1 designation on lynx critical 

habitat, including matrix habitat, were analyzed in the 

Biological Assessment for the Shoshone National 

Forest Land and Natural Resource Management Plan 

(2013), page 60, with a determination of “may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect” lynx critical habitat. 

During project-level analysis (e.g., timber harvesting) 

in MA 5.1, matrix habitat and the effects of the project 

proposed in it will be disclosed under the critical 

habitat determination in that project’s biological 

assessment/evaluation.

6% Limitation: The Forest has approximately 597,000 

acres of lynx habitat. The Northern Rockies Lynx 

Amendment (NRLMD 2007) allowed for up to 6% of 

the 597,000 acres, or 35,820 acres, of lynx habitat 

within the wildland-urban interface to be exempt from

vegetation standards VEG S1, S2, VEG S5, and VEG 

S6 in the NRLMD Record of Decision. Vegetation 

management activities proposed in lynx habitat in MA 

5.1 are subject to the 6% limitation. 

See LMP, page 45, under “Canada Lynx” heading.

H-4. Clarify and provide additional details on how the Shoshone National 

Forest came to 2,130 acres of pre-commercial thinning and enhance the 

planning record with further explanations regarding affected species 

such as lodgepole pine thinning in wildland-urban interface to reduce the 

basal area of the stand to reduce risk of wildfire. 

LMP

Project Record

See LMP, page 44, “Management Approach” under 

“Canada Lynx”, first paragraph. Also LMP, page 79,

“Management Approach” “Timber Products” section, 

last paragraph.

The Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment to the 

Shoshone National Forest Plan (Lynx Amendment) 

identified a limited range of fuel or timber 

management projects and limited pre-commercial 

thinning projects for resource benefits that may occur 

34
Record of Decision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

in lynx habitat. These activities are permitted within 

the wildland-urban interface and are exempted from 

Lynx Amendment vegetation standards VEG S1, S2, 

S5, and S6.

During the amendment process, the Forest requested 

the exemption on an additional 2,130 acres where 

pre-commercial thinning would be allowed in

lodgepole pine stands for timber purposes. The 2,130 

acres were not included in the Lynx Amendment 

preferred alternative.

As part of the Forest Plan revision process the 

continued need for these 2,130 acres of precommercial thinning in lynx habitat was identified and 

these acres were included in the preferred alternative 

for the revised plan. Therefore, pre-commercial 

thinning may occur on a total of 2,130 acres in 

lodgepole pine in lynx habitat within the wildlandurban interface for purposes other than fuels 

reduction. These acres are part of the 6% limit of 

35,820 acres and are a total over the next 10 to 15 

years. This is not an annual amount.

Where the Shoshone National Forest is able to precommercially thin, the growth of lodgepole pine will 

accelerate compared to unthinned stands resulting in 

a shorter rotation age, increased volume, and better 

quality timber. Thinning stands in the wildland-urban 

interface also reduces the risk of catastrophic fire. 

However, the Shoshone National Forest has limited 

funding for pre-commercial thinning and how much of 

the 2,130 acres are actually thinned in the next 

decade will depend on future funding levels.

See supporting document CLH-01.

H-5. Clarify how down and dead trees are critical for hare populations, a 

major food source for lynx.

Response Table The record for the LMP does not support nor make 

the claim that dead and down trees are critical for 

snowshoe hare populations or their survival. While 

dead and down trees can open up the forest floor 

canopy allowing for regeneration of younger trees, the 

35
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

Shoshone National Forest does not recognize dead 

and down trees as a critical component of hare 

habitat.

H-6. Correct footnote tied to TES-GUIDE-12 that references the direction 

on the 2,130 acres of pre-commercial thinning. This footnote should 

instead be tied to TES-GUIDE-10.

LMP Correction made. See LMP, page 42, “TES-GUIDE9.”

H-7. Clarify additional opportunities for pre-commercial thinning outside 

lynx habitat. 

ROD

LMP

Additional opportunities for pre-commercial thinning 

as well as other silvicultural techniques in non-lynx 

habitat exist on the Shoshone National Forest outside 

of the wildland-urban interface. These areas will be 

identified during project-level analysis. 

Although there is lynx critical habitat within 

management area 5.1 (Managed Forest and 

Rangelands), the goals are not in conflict for the 

following reason. Lynx critical habitat is different from 

the lynx habitat mentioned in response to instruction 

H-1 that is subject to the 6% exemption. Lynx critical 

habitat is a very large area consisting of both lynx 

habitat and non-lynx habitat designed to contain 

linkages for lynx to move between habitat areas. The 

non-lynx habitat within these large polygons is 

referred to as matrix habitat and is not subject to 

constraints in the NRLMD. Most matrix habitat is not 

affected by the 6% exemption nor was it included in 

the total acres of lynx habitat.

See LMP, page 44, “Management Approach” section, 

under “Canada Lynx” heading, last paragraph.

See Record of Decision, page 10, second paragraph 

under “Pre-Commercial Thinning and Incorporation of 

Northern Rockies Canada Lynx Management 

Direction” heading.

I. Wildlife Viability I-1. Illustrate how conservation measures for sensitive species are 

addressed within LMP direction and create a new table that includes all 

species.

Project Record See supporting document WLV-01.

36
Record of Decision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

I-2. In the FEIS (page 186) under “Conservation Measures for 

Wolverines” (number 2) change wording to read: “Site-specific analysis 

will consider the impact of all winter recreation activities within suitable 

denning habitat for wolverines outside of wilderness boundaries (i.e. 

Beartooth Plateau).”

EIS Errata See FEIS Errata.

J. Wildlife and 

Wildlife Habitat 

Management

J-1. Provide for consistency with 40 CFR 1502.24. Demonstrate how the 

conservation measures referenced in the biological evaluation are 

addressed in the management direction for the LMP.

LMP

Response Table

Guideline SEN-GUIDE-07 was removed from the 

draft LMP.

The final rule from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

authorizing gray wolf reintroduction states that land 

use restrictions are not needed when the 

experimental wolf population has reached six

breeding pairs in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

That criterion has been met and the guideline is no 

longer needed. The Shoshone National Forest can 

establish additional measures during plan 

implementation (project phase) if circumstances 

warrant. 

J-2. Document how the FEIS addresses capability and suitability of NFS 

lands for providing habitat for management indicator species in 

accordance to 36 CFR 219.20. 

Project Record See supporting document WLH-01.

K. Minerals and 

Oil and Gas

K-1. Document why some surface-disturbing activities in crucial winter 

range are managed with timing limitations and oil and gas surface 

development is managed with a combination of timing limitations and 

unsuitable designations. 

ROD See Record of Decision, page 11, second paragraph 

under heading “Issue 5: Oil and Gas Development.”

K-2. a) Document why WGFD identified crucial winter range as most 

critical.

b) Clarify the effects of oil and gas activities on big game winter range. 

Project Record

Response Table

K-2. a) See supporting document MOG-01.

The Governor’s Office provided comments to the 

DEIS on which areas of the Forest should not be 

suitable for oil and gas surface development. They 

confined their comments to those areas that the 

Shoshone showed as suitable for alternative B. To 

provide input to the Governor’s Office, WGFD

followed the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission’s 

Mitigation Policy (March 22, 2012) and identified the 

37
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

“vital” or critical crucial winter range on the Shoshone 

as not suitable for oil and gas surface development. 

Vital habitat in the mitigation policy is defined as 

habitat that “directly limits a wildlife community, 

population, or subpopulation. Impacts to species 

distribution, abundance, or productivity, and 

restoration or replacement is difficult and may not be 

possible, or may be possible only in the very long 

term.” For the Shoshone, the vital habitat identified by 

WGFD functions as big game crucial winter range. 

The mitigation policy was established in recognition of 

the growth, development, and land use change that 

will continue to occur in Wyoming. 

K-2. b) The effects to big game winter range from oil 

and gas activities are the same in all alternatives, 

except alternatives C and G. Oil and gas activities 

have less of an impact in these two alternatives 

because they identify fewer acres as suitable for 

surface development. 

In Alternative C, oil and gas surface development is 

not allowed within any crucial winter range. This 

resulted in 58,000 fewer acres categorized as suitable 

for oil and gas surface development than what was 

already excluded from inventoried roadless areas, 

recommended wilderness, MA 5.4 (managed big 

game winter range), and the grizzly bear primary 

conservation area. 

Alternative G is a modified version of alternative B 

and was developed in response to comments on the 

DEIS. In alternative G, a different approach was taken 

to identify lands suitable for oil and gas surface 

development (see FEIS, “Leasable Minerals”, page 

469). The result was that 60,000 acres of crucial 

winter range was determined not suitable for oil and 

gas surface development. This includes acres of both 

MA 5.4 and big game crucial winter range not 

designated MA 5.4. In this alternative all big game 

crucial winter range, whether it is suitable for oil and 

gas development or not, also includes timing 

38
Record of Decision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

restrictions to reduce disturbance effects to wintering 

animals.

K-3. Explain how the combination of Forestwide and MA 5.4 LMP 

direction guides the suitability and management standards for mineral 

development on the Shoshone National Forest, including MA 5.4.4. 

LMP See LMP, “Standards for Species of Local Concern” 

section, standards SPLC-STAND-03 and SPLCSTAND-05 on page 59.

See LMP, “Management Approach” section for MA 

5.4 on page 180.

K-4. Document the agreements that were reached on inclusion/noninclusion of the specific lands west of Meeteetse as unsuitable for oil and 

gas development, and ensure that documentation is prepared for the 

project record reflecting the outcome of these discussions. Include these 

areas on a map. 

Project Record See supporting document MOG-2

Total acreage of the two areas is less than 1,000 

acres. The Shoshone National Forest changed them 

from suitable for surface development to not suitable 

between the draft and final EIS in response to 

comments from the Wyoming Governor’s office. After 

post-objection process discussions with the state, the 

Forest Service deciding official changed them back to 

suitable. 

K-5. Ensure that language referencing oil and gas surface development 

uses the Forest planning appropriate terms of “suitable” and “unsuitable” 

and do not use terms such as “available” and “no surface occupancy” 

which are reserved for use with leasing decisions.

LMP LMP updated throughout for appropriate terms.

K-6. References on all surface oil and gas development maps and 

throughout the FEIS must be corrected to revise the words “available” 

and “no surface occupancy”, to “suitable” or “unsuitable for surface 

development,” respectively; be consistent with the description in the 

FEIS on page 19 to reduce confusion, and do not use terms specific to 

an oil and gas leasing availability analysis.

EIS Errata See FEIS Errata.

K-7. Clearly document on maps which lands of the overall crucial big 

game winter range are being considered unsuitable for oil and gas for 

reasons of being ”critical crucial big game winter range.” 

Project Record See response to K-2a.

See supporting maps MOG-Map-01 and MOG-Map02.

39
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

K-8. Cross-check alternative G with the BLM Bighorn Basin Resource 

Management Plan Revision, and review for consistency; then document 

any inconsistencies or determine a need to correct areas that are more 

restrictive on the Shoshone National Forest compared to the BLM 

boundary. 

Response Table The BLM Bighorn Basin office (BLM) released a 

supplement to their draft EIS in support of their 

resource management plan (RMP) revision in July 

2013. The comment period ended on November 1, 

2013. A revised RMP and final EIS have not yet been 

released. The BLM anticipates release in 2015,

possibly as soon as summer. Because the BLM is 

behind the Shoshone National Forest in their revision 

process and their current proposed action was not 

available, the BLM’s DEIS analysis and maps were 

used for comparison with the Shoshone National 

Forest’s proposed lands suitable for oil and gas 

surface development. BLM personnel indicate they 

expect changes will be made to their draft proposal 

for oil and gas due to factors including greater sagegrouse habitat.

The two agencies’ proposals for oil and gas surface 

development were checked for consistency by the 

interdisciplinary team in preparation for the Shoshone 

National Forest’s Forest Plan DEIS and FEIS. The 

two plans are consistent in many areas along the 

shared border on the northwest side of the Shoshone 

National Forest. However, there are areas where the 

two are not consistent. This is to be expected given 

the differences between the two agencies’ lands in 

terms of elevation, terrain, issues, etc. In some areas 

along the border the Shoshone National Forest was 

more restrictive with surface development; in other 

areas the BLM was more restrictive. The Shoshone 

National Forest and BLM are not required to be 

consistent. 

K-9. Demonstrate how alternative G oil and gas surface development 

suitability overlaps with MA allocation in alternative G. This serves as a 

comparison with the other action alternatives as to where areas of 

concern lie in relation to one another.

Response Table Acres of land suitable for oil and gas surface 

development by MA for alternative G:

Management Area

Acres Suitable for 

SurfaceDevelopment

40
Record of Decision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

3.3A

3.3B

3.3C

3.5A

3.5C

3.5D

4.2

4.3

5.1

5.4

13,615

3,196

1,891

13,755

7,431

1,090

14

379

73,087

14,603

129,059

L. Rangeland 

Management

L-1. Closely align procedures in appendix B FEIS (volume III) to 

determine capability and suitability with process in R-2 Desk Guide and 

what is also described in chapter 2 (document 02284) found in LMP2014 Revision SNF, “Suitable Uses” pages 117−118. Process for 

Determination of Rangeland Capability: 

Step 3 - Slopes greater than 60 percent were subtracted. These 

areas are identified as not suitable (suggest changing the wording 

from “suitable” to “capable”) for cattle and sheep grazing. In the DEIS 

analysis, the 40 to 60% slope range, which is generally suitable 

(suggest changing the wording from “suitable” to “capable”) for sheep 

grazing was identified as not being capable.

Response Table

EIS Errata

Rangeland capability and suitability analysis was 

completed in accordance with the Region 2 Desk 

Guide. The guidance in the Desk Guide specifies 

slopes less than 40% for cattle use and slopes up to 

60% for sheep. The Region 2 Desk Guide allows 

forests to modify the 40% figure to fit local situations, 

where site-specific information validates such use and 

negative resource impacts are not occurring. The 

Shoshone National Forest lacks the data.

The following rationale determined that only the 

general guidance in the Region 2 Desk Guide

concerning slope would be used:

The Forest Plan capability and suitability analysis 

will have little effect on livestock industry opportunity 

and no direct impact to existing stocking rates or 

permitted use.

Allotment-specific information is not available 

documenting consistent cattle use outside the 

general slope guidelines.

Observed cattle use on slopes greater than 40% 

was generally dependent on herder abilities, annual 

precipitation events, and other factors that could not 

be applied across all allotments or even from year to 

year on the same allotment.

Where applicable, use by cattle on slopes greater 

41
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

than 40% will be analyzed on an allotment by 

allotment basis (site specific) during the NEPA 

process to develop allotment management plans.

See FEIS Errata.

L-2. Modify maps 22-24 in appendix E, following procedures in R-2 Desk 

Guide and maps should show suitable determinations for cattle and 

sheep allotments separately.

EIS Errata See FEIS Errata for maps 81, 82 and 83.

L-3. Clarify that site-specific analysis can be used to make adjustments 

at the project level, and that modeling of capability and suitability 

analysis at the LMP level can be adjusted at the project level (allotment) 

provided good rationale is given (i.e., “hill climbers” versus “bottom 

dwellers” type of cattle as reported in the literature).

Response Table

ROD

Both capability and suitability may also have value 

when applied at the site-specific level. At this level, 

both capability and suitability analyses may be 

reviewed, updated, or made more site specific, if 

doing so will provide information useful to the 

decisions being made. However, this use of the 

analyses is outside the scope of Forest planning 

regulations and purposes and is strictly an application 

of a useful tool as an aid in management decision 

making. For instance, rangelands identified as 

capable and suitable for domestic livestock grazing in 

the land and resource management plan may include 

smaller inclusions that are not appropriate for 

domestic livestock grazing when analyzed at the sitespecific level (i.e., some wetlands or some 

campgrounds). A more site-specific analysis at the 

allotment (or multi-allotment) scale may provide 

information useful in planning management of the 

given allotment(s).

Changes to suitability determinations would involve 

making changes at the Forest Plan level, as suitability 

is a Forest planning level determination.

Stocking rates, term grazing permits, and allotment 

management plans are adjusted in response to sitespecific monitoring and trend data, not modeling.

See Record of Decision, page 12, under subheading 

“Capability and Suitability” for “Issue 6: Commercial 

Livestock Grazing.”

42
Record of Decision

Issue Area Instructions Where Handled Response to Instructions

L-4. The FEIS mixed up the terms suitability and capability in the 

following sentence: “Acres with slopes 40 to 60 percent slope were 

subtracted as not being suitable for cattle grazing.” The sentence should 

read: “Acres with slopes 40 to 60 percent were subtracted as not being 

capable for cattle grazing.” In addition this step is part of the capability 

determination and not suitability determination as documented in the R-2 

Desk Guide.

EIS Errata See response to L-1.

See FEIS Errata.

L-5. Clarify the LMP to qualify how Vegetation Management Guideline #4 

is applied when livestock are not the reason for vegetation trends not 

moving towards desired conditions.

LMP See LMP, page 34, “VEG-GUIDE-04.”

L-6. Revise Vegetation Guideline #5, using methods other than stubble 

height to measure and quantify riparian health. See: 

http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/rge/inventory/index.shtml to help determine 

methodology to measure riparian health.

LMP See LMP, page 35, “VEG-GUIDE-05.”

M. Social and 

Economic 

Analysis

M-1. Change the wording in the first line of the paragraph immediately 

preceding table 179 to “Table 179 shows cumulative present net value 

by alternative. Values used to calculate present net value are in the 

FEIS, Appendix B, page 1129.” Table 179 in the FEIS (page 617) shows 

the “estimated benefits, costs, as a cumulative PNV by alternative.” 

EIS Errata

Response Table

See FEIS Errata.

M-2. Clarify the comparison of PNV in the selected alternative to PNV of 

the other alternatives, using PNV numbers presented in the FEIS, Table 

179, page 617.

Response Table The FEIS states that the PNV (present net value) is 

positive for all alternatives. Alternative D had the 

highest PNV and alternative F had the lowest. The 

differences among alternatives for PNV are slight 

(FEIS, page 617). 

The difference between the highest PNV (alternative

D) and lowest PNV (alternative F) is 1,335. 

Alternative G has the same PNV as alternative B. 

Alternatives ranked in ascending order of PNV value 

are: D, A, B&G, E, C, F.

43