Biological Evaluation

Terrestrial Wildlife

For Revised Land and Resource

Management Plan

Prepared by:

_____________________________

Joe Harper

Forest Wildlife Biologist

for:

Shoshone National Forest

Rocky Mountain Region

Date Completed: September 17, 2013
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.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

iii

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7

2.0 Project Area........................................................................................................................ 7

3.0 Description of Proposal...................................................................................................... 9

4.0 Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 9

5.0 Sensitive Species Considered........................................................................................... 12

6.0 Sensitive Species Evaluations and Analysis of Effects.................................................... 14

6.1 Forested mammals...................................................................................................... 15

American marten (Martes americana)......................................................................... 15

Gray wolf (Canis lupus).............................................................................................. 20

Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus cinereus)....................................................................... 29

6.2 Forested birds............................................................................................................. 32

Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus)............................................................ 32

Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) .................................................................................. 36

Northern goshawk (Accipter gentilis atricapillus) ...................................................... 40

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) ................................................................. 44

6.3 Grassland/sagebrush mammals .................................................................................. 47

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis)................................... 47

6.4 Grassland/sagebrush birds.......................................................................................... 60

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) and sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli)............... 60

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis)............................................................................... 65

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum).................................................... 67

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)...................................................... 70

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)................................................................... 76

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)............................................................................... 79

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)............................................................................... 83

6.5 Riparian (lakes, streams, marshes) mammals............................................................. 86

North American river otter (Lontra canadensis) ......................................................... 86

Water vole (Microtus richardsoni).............................................................................. 89

6.6 Riparian (lakes, streams, marches) birds.................................................................... 93

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)........................................................................ 93

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)................................................................. 96

Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinators) ..................................................................... 100

6.7 Riparian (lakes, streams, marshes) amphibians........................................................ 103

Boreal western toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas), Columbia spotted frog (Rana 

luteiventris), northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens) .......................................... 103

6.8 Caves and mines mammals ...................................................................................... 115
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

iv

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes pahasapensis), Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), 

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)............................................. 115

6.9 Cliff birds ................................................................................................................. 120

American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)............................................. 120

List of Tables

Table BE- 1. Acres of management areas by alternative .............................................................. 11

Table BE- 2. Rocky Mountain Region sensitive species on the Shoshone National Forest (as of 

July 2013).............................................................................................................................. 12

Table BE- 3. Activities and outputs that could Influence the American marten and hoary bat by 

alternative .............................................................................................................................. 17

Table BE- 4. Wolf depredations in Wyoming: 2001—2012 (Jimenez et al. 2012, Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department et al. 2013) .......................................................................................... 24

Table BE- 5. Composition of confirmed wolf packs on the Shoshone National Forest in 2012 

(Jimenez et al. 2012, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2013)...................................... 25

Table BE- 6. Acres of insect-caused mortality on the Shoshone National Forest, 2000-2009 and 

2010....................................................................................................................................... 33

Table BE- 7. Shoshone vegetation treatment history 2002−2011 (acres) ..................................... 33

Table BE- 8. Activities and outputs that could Influence the black-backed woodpecker by 

alternative .............................................................................................................................. 34

Table BE- 9. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the boreal owl, by 

alternative .............................................................................................................................. 38

Table BE- 10. Activities and outputs that could influence the northern goshawk by alternative . 42

Table BE- 11. Activities and outputs that could influence the olive-sided flycatcher by alternative

............................................................................................................................................... 46

Table BE- 12. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep (BHS), by alternative..................................................................... 58

Table BE- 13. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence Brewer’s sparrow 

and sage sparrow, by alternative ........................................................................................... 63

Table BE- 14. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence grasshopper 

sparrow, by alternative .......................................................................................................... 69

Table BE- 15. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence greater sagegrouse, by alternative............................................................................................................. 74

Table BE- 16. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence loggerhead shrike, 

by alternative ......................................................................................................................... 78

Table BE- 17. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence northern harrier, 

by alternative ......................................................................................................................... 81

Table BE- 18. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence short-eared owl, 

by alternative ......................................................................................................................... 85

Table BE- 19. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence river otter by 

alternative .............................................................................................................................. 88

Table BE- 20. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence water vole, by 

alternative .............................................................................................................................. 92

Table BE- 21. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence bald eagles, by 

alternative .............................................................................................................................. 95

Table BE- 22. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence Harlequin duck, 

by alternative ......................................................................................................................... 98

Table BE- 23. Acres of management areas by alternative .......................................................... 102
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

v

Table BE- 24. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the boreal toad, 

Columbia spotted frog and northern leopard frog, by alternative ....................................... 112

Table BE- 25. Habitat for fringed myotis, spotted bats, and Townsend’s big-eared bats (Hester 

and Grenier 2005)................................................................................................................ 116

Table BE- 26. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the fringed myotis, 

spotted bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat, by alternative................................................... 118

Table BE- 27. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the peregrine 

falcon, by alternative ........................................................................................................... 122

List of Figures

Figure BE- 1. Shoshone National Forest, planning area boundary ................................................. 8

Figure BE- 2. Home ranges of confirmed wolf packs in Wyoming in 2012 (Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 2013).......................................................................................................... 23

Figure BE- 3. Population trends for elk herd units that encompass the Shoshone National Forest

............................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure BE- 4. Bighorn sheep herd units, Shoshone National Forest............................................. 48

Figure BE- 5. Population trends for bighorn sheep herd units that encompass Shoshone National 

Forest..................................................................................................................................... 53

Figure BE- 6. Bighorn sheep crucial winter range on the Shoshone National Forest................... 54

Figure BE- 7. Domestic sheep and goat (including pack goat) closure in core native bighorn sheep 

range ...................................................................................................................................... 57

Figure BE- 8. Average maximum number of males per active lek for greater sage-grouse in the 

Big Horn Basin Conservation Area, 1979 to 2006 (BBSGLWG 2007)................................ 71

Figure BE- 9. Greater sage-grouse core areas............................................................................... 72

Figure BE- 10. Counts of swans in Wyoming during the Fall Trumpeter Swan Survey, 

1967−2010 (dotted, solid, and dashed lines depict trends for total swans, white birds, and 

cygnets, respectively) (USFWS 2010) ................................................................................ 101

Figure BE- 11. Total counted peregrine falcon nesting pairs and fledglings in Yellowstone 

National Park, 1984−2007 (YNP 2010) .............................................................................. 120

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

7

1.0 Introduction

This biological evaluation (BE) discloses the potential influences of the Shoshone National Forest 

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan and alternatives on Forest Service Rocky 

Mountain Region (Region 2) sensitive species. The list of Region 2 regional forester sensitive 

species was updated on July 1, 2013.

The Forest Service Manual (FSM) directs the Forest Service to develop and implement 

management practices to ensure that sensitive species do not become threatened or endangered 

because of Forest Service actions (FSM 2670.22). Sensitive species are those plant and animal 

species identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern as evidenced 

by (a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or (b) 

significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' 

existing distribution (FSM 2670.5).

The FSM directs the Forest Service to prepare biological evaluations for projects, as part of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, to determine the potential effects from those projects 

on sensitive species and to ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability 

of threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plant and animal species, or contribute to a 

trend toward federal listing of any species under the Endangered Species Act (FSM 2672.41 and 

2670.32). A biological evaluation is defined as a documented review of Forest Service programs 

or activities in sufficient detail to determine how an action or proposed action may affect any 

sensitive species (FSM 2670.5). A separate biological assessment was prepared to address effects 

on threatened, endangered and proposed species (FSM 2670.5). 

A review of information regarding the distribution of habitats on the Shoshone National Forest, 

observations of species on the Forest, known areas of occupancy, and fieldwork over the past 

several years has been incorporated. Sources of information include Forest Service records and 

files, the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD), Wyoming Game and Fish Department

(WFGD) and other Federal wildlife agency information, and published research.

2.0 Project Area

The project area is the Shoshone National Forest (the Shoshone or the Forest) boundary; located 

in the middle Rocky Mountains in northwestern Wyoming (see Figure BE- 1).

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

Counties. The Shoshone National Forest is part of the Greater Yellowstone Area. The Greater 

Yellowstone Area consists of about 13 million acres of public lands managed by the USDA Forest 

Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It includes six national forests 

(Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, Gallatin, and Shoshone), three 

national parks (Grand Teton, Yellowstone, and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway), and 

two national wildlife refuges (National Elk Refuge and Red Rock Lakes). The Greater 

Yellowstone Area is one of the last remaining large, nearly intact ecosystems in the northern 

temperate zone.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

8

Figure BE- 1. Shoshone National Forest, planning area boundary

On the Shoshone, terrain varies widely from sagebrush flats to rugged mountains because the 

Shoshone is situated on the western edge of the Great Plains and the eastern side of the 

Continental Divide. Elevations on the Shoshone range from 4,600 feet at the mouth of Clarks 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

9

Fork Canyon to 13,804 feet on Gannett Peak, Wyoming’s highest point. The higher mountains are 

snow-clad most of the year with immense areas of exposed rock interspersed with meadows and 

forests. 

Most of the Shoshone is within the upper Missouri River Basin, subdivided by the Wind/Big 

Horn and Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River basins. The southern tip of the Shoshone is in the 

Sweetwater drainage, which flows into the Platte River system. Principal rivers within the 

Shoshone boundary are the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, North and South Forks of the 

Shoshone River, and the Greybull, Wind/Big Horn, and Popo Agie Rivers.

Annual precipitation varies with topography and elevation, ranging from 15 to 70 inches. Higher 

elevations receive from 30 to 40 percent of their annual precipitation during the winter in the 

form of snow, roughly 40 percent as rain and snow in the spring, and 20 to 30 percent as rain in 

the summer and fall.

3.0 Description of Proposal

The 1986 Shoshone National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended (1986

Forest Plan as amended) is being revised. Since 1986, the Forest Plan has been amended 

14 times. Forest plans provide broad guidance and information needed for project and activity 

decision making. This Revised Forest Plan will guide relevant resource management programs, 

practices, uses, and protection measures. The associated environmental impact statement (EIS)

examines potential environmental effects that could occur as a result of implementing projects 

associated with the Revised Forest Plan.

This integrated plan for long-term management of the Shoshone:

• Establishes Forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives.

• Establishes Forest-wide standards and guidelines applying to future activities and 

resource integration requirements.

• Establishes management area direction (management area prescriptions) applying to 

future activities in a management area.

• Meets the requirements for additional planning for special areas unless inconsistent with 

special area authorities.

• Designates land as suited or not suited for timber production and other resource 

management activities such as rangeland and recreation management. 

• Establishes monitoring and evaluation requirements.

• Recommends the establishment of wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and other special 

designations to Congress, as appropriate.

4.0 Alternatives

Six revision/issue topics drove the development of the original six alternatives (A through F). A 

seventh alternative (G) was developed after public comment and has been selected as the 

preferred alternative. All of the alternatives were analyzed in this biological evaluation. 

Issue 1. Recreation Uses and Opportunities.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

10

Issue 2. Special Areas and Designations.

Issue 3. Vegetation Management.

Issue 4. Wildlife Habitat Management.

Issue 5. Minerals.

Issue 6. Commercial Livestock Grazing.

The seven alternatives are summarized below.

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A is the continuation of present management under the existing 1986 Forest Plan and 

its amendments. It meets requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act that a no-action 

alternative be considered. “No action” means that current management practices based on 

existing land use plans and other management decision documents would continue.

Alternative B

Preliminary proposed action. Alternative B provides a balanced response to the issues raised 

during revision, continues management that is working, and adjusts, to the extent possible, to be 

responsive to the issues raised by the public.

Alternative C 

High wilderness and back country non-motorized recreation. Alternative C demonstrates the most 

amount of land allocated for wilderness, with no motorized use in remaining inventoried roadless 

areas.

Alternative D

Back country and non-motorized emphasis. Alternative D provides back country and nonmotorized uses, while maintaining moderate to low levels of commodity production. This 

alternative also addresses issues raised by the public and conservation groups.

Alternative E

Commodity and motorized use emphasis. Alternative E provides commodity production and 

motorized use while addressing issues shared by the public, local industry, and motorized user 

groups

Alternative F

High commodity and motorized use emphasis. Alternative F demonstrates the highest level of 

commodity production and motorized use possible within parameters, such as designated 

wilderness, the grizzly bear primary conservation area, etc.

Alternative G

Preferred alternative. This alternative describes the Revised Forest Plan that responds to the 

identified purpose and need. This alternative is a modified version of alternative B and was 

developed in response to public comment received on the draft environmental impact statement. 

The alternative provides a diversity of forest uses and emphasizes active management of suitable 

timber lands, protects wildlife habitat, and maintains the dominant backcountry character of the 

Forest. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

11

The differences among the seven alternatives and their potential to sensitive species can be 

analyzed by the different management areas with which they are associated. Management areas 

outline uses and activities that may occur within them. All Shoshone National Forest System 

lands have been allocated to one of 29 management areas that range from areas where more 

wilderness and back country non-motorized is emphasized to areas that are more intensely 

managed. In general, those alternatives that allow a higher level of management intensity may 

require a higher level of management attention to the protection and maintenance of habitats for 

species that are sensitive to habitat alteration and/or human disturbances. A summary of the 

differences in management areas by alternative appears in Table BE- 1.

Table BE- 1. Acres of management areas by alternative

Mgmt 

Area Description Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F Alt G

1.1 Wilderness 1,359,592 1,359,592 1,359,592 1,359,592 1,359,592 1,359,592 1,359,592

1.1A Glacier Addition 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563 6,563

1.2 Recmnd 

Wilderness 584,734 165,587

1.2A Recmnd High 

Lakes Wilderness 15,224

1.2B Recmnd Dunoir 

Wilderness 28,879 28,879

1.3 Back Country Nonmotorized 455,554 358,127 106,890 395,123 327,549 203,587 265,777

1.5A Clarks Fork Wild 

River 6,924 6,924 3,350 6,924 6,924 6,924 6,924

1.6A High Lakes WSA 15,224 15,224 15,224 15,224 15,224 15,224

1.6B Dunoir SMU 28,879 28,879 28,879 28,879 28,879

2.2A Line Creek RNA 1,278 1,278 186 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278

2.3 Proposed RNAs 1,386 12,127 4,298 15,201 13,831

3.1A Swamp Lake SIA 581 581 581 581 581 581 581

3.1B Proposed Little 

Popo Agie SIA 1,714 1,714 31,714 1,714

3.1C Proposed Sawtooth 

Peatbeds SIA 648 648 407

3.3A Back Country 

Motorized 185,936 64,243 4,948 8,333 90,500 175,296 80,098

3.3B Back Country 

Winter Motorized 86,413 3,157 75,068 43,485 5 185,879

3.3C Back Country 

Summer Motorized 72,735 4,936 11,500 98,030 4,563 46,596

3.5 Back Country Rec 

& Restoration 66,427

3.5A

Back Country 

Restoration 

Motorized

29,213

3.5B

Back Country 

Restoration Winter 

Motorized

8,025

3.5C

Back Country 

Restoration 

Summer Motorized

13,311
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

12

Table BE- 1. Acres of management areas by alternative

Mgmt 

Area Description Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F Alt G

3.5D

Back Country 

Restoration NonMotorized

14,573

4.2 Travel Corridor 164,447 100,883 82,588 100,883 103,422 103,901 99,729

4.3 Back Country 

Access Corridor 13,982 5,120 13,947 8,775 3,349 14,051

4.5A Proposed Kirwin 

SIA 481 481 481 481 481 4,603

5.1 Managed Forests & 

Rangelands 157,215 173,116 72,298 168,350 253,717 528,146 173,190

5.2 Public Water 

Supply 12,868 6,841 7,953 12,868 12,868

5.4 

Managed Big 

Game Crucial 

Winter Range

54,972 55,005 145,505 553,983 79,935 0 54,978

8.2 Ski-based Resort 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145

5.0 Sensitive Species Considered

Terrestrial and aquatic sensitive species that occur, or could occur, in the planning area are 

displayed in Table BE- 2.

Table BE- 2. Rocky Mountain Region sensitive species on the Shoshone National Forest (as of July 

2013)

Common name(s) Global/state ranking1 Habitat

Fish species

Yellowstone cutthroat trout G4/T2/S2 Streams

Lakes

Mountain sucker G5/S5 Streams

Lake chub G5/S5 Rivers

Lakes

 1 Conservation status ranks estimate a species risk of elimination. Status ranks are based on a 1 to 5 scale, 1 

denoting a species is critically impaired and 5 denoting a species is secure. Species status is assessed at 

three geographic scales: global (G), national (N), and state/province (S). The overall status of a species is 

denoted by its G-rank, while its condition in a particular country is denotes by its N-rank, and its condition 

in a particular state/province is denoted by its S-rank. State rank is assigned by Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database biologists and denotes a species probability of elimination in Wyoming. Subspecies, varieties, or 

any other designation below the level of a global-ranked species, receive a T-rank that denotes their 

conservation status. A species may receive a B- or N-rank that refers to the conservation status of the 

breeding (B) or non-breeding (N) population in a particular nation or state/province. (NatureServe, 

February 2012, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database February 2012)
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

13

Table BE- 2. Rocky Mountain Region sensitive species on the Shoshone National Forest (as of July 

2013)

Common name(s) Global/state ranking1 Habitat

Mammal species

American marten 

Martes Americana G5/S3

Late successional conifer (Subalpine 

spruce/fir forests, alpine tundra, montane)

forests 

Fringed myotis 

Myotis thysanodes 

pahasapensis

G4/G5/S2

Caves, mines, forested areas (Dry habitats 

where open grasslands and shrublands are 

interspersed with mature xeric forests 

creating ample edges)

Gray wolf

Canis lupus G4/S1 Forest, Meadows, Riparian areas with 

ungulates

Hoary bat 

Lasiurus cinereus cinereus G4/S4 Aspen and pine forests (snags)

River otter 

Lontra Canadensis G5/S3 Streams, Lakes, Aquatic habitats bearing fish

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 

Ovis canadensis canadensis G4/S3 Alpine, Cliffs, Meadows

Spotted bat 

Euderma maculatum G4/S3

Caves, mines, rock outcrops (Coniferous 

forest,

Cliffs over perennial water)

Townsend’s big-eared bat 

Corynorhinus townsendii G4/S2 Caves and mines in deciduous forests

Water vole 

Microtus richardsoni G5/S2 Subalpine and alpine meadow water courses

(riparian areas)

Bird species

American peregrine falcon 

Falco peregrinus anatum G4/T4/S2 Breeds on cliffs, often in association with 

riparian areas.

Bald eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus G4/S3B/S5N Large riverine, Forested stands around 

aquatic fish bearing settings

Black-backed woodpecker 

Picoides arcticus G5/S1 Mature spruce/fir forest (mid and high 

elevation)

Boreal owl 

Aegolius funereus G5/S2 Mature subalpine spruce/fir forests (high 

elevation)

Brewer’s sparrow 

Spizella breweri G5/S5 Mountain foothills and basin-prairie 

sagebrush (shrub-steppe)

Grasshopper sparrow 

Ammodramus savannarum G5/S4 Basin-prairie (shortgrass prairie) shrublands

Greater sage-grouse 

Centrocercus urophasianus G4/S4 Grasslands with sagebrush (sagebrush 

steppe)

Ferruginous hawk 

Buteo regalis G4/S4B/S5N Shrub-steppe, Shortgrass prairie 

Harlequin duck 

Histrionicus histrionicus G4/S1B Swift forest rivers and streams (Montane 

riparian) 

Loggerhead shrike 

Lanius ludovicianus G4/S3 Open sagebrush (shrub-steppe), grasslands

Northern goshawk 

Accipter gentilis atricapillus G5/S3 Mature montane coniferous and mixed 

forests including aspen
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

14

Table BE- 2. Rocky Mountain Region sensitive species on the Shoshone National Forest (as of July 

2013)

Common name(s) Global/state ranking1 Habitat

Northern harrier 

Circus cyaneus G4/S4B/S5N Marshes, meadows, grasslands

Olive-sided flycatcher 

Contopus cooperi G4/S4B Coniferous forest (mid and high elevation)

Sage sparrow 

(Amphispiza belli G5/S3 Basin-prairie sagebrush (sagebrush-steppe)

Short-eared owl 

Asio flammeus G5/S2 Basin-prairie shrublands, grasslands, 

marshes

Trumpeter swan 

Cygnus buccinator G4/S2 Shallow lakes. large ponds, wetlands

Amphibian species

Boreal toad 

Anaxyrus boreas boreas G4T4/S1 Marshes, wet meadows, streams, ponds, 

lakes 

Columbia spotted frog 

Rana luteiventris G4/S3 Grass and sedge edges of streams, lakes,

ponds, springs, and marshes

Northern leopard frog 

Lithobates pipiens G5/S3 Grass and sedge edges of streams, lakes,

ponds, springs, and marshes

6.0 Sensitive Species Evaluations and Analysis of 

Effects 

Terrestrial and amphibian sensitive species known to occur or suspected to have habitat on the 

Shoshone National Forest are evaluated below. Sensitive species are analyzed to determine if they 

could be affected by the proposed action, no action, and alternatives to the proposed action. 

Species are grouped according to the habitats in which they occur, and by class (mammals, birds, 

amphibians). Effects from the proposed action, no action, and alternatives are discussed at the end 

of each section. All effects analyses are predicated on the assumption that proper administration 

and compliance is used in implementing the management activities associated with the Revised 

Forest Plan.

This information is based on the most current scientific information available including species 

assessments, monitoring plans, conservation assessments and plans, and recovery plans.

As a result of analysis, one of the following determinations is made for each species: “no 

impact,” “beneficial impact,” “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a 

loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species 

viability range-wide,” or “likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend 

to federal listing, or a loss of species viability range-wide.”
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

15

6.1 Forested mammals

American marten (Martes americana)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

American marten have a natural heritage ranking of G5/S3. Historical populations, distribution, 

or abundance are unknown on the Shoshone.

Marten are a circumboreal species. In North America, they range from Alaska, through Canada, 

east to Maine, and south into New York, California, and New Mexico, following the boreal forest 

zone (Patterson et al. 2003). They are associated primarily with mature boreal forests.

Marten are known to occur throughout the mountainous regions of Wyoming, including the 

Shoshone National Forest. The current population trend is unknown. Marten tracks are commonly 

seen in the winter, based on past surveys. During the winter of 1995 to 1996, marten tracks were 

seen along routes at a rate of 0.7 track per mile on the Shoshone. Several of the same routes were 

run in the winters 2002 to 2003 and 2003 to 2004. In the winter of 2002 to 2003, 50 marten tracks 

were recorded (USFS 2009a). The winter of 2003 to 2004 was a poor snow year which resulted in 

less snow tracking. Based on past surveys, marten are likely common on the Forest where 

suitable habitat exists. 

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Marten habitat in the Rocky Mountains is typically dominated by Engelmann spruce (Picea 

engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). They tend to avoid dry stands of lodgepole 

pine (Pinus contorta) (Buskirk 2002). Ruggiero et al. (1998) in their study concluded that large 

logs, large snags, and large live spruce and fir trees were important characteristics for marten dens 

sites in the Wyoming.

On the Shoshone, spruce/fir habitat is relatively abundant. There are about 309,442 acres of 

spruce/fir on the Forest with about 30 percent of it being mature (over 200 years old) (USDA 

Forest Service 2012b). About 178,678 acres of spruce/fir habitat is within wilderness. Due to fire 

suppression, the spruce/fir forest type has likely increased on the Forest. This suggests that there 

is relatively abundant potential habitat for marten on the Shoshone. Additional habitat may be 

available in mature lodgepole pine or Douglas-fir that is succeeding to spruce/fir. 

Spruce/fir habitat on the Shoshone has recently been impacted by spruce budworm and spruce 

beetle. From 2000 to 2009, about 11,003 acres have been affected by spruce budworm and 

256,310 acres by spruce beetle. In 2010, about 3,743 acres have been impacted by spruce 

budworm and 57,362 acres by spruce beetle (USFS 2012a). In addition, Western balsam bark 

beetle has been impacting subalpine fir. From 2000 to 2009, about 117,299 acres have been 

impacted. In 2010, about 39,811 acres were impacted by western balsam bark beetle. These 

outbreaks may be reducing the potential habitat to some degree.

It is uncertain if these recent insect outbreaks are outside of the historic range of variability. The 

spruce beetle attack on Carter Mountain was atypical in that beetles killed small-diameter trees as 

well as large-diameter trees (USFS 2012a).
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

16

Risk Factors

The primary risk factors from forest management include timber harvest and associated road 

construction/reconstruction, fuelwood collection, and fire suppression. Other risk factors include 

epidemic-level insect outbreaks within suitable habitat and wildfire. At the local population level, 

trapping is an additional risk factor.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Trapping has historically been a major source of mortality for marten. In Wyoming, marten can 

legally be trapped. Ease of trapping is known to be of more concern with increased road densities 

that allow access to prime habitat (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). 

There are currently no known diseases, usually plague or distemper, or predation problems known 

for marten that are outside of the range of what likely has occurred over time.

Timber harvest can have a variable effect on marten depending on the harvest type (Buskirk 

2002). Marten are sensitive to reductions in patch size. Regeneration harvest types would have 

the greatest impact on marten habitat. Timber harvest occurs at a very small scale compared to the 

available habitat on the Shoshone, so overall risks would be low. 

Given the natural patchiness of the Forest, maintaining connectivity between habitats would be 

important. 

Fire suppression has both positive and negative impacts to marten habitat. In the short term, 

spruce/fir habitat has likely increased with increased amounts of coarse woody debris. In the long

term, fire suppression increases the likelihood of catastrophic fires that would cause major losses 

of marten habitat (Buskirk 2002). Insect outbreaks are likely increasing the risk of catastrophic 

wildfires.

Fuelwood collection could remove coarse woody debris from potential marten habitat. Fuelwood 

collection is limited to areas near roads, so the overall risk to marten habitat is low.

Conservation Measures

In order to provide management for the species to maintain or improve its potential distribution 

on the Forest, conservation measures need consideration for incorporation into Forest Plan goals, 

objectives, standards and guidelines. Given the amount of potential habitat in wilderness, and 

potential impacts from forest management are limited to roaded areas (timber harvest/fuelwood 

collection), viability risk from forest management is low.

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. To maintain habitat connectivity, retain snags and coarse woody debris of adequate size and 

density within regeneration harvest units. 

2. In general, implementation of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USFS 

2007) would benefit marten as well. Especially, standards and guidelines related to vegetation 

management.

Monitoring Considerations

Of most importance for this species would be the inventory and management of mature conifer 

stands and distribution on the Shoshone. This would include the location and extent of insect 

outbreaks and recent wildfires. Both of which are currently inventoried on an annual basis.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

17

Effects Analysis: The primary activity that could potentially influence primary habitat for this

species is timber harvest and associated activities such as road construction or use. To a lesser 

degree, winter motorized (i.e., snowmobile use) and summer recreation may also impact the 

marten due to increased disturbances within suitable habitat. Although not a planned activity, 

wildland fire use could also potentially influence the marten if large-scale burns reduce suitable 

habitat components. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are 

displayed below in Table BE- 3. Hoary bats use forested habitat that is similar to the marten thus 

their habitat is included in table 48 and also in order to reduce redundancy, some species share 

same tables.

Table BE- 3. Activities and outputs that could Influence the American marten and hoary bat by 

alternative

Alt A Alts B and G* Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Suitable timber base 

acres 86,269 127,009 122,103 124,453 179,666 251,205

Vegetation treatment 

acres mechanical 

and mechanical w/

prescribed fire(total)

15,470 15,379 14,471 15,062 17,905 21,716

Douglas-fir 2,924 2,744 2,336 2,632 3,181 4,250

Spruce/fir 1,411 1,399 1,057 1,263 1,547 1,768

Lodgepole pine 5,291 5,330 5,641 5,361 7,058 9,211

Limber pine 612 617 547 575 637 672

Whitebark pine 540 540 270 514 544 548

Aspen 624 628 529 616 641 664

Vegetation treatment 

acres prescribed fire

(total)

23,559 23,302 23,299 23,342 22,823 21,910

Douglas-fir 4,949 4,869 4,836 4,871 4,748 4,585

Spruce/fir 550 544 495 525 554 566

Lodgepole pine 1,974 1,969 2,021 1,977 2,191 2,449

Limber pine 1,739 1,720 1,720 1,721 1,655 1,543

Whitebark pine 344 341 302 338 330 312

Aspen 918 909 899 911 878 823

Wildfire acres 185,152 182,900 184,132 183,703 174,983 161,363

Road construction 

miles-timber 2 2 2 2 3 3

Miles of open 

motorized roads and 

trails-summer(total)

939 939 821 939 939 939

Miles of open

motorized roads and 

trails (winter total)

670 686 229 675 691 966

Miles of snowmobile 

trails 276 276 163 276 276 276

Motorized 

recreationwinter(acres 

887,590 479,848 103,010 323,687 525,175 825,219
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

18

Table BE- 3. Activities and outputs that could Influence the American marten and hoary bat by 

alternative

Alt A Alts B and G* Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

available)

Motorized 

recreationwinter(acres not 

available)

1,550,440 Alt B-1,956,834

Alt G-1,845,600 2,335,019 2,114,268 1,911,603 1,612,810

Winter range 

motorized closure 

(total)

173,828 Alt B-155,260

Alt G-150,023 224,422 155,773 115,369 0

Motorized 

Recreation-Summer 

(Acres available)

569,975 Alt B-570,246

AltG-529,019 321,800 349,992 655,879 823,326

Motorized 

recreation-summer 

(acres not available)

1,868,055 Alt B-1,867,783

Alt G-1,909,010 2,116,229 2,088,037 1,782,150 1,614,703

Ski area 

development or 

expansion

1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145

*Alternative G is the same as alternative. B unless otherwise indicated.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

In regard to activities that could potentially influence the American marten, alternative A 

designates the least amount of suitable timber base (86,269 acres) as compared to alternatives BF, while offering approximately the same amount of suitable habitat (1,961 acres) to active 

management as alternatives B, D and G (Preferred alternative) more acres then alternative C, but 

fewer acres (approximately 140 and 373 acres), than alternatives E and F, respectively, that could 

potentially alter the habitat components preferred by the species. 

As displayed in Table BE- 3, the predicted timber harvest output in primary habitat varies from 

1,552 to 2,334 acres and is very minimal in all alternatives. These amounts represent about 2 to 

3 percent of the total suitable habitat on the Shoshone. The amount of timber harvest in 

alternative A is therefore expected to have little, if any, influence on American marten habitat or 

populations on the Shoshone. Construction of new roads as result of timber harvest that would 

remain open to public use is very minimal for all alternatives; estimated between 2 to 3 miles. 

Additional fragmentation effects may be associated with these activities, but are expected to be 

minor because of the large amount of unroaded area that remains undeveloped. 

Alternative A offers the third highest amount of motorized recreation compared to the other 

alternatives. This difference could potentially allow greater disturbances to the solitude that 

marten prefer, depending upon the type, timing, and scope of the activity. Greater winter travel 

via snowmobiles could theoretically alter snow conditions and allow low-elevation predators to 

access more winter habitat due to snow compaction. 

Wildland fire use is not a planned output. However, it will be utilized as a tool to allow natural 

disturbances to occur within suitable marten habitat as opportunities arise. It is estimated that all 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

19

alternatives may allow from 161,363 to 185,152 acres of wildland fire use. Depending upon fire 

severity and scale, these outputs could have negative or positive influences on American marten. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative)

As displayed in Table BE- 3, there is little difference between no action and alternatives B

through G in regard to vegetation treatment acres in suitable marten habitat (92,832 acres). 

Construction of new roads as result of timber harvest that would remain open to public use is very 

minimal for all alternatives; estimated between 2 to 3 miles. Alternative F offers the greatest 

amount of vegetation treatment area where this activity may occur. However, less than 3 percent

of suitable marten habitat is influenced by all alternatives and is expected to have no detectable 

effect on American marten. 

As displayed in Table BE- 3, and consistent with its theme, alternative C offers fewer potential 

disturbances than the other alternatives from both summer and winter motorized recreation 

because of decreases in the amount of motorized use area. Consistent with their themes, 

alternative D offers the next fewest motorized acres, while alternative F offers the largest amount 

of acreage. Alternatives B, E, and G (preferred alternative) offer a balance between the other 

action alternatives, but provide less solitude habitat than no action. Although the marten is not 

highly sensitive to motorized disturbance, reductions in open motorized areas should decrease the 

potential for displacement or disturbances. 

As with no action, it is estimated that wildland fire use may be used as a management tool on 

161,363 to 185,152 acres in all action alternatives. Depending upon fire severity and scale, these 

outputs could have negative or positive influences on American marten. 

Cumulative Effects

The single-most influential habitat management action undertaken in potential marten habitat on 

the Shoshone is timber harvesting. As previously discussed, timber harvest occurs at a very small 

scale compared to the available habitat on the Forest. For the past 10 years (2002 to 2011) 

approximately 18,751 acres of vegetative treatment has occurred. 

A review of management activities and land use designations on the Shoshone suggests that a 

considerable amount of suitable habitat for the marten is available, and should remain available, 

throughout and beyond the current planning period (10 to 15 years). Timber management 

activities may still influence individual martens where it occurs. However, approximately 

57 percent of the spruce/fir habitat on the Shoshone occurs as wilderness that maintains highquality marten habitat. In addition, all alternatives maintain this protection. Given the natural 

patchiness of the Forest, maintaining connectivity between habitats would be important.

Due to fire suppression, the spruce/fir forest type has likely increased on the Forest. This suggests 

that there is relatively abundant potential habitat for marten on the Shoshone. Additional habitat 

may be available in mature lodgepole pine or Douglas-fir that is succeeding to spruce/fir. 

Determination

All plan revision alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals 

(American marten), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, 

nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” The rationale for 

this determination follows: 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

20

• All alternatives involve projected timber harvest activities in primary habitat types 

(spruce/fir) that may adversely influence individual marten. However, the projected scope 

of these activities is very minimal.

• All alternatives involve over-the-snow and summer motorized recreation that may disturb 

individual marten. 

• Extensive late-successional primary habitat occurs on the Shoshone National Forest in 

wilderness where natural processes will dominate.

Gray wolf (Canis lupus)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

In 1974, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed two subspecies of gray wolf as 

endangered: the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (C. l. irremotus) and the eastern timber wolf 

(C. l. lycaon) in the Great Lakes region (39 FR 1171). On November 22, 1994, the USFWS 

designated portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming as two nonessential experimental 

population areas for the gray wolf under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, including 

the Yellowstone Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60252). In 2005 and 2008, the USFWS 

revised these regulations to provide increased management flexibility for this recovered wolf 

population in states with USFWS-approved post-delisting wolf management plans [70 FR 1286; 

73 FR 4720; 50 CFR 17.84(n)].

The northern Rocky Mountain wolf population achieved its numerical and distributional recovery 

goals at the end of 2000 and the temporal portion of the recovery goal was achieved in 2002, 

when the numerical and distributional recovery goals were exceeded for the third successive year. 

To meet Endangered Species Act requirements, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming needed to develop 

post-delisting wolf management plans to ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms would exist 

should Endangered Species Act protections be removed. In 2004 and in 2009, the USFWS 

determined that Wyoming’s wolf management plan was inadequate to conserve Wyoming’s share 

of a recovered northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population. In August 2011, the Wyoming 

Governor and Interior Secretary reached an agreement to move forward with delisting. In 

September 2011, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission approved changes to its Gray Wolf 

Management Plan and in October, the USFWS published a notice to delist wolves in Wyoming. 

In 2012, the Wyoming Legislature made changes to State statutes, which allowed Wyoming to 

move forward with its management plan. 

The Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan (and an addendum that was added for clarification), 

applicable State statutes and Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) regulations were 

subsequently revised and given final approval by USFWS on September 10, 2012. Wolves were 

delisted in Wyoming as of September 30, 2012. During the 2012 calendar year, USFWS 

monitored and managed wolves in Wyoming from January 1, 2012 through September 29, 2012. 

The WGFD monitored and managed wolves following delisting in Wyoming outside of 

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, Wind River Indian Reservation, and the 

National Elk Refuge from September 30, 2012 to December 31, 2012. 

Habitat Requirements, Home Range, Food Habits 

The following information is from: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule 

To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population 

Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2009a). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

21

Gray wolves (C. lupus) are the largest wild members of the dog family. In the northern Rocky 

Mountain gray wolf, adult males average over 45 kilograms (100 pounds), but may weigh up to 

60 kilograms (130 pounds). Females weigh slightly less than males. Wolves primarily prey on 

medium and large mammals and normally live in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the northern Rocky 

Mountain gray wolf, pack sizes average about 10 wolves in protected areas, but a few complex 

packs have been substantially bigger in some areas of Yellowstone National Park (Smith et al. 

2006, p. 243; Service et al. 2008, Tables 1–3). Packs typically occupy large distinct territories 

from 518 to 1,295 square kilometers (km2

) (200 to 500 square miles (mi2)) and defend these areas 

from other wolves or packs. Once a given area is occupied by resident wolf packs, it becomes 

saturated and wolf numbers become regulated by the amount of available prey, intra-species 

conflict, other forms of mortality, and dispersal. Dispersing wolves may cover large areas as they 

try to join other packs or attempt to form their own pack in unoccupied habitat (Mech and Boitani 

2003, pp. 11–17). 

Typically, only the top-ranking (“alpha”) male and female in each pack breed and produce pups 

(Packard 2003, p. 38; Smith et al. 2006, pp. 243–4; Service et al. 2008, Tables 1–3). Females and 

males typically begin breeding as 2-year olds and may annually produce young until they are over 

10 years old. Litters are typically born in April and range from 1 to 11 pups, but average around 

5 pups (Service et al. 1989–2007, Tables 1–3). Most years, four of these five pups survive until 

winter (Service et al. 1989–2008, Tables 1–3). Wolves can live 13 years (Holyan et al. 2005, 

p. 446), but the average lifespan in the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf is less than 4 years 

(Smith et al. 2006, p. 245). Pup production and survival can increase when wolf density is lower 

and food availability per wolf increases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Pack social structure is very 

adaptable and resilient. Breeding members can be quickly replaced either from within or outside 

the pack and pups can be reared by another pack member should their parents die (Packard 2003, 

p. 38; Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p. 1482). Consequently, wolf populations can rapidly 

recover from severe disruptions, such as very high levels of human-caused mortality or disease.

After severe declines, wolf populations can more than double in just 2 years if mortality is 

reduced; increases of nearly 100 percent per year have been documented in low-density suitable 

habitat (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 181–183; Service et al. 2008, Table 4).

Wolf Population Delisting Criteria and Post-delisting Monitoring

The USFWS set specific recovery goals for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain that were 

required to be met prior to delisting. The wolf population in the northern Rocky Mountain gray 

wolf must also continue to meet or exceed USFWS’s delisting criteria post-delisting to ensure the 

population remains recovered. The USFWS developed minimum delisting criteria of 300 or more

wolves and 30 or more breeding pairs (a pack with at least 1 adult male and 1 adult female wolf 

that successfully raise at least 2 pups of the year until December 31) in the northern Rocky 

Mountain gray wolf for 3 consecutive years. These criteria were developed using input from more 

than 25 wolf experts across North America and the world. Additionally, USFWS developed 

delisting criteria that required the states to maintain a 50 percent buffer above minimum delisting 

criteria (i.e., 450 or more wolves and 45 or more breeding pairs in the northern Rocky Mountain

gray wolf) to ensure the population never fell below minimum delisting goals. The delisting 

criteria were then subdivided equally among the states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, 

resulting in a minimum population requirement of 150 or more wolves and 15 or more breeding 

pairs in Wyoming including Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, National Elk 

Refuge, and the Wind River Range at the end of the calendar year. Under the terms of the 

delisting agreement between Wyoming and USFWS, the state of Wyoming is required to maintain 

wolves at or above the minimum delisting criteria of 100 or more wolves and 10 or more 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

22

breeding pairs in Wyoming, with Yellowstone National Park and Wind River Range providing the 

additional buffer of 50 or more wolves and 5 or more breeding pairs necessary to meet the 150 or 

more wolves and 15 or more breeding pair requirement for the State.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department manages wolves under the dual classifications of trophy 

game animal and predatory animal as outlined in the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan and 

approved by USFWS.

Population Status of northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment in 

Wyoming

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department monitored and managed wolves following delisting in 

Wyoming outside of Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, Wind River Range, 

and the National Elk Refuge from September 30, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Monitoring and 

management of wolves was conducted by the National Park Service in Yellowstone National Park

and Grand Teton National Park, the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribal Fish and 

Game Department on tribal lands in Wind River Range, and the USFWS on the National Elk 

Refuge.

The following information (and references therein) are from the 2012 Wyoming Gray Wolf 

Population Monitoring and Management Annual Report (Wyoming Game and Fish Department et 

al. 2013). 

Radio collars are the primary tool used for monitoring wolf populations in Wyoming and 

throughout the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population. A pack is defined as more than 

two wolves traveling together using a defined home range. A breeding pair is defined as one or 

more adult males and one or more adult females in a pack producing two or more pups that 

survived through 31 December of that year. 

At the end of 2012, 277 or more wolves in 43 or more packs (27 or more breeding pairs) 

inhabited Wyoming, including Yellowstone National Park. Figure BE- 2 shows the home ranges 

of wolf packs in Wyoming. Even though the wolf population decreased statewide by 

approximately and 16 percent, 2012 became the eleventh consecutive year that the wolf 

population in Wyoming has exceeded the numerical, distributional, and temporal recovery goals 

established by the USFWS.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

23

Figure BE- 2. Home ranges of confirmed wolf packs in Wyoming in 2012 (Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department 2013)
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

24

The wolf population in Wyoming (outside Yellowstone National Park) declined from 2011 (224), 

consisting of 186 or more wolves in 31 or more packs of which 15 or more were breeding pairs 

that survived through 31 December 2012. From 2002 through 2012, the wolf population has 

grown each year, with the exceptions in 2008, 2011, and 2012. Average pack size in 2012 was 

5.5 wolves per pack.

Wolf numbers in Yellowstone National Park declined from 2011 (98) with 83 wolves living in 

10 packs of which 6 were breeding pairs. Average pack size in Yellowstone National Park was 

10 wolves per pack. Intraspecific strife, food stress, and mange are all likely reasons for fewer 

wolves in Yellowstone National Park.

There were 124 wolf mortalities recorded in Wyoming (outside Yellowstone National Park) in 

2012. Causes of mortality included: agency control = 43; public harvest = 66; under investigation 

and unknown = 2; human other = 9, and natural = 4. The number of wolves that died in 2012 

(124 wolves) was higher than in 2011 (51 wolves) primarily because hunting removed 66 wolves 

in addition to wolves that died of other causes. Causes of mortality other than hunting were 

slightly higher in 2012 (58 wolves) compared to 2011 (51 wolves), which also contributed to 

higher mortality in 2012. 

Eleven wolf mortalities were recorded in Yellowstone National Park including 9 radio-collared 

wolves. Causes of mortality include intraspecific competition = 8, and 2 wolves died of unknown 

causes. One wolf that dispersed from the Yellowstone Delta pack was killed by a vehicle in South 

Dakota and was included in the Yellowstone National Park summary.

Wolf/Livestock Interactions 

In 2012, wolves killed over 157 livestock (44 cattle, 112 sheep and 1 horse) and 3 dogs in 

Wyoming (Table BE- 4). Agency control efforts removed 43 depredating wolves to reduce 

livestock losses due to wolves. The number of cattle depredations in Wyoming decreased in 2007, 

2008, and 2009, and increased in 2010, 2011 and 2012. The number of sheep killed by wolves 

increased in 2008, 2009 and 2012 and decreased in 2010 and 2011. In 2012, 66 wolves were 

legally harvested during Wyoming’s first hunting season, since delisting.

Table BE- 4. Wolf depredations in Wyoming: 2001—2012 (Jimenez et al. 2012, Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department et al. 2013)

Depredations 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Cattle 18 23 34 75 54 123 55 41 20 26 35 44

Sheep 34 0 7 18 27 38 16 26 195 33 30 112

Dogs 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 7 0 1 3

Goats 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Horses 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1

Wolves 

Controlled 2 4 6 18 29 41 44 63 31 40 36 43

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Gray wolves are habitat generalists. They have two basic habitat needs which are an abundance of 

natural prey and areas with minimal conflict with human interests (USFWS 1987). Wolf habitat 

and prey habitat is abundant on the Shoshone. Virtually most of the Shoshone could be 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

25

considered potential wolf habitat. Areas on the Shoshone that would likely not be considered 

habitat would be the rugged alpine portions of the Wind River Range. Also, areas with high 

occurrences of livestock would limit the establishment of wolves into those areas due to 

depredations and subsequent control efforts.

Gray wolves are habitat generalists. They have two basic habitat needs which are an abundance of 

natural prey and areas with minimal conflict with human interests (USFWS 1987). Wolf habitat 

and prey habitat is abundant on the Shoshone. Virtually most of the Shoshone could be 

considered potential wolf habitat. Areas on the Shoshone that would likely not be considered 

habitat would be the rugged alpine portions of the Wind River Range. Also, areas with high 

occurrences of livestock would limit the establishment of wolves into those areas due to 

depredations and subsequent control efforts.

The species was reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park in 1995 and began dispersing onto 

the Shoshone in 1999. The Shoshone lies within the Greater Yellowstone Wolf Recovery Area. 

Concentrations of available prey occur in many areas of the Shoshone. Thirteen wolf packs 

(Beartooth, Hoodoo, Absaroka, Pahaska, Ishawooa, Carter Mountain, Elk Fork Creek, Greybull 

River, Gooseberry, Spring Mtn., Washakie, Lava Mountain, and East Fork) have home ranges that 

overlap National Forest System land on the Shoshone (Jimenez et al. 2012, Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 2013). Eight of the 13 wolf packs are counted as breeding pairs toward recovery 

efforts. Den sites for several of these packs have traditionally occurred on the Forest. Table BE- 5

depicts confirmed wolf packs, population data and livestock depredation on the Shoshone in 

2012.

Table BE- 5. Composition of confirmed wolf packs on the Shoshone National Forest in 2012

(Jimenez et al. 2012, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2013)

Documented mortalities

Wolf Pack Pack size Natural/Human* Harvest Control Depredation

Absaroka 6 1 3 0 0

Beartooth 3 1 2 0 0

Carter Mtn. 8 0 1 0 0

East Fork 5 0 1 0 0

Elk Fork Cr. 4 0 0 1 0

Gooseberry 4 4 2 3 3-cattle

Greybull River 9 2 2 0 0

Hoodoo 4 0 3 3 5-cattle

Lava Mtn. 10 0 2 0 1-cattle

Ishawooa 9 1 1 2 3-cattle

Pahaska 8 2 3 0 0

Spring Mtn. 6 0 1 3 2-cattle

Washakie 6 0 0 1 1-cattle

Total 82 6 25 13 15-cattle

*Excludes wolves killed in control actions and legal harvest
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

26

The availability of stable prey base is the primary habitat requirement for this species. Available 

prey (in particular elk) does exist on the forest as the Shoshone provides yearlong habitat for big 

game species. No trend data are available that is specific to the Shoshone, but data are available 

for elk herd units that encompass the Forest. Five herd units overlap the Shoshone including: 

Gooseberry, Cody, Clarks Fork, Wiggins Fork and South Wind River. For the most part, trends for 

these herds have been relatively stable and population objectives have been at or above herd unit 

objectives for the past 10 years (Figure BE- 3).

Figure BE- 3. Population trends for elk herd units that encompass the Shoshone National Forest

Wolf/Livestock Interactions within the Shoshone National Forest

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department authorizes the USDA-Wildlife Services to manage 

wolf/livestock conflicts and to remove the individuals responsible for depredations. There were 

15 wolf/livestock conflicts within the Shoshone in 2012. Six of the known packs on the Shoshone 

depredated on livestock in 2012, and this resulted in the lethal removal of 13 wolves. Cattle 

depredations followed a seasonal pattern in 2012, with the highest number of depredations 

occurring in summer/fall from August through October (Jimenez et al. 2012). Losses do not 

reflect lost or missing livestock.

Risk Factors 

Gray wolf populations naturally fluctuate with food availability, strife within packs, and disease. 

The primary risk factor from forest management is livestock grazing. Within the planning area, 

the main factor controlling the population is management by the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department for livestock/wolf conflicts and hunting season harvest.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

27

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Habitat for wolves and their prey is abundant on the Forest. Managing habitat for ungulate prey 

species would be important.

Wolves living in areas with high native ungulate densities and relatively low exposure to 

domestic livestock cause fewer conflicts with livestock producers (Jimenez et. al 2011). Lethal 

control efforts occur in areas with chronic livestock depredation. Even with control efforts, the 

Wyoming wolf population outside of Yellowstone National Park continues to be well above 

recovery objectives. Minimizing conflicts between wolves and livestock would be important.

Conservation Measures

Abundant habitat exists for wolves and their prey on the Shoshone. Although conflicts occur 

between livestock and wolves resulting in lethal control of wolves, their population in Wyoming 

continues to be well above recovery objectives. This results in a low viability risk to wolves from 

forest management. In order to address these concerns and to provide management for this 

species to maintain or improve its potential distribution on the Forest, conservation measures 

need to be considered for incorporation into Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and 

guidelines.

Conservation measures summarized include:

Encourage livestock producers to minimize depredations by proactively increasing riders on 

grazing allotments and moving livestock to different pastures away from wolf activity. 

Monitoring Considerations

Continue to cooperate with the USFWS and the WGFD (when wolves are delisted) to monitor 

wolf populations in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternatives A, B, D, and G (Alternative G is the preferred alternative). The number of animal 

unit months would remain unchanged under these alternatives. Conflicts with livestock would 

likely continue at current levels, and any potential for increase in conflicts would not be a result 

of increased allotments. Cattle numbers could increase in existing allotments, although any 

increases would likely be minor. Similar to alternative A, the past level of conflicts and wolf 

mortalities has not precluded achieving recovery of the gray wolf and, in addition, sheep conflicts 

have been virtually eliminated due to the lack of domestic sheep grazing. 

Alternative C. Cattle numbers would decrease by 35 to 45 percent from alternatives A, B, and D, 

and conflicts with cattle would likely decline as recurring conflict areas could be retired or closed.

Similar to alternative A, the past level of conflicts and gray wolf mortalities have not precluded 

achieving recovery of the gray wolf. In addition, sheep conflicts have been virtually eliminated 

due to the lack of domestic sheep grazing.

Alternative E. Cattle numbers would increase by 25 percent over the existing amount of animal 

unit months on the Shoshone. This increase in livestock numbers has the potential to increase the 

amount of wolf/livestock conflicts in areas that already have had conflicts.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

28

Similar to alternative A, the past level of conflicts and gray wolf mortalities has not precluded 

achieving recovery of the gray wolf. In addition, sheep conflicts have been virtually eliminated 

due to the lack of domestic sheep grazing.

Alternative F. The number of commercial livestock allotments is increased by 40 percent and 

cattle animal unit months would increase under this alternative by 26 percent. Seven allotments 

that are currently vacant would be made available for livestock grazing. This increase in livestock 

numbers has a greater potential to increase wolf/livestock conflicts of all the alternatives. 

While it is difficult to predict, nonetheless, recovery of the gray wolf under this alternative has the 

potential to be set back under this alternative.

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Livestock/wolf conflicts are likely to continue. Conflicts may result in direct mortality of 

individuals responsible for depredations. Since pack social structure is very adaptable and 

resilient, breeding members can be quickly replaced either from within or outside the pack and 

pups can be reared by another pack member should their parents die (Packard 2003, p. 38; 

Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p. 1482 in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). 

Consequently, wolf populations can rapidly recover from severe disruptions, such as very high 

levels of human-caused mortality or disease. After severe declines, wolf populations can more 

than double in just 2 years if mortality is reduced; increases of nearly 100 percent per year have 

been documented.

The wolf population met its recovery goals in 2002, and wolves continue to increase in number 

and distribution. The species has been proposed for de-listing. The biggest impact to wolves at 

this point is management removals due to livestock conflicts, both on public and private land.

The Shoshone grazing program contributes indirectly to these management removals, by 

providing the livestock that wolves are attached to as prey. The allotments in this analysis have 

had conflicts that resulted in management removal of wolves. Generally on the Shoshone, when 

wolves are removed, they are replaced quickly with offspring dispersing from other packs, so the 

removals are not leading to overall population decline. This is a short-term population reduction 

as recruitment fills in the voids. These removals because of livestock depredation have had a 

minor effect to the total wolf population.

Cumulative Effects

Livestock grazing on State and private land is an identified potential threat to gray wolf 

conservation that contributes to cumulative adverse effects, due primarily to control actions when 

wolf/livestock conflicts occur. In Wyoming in 2011, 35 percent of all wolf depredations on 

livestock occurred on private land. Control actions in response to confirmed livestock 

depredations includes trapping and radio collaring wolves; intensive monitoring; issuing Lessthan-Lethal Munitions (rubber bullets) to harass wolves; lethally removing wolves through 

agency control actions; and issuing 16 Shoot-on-Sight (SOS) permits to livestock producers. No 

wolves were killed in 2011 using SOS permits. Non-lethal control was routinely considered but 

was often not applicable or cost effective in many areas in Wyoming due to: (1) specific wolf 

packs chronically killing livestock year after year; (2) unpredictable travel patterns and 

movements by wolves; and (3) very large wolf home ranges that cover vast areas including public 

grazing allotments. When non-lethal control methods were not effective, wolves were killed 

through agency control actions in an attempt to prevent further livestock depredations (Jimenez et 

al. 2012). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

29

Determination 

Based on the documented increase in the wolf population throughout the Northern Rocky 

Mountains annually since 2002, and related increase in the Wyoming population (see Status of 

Gray Wolf section) even after numerous management removals due to livestock depredations; the 

preferred alternative and its alternatives may continue to result in management removal of wolves 

responsible for livestock depredation, but these mortalities “may adversely impact individuals 

(gray wolves), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor 

cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.”

Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus cinereus)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

The hoary bat has a natural heritage ranking of G4/S4. Historical populations, distribution, or 

abundance are unknown on the Shoshone. 

The hoary bat is the most widespread bat in the Americas. They range through the eastern twothirds of Canada, south through the conterminous United States, Mexico, and South America 

(NatureServe 2007). During the summer, males occupy the mountains of western North America, 

while females are found more easterly (Hester and Grenier 2005). In Wyoming, hoary bats occur 

statewide during the summer, including on the Shoshone. They winter in the southern United 

States and possibly Mexico.

No trend data are available that is specific to the Shoshone or Wyoming. The Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD) surveyed for bats in northwestern Wyoming in 2009 and detected 

hoary bats on the Shoshone based on acoustic calls and mist netting (WGFD 2010). Most of the 

hoary bats detected were males. 

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Hoary bats are associated with forested habitats. Diverse forest habitats with a mixture of forest 

and small open areas that provide edges are ideal habitat for this species (Hester and Grenier 

2005). Hoary bats usually roost in tree foliage and roosts are usually located near forest edges. In 

a study in Oregon, hoary bats preferred to roost in mature Douglas-fir (Perkins and Cross 1988).

In a study in south central Wyoming, Grover (2002) found that hoary bats almost exclusively 

used mature lodgepole pine for roosting.

Hoary bat foraging and roosting habitat is abundant on the Shoshone. There are about 309,442 

acres of spruce/fir, 345,273 acres of Douglas-fir, 382,886 acres of lodgepole pine, and 190,609 

acres of whitebark pine on the Forest (USFS 2012b). Some evidence suggests that lodgepole pine 

has become less abundant in the last century, while spruce/fir has increased (USFS 2012a). Fire 

suppression reinforces this trend, but increases in wildfire and insect outbreaks may begin to 

reverse this trend.

Forest inventory data indicates that about 30 percent of the spruce/fir is mature (over 200 years 

old); about 22 percent of the lodgepole pine is mature (over 150 years old); about 16 percent of 

the Douglas-fir is mature (over 200 years old); and about 23 percent of the whitebark pine is 

mature (over 200 years old) (USFS 2009). This suggests that there is abundant potential roosting 

habitat for hoary bats on the Shoshone. 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

30

In recent years, the Forest has experienced large wildfires and insect epidemics. About 115,000 

acres have burned in the last 5 years and about 161,500 acres in the last 10 years (USFS 2012a). 

Over the past 11 years, widespread bark beetle epidemics have occurred on the Shoshone. 

Insect outbreaks and wildfires are likely reducing habitat to some degree for hoary bats on the 

Shoshone. Climate change increases the potential for more and continued insect outbreaks and 

also increases the frequency of fires (Rice et al. 2012).

Risk Factors

The primary risk factor from forest management is timber harvest. Other risk factors include 

pesticides and other containments and human-caused mortality during migration (wind turbines 

and communication towers). These other risk factors occur off of the Shoshone.

Natural risk factors would include epidemic insect outbreaks and wildfire.

Since this species is a summer resident in Wyoming and does not appear to use caves, mines, etc.,

for hibernacula, white nose syndrome is currently not a risk factor. 

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Maintaining mature conifer forest for roosting and diverse forest habitat for foraging would be the 

most important forest management emphasis for hoary bats. Hoary bats are known to show 

fidelity to roosting areas (Grover 2002). 

Conservation Measures

In order to provide management for hoary bats and to maintain or improve its potential 

distribution on the Shoshone, the following conservation measures were developed for 

incorporation into Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Given the abundance of 

mature conifer forest on the Forest, overall viability risk from forest management to hoary bats is 

low. 

Conservation measures (Hester and Grenier 2005) summarized include:

1. In areas where hoary bats are known to occur, conduct timber harvest activities from October 

1 to April 15, if feasible, to avoid impacting breeding and migrating populations. 

2. Manage land where hoary bats occur that provides adequate roosting and foraging habitat to 

maintain stable populations (secure roosting sites and diverse forest habitats with a mixture of 

forest and small open areas).

Monitoring Considerations

Important monitoring considerations for hoary bats would be to cooperate with the WGFD to 

continue to survey for bats and determine their distribution on the Shoshone. 

Effects Analysis: The primary risk factor for the hoary bat from forest management is timber 

harvest. Other risk factors include pesticides and other containments and human-caused mortality 

during migration (wind turbines and communication towers). Although not a planned activity, 

wildland fire use could also potentially influence the marten if large-scale burns reduce suitable 

habitat components. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are 

displayed in Table BE- 3.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

31

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

In regard to activities that could potentially influence the hoary bat, alternative A designates the 

least amount of suitable timber base (86,269 acres) as compared to alternatives B through G,

while offering approximately the same amount of suitable habitat (17,000 to 17,900 acres) to 

active management as alternatives B through D, and G; and fewer acres then alternatives E and F 

by approximately 2,170 and 5,700 acres, respectively, that could potentially alter the habitat 

components preferred by the species. 

As displayed in Table BE- 3, the predicted timber harvest output in primary habitat varies from 

17,000 to 23,700 acres and is very minimal in all alternatives. These amounts represent about 6 to 

8 percent of the total suitable habitat on the Shoshone. The amount of timber harvest in 

alternative A is therefore expected to have little, if any, influence on hoary bat habitat or 

populations on the Shoshone. Construction of new roads as result of timber harvest that would 

remain open to public use is very minimal for all alternatives; estimated between 2 to 3 miles. 

Wildland fire use is not a planned output. However, it will be utilized as a tool to allow natural 

disturbances to occur within suitable hoary bat habitat as opportunities arise. It is estimated that 

all alternatives may allow from 161,363 to 185,152 acres of wildland fire use. Depending upon 

fire severity and scale, these outputs could have negative or positive influences on hoary bat.

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (Preferred alternative) 

As displayed in Table BE- 3, there is little difference between no action and alternatives B-G in 

regard to vegetation treatment acres. The amount of timber harvest in all alternatives is therefore 

expected to have little, if any, influence on hoary bat habitat or populations on the Shoshone. 

Construction of new roads as result of timber harvest that would remain open to public use is very 

minimal for all alternatives; estimated between 2 to 3 miles. Alternative F offers the greatest 

amount of vegetation treatment area where this activity may occur. However, all alternatives 

influence suitable hoary bat habitat (288,807 acres of mature habitat) from 6 to 8 percent and are 

expected to have no detectable effect on the species. 

As with no action, it is estimated that wildland fire use may be used as a management tool on 

161,363 to 185,152 acres in all action alternatives. Depending upon fire severity and scale, these 

outputs could have negative or positive influences on hoary bat. 

Cumulative Effects

The single-most influential habitat management action undertaken in potential hoary bat habitat 

on the Shoshone is timber harvesting. As previously discussed, timber harvest occurs at a very 

small scale compared to the available habitat on the Shoshone. For the past 10 years (2002 to 

2011), approximately 18,751 acres of vegetative treatment has occurred. 

A review of management activities and land use designations on the Shoshone suggests that a 

considerable amount of suitable habitat for the hoary bat is available, and should remain 

available, throughout and beyond the current planning period (10 to 15 years). Timber 

management activities may still influence individual hoary bats where it occurs. However, 

approximately 92 percent of the suitable habitat (mature spruce/fir, lodgepole pin, Douglas-fir, 

and whitebark pine) on the Shoshone will not receive planned vegetative treatment. 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

32

Some evidence suggests that lodgepole pine has become less abundant in the last century, while 

spruce/fir has increased (USFS 2012a). Fire suppression reinforces this trend, but increases in 

wildfire and insect outbreaks may begin to reverse this trend. 

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (hoary bat), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the Planning 

Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” The 

rationale for this determination is as follows: 

• All alternatives involve projected timber harvest activities in primary habitat types 

(spruce/fir, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, whitebark pine) that may adversely influence 

individual hoary bats. However, the projected scope of these activities is very minimal. 

• Extensive late-successional primary habitat occurs on the Shoshone National Forest in 

wilderness where natural processes will dominate. 

6.2 Forested birds

Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

The black-backed woodpecker has a ranking of G5/S1. Historical populations, distribution, or 

abundance are unknown for either species on the Shoshone. 

Black-backed woodpeckers are associated with mature coniferous forests. They are often 

associated with recent burns and insect outbreaks. They have irruptive populations that increase 

locally following an insect outbreak or wildfire.

The black-backed woodpecker is found only in North America. They range from Alaska, through 

Canada and as far south as California, Wyoming, Minnesota, and Maine. In Wyoming, they occur 

in the western mountains and the Black Hills. On the Shoshone, black-backed woodpeckers 

would be considered rare. Only one bird was observed during surveys from 2002 to 2008 by the

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (Hanni et al. 2009). There is no population trend available that 

is specific to the Shoshone.

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Forest

Black-backed woodpeckers are primarily associated with mature conifer forests. There are about 

309,442 acres of spruce/fir, 345,273 acres of Douglas-fir, 382,886 acres of lodgepole pine, and 

190,609 acres of whitebark pine on the Shoshone (USFS 2012b). Some evidence suggests that 

lodgepole pine has become less abundant in the last century, while spruce/fir has increased (USFS 

2012a). Fire suppression reinforces this trend, but increases in wildfire and insect outbreaks may 

begin to reverse this trend.

Forest inventory data indicate that about 30 percent of the spruce/fir is mature (over 200 years 

old); about 22 percent of the lodgepole pine is mature (over 150 years old); about 16 percent of 

the Douglas-fir is mature (over 200 years old); and about 23 percent of the whitebark pine is 

mature (over 200 years old) (USFS 2009). This suggests that there is abundant potential habitat 

for this woodpecker on the Shoshone. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

33

In recent years, the Shoshone has experienced large wildfires and insect epidemics. About 

115,000 acres have burned in the last 5 years and about 161,500 acres in the last 10 years (USFS 

2012a). 

Over the past 11 years, widespread bark beetle epidemics have occurred on the Shoshone. Table 

BE- 6 shows the acres affected and the type of insects involved with the outbreaks. 

Insect outbreaks and wildfires are creating ideal habitat for this woodpecker and will continue to 

do so into the future. Climate change increases the potential for more and continued insect

outbreaks and also increases the frequency of fires (Rice et al. 2012)

Table BE- 6. Acres of insect-caused mortality on the Shoshone National Forest, 2000-2009 and 2010

Beetle species

Acres affected 

2000 through 

2009

Acres affected 

2010

Spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rifipennis) 256,310 57,362

Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsuqae) 251, 477 4,705

Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) 645,671 227,137

Western balsam bark beetle (Dryocoetes confuses Swaine) 117,299 39,811

Spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) 11,003 3,743

Timber harvest activity has removed a minor amount of potential habitat (Table BE- 7), but an 

abundance of mature conditions and continued levels of insect outbreaks also indicate the 

potential for populations to be within a normal range of occurrence. As stated earlier, populations 

fluctuate naturally in response to prey abundance.

Table BE- 7. Shoshone vegetation treatment history 2002−2011 (acres)

Treatment Acres

Mechanical only 19,483

Mechanical with prescribed fire 20,267

Total 39,750

Risk Factors − Forest Management

Primary risk factors for these woodpeckers from forest management activities include: Timber 

harvest in mature conifer forest; fire salvage logging, and fire suppression. All of these activities 

reduce the amount of potential habitat.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

A substantial amount of potential habitat for this woodpecker and areas where natural processes 

dominate the landscape occurs in wilderness on the Shoshone. Outside of wilderness, 

management activities will never be able to fully or even effectively control insect outbreaks, fire, 

or blowdown. Therefore, it’s assumed that habitat would be provided outside of wilderness as 

well.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

34

Timber harvest has the potential to remove habitat. The highest impact would be post-fire salvage 

logging and regeneration harvest types. Timber harvest occurs at a very small scale compared to 

the available habitat on the Shoshone, so overall risks would be low.

Fire suppression has the potential to be a risk, since black-backed woodpeckers rely on fire to 

create habitat. Allowing wildland fire use would be important for creating and maintaining habitat 

for these species.

Conservation Measures

In order to provide management for these species and to maintain or improve its potential 

distribution on the Shoshone, the following conservation measures were developed for 

incorporation into Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Given the potential for 

wildfires and insect epidemics, and a substantial amount of habitat on the forest that would not be 

affected by timber harvest, viability risk from forest management to black-backed woodpeckers is 

low. 

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Retain snags in timber harvest units of an adequate size and density, if adjacent forest lacks 

potential habitat.

2. Allow for wildland fire use, where appropriate, to provide foraging and nesting habitat in 

mature conifer areas.

Monitoring Considerations

Of most importance for this species would be the inventory and management of mature conifer 

stands and distribution on the Forest. This would include the location and extent of insect 

outbreaks and recent wildfires. Both of which are currently inventoried on an annual basis.

Effects Analysis: Forest Service management activities that may have effects to black-backed 

woodpecker habitats include timber harvest (salvage logging), fire suppression, removal of fire 

killed/insect infested trees, conversion of mature and late successional forest to young stands with 

decayed trees, human disturbance near nest sites. Differences in projected outputs by alternative 

for these activities are displayed in Table BE- 8.

Table BE- 8. Activities and outputs that could Influence the black-backed woodpecker by 

alternative

Alt A Alts B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Suitable timber base acres 86,269 127,009 122,103 124,453 179,666 251,205

Vegetation treatment acres 

mechanical and mechanical 

w/ prescribed fire(total)

15,470 15,575 14,471 15,062 17,905 21,716

Douglas-fir 2,924 2,744 2,336 2,632 3,181 4,250

Spruce/fir 1,411 1,399 1,057 1,263 1,547 1,768

Lodgepole pine 5,291 5,330 5,641 5,361 7,058 9,211

Limber pine 612 617 547 575 637 672

Whitebark pine 540 542 270 514 544 548

Aspen 624 628 529 616 641 664
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

35

Table BE- 8. Activities and outputs that could Influence the black-backed woodpecker by 

alternative

Alt A Alts B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Vegetation treatment acres 

prescribed fire(total) 23,559 23,302 23,299 23,342 22,823 21,910

Douglas-fir 4,949 4,869 4,836 4,871 4,748 4,589

Spruce/fir 550 544 495 525 554 566

Lodgepole pine 1,974 1,969 2,021 1,977 2,191 2,449

Limber pine 1,739 1,720 1,720 1,721 1,655 1,543

Whitebark pine 344 341 302 338 330 312

Aspen 918 909 899 911 878 823

Wildfire acres 185,152 182,900 184,132 183,703 174,983 161,363

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

In regard to activities that could potentially influence the blacked-back woodpecker, Alternative A 

designates the least amount of suitable timber base (107,227 acres) as compared to alternatives BG, while offering approximately the same amount of suitable habitat (17,500 to 18,100 acres) to 

active management as alternatives B-D and G; less acres then alternative E and F by 

approximately 2,060 and 6,300 acres, respectively, that could potentially alter the habitat 

components preferred by the species. 

As displayed in Table BE- 8, the predicted timber harvest output in primary habitat varies from 

17,500 to 23,800 acres and is very minimal in all alternatives. These amounts represent about 6 to 

8 percent of the total suitable habitat on the Shoshone. The amount of timber harvest in 

alternative A is therefore expected to have little, if any, influence on blacked-back woodpecker 

habitat or populations on the Shoshone. Construction of new roads as result of timber harvest that 

would remain open to public use is very minimal for all alternatives; estimated between 2 to 3 

miles. 

Wildland fire use is not a planned output. However, it will be utilized as a tool to allow natural 

disturbances to occur within suitable blacked-back woodpecker habitat as opportunities arise. It is 

estimated that all alternatives may allow from 161,363 to 185,152 acres of wildland fire use. 

Depending upon fire severity and scale, these outputs could have negative or positive influences 

on blacked-back woodpecker. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (Alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

As displayed in Table BE- 8, there is little difference between no action and alternatives B-G in 

regards to vegetation treatment acres. The amount of timber harvest in alternative A is therefore 

expected to have little, if any, influence on black-backed woodpecker habitat or populations on 

the Shoshone. Construction of new roads as result of timber harvest that would remain open to 

public use is very minimal for all alternatives; estimated between 2 to 3 miles. Alternative F 

offers the greatest amount of vegetation treatment area where this activity may occur. However, 

all alternatives influence suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat (288,807 acres of mature 

habitat) from 6 to 8 percent and are expected to have no detectable effect on the species. 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

36

As with no action, it is estimated that wildland fire use may be used as a management tool on 

161,363 to 185,152 acres in all action alternatives. Depending upon fire severity and scale, these 

outputs could have negative or positive influences on woodpeckers. 

Cumulative Effects

The single-most influential habitat management action undertaken in potential black-backed 

woodpecker habitat on the Shoshone is timber harvesting. As previously discussed, timber harvest 

occurs at a very small scale compared to the available habitat on the Forest. For the past 10 years 

(2002 to 2011) approximately 18,751 acres of vegetative treatment has occurred. 

A review of management activities and land use designations on the Shoshone suggests that a 

considerable amount of suitable habitat for the black-backed woodpecker is available, and should 

remain available, throughout and beyond the current planning period (10 to 15 years). Timber 

management activities may still influence individual black-backed where it occurs. However, 

approximately 92 percent of the suitable habitat (mature spruce/fir, lodgepole pin, Douglas-fir, 

and whitebark pine, 288,807 acres) on the Shoshone will not receive planned vegetative 

treatment. 

Some evidence suggests that lodgepole pine has become less abundant in the last century, while 

spruce/fir has increased (USFS 2012a). Fire suppression reinforces this trend, but increases in 

wildfire and insect outbreaks may begin to reverse this trend. 

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (black-backed woodpeckers), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on 

the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability 

rangewide.” The rationale for this determination is as follows: 

• All alternatives involve projected timber harvest activities in primary habitat types 

(spruce/fir, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, whitebark pine) that may adversely influence 

individual woodpeckers. However, the projected scope of these activities is very minimal. 

• Extensive late-successional primary habitat occurs on the Shoshone National Forest in 

wilderness and other back country designations where natural processes will dominate. 

• Planned wildland fire use activities will provide benefits to the black-backed woodpecker.

Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

The boreal owl has a natural heritage ranking of G5/S2. Historical populations, distribution, or 

abundance are unknown on the Shoshone.

Boreal owls are found within the boreal forest zone of North America from Alaska, through 

Canada, to New Mexico. In Wyoming, they are known to occur in the western mountainous 

regions. Boreal owls have been found on the Shoshone based on past surveys (WGFD 2009). No 

trend data are available that is specific to the Shoshone.

Areas previously surveyed on the Shoshone were resurveyed in 2008-09, but no boreal owls were 

located. WGFD (2009) suspect that the lack of boreal owl responses was due to (1) a noticeable 

increase in snowmobile use between the earlier surveys and the winter of 2008/2009 that may 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

37

have caused a shift in habitat occupancy due to noise and disturbance factors, (2) habitat 

suitability changes due increase in beetle killed conifer trees, and/or (3) the timing of the surveys, 

which may have occurred toward the end of the breeding season so males may not have been as 

vocal as they would have been earlier in the season.

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

In the Rocky Mountain Region, boreal owls typically inhabit mature, high elevation subalpine 

forests comprised of Englemann spruce, subalpine fir, and mature lodgepole pine, with some use 

of mature aspen stands that are interspersed with the conifer species listed above (Garber et al. 

1991). Based on 31 records, the elevational range for boreal owls in Wyoming during the 

breeding season is 6,560 to 10,630 feet (2,000 to 3,240 m) (Garber et al. 1991).

On the Shoshone there are about 309,442 acres of spruce/fir and 382,886 acres of lodgepole pine 

(USFS 2012b). Some evidence suggests that lodgepole pine has become less abundant in the last 

century, while spruce/fir has increased (USFS 2012a). Fire suppression reinforces this trend, but 

increases in wildfire and insect outbreaks may begin to reverse this trend. About 178,678 acres of 

spruce/fir and 110,750 acres of lodgepole pine are within wilderness.

Forest inventory data indicates that about 30 percent of the spruce/fir is mature (over 200 years 

old) and about 22 percent of the lodgepole pine is mature (over 150 years old) (USFS 2009). This 

suggests that there is abundant potential habitat for boreal owls on the Shoshone. 

Aspen has a limited distribution on the Shoshone and covers roughly 23,295 acres. Field 

observations indicate that most aspen is mature (USFS 2009).

In recent years, the Forest has experienced insect epidemics. Over the past 11 years, widespread 

bark beetle epidemics have occurred on the Shoshone. Table BE- 6 indicates the acres affected 

and the type of insects involved with the outbreaks (USFS 2012a). Insect outbreaks may be 

reducing habitat for boreal owls and will continue to do so into the future. Climate change 

increases the potential for more and continued insect outbreaks and also increases the frequency 

of fires (Rice et al. 2012).

Risk Factors

The primary risk factor from forest management is timber harvest in mature spruce/fir habitat. 

Other risk factors include epidemic insect outbreaks in spruce/fir habitat and stand replacement 

wildfires in spruce/fir habitat

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Retaining adequate snags and large diameter trees would be important management emphasis in 

silvicultural prescriptions in spruce/fir forest types. As boreal owls prefer these forest types, 

uneven-aged management should be used to retain mature overstory and a diverse understory 

component (Hayward and Hayward 1993).

Since boreal owls use aspen to some degree, any management activity that sought to perpetuate 

and/or expand aspen would be beneficial.

From a population standpoint, increased inventory would need to occur to confirm 

presence/absence and improve distribution information.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

38

Conservation Measures

In order to provide management for this species to maintain or improve its potential distribution 

on the Shoshone, the following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into 

Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Given the substantial amount of habitat on 

the forest that would not be affected by timber harvest, viability risk from forest management to 

boreal owls is low. 

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Where appropriate, utilize uneven-aged management within harvest units in mature spruce/fir 

habitat. This will provide adequate snags and large diameter trees to maintain habitat within 

the harvest units.

2. Manage aspen for retention and expansion over current levels.

3. Should active owl nests be found, protect the nest site with a timing restriction and 

appropriate buffer. Nest stands from 4 to 35 acres have been reported for boreal owls 

(Hayward and Hayward 1993).

Monitoring Considerations

Continue to cooperate with the WGFD to periodically complete boreal owl surveys on the 

Shoshone.

Habitat monitoring should include the inventory and management of mature conifer stands and 

distribution on the Shoshone. This would include the location and extent of insect outbreaks and 

recent wildfires. Both of which are currently inventoried on an annual basis.

Effects Analysis: Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the boreal owl 

primarily involve timber harvest. Although not a planned activity, wildland fire use could also 

potentially have negative influences on the boreal owl because of reduced forest cover, snags, and 

food resources. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in 

Table BE- 9.

Table BE- 9. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the boreal owl, by 

alternative

Alt A Alts B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Suitable timber base acres 86,269 127,009 122,103 124,453 179,666 251,205

Vegetation treatment acres mechanical 

and mechanical w/ prescribed fire (total) 15,450 15,575 14,471 15,062 17,905 21,176

Spruce/fir 1,411 1,399 1,057 1,263 1,547 1,768

Vegetation treatment acres prescribed 

fire (total) 23,559 23,302 23,299 23,342 22,823 21,910

Spruce/fir 550 544 495 525 554 566

Wildfire acres 185,152 182,900 184,132 183,703 174,983 161,363
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

39

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

In regard to activities that could potentially influence the boreal owl, alternative A designates the 

least amount of suitable timber base (86,269 acres) as compared to alternatives B through G 

(alternative G is the preferred alternative) while offering approximately the same amount of 

suitable habitat (1,961 acres) to active management as alternatives B, D, and G, more acres than 

alternative C, but fewer acres (approximately 140 and 373 acres) than alternatives E and F,

respectively, that could potentially alter the habitat components preferred by the species. 

As displayed in Table BE- 9, the predicted timber harvest output in primary habitat varies from 

1,552 to 2,334 acres and is very minimal in all alternatives. These amounts represent about 2 to 

3 percent of the total suitable habitat on the Shoshone. The amount of timber harvest in 

alternative A is therefore expected to have little, if any, influence on boreal owl habitat or 

populations on the Shoshone. Construction of new roads as result of timber harvest that would 

remain open to public use is very minimal for all alternatives; estimated between 2 to 3 miles. 

Additional fragmentation effects may be associated with these activities but are expected to be 

minor because of the large amount of unroaded area that remains undeveloped. 

Wildland fire use is not a planned output. However, it will be utilized as a tool to allow natural 

disturbances to occur within suitable boreal owl habitat as opportunities arise. It is estimated that 

all alternatives may allow from 161,363 to 185,152 acres of wildland fire use. Depending upon 

fire severity and scale, these outputs could have negative or positive influences on boreal owls.

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

As displayed in Table BE- 9, there is little difference between no action and alternatives B

through G in regard to vegetation treatment acres in suitable boreal owl habitat (92,832 acres). 

Alternative F offers the greatest amount of vegetation treatment area where this activity may 

occur. However, less than 3 percent of suitable boreal owl habitat is influenced by all alternatives 

and they are expected to have no detectable effect on this species. 

As with no action, it is estimated that wildland fire use may be used as a management tool on 

161,363 to 185,152 acres in all action alternatives. Depending upon fire severity and scale, these 

outputs could have negative or positive influences on boreal owls. 

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects on the boreal owl are anticipated because of the minimal amount of 

activities projected to occur in primary habitat and the large amount of undeveloped area that will 

remain on the Shoshone well into the future. 

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (boreal owls), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the Planning 

Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” The 

rationale for this determination is as follows: 

• All alternatives involve projected timber harvest activities in primary habitat types 

(spruce/fir) that may adversely influence individual boreal owls. However, the projected 

amount of these activities is very minimal. 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

40

• Extensive late-successional primary habitat occurs on the Shoshone National Forest in 

wilderness and other back country designations where natural processes will dominate 

and provide excellent habitat for the boreal owl.

Northern goshawk (Accipter gentilis atricapillus)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

The northern goshawk has a natural heritage ranking of G5/S3. Historical populations, 

distribution, or abundance are unknown on the Shoshone.

Northern goshawks are a circumboreal species. In North America they range from Alaska, 

through most of Canada, south to Mexico, Wisconsin, and the New England states (Squires and 

Reynolds 1997). Goshawks are known to occur throughout most of Wyoming where suitable 

habitat exists, except the far southeastern portion of the state (Smith and Keinath 2004). 

Goshawks are known to breed on the Shoshone.

No trend data are available that is specific to the Shoshone or Wyoming. In 2004, Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database personnel surveyed 13 historic nest sites on the Shoshone. Only 2 nest 

sites were found to be active (Smith et al. 2005). More recent surveys in 2006 and 2009 that 

followed the National Goshawk Protocol indicated 2 active territories within 5 habitat blocks in 

2006 and 3 active territories within 10 habitat blocks in 2009 (USFS 2010).

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Across a goshawk’s territory, the habitat often contains multiple forest age classes as well as 

natural openings. Nest sites require more specific habitat requirements. Goshawk nests in the 

central Rocky Mountains are typically in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), mixed conifer, and 

quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) (Squires and Ruggiero 1996). On the Targhee National 

Forest, goshawk nests were all located in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca) and 

lodgepole pine stands.

Potential goshawk nest habitat is relatively abundant on the Shoshone. There are about 382,886 

acres of lodgepole pine, 345,273 acres of Douglas-fir, and 23,295 acres of aspen (USFS 2012b). 

Some evidence suggests that lodgepole pine has become less abundant in the last century, while 

spruce/fir has increased (USFS 2012a). Fire suppression reinforces this trend, but increases in 

wildfire and insect outbreaks may begin to reverse this trend.

Forest inventory data indicate that about 16 percent of the Douglas-fir is mature (over 200 years 

old) and about 22 percent of the lodgepole pine is mature (over 150 years old) (USFS 2009). 

Field observations indicate that most of the aspen is mature, as well.

In recent years, the Shoshone has experienced insect epidemics. Over the past 11 years, 

widespread bark beetle epidemics have occurred on the Shoshone. Table BE- 6 indicates the acres 

affected and the type of insects involved with the outbreaks (USFS 2012a). Insect outbreaks may 

be reducing habitat for northern goshawks and will continue to do so into the future. Climate 

change increases the potential for more and continued insect outbreaks and also increases the 

frequency of fires (Rice et al. 2012).

Timber harvest activity has removed a minor amount of potential nesting habitat.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

41

Risk Factors

The primary risk factors from forest management are timber harvest and fire suppression. Other 

risk factors include falconry and human disturbance at nest sites.

Natural risk factors include epidemic insect outbreaks and wildfire. Both of which can reduce 

potential habitat for the long term.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Maintaining mature forest conditions around known nests would be the most important forest 

management emphasis for goshawk habitat. Forest management can impact the structure, 

function, and quality of nesting and post-fledging habitat by modifying or removing entire nest 

stands and reducing habitat suitability (Reynolds et al. 1992, Kennedy 2003).

Fire suppression has likely made goshawk habitat more susceptible to catastrophic wildfire. Fires 

now burn over larger areas, are more intense, and more devastating than in earlier times. Crown 

fires are now common because of ladder fuels and the high amount of recent tree mortality due to 

epidemic insect outbreaks.

Reducing human disturbance around known active nests is also important.

Conservation Measures

In order to provide management for goshawks and to maintain or improve potential distribution 

on the Shoshone, the following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into 

Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Given the relatively large amount of 

habitat on the Forest and by protecting known nest sites, overall viability risk from forest 

management to goshawks is low. 

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Within known goshawk territories, maintain at least a 30-acre buffer of mature forest around 

known nest sites.

2. Within known goshawk territories, maintain at least 60 percent of the goshawk habitat in a 

mature condition within the post-fledging area. The post-fledgling area should include all 

known alternate nests. Suitable goshawk habitat consists of mature lodgepole pine, Douglasfir, and quaking aspen. The post-fledgling area ranges in size from 200 to 425 acres (Kennedy 

2003).

3. If an active nest is located, avoid project activities within 0.25 mile that would disturb nesting 

goshawks from April 1 through August 31.

4. If project activities will reduce potential nesting habitat within a known goshawk territory, 

identify and manage alternative and replacement nest sites within the territory.

5. Manage aspen for retention and expansion over current levels.

Monitoring Considerations

Important monitoring considerations for goshawks would be the continued monitoring of known 

nest sites to determine territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity. Also, continue to 

cooperate with the monitoring of goshawks at the bioregional scale.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

42

Effects Analysis: Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the northern 

goshawk primarily involve timber harvest, fuels treatments, and wildlife management activities. 

Motorized and non-motorized recreation could possibly influence nesting in some locations. 

Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in Table BE- 10.

Table BE- 10. Activities and outputs that could influence the northern goshawk by alternative

Alt A Alts B and G* Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Suitable timber base acres 86,269 127,009 122,103 124,453 179,666 251,205

Vegetation treatment acres 

mechanical and mechanical w/

prescribed fire (total)

15,470 15,575 14,471 15,062 17,905 21,716

Douglas-fir 2,924 2,744 2,336 2,632 3,181 4,250

Lodgepole pine 5,291 5,330 5,641 5,361 7,058 9,211

Aspen 624 628 529 616 641 664

Vegetation treatment acres 

prescribed fire (total) 23,559 23,302 23,299 23,342 22,823 21,910

Douglas-fir 4,949 4,869 4,836 4,871 4,748 4,585

Lodgepole pine 1,977 1,969 2,021 1,977 2,191 2,449

Aspen 918 909 899 911 878 823

Road construction miles-timber 2 2 2 2 3 4

Wildfire acres 185,152 182,900 184,132 183,703 174,983 161,363

Motorized recreation-summer 

(acres available) 569,975 Alt B-570,246

Alt G-529,019 321,800 349,992 655,879 823,326

*Alternative G is the same as alternative B unless otherwise indicated.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

In regard to activities that could potentially influence the northern goshawk, alternative A 

designates the least amount of suitable timber base (86,269 acres) as compared to alternatives B

through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative), while offering approximately the same 

amount of suitable habitat (16,262 to 16,680 acres) to active management as alternatives B

through D and G; fewer acres then alternatives E and F by approximately 1,139 and 5,302 acres 

respectively, that could potentially alter the habitat components preferred by the species. Potential 

impacts are expected to be minimal and localized.

Treatments in aspen are also similar across alternatives, but may impact individual goshawks 

because of the intensive treatments involved. Older aspen stands that currently contain the 

structural characteristics needed to support nest platforms may be targeted for regeneration. 

Conversely, however, long-term benefits may be associated with regenerating stand conditions.

As displayed in Table BE- 10, the predicted timber harvest output in primary habitat 

(approximately 162,774 acres) varies from 16,262 to 21,982 acres and is very minimal in all 

alternatives. These amounts represent about 10 to 14 percent of the total suitable habitat on the 

Shoshone. The amount of timber harvest in alternative A is therefore expected to have little, if 

any, influence on northern goshawk habitat or populations on the Shoshone. Construction of new 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

43

roads as result of timber harvest that would remain open to public use is very minimal for all 

alternatives; estimated between 2 to 3 miles. 

The use of prescribed fire is expected to help restore habitat conditions for the northern goshawk 

due to a reduction in small-diameter trees that could inhibit effective foraging. The use of 

prescribed fire is also expected to provide benefits by reducing fuel loads that could result in a 

high-intensity wildfire that could render habitat unsuitable. Benefits to prey species are also 

anticipated as small mammals and birds respond to the burn areas. Some impacts may occur to 

individual goshawks if nesting occurs within a prescribed fire area. The use of prescribed fire is 

projected to occur on approximately 23,559 acres under alternative A and does not vary across 

alternatives B through E and G. Alternative F proposes the least amount of prescribed fire.

Wildland fire use is not a planned output. However, it will be utilized as a tool to allow natural 

disturbances to occur within suitable northern goshawk habitat as opportunities arise. It is 

estimated that all alternatives may allow from 161,363 to 185,152 acres of wildland fire use. 

Depending upon fire severity and scale, these outputs could have negative or positive influences 

on northern goshawk. 

Alternative A along with B offer the third highest amount of motorized recreation compared to 

the other alternatives. This difference could potentially allow greater disturbances to northern 

goshawk during nesting season depending upon the type, timing, and scope of the activity.

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

As displayed in Table BE- 10, there is little difference between no action and alternatives B, C, D,

and G in regard to timber harvest. As is consistent with the active management theme, alternative 

F offers the greatest amount of projected timber activities in all cover types that may be utilized 

by the northern goshawk. However, all alternatives influence preferred northern goshawk habitat 

from 10 to 14 percent and are expected to have minimal and localized effect on the species. 

As displayed in Table BE- 10, and consistent with its theme, alternative C offers fewer potential 

disturbances than the other alternatives from summer motorized recreation because of decreases 

in the amount of motorized use area. Consistent with their themes, alternative D offers the next 

fewest motorized acres, while alternative F offers the highest amount of acreage. Alternatives B,

E, and G offer a balance between the other action alternatives, but provide less solitude habitat 

than the no action. Reductions in open motorized areas should decrease the potential for 

displacement or disturbances while nesting.

The use of prescribed fire is projected to occur on approximately 23,559 acres and does not 

appreciatively vary across alternatives B through E and G. Alternative F proposes the least 

amount of prescribed fire. Wildland fire use may be used as a management tool on from 161,363 

to 185,152 acres in all alternatives. This could impact individual goshawks if fire occurs in 

nesting areas.

Cumulative Effects

A review of management activities and land use designations on the Shoshone suggests that a 

considerable amount of suitable habitat for the northern goshawk is available, and should remain 

available, throughout and beyond the current planning period (10 to 15 years). Timber 

management activities may still influence individual goshawk where it occurs. No cumulative 

effects are expected. Natural fire events will only improve habitat conditions. 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

44

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (northern goshawk), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” 

The rationale for this determination follows: 

• All alternatives involve projected timber harvest activities in primary habitat types 

(Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, aspen) that may adversely influence individual goshawk. 

However, the projected scope of these activities is very minimal. 

• Extensive late-successional primary habitat occurs on the Shoshone National Forest in 

wilderness and other back country designations where natural processes will dominate.

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

Olive-sided flycatchers are considered a G4/S4B species by the State Natural Heritage ranking 

for Wyoming. Historical populations, distribution or abundance are unknown for this species on 

the Shoshone.

Olive-sided flycatchers are neotropical migrants that summer in the conifer forest zone of North 

America from Alaska south through Canada to California, New Mexico, Michigan, and the New 

England states. They winter in Central and South America (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). In 

Wyoming, olive-sided flycatchers likely occur within the conifer forests of western Wyoming, 

including the Shoshone and possibly within the Medicine-Bow and Bighorn National Forests

(Kotliar 2007).

They likely occur Forest-wide in typical low abundance within suitable habitat based on recent 

surveys by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory from 2002 to 2008 (Hanni et al. 2009). From 

2002 to 2009, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory detected 52 total olive-sided flycatchers 

(Hanni et al. 2009, Rehm-Lorber et al. 2010).

Trend data are not available for olive-sided flycatchers on the Shoshone or in Wyoming. This is 

likely due to their low occurrence rate on survey routes.

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

In Region 2, olive-sided flycatchers are most often found in higher-elevation spruce/fir forests. 

They are typically not found in even-aged lodgepole pine stands (Kotliar 2007). They typically 

nest in post-fire early successional forests. They could be considered a fire-obligate species.

There are about 309,442 acres of spruce/fir on the Shoshone (USFS 2012b). Some evidence 

suggests that lodgepole pine has become less abundant in the last century, while spruce/fir has 

increased (USFS 2012a). Fire suppression reinforces this trend, but increases in wildfire and 

insect outbreaks may begin to reverse this trend. Forest inventory data indicates that about 30

percent of the spruce/fir is mature (over 200 years old). 

In recent years, the Shoshone has experienced large wildfires. About 115,000 acres have burned 

in the last 5 years and about 161,500 acres in the last 10 years (USFS 2012a). Wildfires are 

creating ideal habitat for olive-sided flycatchers and will continue to do so into the future. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

45

The current epidemic insect outbreaks may be creating additional habitat, but this has yet to be 

documented (Kotliar 2007).

Risk Factors

The primary risk factors from forest management are timber harvest and fire suppression. Another

primary risk factor is loss of wintering habitat (Kotliar 2007).

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

A substantial amount of potential habitat (178,678 acres of spruce/fir habitat) for olive-sided 

flycatchers and areas where natural processes dominate the landscape occurs in wilderness on the 

Shoshone. Habitat is being created in stand-replacement wildfires.

Timber harvest has the potential to create habitat, but this type of habitat may be detrimental to 

the species. Although olive-sided flycatchers regularly use small forest openings created by 

logging, they may actually be ecological traps (Kotliar 2007, Altman and Sallabanks 2000). 

Timber harvest occurs at a very small scale compared to the available habitat on the Shoshone, so 

overall risks would be low.

Fire suppression has the potential to be a risk, since olive-sided flycatchers appear to rely on fire 

to create preferred habitat. Allowing wildland fire use would be important for creating and 

maintaining habitat for this species. High-severity fires create the best olive-sided flycatcher 

habitat (Kotliar 2007).

Conservation Measures

In order to maintain and improve potential habitat for olive-sided flycatchers on the Shoshone, 

the following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into Forest Plan goals, 

objectives, standards and guidelines. Since this species is not of viability concern, these measures 

would continue to maintain and improve potential habitat for this species.

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Allow for wildland fire use, where appropriate, to provide foraging and nesting habitat.

Monitoring Considerations

Of most importance for this species would be the inventory and management of spruce/fir stands 

and distribution on the forest. This would include age class distribution of spruce/fir and the 

location and extent of wildfires. Wildfires are currently inventoried on an annual basis.

Effects Analysis: Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the olive-sided 

flycatcher primarily involve timber harvest and possibly fuels treatment activities. Differences in 

projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in Table BE- 11.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

46

Table BE- 11. Activities and outputs that could influence the olive-sided flycatcher by alternative

Alt A Alts B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Suitable timber base acres 86,269 127,009 122,103 124,453 179,666 251,205

Vegetation treatment acres 

mechanical and mechanical 

w/ prescribed fire (total)

15,470 15,575 14,471 15,062 17,905 21,176

Spruce/fir 1,411 1,399 1,057 1,263 1,547 1,768

Vegetation treatment acres 

prescribed fire(total) 23,559 23,302 23,299 23,342 22,823 21,910

Spruce/fir 550 544 495 525 554 566

Wildfire acres 185,152 182,900 184,132 183,703 174,983 161,363

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in Table BE- 11, the predicted timber harvest output in primary olive-sided 

flycatcher habitat varies from 1,552 to 2,334 acres and is very minimal in all alternatives. These 

amounts represent less than 3 percent of the total suitable habitat on the Shoshone. The amount of 

timber harvest in alternative A is therefore expected to have little influence on the boreal owl or 

populations on the Shoshone. 

Wildland fire use is not a planned output. However, it will be utilized as a tool to allow natural 

disturbances to occur in high-elevation forest types as opportunities arise. It is estimated that all 

alternatives may allow from 161,363 to 185,152 acres of wildland fire use. All wildland fire use 

activities can be expected to have negative influences on the olive-sided flycatcher because of a 

decrease in habitat components preferred by the species. However, these influences would vary 

significantly depending upon the size and severity of a wildfire. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (Preferred alternative) 

As displayed in Table BE- 11, there is little difference between no action and alternatives B, C, D,

E, and G in regard to timber harvest. As is consistent with the active management theme, 

alternative F offers the greatest amount of projected timber output. However, all alternatives 

influence preferred olive-sided flycatcher habitat (approximately 92,832 acres) by 2 to 3 percent

and are expected to have no detectable effect on the species. The large amount of back country 

and wilderness remaining on Shoshone in all alternatives can be expected to provide mature trees, 

primary nesting habitat for the olive-sided flycatcher. 

As with the no action alternative, it is estimated that wildland fire use may be used as a 

management tool on 161,363 to 185,152 acres in all action alternatives. Benefits can be expected 

from any fire use activities that permit wildfires to occur. 

Cumulative Effects 

No cumulative effects on the olive-sided flycatcher are anticipated because of the minimal 

amount of activities projected to occur in primary habitat and the large amount of undeveloped 

area that will remain on the Shoshone well into the future. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

47

Determination 

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (olive-sided flycatcher), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” 

The rationale for this determination follows: 

• All alternatives involve projected timber harvest activities in primary habitat types 

(spruce/fir) that may adversely influence individual olive-sided flycatchers. However, the 

projected amount of these activities is very minimal. 

• Extensive late-successional primary habitat occurs on the Shoshone National Forest in 

wilderness and other back country designations where natural processes will dominate 

and provide excellent habitat for the olive-sided flycatchers.

6.3 Grassland/sagebrush mammals

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep have a natural heritage ranking of G4/S3. They are considered a 

big game animal in Wyoming.

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are found scattered throughout the mountainous regions of 

western North America from British Columbia and Alberta south to New Mexico and Arizona 

(Beecham et al. 2007). In Wyoming, they primarily occur in the northwestern part of the state 

with re-introduced populations in the Bighorn Mountains and several mountain ranges in the 

southeastern part of the state.

The Shoshone is occupied by six of the eight core native bighorn sheep herds in Wyoming. These 

core herds include: Francs Peak, Younts Peak, Whiskey Mountain, Trout Peak, Wapiti Ridge, and 

Clark’s Fork (Figure BE- 4). These core herds currently occupy 67 percent (1.65 million acres) of 

the Forest. Also, the Temple Peak herd occupies a small portion of the Washakie Ranger District. 

This herd is not a core herd but is classified as a remnant herd. And, it’s considered a transplant 

herd and is managed within a “Cooperative Review Area” (Wyoming State-wide 

Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group 2004b). Cooperative Review Areas are areas 

of suitable bighorn sheep range where proposed changes in bighorn sheep management or 

domestic sheep use will be cooperatively evaluated.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

48

Figure BE- 4. Bighorn sheep herd units, Shoshone National Forest
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

49

Francs Peak Bighorn Sheep Herd

This core native herd occupies portions of the Shoshone National Forest and the Wind River 

Indian Reservation within the Absaroka and Owl Creek mountain ranges. This herd includes 

WGFD Hunt Areas 5 (Francs Peak) and 22 (Dubois Badlands), as well as the Owl Creek 

Mountains in the northern portion of the Wind River Indian Reservation (Beecham et al. 2007).

The population objective for this herd is 1,360 sheep. Current model estimates put the population 

at 1,424 sheep, or near objective (WGFD 2012a). Even though the 2011 lamb:ewe ratio of 17:100 

was low compared to the 10-year average of 29:100, this sheep herd is considered very healthy 

and the population has remained stable for the past 6 years. Ram:ewe ratio in 2011 was 43:100, 

also below the 10-year average of 48:100.

No domestic sheep grazing occurs within this herd unit. Closest domestic sheep/goat grazing on 

public lands to the Francs Peak Herd is approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) to the east on 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Because of the concern of disease transmission, five 

bighorn sheep ewes were removed from the population upon grazing on private land used by 

domestic sheep (WGFD, personal communication 2012b). Closest domestic sheep/goat grazing 

on the Shoshone is approximately 112.7 kilometers (70 miles) south of the Francs Peak Herd 

(Wyoming: Bighorn Sheep Occupied Habitat and Domestic Sheep Grazing Allotments Map, 

February 29, 2012 draft).

No pack goat use occurs within this core native herd home range.

Younts Peak Bighorn Sheep Herd

This herd occupies portions of the Shoshone and Bridger-Teton National Forests, primarily within 

the Absaroka Mountain Range. Younts Peak is the most remote bighorn sheep herd in Wyoming. 

While much of the Younts Peak herd is non-migratory and resides year-round on high-elevation 

ridges (WGFD 2009a), segments of the herd do migrate to low elevation winter range in the 

South Fork of the Shoshone River. This makes them prone to periodic high mortality losses due 

to severe winter weather. 

The population for this herd is estimated to be 750, which is below the objective of 900 sheep. 

The March 2011 lamb:100 ewe ratio was 17:100, and ram:100 ewe ratio was 48100. The 

lamb:ewe ratio was well below the 5-year (2006 to 2010) average of 24:100 for this herd, as was 

the ram:ewe ratio that averages 45:100 for this herd (WGFD 2012a). No domestic sheep grazing 

occurs within this herd unit. Domestic sheep/goat grazing on public lands closest to the Younts 

Peak Herd is approximately 41.8 kilometers (26 miles) east on BLM lands. Closest domestic 

sheep/goat grazing on the Shoshone is approximately 136.8 kilometers (85 miles) southeast of the 

Younts Peak Herd (Wyoming: Bighorn Sheep Occupied Habitat and Domestic Sheep Grazing 

Allotments Map, February 29, 2012 draft).

No pack goat use occurs within this core native herd range.

Whiskey Mountain Bighorn Sheep Herd

This core native herd occupies portions of the Shoshone and Bridger-Teton National Forests and 

the Wind River Indian Reservation within the Wind River Mountain Range. This herd includes 

WGFD Hunt Areas 8, 9, 10, and 23 (Beecham et al. 2007).

The population objective for this herd is 1,350 sheep. After a disease-related die-off in 1990-

1991, the population has yet to recover and has been in a decline for the past 20 years. Current 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

50

population estimate is about 613 sheep (WGFD 2012b). In 2009, the lamb:ewe ratio of 30:100 

was the highest observed in the past 20 years (WGFD 2009b). In 2011, the ratio was 26:100 

lamb:ewes. The ram:ewe ratio for this herd has been more stable. In 2011, the ratio was 44:100, 

below the 2006-2011 average of 36:100 (WGFD 2012b).

It is suggested that the high concentration of wintering sheep contributed to the severity and 

lasting impacts of the pneumonia outbreak in 1991. As a result, it’s been suggested that the 

Whiskey Mountain Bighorn Sheep Technical Committee review the population objective for this 

herd to try to avoid the scenario that occurred in 1991 (WGFD 2009b). 

In 2010, WGFD personnel spent a significant amount of time observing sheep in early fall as they 

arrived on winter range. Many lambs were observed coughing violently and showing symptoms 

of pneumonia. Eleven sheep were euthanized throughout the fall and examined at the state vet lab 

to document the presence of disease. Examinations revealed Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae in all 

the sheep that had been seen coughing violently. It appears likely persistent, low, annual 

recruitment in this population can be traced to chronic bacterial infection resulting in significant 

lamb mortality as sheep migrate onto winter range in the fall. Despite low recruitment, the 

population is declining very slowly and it appears a small increase in lamb recruitment will 

stabilize this population. Unfortunately, managers do not have any effective tools to mitigate the 

persistent presence of bacterial pneumonia that is impacting lambs annually (WGFD 2010b).

No domestic sheep grazing occurs within this herd unit. Closest domestic sheep/goat grazing on 

public lands to the Whiskey Mountain Herd is approximately 9.7 kilometers (6 miles) west on the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest. Four domestic sheep that strayed onto core native bighorn sheep 

habitat on the Bridger-Teton National Forest were removed (shot) in Hunt Area 8 due to concerns 

over disease transmission (WGFD, personal communication 2012b). Closest domestic sheep/goat 

grazing on the Shoshone is approximately 80.5 kilometers (50 miles) southeast of the Whiskey 

Mountain Herd (Wyoming: Bighorn Sheep Occupied Habitat and Domestic Sheep Grazing 

Allotments Map, February 29, 2012 draft).

Pack goat use occurs within occupied habitat of this core native herd. The only pack goat outfitter 

to operate in this area was bought out in 2007. 

Trout Peak Bighorn Sheep Herd

This core native herd occupies portions of the Shoshone within the Absaroka Mountain Range. 

Sheep move between this herd unit and Yellowstone National Park (Beecham et al. 2007). This 

herd includes WGFD Hunt Area 2.

The population objective for the Trout Peak herd is 750. The present population is estimated to be 

about 600 sheep (WGFD 2012a). The lamb:ewe ratios were average for this herd in 2007 

(30:100) and 2009 (29:100), but were low in 2008 (19:100) and 2010 and 2011 (26:100). The 

ram:ewe ratios were average for this herd in 2007 (30:100) and 2009 (33:100), slightly higher in 

2010 and 2011 (41:100) but were substantially higher in 2008 (65:100) (WGFD 2012a). No 

domestic sheep grazing occurs within this herd unit. Domestic sheep/goat grazing on public lands 

closest to the Trout Peak Herd is approximately 19.3 kilometers (12 miles) east on BLM lands. 

Closest domestic sheep/goat grazing on the Shoshone is approximately 220.8 kilometers (138 

miles) south of the Trout Peak Herd (Wyoming: Bighorn Sheep Occupied Habitat and Domestic 

Sheep Grazing Allotments Map, February 29, 2012 draft).). 

No pack goat use occurs within this core native herd range.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

51

Wapiti Ridge Bighorn Sheep Herd

This core native herd occupies portions of the Shoshone and Bridger-Teton National Forests 

within the Absaroka Mountain Range. Sheep move between this herd unit and Yellowstone 

National Park (Beecham et al. 2007). This herd includes WGFD Hunt Area 3. 

The population objective for the Wapiti Ridge herd is 1,000 sheep with the present population 

estimated at 900 (WGFD 2012a). In 2011, the lamb:ewe ratio was 12:100, which is below the 

2006 to 2011 average of 27:100. The ram:ewe ratios were average in 2008 (40:100) and 2011 

(36:100), but were slightly below average (38:100) in 2009 and 2010 at 32:100 rams:ewes 

(WGFD 2012a). No domestic sheep grazing occurs within this herd unit. Domestic sheep/goat 

grazing on public lands closest to the Wapiti Ridge Herd is approximately 29.0 kilometers (18 

miles) east on BLM lands. Closest domestic sheep/goat grazing on the Shoshone is approximately 

179.2 kilometers (112 miles) south of the Wapiti Ridge Herd (Wyoming: Bighorn Sheep 

Occupied Habitat and Domestic Sheep Grazing Allotments Map, February 29, 2012 draft).No 

pack goat use occurs within this core native herd range.

Clarks Fork Bighorn Sheep Herd

This core native herd occupies portions of the Shoshone and the Gallatin and Custer National 

Forests in Montana. They range across the Absaroka Mountain Range and the Beartooth Plateau. 

Sheep from this herd, primarily rams, move in and out of Yellowstone National Park. This herd 

includes WGFD Hunt Area 1 (Beecham et al. 2007).

The population objective for the Clarks Fork herd is 500 with the present population about the 

same (WGFD 2012a). The lamb:ewe ratio of 52:100 in 2011, was back to more normal numbers 

compared to 2009 when lamb counts of 32:100 were one of the lowest recorded for this herd. The 

ram:ewe ratio of 42:100 was lower than recent surveys in 2005 and 2006, but still within the 

range seen from 2003 to 2011 (WGFD 2012a). No domestic sheep grazing occurs within this herd 

unit. Domestic sheep/goat grazing on public lands closest to the Clarks Fork Herd is 

approximately 20.9 kilometers (13 miles) east on BLM lands. Closest domestic sheep/goat 

grazing on the Shoshone is approximately 240.0 kilometers (150 miles) south of the Clarks Fork 

Herd ((Wyoming: Bighorn Sheep Occupied Habitat and Domestic Sheep Grazing Allotments 

Map, February 29, 2012 draft).). 

No pack goat use occurs within this core native herd range.

Temple Peak Bighorn Sheep Herd

This cooperative review herd is an indigenous population of the Bridger-Teton and Shoshone 

National Forests. This herd currently occupies a very small portion of the Shoshone along the 

Lander Front in the southern end of the Wind River Range. The distribution of bighorns with this 

unit is scattered, with known wintering areas in the North Fork of the Popo Agie River, Sinks 

Canyon, and the Little Popo Agie River. This herd includes WGFD Hunt Area 11 (Beecham et al. 

2007). This herd no longer has a hunt area assigned to it and is not discussed in the WGFD 2010 

Annual Big Game Herd Unit Reports. 

Historically, segments of the Temple Peak herd have been known to migrate to ranges near the 

Continental Divide. A total of 23 records were recorded between 1978 and 1991. In addition, 10 

records of bighorn sheep tracks were recorded in these same areas from 1980 to 1984. No 

observations of bighorn sheep have been recorded on alpine ranges near the Continental Divide 

since 9/09/1991. Group sizes of these observations ranged from 1 to 16 sheep, with an average 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

52

group size of 3.4 sheep. The largest number of sheep seen (16) was on 8/25/1978 at Baptiste Lake 

(Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2013). 

Three winter range segments have been identified for the Temple Peak herd; North Fork Canyon, 

Sinks Canyon, and Wolf Point. 

• North Fork Canyon – A total of 24 observations of bighorn sheep have been made on the 

North Fork Canyon winter range complex from 1978 to 2006. The maximum number of 

sheep seen on this winter range went from 15 sheep in 1978 to 18-23 from 1987-90 

following a 1987 transplant there. Sheep numbers declined from that point and by 1992 

to 2006 ranged between 0 and 14 animals. No observations have been recorded since 

2006.

• Sinks Canyon – A total of 64 observations of bighorn sheep have been made on the Sinks 

Canyon winter range complex from 1977 to 2009. The maximum number of sheep seen 

on this winter range went from 5 sheep in 1977 to 56 in 1987 following a 1987 

transplant there. Sheep numbers declined from that point and by 1993 to 2009 ranged 

between 0 and 7 animals. No observations have been recorded since 2010.

• Wolf Point – A total of 22 observations of bighorn sheep have been made on the Wolf 

Point winter range complex from 1977 to 1992. The maximum number of sheep seen on 

this winter range was 15-17 sheep in 1977-78 following a1971-72 transplant there. 

Sheep numbers declined from that point and by 1982 to 1992 ranged between 0 and 12 

animals. No observations have been recorded since 1992. 

• Other Winter Range Observations – Movement of animals between these winter range 

complexes has been documented and observations of sheep in areas between them have 

been made. Between 1977 and 1993, 4 observations of bighorn sheep between North 

Fork Canyon and Sinks canyon were made, ranging from 1 to 5 individuals. Between 

1980 and 2009, 8 observations of sheep between Sinks Canyon and Wolf Point were 

made, ranging between 1 and 24 sheep (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2013).

Poor adult survival and poor lamb recruitment in the Temple Peak herd have caused the 

population to continue to decline. The average number of sheep seen during the most recent 11-

year period (2001−2011) is 10.6 (maximum # = 11), although no observations were made in 3 of 

these years. The average number of sheep seen during the most recent 5-year period (2007−2011) 

is 2.8 (maximum # = 5). No observations have been made since 2010 (Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department 2013).

This herd experienced an all-age pneumonia die-off in 1992 and has never recovered (WGFD 

2006). The current population is suspected to be about 25 sheep. The population objective is 250 

sheep. Singer et al. (2001) identified bighorn sheep populations that fall below 30 sheep as 

“quasi-extirpation” meaning that the population is unlikely to ever recover. This quasi-extirpation 

herd is likely to eventually go extinct. Due to the low population, no population data is currently 

being collected by the WGFD. 

Domestic sheep grazing occurs on both the Shoshone and Bridger-Teton National Forests within 

this herd’s historic summer range, but not within currently occupied herd range. Suitable bighorn 

sheep habitat within the domestic sheep allotments on the Shoshone is very limited as a vast 

majority of the land is forested. In addition, a large portion of the land between the allotments on 

the two National Forests and the bighorn sheep occupied habitat, is forested. This herd’s current 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

53

occupied range is very confined, suggesting that they no longer are a migratory herd or have little, 

if any interchange with bighorns in the Whiskey Mountain or Wind River Indian Reservation 

populations (Beecham et al. 2007). 

Closest domestic sheep/goat grazing on public lands to the Temple Peak Herd is approximately 

9.7 kilometers (6 miles) east on Bureau of Land Management lands. Closest domestic sheep/goat 

grazing on the Shoshone National Forest is approximately 28.9 kilometers (18 miles) southeast of 

the Temple Peak Herd (Wyoming: Domestic Sheep and Bighorn Sheep Distribution 2011). 

Closest domestic sheep/goat grazing on the Bridger-Teton NF to the Temple Peak Herd is 

approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) west. To reduce the risk of transmission, at least one 

bighorn sheep ram was removed after it made a foray onto private land.

Pack goat use occurs within occupied habitat of this cooperative review herd. The only pack goat 

outfitter to operate in this area was bought out in 2007. 

Recent population trends for the core bighorn sheep herds have been fairly steady. The Whiskey 

Mountain herd appears to have stabilized since the last pneumonia caused die-off that started in 

the 1990s (Figure BE- 5).

Figure BE- 5. Population trends for bighorn sheep herd units that encompass Shoshone National 

Forest

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Habitat for bighorn sheep is abundant on the Shoshone. There is about 819,430 acres of 

grass/forb/sedge meadow habitat and about 328,170 acres of potential escape cover (rock). 

Additional habitat may be available in some sagebrush cover types at lower elevations on winter 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

54

range. Crucial bighorn sheep winter range is the most important habitat on the Shoshone (Figure 

BE- 6). The Shoshone contains about 663,320 acres of crucial winter range.

Figure BE- 6. Bighorn sheep crucial winter range on the Shoshone National Forest
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

55

In recent years, the Shoshone has experienced large wildfires. About 115,000 acres have burned 

in the last 5 years and about 161,500 acres in the last 10 years (USFS 2012). Wildfires create 

ideal seasonal habitat for bighorns and help to reduce conifer and shrub encroachment within 

their preferred habitat.

No domestic sheep grazing occurs within or near occupied core bighorn sheep habitat on the 

Shoshone. The closest core herd, Whiskey Mountain, is about 80 kilometers from the domestic 

sheep allotments on the southern end of the Forest. There currently is recreational goat pack use 

within this herd’s occupied habitat.

Domestic sheep grazing does occur within about 28.9 kilometers of the remnant Temple Peak 

herd on the Shoshone. These sheep allotments are mostly forested, so they provide very little 

potential habitat for bighorns. This results in a low likelihood that foraying bighorns would utilize 

these allotments.

Although scientific literature is lacking specifically for the risk of disease transmission between 

pack goats and bighorn sheep, some information is available for domestic goats and bighorn 

sheep (Rudolph et al. 2003, Foreyt et al. 2009). Until further scientific information is available to 

prove otherwise, the risk to bighorn sheep is far too great to allow pack goat use within occupied 

core bighorn sheep habitat. Even one disease transmission event could be catastrophic to a core 

bighorn sheep herd. (See Risk Analysis of Disease Transmission Between Domestic Sheep and 

Goats and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, Shoshone National Forest 2013.)

Risk Factors

The primary risk factors from forest management are domestic sheep grazing, recreational goatpacking, human disturbance during critical time periods (winter), and fire suppression.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Maintaining diverse and productive seasonal habitats away from domestic sheep and goats would 

be the most important forest management emphasis for bighorn sheep.

Limiting human access to bighorn sheep wintering areas also would be important to reduce 

potential disturbance during this critical time period. 

Conservation Measures

In order to provide management for bighorn sheep and to maintain or improve their potential 

distribution on the Shoshone, the following conservation measures were developed for 

incorporation into Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Incorporating 

conservation measures to maintain and improve habitat for bighorn sheep and reduce potential for 

disease transmission between domestic goats and bighorns results in an overall low viability risk 

for core bighorn sheep herds on the Shoshone. The Temple Peak herd will continue to be 

managed within the “Cooperative Review Area” as a remnant herd. Any change in management 

of this herd would be cooperatively agreed upon (Wyoming State-wide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep 

Interaction Working Group 2004a). 

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Close all occupied core native bighorn sheep habitat to pack goat use (Figure BE- 7). 

This is needed to protect core native bighorn sheep herds from the potential for contact 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

56

with pack goats. This measure effectively closes the entire Shoshone National Forest., 

except the Washakie Ranger District to pack goat use.

2. Coordinate with the WGFD to seasonally close motorized access to crucial bighorn sheep 

winter range during critical time periods.

3. Management activities that disturb wintering bighorn sheep should be conducted outside 

of the critical time period except when the project is designed to maintain or improve 

crucial winter range conditions (i.e., prescribed fire).

4. Utilize prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to maintain and improve bighorn sheep 

seasonal ranges.

5. Allow for wildland fire use, where appropriate, to maintain and improve bighorn sheep 

seasonal ranges.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

57

Figure BE- 7. Domestic sheep and goat (including pack goat) closure in core native bighorn sheep

range 

Monitoring Considerations

The WGFD annually monitors bighorn sheep populations. The Shoshone will continue to rely on 

their data.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

58

Effects Analysis: Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep primarily involve range management activities (i.e., domestic sheep 

grazing), recreational pack goat use, and wildlife management activities (i.e., big game winter 

range improvements). Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are 

displayed in Table BE- 12. 

Table BE- 12. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep (BHS), by alternative

Alt A Alts B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Livestock 

grazing 

Permitted 

AUMs 

(domestic 

sheep only)

408 408 408 408 408 408

Suitable 

acres (total) 15,780 15,780 15,780 15,780 15,780 15,780

Domestic 

pack goat 

use

No permitted 

domestic 

sheep and a 

temporary 

closure for 

goats 

(including 

pack goats) 

in Core 

Native BHS 

Habitat on 

Clarks Fork, 

Wapiti, 

Greybull and 

Wind River 

RD

No domestic 

goats 

(including 

pack goats) 

in Core 

Native BHS 

Habitat. 

Livestock 

allotments 

closed to 

domestic 

sheep 

grazing in 

Core Native 

BHS habitat.

No domestic 

goats 

(including 

pack goats) 

on entire 

Shoshone NF 

(SNF). 

Includes Core 

Native and 

Cooperative 

Review BHS 

Habitat. 

Livestock 

allotments 

closed to 

domestic 

sheep 

grazing in 

Core Native 

BHS habitat

No domestic 

goats 

(including 

pack goats) 

in Core 

Native BHS 

habitat. 

Livestock 

allotments 

closed to 

domestic 

sheep 

grazing in 

Core Native 

BHS habitat.

Domestic 

goats 

(including 

pack goats 

allowed on 

entire SNF. 

Livestock 

allotments 

closed to 

domestic 

sheep 

grazing in 

Core Native 

BHS habitat.

Domestic

goats 

(including 

pack goats 

allowed on 

entire SNF. 

Livestock 

allotments 

closed to 

domestic 

sheep 

grazing in 

Core Native 

BHS habitat

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in Table BE- 12, alternative A and all action alternatives continue to allocate 

allotments to domestic sheep grazing, but it is very limited. Alternative A maintains the same 

permitted numbers and area as alternatives B, C, D, and G currently set at 408 AUMs and 

15,780 acres. There is no overlap between domestic sheep allotments and core native bighorn 

sheep habitat. Alternative A would allow a temporary closure to domestic sheep and goat use on 

four of the five ranger districts to expire, increasing the potential risk of disease transmission to 

core native bighorn sheep. Although there is no documented case of disease transmittals from 

domestic sheep and goats to bighorns on the Shoshone, it is possible that a risk would remain for 

such an event. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

59

Wildlife habitat management to improve big game winter range is projected to occur on 2,000 

acres during the life of the Revised Forest Plan. This projection includes elk and other big game 

species as well as potential projects for bighorn sheep. Benefits can be expected on a site-specific 

basis. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative)

As displayed in Table BE- 12, alternatives B, C, and D maintain the same permitted numbers and 

area for domestic sheep as alternative A, currently set at 408 AUMs and 15,780 acres. There is no 

overlap between domestic sheep allotments and core native bighorn sheep habitat. Alternatives B, 

C, D, and G would restrict domestic sheep and goat use (including pack goats) in core native 

bighorn sheep habitat. Although the risk of future contact between domestics and bighorn would 

not be completely eliminated, these alternatives reduce the potential for a disease transmittal. 

Although there is no documented case of disease transmittals from domestic sheep and goats to 

bighorns on the Shoshone, it is possible that a risk would remain for such an event. 

As in alternative A, wildlife habitat management to improve big game winter range is projected to 

occur on 2,000 acres during the life of the Revised Forest Plan. This projection includes elk and 

other big game species as well as potential projects for bighorn sheep. Benefits can be expected 

on a site-specific basis. 

Cumulative Effects

Both domestic and bighorn sheep have used the Shoshone for several decades. Currently, there 

are no documented cases of disease transmittals from domestic sheep or goats to bighorns on the 

planning area. Management of bighorn sheep and domestic sheep and goats (including pack 

goats) to avoid physical interactions is often complex. It is important that separation of the three 

species is maintained at all times; however, the distance needed to attain this can be different in 

each situation, and collaboration between all parties is needed to achieve this. Currently, the 

Shoshone is working with other State, Federal, and local partners (State-wide Bighorn 

Sheep/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working group) to better identify where bighorns occur, where 

they wander, and how they might interact with other herds and domestics. In managing both 

domestic sheep and goats and bighorns, the Shoshone is using a nationally recognized 

collaborative process for resolving bighorn/domestic sheep management conflicts. The approach 

outlined in the process has been incorporated into the management of domestics and bighorn 

sheep through the Plan design criteria and Plan components. It is anticipated that this approach 

will help Forest Service range and wildlife specialists work with interested individuals and 

organizations to develop site-specific solutions to potential conflicts amongst the species. This 

effort is expected to help reduce potential cumulative effects to bighorn sheep on the Shoshone. 

Determination

Based on this analysis, it is determined that Revised Forest Plan alternatives A, E, and F “may 

adversely impact individuals (bighorn sheep), but would not likely result in a loss of 

viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species 

viability rangewide.” Alternatives B, C, D, and G could be expected to provide a “Beneficial 

Impact” to the species. The rationale for this determination is as follows: 

• Ranges of bighorn and domestic goats (including pack goats) overlap on the Shoshone, 

therefore, a risk of disease transmittal occurs in alternatives A, E, and F. 

• To date, there is no documented case of disease transmittals from domestics to bighorns 

on the Shoshone. However, there is no known “safe distance” between the three species 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

60

so the risk of a future transmittal cannot be discounted. (See Risk Analysis of Disease 

Transmission Between Domestic Sheep and Goats and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, 

Shoshone National Forest 2013.)

• Alternatives B, C, D, and G include similar conservation measures to reduce the risk of 

contact and disease transmittal. 

6.4 Grassland/sagebrush birds

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) and sage sparrow (Amphispiza 

belli)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

These two species are grouped into one assessment as they occupy similar sagebrush steppe 

habitat and are subject to similar threats. Historical populations, distribution, or abundance are 

unknown for either species on the Shoshone.

Brewer’s sparrow is categorized as G5/S5, while the sage sparrow is categorized as G5/S3 

species through the natural heritage program ranking. They are also ranked as level I priority 

species (conservation action) by Wyoming Partners in Flight for shrub-steppe habitat, and are 

Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species. 

Nests for both species are typically constructed in the bottom portion of live sagebrush plants, 

typically in the taller shrubs. Both sparrows winter in the southwestern United States and northcentral Mexico. They do not appear to have elevation limits in their breeding range.

Brewer’s sparrows are well distributed within the Great Basin and other sagebrush habitats in 

northwestern North America. They breed throughout Wyoming (Rotenberry et al. 1999). They 

likely occur Forest-wide within suitable habitat based on recent surveys by the Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory from 2002 to 2008 (Hanni et al. 2009). From 2002 to 2009, the Rocky 

Mountain Bird Observatory detected 640 total Brewer’s sparrows (Hanni et al. 2009, RehmLorber et al. 2010). There are currently no known population estimates or trends for the species 

on the Shoshone. At the State level, Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) indicate a slight declining 

trend (- 0.7), but the trend is not significant (p = 0.37) (WGFD 2010). 

Sage sparrows are distributed across the Great Basin and other sagebrush habitats in the western 

United States. They primarily breed in portions of central and western Wyoming (Martin et al.

1998). Based on Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory surveys, sage sparrows are rare on the 

Shoshone. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory surveys only detected 3 birds from 2002 to 2009 

(1 in 2007, 2 in 2009) (Hanni et al. 2009, Rehm-Lorber et al. 2010). There are currently no 

known population estimates or trends for the species on the Shoshone. At the State level, BBS 

indicate a slightly increasing trend (0.8), but the trend is not significant (p = 0.72) (WGFD 2010). 

With fluctuations in natural ranges of habitat, it is difficult to determine whether populations of 

these species on the Shoshone are similar to historic levels. Regional declines reported in BBS 

results for most of the West indicate they are not (Paige and Ritter 1999), and significant acreages 

of sagebrush habitat have been lost throughout the West due to European settlement influences, 

such as conversion to agriculture, urban development, or losses due to cheatgrass invasion. These 

changes are likely having an effect on Brewer’s and sage sparrow populations, though these 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

61

effects currently are not occurring to a significant extent on the Shoshone as compared to 

surrounding lands.

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Both sparrows depend on sagebrush habitats, tending toward mature stands and larger stand sizes,

which make them sensitive to habitat fragmentation (Paige and Ritter 1999). Food sources are 

primarily insects in the summer, with seeds of grasses and shrubs a secondary source. Across the 

Shoshone there are about 38,784 acres of sagebrush, representing 2.0 percent of the Forest (USFS 

2012b). This acreage includes all types of sagebrush. Mountain big sagebrush dominates the 

montane shrublands throughout the Absaroka Mountains. Arid low-elevation sagebrush occurs on 

the eastern margins of the Shoshone. The most extensive stands are found in the North and South 

Fork Shoshone River valleys. On the Washakie Ranger District, mountain big sagebrush is mixed 

with bitterbrush and mountain snowberry. Additional sagebrush habitat likely occurs within some 

stands classified as grassland on the Forest.

In general, most of the sagebrush stands on the Shoshone are likely in a mature condition. This is 

largely due to fire suppression, especially at the lower elevations. Fire suppression can cause 

increases in shrub cover and tree encroachment, but on the Shoshone the change is not large 

enough to be outside of the historic range of variability at the stand or landscape level (low 

confidence) (Meyers et al. 2006). There appears to be adequate habitat to support viable 

populations of these species on the Forest.

Roads on the Shoshone have likely fragmented some sagebrush stands. To what extent is 

currently unknown.

Livestock grazing can also influence sagebrush ecosystems, though typically resulting in an 

increase of mature sagebrush due to the removal of understory herbaceous vegetation. Trampling 

of nests is not thought to be of concern, as both sparrows nest in the canopy of sagebrush. Nest 

parasitism from cowbirds may have an impact, as cowbirds tend to follow livestock herds (Paige 

and Ritter 1999). However, both rotational grazing systems and the later turn-out date of most 

livestock operations likely provide adequate areas of little influence from this effect. Livestock 

may also increase the risk for the introduction of non-native weeds.

Data on the effects of livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitat, on migratory birds including the 

Brewer’s and sage sparrow is limited, Bock et al.(1993) found that of 23 bird species studied, 

only 3 were positively affected, while 13 species were negatively affected. Brewer’s sparrow was 

one of the species negatively affected while the sage sparrow was positively affected. These 

effects were the result of increased shrub cover, decreased cover of native perennial grasses, and 

increased cover of exotic annuals. 

Non-native weeds are currently limited to localized concentrations and are primarily located 

along major travel corridors (roads and trails). Similarly, cheatgrass has yet to invade large or 

broad proportions of the Shoshone. However, the threat of habitat loss remains high. Cheatgrass 

alters the fire regime and increases the probability for more frequent fires. This reduces the 

chance for sagebrush and native bunchgrasses to get re-established following a fire.

Risk Factors

Primary risk factors from forest management include: habitat fragmentation, prescribed fire, 

livestock grazing, and invasion by non-native weeds.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

62

Climate change has the potential to increase the risk of non-native weed invasion and could result 

in more frequent stand-replacement fires.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Retention of stands of mature sagebrush habitat at a watershed scale would provide for ensured 

habitat for populations of these species. Although to what level is unknown, it is assumed that 

within a range of what likely historically occurred is reasonable. This would also facilitate 

management toward ensuring sustainable and diverse habitat conditions. If sagebrush was 

managed only for mature high canopy cover stands, the habitat is more at risk for losses due to 

wildfire, and do not provide the needed diversity of grasses/forbs for other species. Mosaics 

created by prescribed burning may be most beneficial, though this could also be accomplished 

through other methods. 

Paige and Ritter (1999) recommend small-scale, patchy prescribed burns, conducted in the late 

spring or fall, for habitat diversity considerations. The guidelines developed for vegetation 

management in sage grouse habitat (WGFD 2003) would likely be adequate for these species.

As mentioned previously, activities that have potential to expand cheatgrass or other non-native 

weeds should be closely monitored to ensure no further loss of habitat. Climate change has the 

potential to increase the spread of invasive weeds into sagebrush and alter fire regimes.

Roads can have negative effects on these species. Roads can reduce patch size, increase the 

potential for displacement by other species more adapted to roads and edge (horned larks), and 

increase the risk for introduction of non-native weeds. Additional road construction in large 

stands of sagebrush should be minimized.

Conservation Measures

For continued and improved management for these species and their habitat, the following 

conservation measures were developed for incorporation into Forest Plan goals, objectives, 

standards and guidelines. Inclusion of these measures would continue to provide adequate habitat 

for these species and other sagebrush associated species resulting in a low viability risk to these 

species. Birds in a Sagebrush Sea (Paige and Ritter 1999), Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri): 

A Technical Conservation Assessment (Holmes et al. 2005b), Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli): A 

Technical Conservation Assessment (Holmes et al. 2005a), and the Wyoming Greater SageGrouse Conservation Plan (WGFD 2003) were reviewed to determine habitat needs. 

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Prevent or reduce the risk for large stand-replacement fires in sagebrush habitat. Conduct 

prescribed burns that are small and patchy and maintain habitat diversity. Retain areas of 

large expanses of sagebrush habitat (minimize edge created). 

2. To reduce the risk of further spread, prescribed burns should not occur in areas with cheat 

grass and other non-native weeds.

3. Maintain native grasses and forbs through proper grazing limitations. Use rotational 

grazing systems to provide rest and areas with reduced potential for cowbird parasitism.

Provide for retention of about 50 percent of the current year’s growth of herbaceous 

vegetation for nesting cover in the following season. 

4. Consider resting burned areas from grazing to provide adequate regeneration of native 

vegetation. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

63

5. Prioritize and aggressively treat invasive weeds to prevent additional loss of sagebrush 

habitats.

6. Limit the number of new roads. Reclaim old roads that are not being used. Discourage 

road construction and other developments where it would reduce sagebrush habitat patch 

size. 

7. Retain sagebrush habitat (no type conversions).

8. Re-establish sagebrush and native bunch grasses in habitat now dominated by non-native 

weeds.

9. Provide a mosaic of open (5 percent) to moderate (25 percent) shrub canopy cover on the 

landscape.

Monitoring Considerations

Sparrows can be monitored in conjunction with avian point count surveys, as they are easily 

detected. About 5 years of data collection would be needed to establish baseline trends. Habitat 

inventory and monitoring should also be considered in conjunction with population monitoring.

Effects Analysis: Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the Brewer’s 

sparrow primarily involve fuels treatment activities and livestock grazing. Differences in 

projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in Table BE- 13.

Table BE- 13. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence Brewer’s sparrow and 

sage sparrow, by alternative

Alt A Alts. B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Vegetation treatment 

acres prescribed fire

(Total)

23,559 23,302 23,299 23,342 22,823 21,910

Grass 909 914 911 912 935 970

Sagebrush 2,729 2,700 2,716 2,711 2,599 2,423

Wildfire acres 185,152 182,900 184,132 183,703 174,983 161,363

Livestock grazing 

Permitted AUMs 

(cattle only) 55,425 55,425 30,853 55,425 66,509 68,929

Suitable acres (total) 292,285 292,285 170,136 292,285 292,285 323,083

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in Table BE- 13, alternative A provides for a similar amount of fuels treatment in 

mixed-shrubland as alternatives B-G. These treatments primarily involve prescribed fire to reduce 

fuels hazards associated with mature, medium-density shrublands, including sagebrush. Because 

sagebrush is not a target species for fuels reduction on the planning area, potential impacts to 

Brewer’s and sage sparrows from fuels reduction activities on the Shoshone are expected to be 

minor, but cannot be completely discounted.

As displayed in Table BE- 13, the permitted amount and area for cattle grazing does not differ 

among alternatives A, B, D, and G. These activities are therefore predicted to have potential 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

64

negative influences on individual breeding pairs of Brewer’s and sage sparrows where activities 

and habitat overlap. On National Forest System land, however, these activities are expected to be 

minor because of the small amount of acreage involved and the conservation measures developed

to minimize potential impacts. These conservation measures are similar across alternatives. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative)

All alternatives provide for a similar amount of fuels treatment in mixed-shrubland, with a slight 

decrease in alternative E and greater decrease in alternative F. Because sagebrush is not a target 

species for fuels reduction of National Forest System land, potential influences on Brewer’s and 

sage sparrows and other sage-associated species are expected to be similar to alternative A. 

As displayed in Table BE- 13, alternatives B, D, and G provide for the same amount of livestock 

grazing as alternative A. There is a slight reduction in AUMs and area in alternative C, and a 

slight increase in AUMs in alternative D. The decrease in grazing area and stocking rates in 

alternative C may provide some secondary benefits to species such as the Brewer’s and sage 

sparrow, while the increase in alternative D may be associated with a higher degree of habitat 

impacts to the species. Alternatives E and F maintain the highest permitted forage allocation to 

livestock and are therefore assumed to have a potential for negative impacts to Brewer’s and sage 

sparrow habitat if the activities overlap. Overall, however, potential impacts are expected to be 

similar and based on site-specific areas where conservation measures are available to alleviate 

identified problems. The conservation measures are similar across all alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

There is little to no management activity that occurs in sagebrush on the Shoshone, except for 

grazing. Although sagebrush has a limited distribution across the forest, livestock grazing effects 

have occurred where grazing activities occur within active allotments. Fuels management may 

occur in areas, which include small stands of sagebrush but are otherwise dominated by other 

vegetation types. Management actions are conducted in sagebrush grasslands on the adjacent 

BLM lands where the objectives include opening up decadent stands to improve the grass/forb 

understory, to increase the age class diversity, to improve forage conditions, and to improve 

habitat. Overall, little influence or cumulative effects on sagebrush-associated species is expected 

on the Shoshone as a whole because of limited activities in this habitat type. 

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (Brewer’s sparrows and sage sparrows), but would not likely result in a loss of 

viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species 

viability rangewide.” The rationale for this determination follows:

• The primary threats to Brewer’s and sage sparrow populations associated with the 

Shoshone involve habitat conversions and activities on private lands. 

• Some Revised Forest Plan activities could overlap occupied Brewer’s and sage sparrow 

habitat and have negative influences on the species. 

• The Revised Forest Plan has incorporated guidance provided to maintain and improve 

sagebrush habitat conditions. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

65

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

The ferruginous hawk has a natural heritage ranking of G4/S4B/S5N. There are two state 

rankings for breeding and non-breeding (winter) birds. Historical populations, distribution, or 

abundance are unknown on the Shoshone. 

Ferruginous hawks are found in arid and open landscapes in western North America from 

southern Canada, through the western Great Plains, and Great Basin, south to Arizona and New 

Mexico (Bechard and Schmutz 1995). Ferruginous hawks are considered a common resident in 

Wyoming (WGFD 2010). Ferruginous hawks are rare on the Shoshone as habitat is very limited. 

No known nests occur on the Forest. They probably only occasionally forage on the Shoshone. 

The Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory completed bird surveys from 2002 to 2009 on the 

Shoshone. They detected one hawk in 2007 and one in 2009 (Hanni et al. 2009, Rehm-Lorber et 

al. 2010). Due to their low occurrence on the Shoshone, no trend data are available. In Wyoming, 

overall populations are thought to be stable or increasing. Local declines are assumed to have 

occurred near major disturbances such as urban development, large active surface mines, and 

intensively developed petroleum fields (Travsky and Beauvais 2005). 

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Ferruginous hawks nest in open flat to rolling terrain dominated by grass and shrubs. They 

require large tracts of relatively undisturbed rangeland. Nests are located on rock outcrops, on the 

ground, cutbanks, cliff ledges, or trees (WGFD 2010). This type of habitat is rare on the 

Shoshone and is most likely to occur in grassland areas along the forest boundary. Based on 

currently known distribution and distribution modeling (Keinath et al. 2010), ferruginous hawks 

have a low probability of occurring on most of the Shoshone. 

Risk Factors

The primary risk factors from forest management are livestock grazing and fire suppression. 

Other risk factors include cover type conversion to cropland, urban development, and extensive 

petroleum field development. These risks are impacting habitat adjacent to the Shoshone.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Retention of large blocks of grassland habitat at a watershed scale would provide for ensured 

habitat for populations of this species. Although to what level is unknown, it is assumed that 

within a range of what likely historically occurred is reasonable.

The use of prescribed fire and wildfire are important to reduce the impacts from shrub and tree 

encroachment into grasslands and to create a mosaic of habitats.

Conservation Measures

In order to maintain and improve potential habitat for ferruginous hawks on the Shoshone, the 

following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into Forest Plan goals, 

objectives, standards and guidelines. Inclusion of these measures would continue to provide 

adequate habitat for this species and other grassland associated species, resulting in a low 

viability risk to these species. These conservation measures would apply to the low-elevation arid 

grasslands on the Shoshone.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

66

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Allow for wildland fire use, where appropriate, to create a mosaic of habitats and reduce 

encroachment from shrubs and trees into grasslands.

2. Utilize prescribed fire to create a mosaic of habitats and to reduce tree and shrub 

encroachment.

3. Maintain native grasses and forbs through proper grazing limitations. Use rotational grazing 

systems to provide rest. 

4. Consider resting burned areas from grazing to provide adequate regeneration of native 

vegetation. 

5. Prioritize and aggressively treat invasive weeds to prevent additional loss of grassland 

habitats.

6. Retain grassland habitat (no type conversions).

7. Re-establish native bunch grasses in habitat now dominated by non-native weeds.

Monitoring Considerations

Since ferruginous hawks are not currently known to nest on the Shoshone, inventorying potential 

nesting habitat that occurs on the Forest would be important. This could help to determine if the 

ferruginous hawk should be retained as a sensitive species on the Shoshone. 

Effects Analysis:. Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the ferruginous 

hawk primarily involve motorized and non-motorized recreation, and possibly livestock grazing. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

The ferruginous hawk is a migratory species with individuals that occur sporadically during the 

winter period. No breeding or nesting pairs are known to occur. Potential affects to this species 

are therefore most likely limited to possible disturbances from motorized vehicles or recreational 

activities. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

Potential effects from the action alternatives are expected to be similar to no action. Potential 

effects to this species are expected to be limited to possible disturbances from motorized vehicles 

or recreational activities on migratory non-breeding individuals. 

Cumulative Effects

The ferruginous hawk has suffered habitat loss and negative effects throughout much of its range 

in the western United States. However, all of the alternatives associated with the Revised Forest 

Plan are expected to have no cumulative effects on this species because the Shoshone does not 

measurably contribute to the conservation of the species. All individuals are migratory with no 

important breeding habitats known. 

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, are expected to have No Impact on 

the ferruginous hawk or its primary habitat. The rationale for this determination follows: 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

67

• The ferruginous hawk is a migratory species that is not known to breed locally. 

• Although localized disturbances may occur to migratory individuals, there is no 

measurable effect on the reproductive output or overall conservation status of the species

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

Grasshopper sparrows are considered a G4/S4 species by the State Natural Heritage ranking for 

Wyoming. Historical populations, distribution or abundance are unknown for this species on the 

Shoshone.

Grasshopper sparrows breed across extreme southern Canada and much of the eastern two-thirds

of the United States, with scattered populations in Idaho, Utah, California, and Washington 

(Vickery 1996). They winter in the southern United States and Mexico. In Wyoming, they breed 

mostly in the short grass prairies (Slater 2004). The Shoshone contains very little, if any, short

grass prairie habitat. The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) modeled very low 

probability of grasshopper sparrows occurring on the Shoshone (Keinath et al. 2010).

During surveys on the Shoshone from 2002 to 2008, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 

detected three birds in 2006 (Hanni et al. 2009). Trend data are not available for grasshopper 

sparrows on the Shoshone or in Wyoming. This is due to the low occurrence of grasshopper 

sparrows on survey routes. 

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

In Wyoming, grasshopper sparrows are found in mixed and northern shortgrass prairies and open 

sagebrush grasslands (Slater 2004). They appear to be area-sensitive, thus preferring large 

unfragmented patches of habitat (Vickery 1996). 

There are about 459,000 acres classified as grassland on the Shoshone (USFS 2012b). 

Grasshopper sparrows are most likely to occur in the lowest elevation arid type grasslands. These 

grasslands are dominated by bunchgrasses and occur in the South Fork of the Shoshone River 

drainage and in Sunlight Basin (USFS 2009). 

The grassland cover type may be declining relative to sagebrush habitat. This may be due to fire 

suppression. However, the sagebrush cover type may not be above its historic range of variability 

(USFS 2012a). Also, in some areas prescribed fire may be reducing the advancement of 

sagebrush and trees into grassland habitat.

Overgrazing in grasslands is a major threat to grasshopper sparrow habitats. Most grazing causes 

the vegetation to become too short and open for grasshopper sparrows to utilize (Slater 2004). 

However, both rotational grazing systems and the later turn-out date of most livestock operations 

likely provide adequate areas of little influence from this effect. Livestock and other ground 

disturbing activities may also increase the risk for the introduction of invasive plants.

Data on the effects of livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitat, on migratory birds including the 

grasshopper sparrow is limited, Bock et al. (1993) found that of 23 bird species studied, only 3 

were positively affected, while 13 species were negatively affected. The grasshopper sparrow was 

one of the species negatively affected. These effects were the result of increased shrub cover, 

decreased cover of native perennial grasses, and increased cover of exotic annuals.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

68

Risk Factors

The primary risk factors from forest management are livestock grazing, fire suppression and nonnative weeds. Other risk factors include cover type conversion to cropland and urban 

development. Both of these risk factors impact grasshopper sparrow habitat off of the Shoshone.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Retention of large blocks of grassland habitat at a watershed scale would provide for ensured 

habitat for populations of this species. Although to what level is unknown, it is assumed that 

within a range of what likely historically occurred is reasonable.

The use of prescribed fire and wildfire are important to reduce the impacts from shrub and tree 

encroachment into grasslands and to create a mosaic of habitats.

Activities that have potential to expand cheatgrass or other non-native weeds should be closely 

monitored to ensure further loss of habitat does not occur. Climate change has the potential to 

increase the spread of invasive weeds into grasslands and alter fire regimes.

Conservation Measures

In order to maintain and improve potential habitat for grasshopper sparrows on the Shoshone, the 

following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into Forest Plan goals, 

objectives, standards and guidelines. Inclusion of these measures would continue to provide 

adequate habitat for this species and other grassland associated species resulting in a low viability 

risk to these species. These conservation measures would apply to the low-elevation arid 

grasslands on the Forest.

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Allow for wildland fire use, where appropriate, to create a mosaic of habitats and reduce 

encroachment from shrubs and trees into grasslands.

2. Utilize prescribed fire to create a mosaic of habitats and to reduce tree and shrub 

encroachment.

3. To reduce the risk of further spread, prescribed burns should not occur in areas with cheat 

grass and other non-native weeds.

4. Maintain native grasses and forbs through proper grazing limitations. Use rotational grazing 

systems to provide rest and areas with reduced potential for cowbird parasitism. Provide for 

retention of about 50 percent of current year’s growth of herbaceous vegetation for nesting 

cover in the following season. 

5. Consider resting burned areas from grazing to provide adequate regeneration of native 

vegetation. 

6. Prioritize and aggressively treat invasive weeds to prevent additional loss of grassland 

habitats.

7. Retain grassland habitat (no type conversions).

8. Re-establish native bunch grasses in habitat now dominated by non-native weeds.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

69

Monitoring Considerations

Of most importance for this species would be to attain distribution information for the Shoshone. 

This could be completed utilizing point count surveys within suitable habitat. Currently, suitable 

habitat is estimated to only occur in the arid grasslands in the South Fork Shoshone River 

drainage and Sunlight Basin.

Effects Analysis: Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the grasshopper 

sparrow primarily involve fire suppression and livestock grazing. Differences in projected outputs 

by alternative for these activities are displayed in Table BE- 14.

Table BE- 14. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence grasshopper sparrow, 

by alternative

Alt A Alts B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Vegetation treatment 

acres prescribed 

fire(total)

23,559 23,302 23,299 23,342 22,823 21,910

Grass 909 914 911 912 935 970

Sagebrush 2,729 2,700 2,716 2,711 2,599 2,423

Wildfire acres 185,152 182,900 184,132 183,703 174,983 161,363

Livestock grazing 

Permitted AUMs 

(cattle only) 55,492 55,492 30,992 55,492 57,890 61,092

Suitable acres (total) 359,620 359,620 201,020 359,620 359,620 399,600

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in Table BE- 14, alternative A provides for a similar amount of fuels treatment in 

mixed-shrubland as alternatives B-G. These treatments primarily involve prescribed fire to reduce 

fuels hazards associated with mature, medium-density shrublands, including sagebrush. Because 

sagebrush is not a target species for fuels reduction on the planning area, potential impacts to 

grasshopper sparrows from fuels reduction activities on the Shoshone are expected to be minor,

but cannot be completely discounted.

Wildland fire use is not a planned output in any of the alternatives. However, it will be utilized as 

a tool to allow natural disturbances to occur as opportunities arise. It is estimated that all 

alternatives may allow from 161,363 to 185,152 acres of wildland fire use. Because sagebrush is 

not a target species for wildland fire use on the planning area, potential impacts to grasshopper 

sparrows from this activity on the Shoshone is expected to be minor, but cannot be completely 

discounted. 

Cattle grazing on the Shoshone is likely to overlap potential habitat for the grasshopper sparrow. 

As displayed in Table BE- 14, the permitted amount and area for cattle grazing does not differ 

among alternatives A, B, D, and G. These activities are therefore predicted to have potential 

negative influences on individual breeding pairs of grasshopper sparrows where activities and 

habitat overlap. On National Forest System land, however, these activities are expected to be 

minor because of the small amount of acreage involved and the conservation measures developed 

to minimize potential impacts. These conservation measures are similar across alternatives. 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

70

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

As displayed in Table BE- 14, alternatives B through G provide for a similar amount of fuels 

treatment in mixed-shrubland, with a slight decrease in alternative E and greater decrease in 

alternative F. Because sagebrush is not a target species for fuels reduction of National Forest 

System land, potential influences on grasshopper sparrow and other sage-associated species are 

expected to be similar to alternative A.

As displayed in Table BE- 14, alternatives B, D, and G provide for the same amount of livestock 

grazing as alternative A. There is a slight reduction in AUMs and area in alternative C, and a 

slight increase in AUMs in alternative D. The decrease in grazing area and stocking rates in 

alternative C may provide some secondary benefits to species such as the grasshopper sparrow, 

while the increase in alternative D may be associated with a higher degree of habitat impacts to 

the species. Alternatives E and F maintain the highest permitted forage allocation to livestock and 

are therefore assumed to have a potential for negative impacts to grasshopper sparrow habitat if 

the activities overlap. Overall, however, potential impacts are expected to be similar and based on 

site-specific areas where conservation measures are available to alleviate identified problems. The 

conservation measures are similar across all alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects

There is little to no management activity that occurs in sagebrush on the Shoshone, except for 

grazing. Although sagebrush has a limited distribution across the forest, livestock grazing effects 

have occurred where grazing activities occur within active allotments. Fuels management may 

occur in areas, which include small stands of sagebrush, but otherwise are dominated by other 

vegetation types. Management actions are conducted in sagebrush grasslands on the adjacent 

BLM lands where the objectives include opening up decadent stands to improve the grass/forb 

understory, to increase the age class diversity, to improve forage conditions, and habitat 

improvement. Overall, little influence or cumulative effects on sagebrush-associated species are 

expected on the Shoshone as a whole because of limited activities in this habitat type.

Determination 

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (grasshopper sparrows), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” 

The rationale for this determination follows:

• The primary threats to grasshopper sparrow populations associated with the Shoshone

involve habitat conversions and activities on private lands. 

• Some Revised Forest Plan activities could overlap occupied grasshopper sparrow habitat 

and have negative influences on the species. 

• The Revised Forest Plan has incorporated guidance provided to maintain and improve 

sagebrush habitat conditions.

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

Sage-grouse are categorized as G4/S4 species through the natural heritage program ranking. They 

are a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act and are a Forest Service 

Region 2 sensitive species. Historical populations, distribution, or abundance are unknown for 

sage-grouse on the Shoshone. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

71

Sage-grouse are well distributed within the Great Basin and the Northern Rocky Mountain 

regions. Their range has contracted considerably in some areas from historic levels where 

sagebrush habitat has been lost. In Wyoming, sage-grouse are common because sagebrush habitat 

is still relatively intact when compared to other states (WGFD 2003). No core habitat for sagegrouse occurs on the Shoshone (Figure BE- 9), but the Forest likely contains some late-summer 

brood-rearing habitat. Sage-grouse are known to occasionally occur on the Shoshone and are 

probably an occasional summer resident. There are currently no known population estimates or 

trends for the species on the Shoshone. The WGFD does track the number of males at leks each 

year. Within the Bighorn Basin, the number of males at leks has fluctuated (Figure BE- 8).

Figure BE- 8. Average maximum number of males per active lek for greater sage-grouse in the Big 

Horn Basin Conservation Area, 1979 to 2006 (BBSGLWG 2007)

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Sage-grouse are a sagebrush obligate species. Suitable habitat consists of plant communities 

dominated by sagebrush and have a diverse understory of native grasses and forbs (BBSGLWG 

2007). Sage-grouse are area-sensitive and thus prefer large blocks of unfragmented habitat (Paige 

and Ritter 1999). Across the Shoshone there are about 38,784 acres of sagebrush, representing 2.0 

percent of the Forest (USFS 2012b). This acreage includes all types of sagebrush. Mountain big 

sagebrush dominates the montane shrublands throughout the Absaroka Mountains. Arid lowelevation sagebrush occurs on the eastern margins of the Forest. The most extensive of these 

stands are found in the North and South Fork Shoshone River valleys. On the Washakie Ranger 

District, mountain big sagebrush is mixed with bitterbrush and mountain snowberry. Additional 

sagebrush habitat likely occurs on the Shoshone within some stands classified as grassland.

In general, most of the sagebrush stands on the Shoshone are likely in a mature condition. This is 

largely due to fire suppression, especially at the lower elevations. Fire suppression can cause 

increases in shrub cover and tree encroachment, but on the Shoshone the change is not large 

enough to be outside of the historic range of variability at the stand or landscape level (low 

confidence) (Meyers et al. 2006). 

Roads on the Shoshone have likely fragmented some sagebrush stands. To what extent is 

currently unknown.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

72

Over grazing can also influence sagebrush ecosystems, though typically resulting in an increase 

of mature sagebrush due to the removal of understory herbaceous vegetation. Livestock may also 

increase the risk for the introduction of invasive plants.

Non-native weeds are currently limited to localized concentrations and are primarily located 

along major travel corridors (roads and trails). Similarly, cheatgrass has yet to invade large or 

broad proportions on the Shoshone. However, the threat of habitat loss remains high. Cheatgrass 

alters the fire regime and increases the probability for more frequent fires. This reduces the 

chance for sagebrush and native bunchgrasses to get re-established following a fire.

Figure BE- 9. Greater sage-grouse core areas
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

73

Risk Factors

Primary risk factors from forest management include: habitat fragmentation, prescribed fire, 

livestock grazing, and invasion by non-native weeds.

Climate change has the potential to increase the risk of cheatgrass invasion and could result in 

more frequent stand-replacement fires.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Retention of stands of mature sagebrush habitat at a watershed scale would provide for ensured 

habitat for populations of this species. Although to what level is unknown, it is assumed that 

within a range of what likely historically occurred is reasonable. This would also facilitate 

management toward ensuring sustainable and diverse conditions occur. If sagebrush was managed 

only for mature high canopy cover stands, the habitat is more at risk for losses due to wildfire, 

and do not provide the needed diversity of grasses/forbs. Mosaics created by prescribed burning 

may be most beneficial, though this could also be accomplished through other methods. 

Paige and Ritter (1999) recommend small-scale, patchy prescribed burns conducted in late spring 

or fall for habitat diversity considerations. 

As mentioned previously, activities that have potential to expand cheatgrass or other non-native 

weeds should be closely monitored to ensure further loss of habitat does not occur. Climate 

change may increase the spread of invasive weeds into sagebrush and alter fire regimes.

Roads can have negative effects on this species. Roads can reduce patch size, increase 

disturbance, and increase the risk for introduction of non-native weeds. Additional road 

construction in large stands of sagebrush should be minimized.

Conservation Measures

A Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances is being prepared for the greater sagegrouse in Wyoming. When it is finalized, the applicable conservation measures in the agreement 

will be incorporated into the Shoshone’s revised forest plan. Until that time and for continued and 

improved management for sage-grouse and their habitat, the following conservation measures 

were developed for incorporation into Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. 

Birds in a Sagebrush Sea (Paige and Ritter 1999), Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri): A 

Technical Conservation Assessment (Holmes et al. 2005b), Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli): A 

Technical Conservation Assessment (Holmes et al. 2005a), and the Wyoming Greater SageGrouse Conservation Plan (WYGFD 2003) were reviewed to determine habitat needs. Since the 

Shoshone is not known to contain any leks and is outside of the core areas for sage-grouse, 

viability risk from forest management is likely low.

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Prevent or reduce the risk for large stand-replacement fires in sagebrush habitat. Conduct 

prescribed burns that are small and patchy and maintain habitat diversity. Retain areas of 

large expanses of sagebrush habitat (minimize edge created). 

2. To reduce the risk of further spread, prescribed burns should not occur in areas with 

cheatgrass and other invasive plants.

3. Maintain native grasses and forbs through proper livestock grazing practices. Use rotational 

grazing systems to provide rest.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

74

4. Consider resting burned areas from grazing to provide adequate regeneration of native 

vegetation. 

5. Provide escape ramps at livestock watering facilities.

6. Maintain water abundance and associated vegetation at springs and seeps.

7. Prioritize and aggressively treat invasive weeds to prevent additional loss of sagebrush 

habitats.

8. Limit the number of new roads. Reclaim old roads that are not being used. Discourage road 

construction and other developments where it would reduce sagebrush habitat patch size. 

9. Retain sagebrush habitat (no type conversions).

10. Re-establish sagebrush and native bunch grasses in habitat now dominated by non-native 

weeds.

11. Provide a mosaic of open (5 percent) to moderate (25 percent) shrub canopy cover on the 

landscape.

12. Work collaboratively with the WGFD to ensure uniform and consistent application of Sage 

Grouse Executive Order #2011-5 or most current order to maintain and enhance greater sagegrouse habitat and populations. 

Monitoring Considerations

Sage-grouse populations are difficult to monitor outside of known lek sites. The Shoshone will 

continue to rely on WGFD lek observation data. On the Forest, habitat inventory and monitoring 

would be the best approach for this species. This could include monitoring prescribed fire 

treatments within sagebrush habitat.

Effects Analysis: Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the greater sagegrouse primarily involve fuels treatment activities, and livestock grazing. Differences in projected 

outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in Table BE- 15.

Table BE- 15. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence greater sage-grouse, 

by alternative

Alt A Alts B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Vegetation treatment acres 

prescribed fire(total) 23,559 23,302 23,299 23,342 22,823 21,910

Grass 909 914 911 912 935 970

Sagebrush 2,729 2,700 2,716 2,711 2,599 2,423

Livestock grazing 

Permitted AUMs (cattle only) 55,492 55,492 30,992 55,492 57,890 61,092

Suitable acres (total) 359,620 359,620 201,020 359,620 359,620 399,600

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in Table BE- 15, alternative A provides for a similar amount of fuels treatment in 

mixed-shrubland as alternatives B through G. These treatments primarily involve prescribed fire 

to reduce fuels hazards associated with mature, medium-density shrublands, including sagebrush. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

75

Because sagebrush is not a target species for fuels reduction on the planning area, potential 

impacts to occupied Greater sage-grouse habitat from fuels reduction activities on the Shoshone

are expected to be minor, but cannot be completely discounted.

Livestock grazing can have negative influences on greater sage-grouse if they overlap occupied 

habitat. Impacts to riparian areas and understory forage plants are of particular concern because 

of their importance to breeding hens and new broods. As displayed in Table BE- 15, the permitted 

amount and area for cattle grazing does not differ among alternatives A, B, D, and G. These 

activities are therefore predicted to have potential negative influences on the greater sage-grouse 

where activities and habitat overlap. On National Forest System land, however, these activities 

are expected to be minor because of the small amount of acreage involved and the conservation 

measures developed to minimize potential impacts. These conservation measures are similar 

across alternatives.

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

As displayed in Table BE- 15 alternatives B through G provide for a similar amount of fuels 

treatment in mixed-shrubland, with a slight decrease in alternative E and greater decrease in 

alternative F. Because sagebrush is not a target species for fuels reduction of National Forest 

System land, potential influences on greater sage-grouse and other sage-associated species are 

expected to be similar to alternative A.

As displayed in Table BE- 15, alternatives B, D, and G provide for the same amount of livestock 

grazing as alternative A. There is a slight reduction in AUMs and area in alternative C, and a 

slight increase in AUMs in alternative D. The decrease in grazing area and stocking rates in 

alternative C may provide some secondary benefits to species such as the sage-grouse, while the 

increase in alternative D may be associated with a higher degree of habitat impacts to the species. 

Alternatives E and F maintain the highest permitted forage allocation to livestock and are,

therefore, assumed to have a potential for negative impacts to occupied sage-grouse habitat if the 

activities overlap. Overall, however, potential impacts are expected to be similar and based on 

site-specific areas where conservation measures are available to alleviate identified problems. The 

conservation measures are similar across all alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects

There is little to no management activity that occurs in sagebrush on the Shoshone, except for 

grazing. Although sagebrush has a limited distribution across the forest, livestock grazing effects 

have occurred where grazing activities occur within active allotments. Fuels management may 

occur in areas, which include small stands of sagebrush but otherwise are dominated by other 

vegetation types. Management actions are conducted in sagebrush grasslands on the adjacent 

BLM lands where the objectives include opening up decadent stands to improve the grass/forb 

understory, to increase the age class diversity, to improve forage conditions, and habitat 

improvement. Overall, little influence or cumulative effects on sagebrush-associated species is 

expected on the Shoshone as a whole because of limited activities in this habitat type.

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (Greater sage-grouse), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” 

The rationale for this determination is as follows: 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

76

• No core habitat for greater sage grouse occurs on the Shoshone but the Forest likely 

contains some late-summer brood rearing habitat.

• The primary threats to sage-grouse populations associated with the Shoshone involve 

habitat conversions and activities on private lands. 

• Some Revised Forest Plan activities could overlap occupied sage-grouse habitat and have 

negative influences on the species. 

• The Shoshone adheres to the applicable conservation measures in the draft and or final 

Greater Sage-Grouse Umbrella Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for 

Wyoming and is taking action to maintain and improve habitat conditions.

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

Loggerhead shrikes are considered a G4/S3 species by the State Natural Heritage ranking for 

Wyoming. Historical populations, distribution or abundance are unknown for this species on the 

Shoshone. They are also ranked as level II priority species (monitoring) by Wyoming Partners in 

Flight for shrub-steppe habitat, and are a Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species.

The loggerhead shrike is a widespread species in North America. It occurs across the United 

States from central Washington and Virginia in the north, to the southern states and central plains 

(except for heavily forested higher mountains and higher portions of the desert), and across 

Canadian prairies (Yosef 1996). It occupies a distinctive position in avian communities by 

preying on reptiles, mammals, and other birds, as well as invertebrates. Recent contractions in its 

range and declines in abundance have occurred in many areas of North America and in several 

different habitat types (Wiggins 2005). It is one of the few passerines whose population has 

declined continent-wide in recent decades (Yosef 1996). In Wyoming, it is found across the state, 

breeding in basin-prairie shrublands, sagebrush grasslands, mountain-foothills shrublands, pinejuniper woodlands, and woodland-chaparral (Nicholoff 2003).

They are an uncommon resident Forest-wide and suitable breeding habitat appears to be rare on 

the Shoshone. There have been incidental observations on the Forest (WYNND 2010). However, 

none have been observed during recent surveys by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory from 

2002 to 2009 (Hanni et al. 2009, Rehm-Lorber et al. 2010). There are currently no known 

population estimates or trends for the species on the Shoshone. At the state level, Breeding Bird 

Surveys indicate a very slight declining trend (- 0.1), but the trend is not significant (p = 0.97) 

(WGFD 2010). It is thought that population declines are due to habitat loss and conversion to 

cultivation and urbanization, loss of insect prey due to pesticide use, and pesticide contamination 

(especially on wintering grounds) (Nicholoff 2003).

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

In Wyoming, loggerhead shrikes are found in shrub-steppe, shrubland, and woodland habitats.

They breed in basin-prairie shrublands, sagebrush grasslands, mountain-foothills shrublands, 

pine-juniper woodlands, and woodland-chaparral (Nicholoff 2003). 

Loggerhead shrikes need relatively open habitat with scattered trees and shrubs for nesting and 

perch sites with low vegetation and bare ground for foraging (Nicholoff 2003). Shrikes also need 

barbed wire fences or thorny trees for impaling prey. Nesting habitat appears to be the most 

critical factor in habitat selection (Wiggins 2005). On the Shoshone, there are about 459,000 acres 

classified as grassland and 38,784 acres of sagebrush (USFS 2012b). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

77

The grassland cover type may be declining relative to sagebrush habitat, which may be due to fire 

suppression. However, the sagebrush cover type may not be above its historic range of variability 

(USFS 2012a). 

Livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitats can influence loggerhead shrike habitat. It has been 

shown in short-grass prairie and shrub-steppe habitats which are incidental on the Shoshone, 

anything more than light grazing may degrade the habitat by eliminating grass and thereby 

reducing prey populations (Wiggins 2005). Livestock grazing may pose a significant threat to 

loggerhead shrike nesting habitat, as cattle often seriously damage thickets and small trees 

(Wiggins 2005). Also, conversion of shrub-steppe habitats to grasslands to benefit livestock 

grazing, decreases breeding habitat and increases fragmentation (Wiggins 2005). However, both 

rotational grazing systems and the later turn-out date of most livestock operations likely provide 

adequate areas of little influence from this effect. Fences associated with cattle allotments can 

provide needed hunting perches and barbed wire can provide needed locations for impaling prey.

Collisions with vehicles have been noted as a significant source of mortality and may be more 

severe in juvenile shrikes (Wiggins 2005). The loggerhead shrike foraging behavior along 

roadways, where perches are plentiful, and characteristically flying low, increases the chances of 

collisions with vehicles (Wiggins 2005). Most studies have focused on mortalities along 

highways. It is unknown to what extent forest roads may contribute to shrike mortality. 

Risk Factors

Primary risk factors from forest management include: degradation and loss of nesting 

trees/shrubs, degradation of foraging habitat due to overgrazing by cattle, reductions in the prey 

base due to pesticides, and habitat fragmentation/degradation due to loss of shrub-steppe and 

sagebrush habitats. Off-Forest risks include the loss of habitat due to agricultural conversion.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Retention of large blocks of grassland/sagebrush/shrub-steppe habitat at a watershed scale would 

provide habitat for populations of this species. It is assumed that the size and quantity of habitat 

blocks needed would be within a range of what historically occurred, and would be considered 

reasonable.

Prevent large-scale fires/prescribed burning in sagebrush habitat. Limit small-scale fires to nonbreeding season. The guidelines developed for vegetation management in sage grouse habitat 

(WGFD 2003) would likely be adequate for this species.

Roads can have negative effects on these species. Roads can increase habitat fragmentation, and 

increase the risk of vehicle collisions. Additional road construction in large stands of sagebrush 

should be minimized.

Conservation Measures

In order to maintain and improve potential habitat for the loggerhead shrike on the Shoshone, the 

following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into Revised Forest Plan 

goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. Inclusion of these measures would continue to 

provide adequate habitat for this species and other shrub-steppe associated species resulting in a 

low viability risk to this species. 

Conservation measures summarized include:
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

78

1. Prevent or reduce the risk for large stand-replacement fires in sagebrush habitat. Conduct 

prescribed burns that are small and patchy and maintain habitat diversity. Retain areas of 

large expanses of sagebrush and shrub-steppe habitat. 

2. To reduce the risk of further spread, prescribed burns should not occur in areas with 

cheatgrass and other non-native weeds.

3. Maintain native grasses and forbs through proper grazing limitations. Use rotational grazing 

systems to provide rest and areas with reduced potential for cowbird parasitism. Provide for 

retention of about 50 percent of current year’s growth of herbaceous vegetation for habitat in 

the following season. 

4. Consider resting burned areas from grazing to provide adequate regeneration of native 

vegetation. 

5. Prioritize and aggressively treat invasive weeds to prevent additional loss of sagebrush 

habitats.

6. Limit the number of new roads. Reclaim old roads that are not being used. Discourage road 

construction and other developments where it would reduce sagebrush habitat patch size. 

7. Retain grassland and sagebrush habitats (no type conversions).

8. Re-establish sagebrush and native bunch grasses in habitat now dominated by non-native 

weeds.

9. Provide a mosaic of open (5 percent) to moderate (25 percent) shrub canopy cover on the 

landscape.

10. Avoid or minimize insecticide use in shrubland habitats to maintain a food source for 

loggerhead shrikes (and other insectivores). Postpone all insecticide use until loggerhead 

shrikes and other insectivores have completed their breeding cycle.

Monitoring Considerations

Loggerhead shrikes can be monitored in conjunction with avian point count surveys. About 

5 years of data collection would be needed to establish baseline trends. Habitat inventory and 

monitoring should also be considered in conjunction with population monitoring.

Effects Analysis: In occupied habitat, Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially 

influence loggerhead shrikes primarily involve fuels treatment. Differences in projected outputs 

by alternative for these activities are displayed in Table BE- 16.

Table BE- 16. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence loggerhead shrike, by 

alternative

Alt A Alts B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Vegetation treatment acres 

prescribed fire(total) 23,559 23,302 23,299 23,342 22,823 21,910

Grass 909 914 911 912 935 970

Sagebrush 2,729 2,700 2,716 2,711 2,599 2,423

Livestock grazing 

Permitted AUMs (Cattle only) 55,492 55,492 30,992 55,492 57,890 61,092

Suitable acres (total) 359,620 359,620 201,020 359,620 359,620 399,600
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

79

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

No direct or indirect effects on the loggerhead shrike are expected from alternative A because the 

species is not known to nest on the National Forest System portion of the Shoshone. Suitable 

habitat for the loggerhead shrike is limited, with no breeding or local populations confirmed on 

lands within the planning area. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

No direct or indirect effects on the loggerhead shrike are expected from implementation of any of 

the action alternatives because occurrence of this species is considered incidental to rare. Suitable 

habitat for this species on National Forest System land is limited, with no breeding or local 

populations confirmed within the planning area. 

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects are expected because of lack of suitable nesting habitat. 

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, are expected to have No Impact on 

the loggerhead shrike or its primary habitat. The rationale for this determination follows: 

• The loggerhead shrike is considered incidental or extremely rare on the Shoshone, with 

no breeding populations known to occur. 

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

Northern harriers are considered a G5/S4B/S5N species by the State Natural Heritage ranking for 

Wyoming. There are two rankings for harriers in Wyoming for breeding and non-breeding birds 

(wintering in Wyoming). Historical populations, distribution or abundance are unknown for this 

species on the Forest.

Northern harriers are a holarctic species. In North America they breed in Alaska, through most of 

Canada, south to the Texas, Wisconsin, and the New England states (Macwhirter and Bildstein 

1996). They winter throughout most of the conterminous United States, Mexico, and Central 

America. They breed throughout Wyoming in short-grass prairie and shrub-steppe and are 

considered a common species in the state (Slater and Rock 2005). 

During surveys on the Shoshone from 2002 to 2008, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 

detected three birds; one in 2006, two in 2007, and one in 2008 (Hanni et al. 2009). Trend data 

are not available for harriers on the Shoshone or in Wyoming. This is due to the low occurrence 

of harriers on survey routes. 

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

In Wyoming, northern harriers are primarily found in short-grass prairie and shrub-steppe habitat. 

They appear to be area-sensitive, thus preferring large unfragmented patches of habitat 

(Macwhirter and Bildstein 1996)
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

80

There are approximately 459,000 acres classified as grassland and 38,784 acres of sagebrush on 

the Shoshone (USFS 2012b). Harriers are most likely to occur in the lower-elevation shrub-steppe 

and grasslands. 

The grassland cover type may be declining relative to sagebrush habitat. This may be due to fire 

suppression. However, the sagebrush cover type may not be above its historic range of variability 

(USFS 2012a). Also, in some areas prescribed fire may be reducing the advancement of 

sagebrush and trees into grassland habitat.

Overgrazing in mixed and short-grass prairies is a major threat to harrier habitat. Most grazing 

causes the vegetation to become too short and open for harriers to utilize. However, both 

rotational grazing systems and the later turn-out date of most livestock operations likely provide 

adequate areas of little influence from this effect. 

Risk Factors

The primary risk factors from forest management are livestock grazing and fire suppression. 

Other risk factors include cover type conversion to cropland and urban development. Both of 

these risk factors impact northern harrier habitat off of the Forest.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Retention of large blocks of grassland/sagebrush habitat at a watershed scale would provide for 

ensured habitat for populations of this species. Although to what level is unknown, it is assumed 

that within a range of what likely historically occurred is reasonable.

The use of prescribed fire and wildfire are important to reduce the impacts from shrub and tree 

encroachment into grasslands and to create a mosaic of habitats.

Conservation Measures

In order to maintain and improve potential habitat for northern harriers on the Shoshone, the 

following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into Revised Forest Plan 

goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Inclusion of these measures would continue to 

provide adequate habitat for this species and other grassland associated species resulting in a low 

viability risk to this species. 

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Allow for wildland fire use, where appropriate, to create a mosaic of habitats and reduce 

encroachment from shrubs and trees into grasslands.

2. Utilize prescribed fire to create a mosaic of habitats and to reduce tree and shrub 

encroachment.

3. To reduce the risk of further spread, prescribed burns should not occur in areas with cheat 

grass and other non-native weeds.

4. Maintain native grasses and forbs through proper grazing limitations. Utilize rotational 

grazing systems. 

5. Consider resting burned areas from grazing to provide adequate regeneration of native 

vegetation. 

6. Prioritize and aggressively treat invasive weeds to prevent additional loss of grassland 

habitats.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

81

7. Retain grassland and sagebrush habitats (no type conversions).

8. Re-establish native bunch grasses in habitat now dominated by non-native weeds.

Monitoring Considerations

Of most importance for this species would be to attain distribution information for the Forest. 

This could be done utilizing roadside raptor surveys within suitable habitat. Two potential key 

areas to survey would be the arid grasslands in the South Fork Shoshone River drainage and 

Sunlight Basin.

Effects Analysis: Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the northern 

harrier primarily involve livestock grazing, and fire suppression. Differences in projected outputs 

by alternative for these activities are displayed in Table BE- 17.

Table BE- 17. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence northern harrier, by 

alternative

Alt A Alts B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Vegetation treatment acres 

prescribed fire (total) 23,559 23,302 23,299 23,342 22,823 21,910

Grass 909 914 911 912 935 970

Sagebrush 2,729 2,700 2,716 2,711 2,599 2,423

Wildfire acres 185,152 182,900 184,132 183,703 174,983 161,363

Livestock grazing 

Permitted AUMs (cattle only) 55,492 55,492 30,992 55,492 57,890 61,092

Suitable acres (total) 359,620 359,620 201,020 359,620 359,620 399,600

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in Table BE- 17, alternative A provides for a similar amount of fuels treatment in 

mixed-shrubland as alternatives B through G. These treatments primarily involve prescribed fire 

to reduce fuels hazards associated with mature, medium-density shrublands, including sagebrush. 

Because sagebrush is not a target species for fuels reduction on the planning area, potential 

impacts to northern harrier from fuels reduction activities on the Shoshone are expected to be

minor, but cannot be completely discounted.

Wildland fire use is not a planned output in any of the alternatives. However, it will be utilized as 

a tool to allow natural disturbances to occur as opportunities arise. It is estimated that all 

alternatives may allow from 161,363 to 185,152 acres of wildland fire use. Because sagebrush is 

not a target species for wildland fire use on the planning area, potential impacts to northern 

harrier from this activity on the Shoshone are expected to be minor, but cannot be completely 

discounted. 

Cattle grazing on the Shoshone is likely to overlap potential habitat for the northern harrier. As 

displayed in Table BE- 17, the permitted amount and area for cattle grazing does not differ among 

alternatives A, B, D, and G. These activities are therefore predicted to have potential negative 

influences on individual breeding pairs of northern harriers where activities and habitat overlap. 

On National Forest Systems land, however, these activities are expected to be minor because of 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

82

the small amount of acreage involved and the conservation measures developed to minimize 

potential impacts. These conservation measures are similar across alternatives.

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

As displayed in Table BE- 17 alternatives B through E, and G provide for a similar amount of 

fuels treatment in mixed-shrubland, with a slight decrease in alternative E and greater decrease in 

alternative F. Because sagebrush is not a target species for fuels reduction of National Forest 

System land, potential influences on northern harrier and other sage-associated species are 

expected to be similar to alternative A.

As displayed in Table BE- 17, alternatives B, D, and G provide for the same amount of livestock 

grazing as alternative A. There is a slight reduction in AUMs and area in alternative C, and a 

slight increase in AUMs in alternative D. The decrease in grazing area and stocking rates in 

alternative C may provide some secondary benefits to species such as the northern harrier, while 

the increase in alternative D may be associated with a higher degree of habitat impacts to the 

species. Alternatives E and F maintain the highest permitted forage allocation to livestock and 

are, therefore, assumed to have a potential for negative impacts to northern harrier habitat if the 

activities overlap. Overall, however, potential impacts are expected to be similar and based on 

site-specific areas where conservation measures are available to alleviate identified problems. The 

conservation measures are similar across all alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects

Little to no management activity occurs in sagebrush on the Shoshone, except for grazing. 

Although sagebrush has a limited distribution across the Forest, livestock grazing effects have

occurred where grazing activities occur within active allotments. Fuels management may occur in 

areas, which include small stands of sagebrush but otherwise are dominated by other vegetation 

types. Management actions are conducted in sagebrush grasslands on the adjacent BLM lands 

where the objectives include opening up decadent stands to improve the grass/forb understory, to 

increase the age class diversity, to improve forage conditions, and to improve habitat. Overall, 

little influence or cumulative effects on sagebrush-associated species is expected on the 

Shoshone, as a whole, because of limited activities in this habitat type.

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (northern harriers), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” 

The rationale for this determination follows:

• The primary threats to northern harrier populations associated with the Shoshone involve 

habitat conversions and activities on private lands. 

• Some Revised Forest Plan activities could overlap occupied northern harrier habitat and 

have negative influences on the species. 

• The Revised Forest Plan has incorporated guidance provided to maintain and improve 

sagebrush habitat conditions. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

83

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

Short-eared owls are considered a G4/S3 species by the State Natural Heritage ranking for 

Wyoming. Historical populations, distribution, and abundance are unknown for this species on 

the Shoshone. They are ranked as level I priority species (conservation action) by Wyoming 

Partners in Flight for short-grass prairies and meadow habitats, a USFWS Bird of Conservation 

Concern, and a Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species.

The short-eared owl occurs on all continents except Australia and Antarctica. In North America, 

the species ranges from northern Alaska to northern Labrador, south to California, Utah, 

Colorado, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, and Virginia (NatureServe 2011). In Wyoming, they are 

considered uncommon, but may breed almost anywhere statewide in low-elevation grasslands and 

marshy areas. Short-eared owl numbers can vary strongly from year-to-year with local breeding 

numbers increasing dramatically during periods of high rodent abundance (Wiggins 2004). They 

primarily eat rodents, but also take other small mammals, birds, and insects (Wiggins 2006). 

Short-eared owls forage primarily by flying low, typically into wind, and dropping down onto 

prey, sometimes after a brief hover (Wiggins 2004). The population status of this species is 

difficult to assess because they are nomadic and prone to annual fluctuations in numbers (Wiggins 

2004).

The short-eared owl is an uncommon resident Forest-wide, and suitable breeding habitat appears 

to be rare on the Shoshone. No short-eared owls have been observed on the Forest, but a few have 

been observed in lower elevations just outside the Forest boundary (WYNND 2010). Also, none 

were observed on the Shoshone during recent surveys by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 

from 2002 to 2009 (Hanni et al. 2009, Rehm-Lorber et al. 2010). Trend data are not available for 

short-eared owls on the Shoshone or in Wyoming. This is due to the low occurrence of shorteared owls on survey routes.

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Short-eared owls can be found scattered across Wyoming in open grassland, shrub-steppe, and 

marsh habitats, with an abundance of rodents (Nicholoff 2003). Short-eared owls require 

relatively large tracts of these habitat types for nesting and foraging. They appear to be 

particularly sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation (Wiggins 2006). As ground nesters, they 

are susceptible to the increased predation pressure associated with fragmented habitats and near 

rural developments (Wiggins 2006). This is because habitat fragments contain a greater 

proportion of edge habitats that are favored by predators (Wiggins 2004).

There are about 459,000 acres classified as grassland, 13,981 acres of willow, and 38,784 acres of 

sagebrush on the Shoshone (USFS 2012b). Short-eared owls are most likely to occur in the lower 

elevation shrub-steppe, open riparian areas, and grasslands.

Overgrazing in mixed and short-grass prairies is a major threat to short-eared owl habitat. Most 

grazing causes the vegetation to become too short and open for owls to utilize for both nesting 

and foraging. Also, intensive grazing around wetlands can be detrimental to breeding sites 

(Nicholoff 2003). However, rotational grazing systems, the later turn-out date, and watershed 

protection of most livestock operations likely provide adequate areas of little influence from this 

effect.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

84

Risk Factors

Habitat fragmentation is the primary risk factor to short-eared owls. Any forest management 

activities, such as livestock grazing or road development, which cause fragmentation, may affect 

short-eared owls. Other risk factors include fire suppression, cover type conversion to cropland,

and urban development. All of these risk factors impact short-eared owl habitat on and off of the 

Forest.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Retention of large blocks of grassland/wet meadow/sagebrush habitat at a watershed scale would 

provide habitat for populations of this species. It is assumed that the size and quantity of habitat 

blocks needed would be within a range of what historically occurred, and would be considered 

reasonable.

Livestock grazing can fragment short-eared owl habitat. Improving existing grassland/wetland 

quality by adjusting livestock grazing to achieve a balanced mix of short/medium/tall grass 

heights would help improve habitat if breeding is found on the Shoshone. 

The use of prescribed fire and wildfire are important to reduce the impacts from shrub and tree 

encroachment into grasslands and to create a mosaic of habitats.

Roads can have negative effects on short-eared owls. Roads can increase habitat fragmentation. 

Additional road construction in large grasslands and large stands of sagebrush should be 

minimized.

Conservation Measures

In order to maintain and improve potential habitat for the short-eared owl on the Shoshone, the 

following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into Revised Forest Plan 

goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. Inclusion of these measures would continue to 

provide adequate habitat for this species and other short-grass prairie and grassland associated 

species resulting in a low viability risk to this species. 

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Allow for wildland fire use, where appropriate, to create a mosaic of habitats and reduce 

encroachment from shrubs and trees into grasslands.

2. Utilize prescribed fire to create a mosaic of habitats and to reduce tree and shrub 

encroachment.

3. To reduce the risk of further spread, prescribed burns should not occur in areas with 

cheatgrass and other non-native weeds.

4. Maintain wetlands and native grasses and forbs through proper grazing limitations. Utilize 

rotational grazing systems.

5. Rest burned areas from grazing to provide adequate regeneration of native vegetation. 

6. Prioritize and aggressively treat invasive weeds to prevent additional loss of 

grassland/wetland habitats.

7. Limit the number of new roads. Reclaim old roads that are not being used. Discourage road 

construction and other developments where it would reduce habitat patch size. 

8. Retain grassland, wetland, and sagebrush habitats (no type conversions).
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

85

Monitoring Considerations

The highest priority for this species would be to obtain distribution information on the Shoshone. 

This could be done utilizing roadside raptor surveys within suitable habitats. 

Effects Analysis: Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the short-eared 

owl primarily involve livestock grazing and fire suppression. Differences in projected outputs by 

alternative for these activities are displayed in Table BE- 18.

Table BE- 18. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence short-eared owl, by 

alternative

Alt A Alts B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Vegetation treatment acres 

prescribed fire (total) 23,559 23,302 23,299 23,342 22,823 21,910

Grass 909 914 911 912 935 970

Sagebrush 2,729 2,700 2,716 2,711 2,599 2,423

Willow 108 108 108 108 105 101

Wildfire acres 185,152 182,900 184,132 183,703 174,983 161,363

Livestock grazing 

Permitted AUMs (cattle only) 55,492 55,492 30,992 55,492 57,890 61,092

Suitable acres (total) 359,620 359,620 201,020 359,620 359,620 399,600

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

No direct or indirect effects on the short-eared owl are expected from alternative A because the 

species is not known to nest on the National Forest System portion of the Shoshone. Suitable 

habitat for the short-eared owl is limited, with no breeding or local populations confirmed within 

the planning area. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

No direct or indirect effects on the short-eared owl are expected from implementation of any of 

the action alternatives because occurrence of this species is considered incidental to rare. Suitable 

habitat for this species on National Forest System land is limited, with no breeding or local 

populations confirmed within the planning area. 

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects are expected because of lack of suitable nesting habitat. 

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, are expected to have No Impact on 

the short-eared owl or its primary habitat. The rationale for this determination follows: 

• The short-eared owl is considered incidental or extremely rare on Shoshone, with no 

breeding populations known to occur.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

86

6.5 Riparian (lakes, streams, marshes) mammals

North American river otter (Lontra canadensis)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

The North American river otter is considered a G5/S3 species by the State Natural Heritage 

ranking for Wyoming. Historical populations, distribution or abundance are unknown for this 

species on the Shoshone.

Historically, river otters occupied most major drainages in Canada and the continental United 

States. Due to unregulated trapping, rivers otters were once extirpated from much of their range. 

Through recovery efforts, river otters have re-populated much of their former range. They are still 

absent in most of the western Great Plains and the southwestern United States (Boyle 2006). In 

Wyoming, they were extirpated from most of the State, except Yellowstone and Grand Teton 

National Parks. Currently, there are scattered populations in the western two-thirds of the State, 

including on the Shoshone.

No trend data are available for the Shoshone. In Wyoming, the population is reported to be 

increasing (Raesly 2001). Formal surveys have not been done on the Shoshone for this species. 

Past observations were primarily along the North Fork of the Shoshone River (WYNDD 2010).

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

In the Intermountain West, river otters primarily occupy stream-associated habitats. They prefer 

valley streams to mountain streams. On the Shoshone, valley streams are limited. The North Fork 

and South Forks of the Shoshone River likely provide the most suitable habitat.

Both of these watersheds are in good or excellent condition (USFS 2008). Those in good 

condition reflect, to varying degrees, past and present activities. Most of the concern in these 

good condition watersheds is related to historic uses such as heavy grazing or roading associated 

with motorized recreation and timber harvest. These watersheds are generally on an improving 

trend due to recent and ongoing management actions. Continued recovery will occur naturally or 

through revised management.

Risk Factors

The primary risk factors from forest management are timber harvest and recreational activities. 

Other risks include water development, water pollution, and urbanization. None of these other 

risks have a major role on river otter populations on the Shoshone, but they have a larger role 

downstream from the Shoshone.

Natural risk factors would include flooding and drought, both of which could degrade habitat and 

reduce prey availability. Drought could affect river otters for a long period of time and over a 

large area.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Timber harvest can reduce riparian cover, increase stream siltation, and reduce woody debris. 

River otters in Region 2 may be especially vulnerable because of their linear habitat. Timber 

harvest should be carefully managed in these areas to maintain adequate habitat components.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

87

Recreational activities present river otters with additional risks such as increased risk for 

mortality from roadkill, disturbance from domestic dogs, and incidental trapping (Boyle 2006). 

Conservation Measures

In order to maintain and improve the river otter population and potential habitat on the Shoshone, 

the following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into Revised Forest Plan 

goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Since this species is of low viability concern based on 

current habitat condition, it is recognized that inclusion of these measures would continue to 

provide adequate habitat for this species.

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Manage dispersed camping and recreational uses so that degradation of riparian areas does 

not occur, and achieve improvements in existing degraded areas. 

2. Maintain forested cover along edges of riparian areas where it naturally exists.

3. Locate roads and trails outside of riparian areas to prevent loss of habitat. 

4. Re-vegetate decommissioned roads within riparian areas.

5. Use standard water quality conservation practices when conducting activities within riparian 

areas, including timber harvest or road and trail construction/reconstruction.

Monitoring Considerations

The most beneficial monitoring for river otters would be to improve information on known 

observations and distribution on the Shoshone. Surveys could be completed along stream reaches 

that provide potential habitat.

Effects Analysis: Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the river otter 

primarily involve water management activities (i.e., water diversions, deletions), and recreational 

activities. Differences in identified projected outputs by alternative for these activities are 

displayed in Table BE- 19.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

88

Table BE- 19. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence river otter by 

alternative

Alt A Alts B and G* Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Miles of open 

motorized 

roads and 

trailsSummer(total)

939 939 821 939 939 939

Special areas 

and 

designations

Five 

wilderness 

areas

One 

wilderness 

study area

No new 

wilderness 

recommendation

Recommends 

628,800 acres 

of wilderness 

additions

Recommen

ds 194,500 

acres of

wilderness 

additions

No new 

wilderness 

recommen

dation

No new 

wilderness 

recommen

dation

One special 

interest 

area

Proposes three 

new special 

interest areas.

Proposes 

three new 

special 

interest areas

Proposes 

three new 

special 

interest 

areas

Proposes 

one new 

special

interest 

area 

(Kirwin)

Proposes 

no new 

special 

interest 

areas

One special 

management unit

One 

research 

natural area

Alt B-Proposes 

six new research 

natural areas –

Beartooth Butte, 

Lake Creek, 

Grizzly Creek, 

Sheep Mesa, 

Arrow Mountain, 

Roaring Fork

Alt G-Proposes 

eight new 

research natural 

areas (all the 

above and Bald 

Ridge and Pat 

OHara).

Proposes 

eight new 

research 

natural areas 

- Beartooth 

Butte, Lake 

Creek, Pat 

O’Hara, Bald 

Ridge, Grizzly 

Creek, Sheep 

Mesa, Arrow 

Mountain, 

Roaring Fork

Proposes 

eight new 

research 

natural 

areas -

Beartooth 

Butte, Lake 

Creek, Pat 

O’Hara, 

Bald Ridge, 

Grizzly 

Creek, 

Sheep 

Mesa, 

Arrow 

Mountain, 

Roaring 

Fork

Proposes 

three new 

research 

natural 

areas -

Sheep 

Mesa, 

Lake 

Creek, 

and Arrow 

Mountain

Proposes 

no new 

research 

natural 

areas

One 

wild/scenic 

river 

Protects 16

eligible 

wild/scenic river 

segments

Protects 16

eligible 

wild/scenic 

river 

segments

Protects 16

eligible 

wild/scenic 

river 

segments

Protects 

16 eligible 

wild/sceni

c river 

segments

Protects 

16 eligible 

wild/scenic 

river 

segments

*Alternative G is the same as alternative B unless otherwise indicated.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in Table BE- 19, although differences among alternatives are difficult to evaluate in 

regard to potential influences on river otters, it is possible that alternative A provides as much 

potential habitat protection for the species as alternatives B, E, F, and G because it provides less 

indirect influences from motorized recreation that could potentially influence water quality. 

Alternative A does not identify any additional waterbodies for protection under special areas 

designations such as Wild and Scenic River corridors that may better control some humanassociated impacts. Overall, however, otters continue to expand and the effect from all 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

89

alternatives is expected to be secondary to other factors such as drought and private water 

management activities. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

All action alternatives (B through G) are expected to allow the continued expansion of river otters 

into potential habitat on Shoshone. However, alternatives B, C, D, and G allow for additional 

protective measures above baseline conditions that may indirectly benefit the river otter. 

Examples of these include better control of potential erosion from motorized vehicle use and 

more potential protection of riverine habitat from special area designations. Although continued 

expansion of river otters is also expected under alternatives E and F, these alternatives may 

require more site-specific mitigation measures because it allows more active management. 

Cumulative Effects

Habitat conditions in most of the smaller perennial streams on the Shoshone have continued to 

improve over time, but still do not support populations of closely associated species such as 

beaver. Restoration and expansion of beaver should be emphasized as it most likely results in an 

increasing trend in potential river otter habitat due to the close association between these species. 

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (River otters), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the Planning 

Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” The 

rationale for this determination follows: 

• The North Fork and South Fork of the Shoshone River provide the best suitable habitat,

as they are in good or excellent condition 

• The primary activities influencing river otters revolve around water management and 

natural factors such as drought. 

• Water management activities are managed to reduce impacts on aquatic species; however, 

reduced water flows have direct and indirect influences on prey species and habitat 

conditions. 

Water vole (Microtus richardsoni)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

Water voles have a heritage ranking of G5/S2 and are a Region 2 sensitive species. Sensitive 

status is largely based on perceived impacts from livestock grazing and other impacts focused in 

riparian areas. Historical populations, distribution, or abundance are unknown for this species on 

the Shoshone.

Water voles only occur in the northwestern United States, and southern British Columbia and 

Alberta. Within Region 2, water voles are only known to occur on the Shoshone and Bighorn 

National Forests. On the Shoshone, they are known to occur in several of the major watersheds 

including: the Clarks Fork River, North Fork Shoshone River, South Fork Shoshone River, 

Greybull River, Upper Wind River, Popo Agie River, and the Sweetwater River watershed. 

Presence in the remaining watersheds on the Shoshone is suspected, but not proven via capture or 

observation (Klaus and Beauvais 2004).
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

90

The Shoshone apparently supports a large number of water voles. This suggests a relatively high 

probability that they will persist here for a long time. Long-term viability of water voles on the 

Shoshone is further increased by the potential immigration of individuals from populations to the 

north in Montana, to the west in Yellowstone National Park, and to the south in the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest (Klaus and Beauvais 2004). Therefore, water voles populations on the Shoshone 

appear to be secure.

No trend data are available for water voles on the Shoshone. One location in the Beartooth 

Mountains on the Shoshone has maintained stable female fecundity estimates and stable, possibly 

even increasing, abundance estimates for 30 years (Klaus and Beauvais 2004).

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Water voles are closely associated with alpine and subalpine streams. They have been captured 

along stream courses from about 8,200 feet to 10,520 feet in elevation. They are typically found 

in linear colonies along spring-fed or glacial streams with gravel bottoms with about a 5-degree 

slope (Klaus 2003).

Habitat for water voles could be considered abundant on the Shoshone. Based on currently known 

distribution and distribution modeling (Keinath et al. 2010), water voles have a medium/high 

probability of occurring in high-elevation riparian meadows on the Shoshone. 

All of the watersheds mentioned earlier are in good or excellent condition, with the exception of a 

subwatershed in Crandall Creek (USFS 2008). Lodgepole Creek was highly impacted by the 1988 

Clover Mist Fire and a damaging thunderstorm and flash flood event in 1989. This resulted in 

significant changes in upland and stream channel stability. Recovery of this subwatershed will 

take time. This subwatershed is likely at too low of elevation to support water voles.

Riparian habitat is mostly stable and existing protection measures should prevent the loss of any 

of this habitat type. The conditions of some riparian systems on the Shoshone are outside of their 

historic ranges of variability due to past impacts from tie hacking, grazing, and water diversions 

(USFS 2009).

The Shoshone has been improving its management of riparian and wetland areas for the past 

planning period through improved livestock management efforts in coordination with grazing 

permittees. Historic levels of livestock grazing were very high in the early 1900s, and have been 

steadily reduced to bring stocking rates more in line with carrying capacity. Many of the sheep 

allotments on the Shoshone have been closed or converted to cattle.

Water voles have persisted on the Shoshone despite high historic levels of grazing that likely 

reduced vegetative cover along riparian areas, compacted soils, incised streams, and eroded 

stream banks. These effects varied by stream reach. Reductions in both cattle and particularly 

sheep grazing from historical levels have likely improved riparian areas. 

Risk Factors

The primary risk factor from forest management is livestock grazing in alpine and subalpine 

riparian areas.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Maintaining potential habitat for this species includes maintaining adequate amounts of woody 

vegetation (willow, aspen, etc.) along stream courses and maintaining well-developed 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

91

overhanging streambanks with non-compacted soils where burrows can be constructed. Highelevation riparian management can be accomplished through proper livestock grazing 

management. Currently, a vast majority of wilderness on the Shoshone is not within active 

allotments. 

Overgrazing of the streamside vegetation is the biggest concern. Prolonged and intense livestock 

grazing, even in the absence of grazing by native species, can eliminate water vole habitat by 

destroying stream banks, widening stream channels, lowering local water tables, eroding soil, and 

altering nutrient cycling (Klaus and Beauvais 2004).

Conservation Measures

In order to maintain and improve the water vole population and potential habitat on the Shoshone, 

the following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into Forest Plan goals, 

objectives, standards and guidelines. Since this species appears to be wide-spread and most of its 

habitat is in wilderness, inclusion of these measures would continue to provide adequate habitat 

for this species.

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Manage livestock grazing so that potential habitat is improved or maintained, particularly 

during drought years. Retention of vegetative cover at the stream edge would be the primary 

emphasis factor, as well as maintaining the ecological processes that provide for the longterm maintenance of these habitats. 

2. Manage dispersed camping and recreational uses such that degradation of riparian areas does 

not occur, and achieve improvements in existing degraded areas.

3. Locate roads and trails outside of riparian areas to prevent loss of habitat.

Monitoring Considerations

The most beneficial monitoring item for water voles would be to monitor populations in known 

occupied habitat. Also, selected representative populations in grazed and un-grazed (by livestock) 

occupied habitat could be surveyed at 5-year intervals to determine continued persistence of voles 

for this next planning period.

Monitoring to determine compliance with and effectiveness of livestock management practices on 

riparian vegetation and physical stream characteristics would also be beneficial at the Forest-wide 

scale. Evaluations of the maintenance or improvement of habitat in representative sites Forestwide would accomplish this need.

Effects Analysis: Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence water vole 

primarily involve livestock grazing. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these 

activities are displayed in Table BE- 20.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

92

Table BE- 20. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence water vole, by 

alternative

Alt A Alts B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Livestock grazing 

Permitted AUMs (total) 55,881 55,881 31,401 55,881 58,329 61,497

Suitable acres (total) 375,368 375,368 216,847 375,400 375,400 415,400

Motorized recreation-summer 

(acres available) 570,555 570,826 322,381 350,573 656,460 823,907

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

Livestock grazing can have negative influences on water voles when they overlap suitable habitat. 

Impacts to riparian areas and overstory and understory forage plants are of particular concern 

because of their importance to water voles in meeting species requirements for cover and food. As 

displayed in Table BE- 20, the permitted amount and area for cattle grazing does not differ among 

alternatives A, B, D, and G. These activities are therefore predicted to have potential negative 

influences on the water voles where activities and habitat overlap. Cattle could continue to impact 

certain riparian habitats that this species needs.

As displayed in Table BE- 20, although differences between alternatives are difficult to evaluate 

in regards to potential influences on water voles, it is possible that alternative A provides as much 

potential habitat protection for the species as alternatives B, E, F, and G because it provides less 

indirect influences from motorized recreation that could potentially influence riparian stream 

banks and vegetation. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

In alternatives B through G, there will likely continue to be some problem areas, although there 

will be more tools (adaptive management strategies) available to fix these problems areas and 

prevent new ones from starting. Alternatives B, D, and G maintain the same amount of suitable 

acres and AUMs; as the 1986 Forest Plan as amended (alternative A). Alternative C reduces the 

total AUMs and would have the least impact on habitat conditions for the water vole. Alternative 

F increases AUMs substantially compared to all of the other alternatives and would have the 

potential for the greatest impact to riparian habitat. All alternatives are expected to allow the 

continued expansion of water voles into potential habitat on Shoshone however more focused 

management compliance would be needed under alternative F.

As displayed in Table BE- 20, and consistent with its theme, alternative C offers fewer potential 

riparian habitat disturbances than the other alternatives from summer motorized recreation 

because of decreases in the amount of motorized use area. Consistent with their themes, 

alternative D offers the next fewest motorized while alternative F offers the highest amount of 

acreage. Alternatives B, E, and G offer a balance between the other action alternatives. 

Reductions in open motorized areas should decrease the potential for loss of habitat due to offroad use.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects over and above the direct and indirect effects mentioned above are minimal on 

the Shoshone due to the limited amount of private land within the Forest boundary. There are no 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

93

known proposals for additional development of any of these lands. Lands adjacent to the Forest 

are primarily private and/or BLM. Private lands receive minimal pressure from urban 

development trends. These adjacent lands would likely continue to receive impacts from livestock 

grazing and water depletions that are ongoing. These activities should not impact habitat on the 

Forest, but may increase the value of riparian habitat on the Shoshone. Individual species 

protections would be ensured through preparation of site specific NEPA analysis and biological 

evaluations, with protection offered through Forest-wide standards and guidelines. 

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (water voles), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the Planning 

Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” The 

rationale for this determination is as follows: 

• Due to the uncertainty of some recreational uses and expanded road network and 

potential ground disturbances in riparian habitat.

• These activities would only occur on up to 34 percent of the forested acres and still leave 

larger areas in “intact” habitat conditions.

6.6 Riparian (lakes, streams, marches) birds

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

The bald eagle has a natural heritage ranking of G4/S3B/S5N. They have separate rankings in 

Wyoming for breeding birds and non-breeding birds (wintering in Wyoming). Bald eagles were 

delisted from the Endangered Species Act in 2007. Historical populations, distribution, or 

abundance are unknown on the Shoshone.

Bald eagles are found throughout the United States and Canada where suitable habitat exists. 

They winter in coastal areas, along major inland river systems and in the intermountain west 

which includes Wyoming (Buehler 2000). Bald eagles are known to occur on the Shoshone, 

primarily as foraging birds. 

Bald eagles nesting in northwestern Wyoming are part of a significant nesting population in the 

Rocky Mountains (WGFD 2010). This population extends into Idaho and Montana. Bald eagles 

don’t regularly nest on the Shoshone since nesting habitat is very limited. All active nests in 

recent years have been on adjacent BLM land (USFS 2011). However, an active nest was located 

on the North Fork of the Shoshone in 2013. Eagles are known to forage along the North and 

South Forks of the Shoshone River.

No trend data are available that is specific to the Shoshone. Statewide population objective levels 

have been exceeded since 1987, and the state population continues to increase (WGFD 2010). 

Within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, carrying capacity for eagles may have been reached 

in Grand Teton National Park and along the Snake River in Wyoming. 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

94

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Bald eagles typically nest in tall trees near large bodies of water. The majority of wintering bald 

eagles are found near open water where they feed on fish and waterfowl. When suitable 

conditions exist, particularly a lack of human disturbance, wintering bald eagles will forage in 

terrestrial habitats where they prey on small to medium sized mammals (e.g., prairie dogs, 

jackrabbits); they also scavenge roadkills, winter mortalities of big game, and livestock (Travesky 

and Beauvais 2004).

Potential nesting habitat primarily occurs along the North and South Forks of the Shoshone River 

and possibly near other larger rivers and lakes on the Forest. Winter habitat would include these 

same areas, as well as, big game winter ranges and major roadways (scavenging road kill).

Risk Factors

The primary risk factors from forest management are recreational disturbance to nesting and 

winter roosting bald eagles. Other risk factors include contaminants, residential development, and 

collisions with power lines.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Retaining large trees along major rivers and lakes would be the most important forest 

management emphasis for bald eagle habitat.

Reducing human disturbance around nest and winter roost sites is also important.

Conservation Measures

In order to provide management for this species to maintain or improve its potential distribution 

on the Shoshone, the following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into 

Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Given the lack of potential nesting habitat 

on the Forest, overall viability risk from forest management to bald eagles is low. 

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Known nest and winter roost sites will be protected per the National Bald Eagle 

Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007).

Monitoring Considerations

Continue to cooperate with the WGFD to monitor bald eagle nests.

Effects Analysis: The Shoshone primarily provides habitat for bald eagles during the nonbreeding (winter) period. These eagles have migrated from their northern breeding grounds in 

search of food supplies such as fish, waterfowl, or carrion. Although numbers may vary,

depending upon winter severity and local food supplies, wintering eagles on the Shoshone

primarily occur along major river corridors such as the North and South Forks of the Shoshone 

River, Greybull, and Wind River. The primary activities that could potentially influence primary 

habitat or prey species for the bald eagle include motorized and non-motorized recreation, 

Differences in projected output for these activities by alternative are displayed in Table BE- 21.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

95

Table BE- 21. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence bald eagles, by 

alternative

Alt A Alts B and G* Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Miles of open motorized roads 

and trails (winter total) 670 686 229 675 691 966

Miles of snowmobile trails 276 276 163 276 276 276

Motorized recreation-winter

(acres available) 887,590 Alt B-481,196

Alt G-592,430 103,010 323,761 526,427 825,219

* Alternative G is the same as alternative B unless otherwise indicated. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

Disturbance from motorized and non-motorized recreation can be an impact on bald eagles in 

winter concentration areas. As displayed in Table BE- 21, alternative A could offer more high-use 

recreation areas than any of the action alternatives; however this could be due to how the acres 

were calculated during the 1986 Forest Plan as amended. Most likely, alternative F will have 

similar potential effects to bald eagles depending upon the type, timing, and scope of the activity. 

Greater winter travel via snowmobiles could theoretically disturb eagles in winter concentration 

areas and/or while they are roosting or foraging. 

Wildlife habitat management to improve big game winter range is projected to occur on 

4,000 acres in all alternatives during the life of the Revised Forest Plan. This projection includes 

bighorn sheep and other big game species that may be an important winter food source for bald 

eagles in some localized areas. Benefits can be expected on a site-specific basis. 

All alternatives offer the same amount of riparian habitat improvement over the life of the 

Revised Forest Plan. These activities may benefit prey species for the bald eagle if they occur in 

areas where fish or waterfowl species will benefit from the actions. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

As displayed in Table BE- 21, the action alternatives differ in the amount of undisturbed habitat 

potentially available for the bald eagle. Of the action alternatives, alternative F offers the largest 

number of acres available to winter motorized recreation. In concert with their themes, 

alternatives C and D offer the least amount of acres available for motorized travel. Alternative C 

and D, therefore offer the highest probability of maintaining habitat options for bald eagles that 

depend on little human disturbance. Alternatives B, E, and G offer a balance between the three 

other action alternatives, but also provide more undisturbed habitat and less potential disturbances 

than no action. Reductions in open motorized areas during winter should decrease the potential 

for displacement or disturbances to bald eagles during wintering periods. 

As in alternative A, wildlife habitat management to improve big game winter range is projected to

occur on 4,000 acres in all of the action alternatives during the life of the Revised Forest Plan. 

This projection includes bighorn sheep and other big game species that may be important food 

sources for bald eagles, particularly during the winter period. Benefits can be expected on a sitespecific basis. 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

96

Cumulative Effects

Most of the winter eagle population is aggregated along specific river corridors that have been 

identified as bald eagle winter concentration areas. Use of other waterbodies by wintering bald 

eagles is also prohibited by the small amount of area that remains unfrozen or provides 

predictable food supplies during the winter periods. 

Although minor disturbances to individual bald eagles on the Shoshone may occur, no cumulative 

effects have been identified and the population may be stabilizing to the available habitat and 

food supply. 

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (bald eagles), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the Planning 

Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” The 

rationale for this determination is as follows: 

• Both winter and summer populations of bald eagles occur on or adjacent to the Shoshone 

National Forest. However, winter is the primary time of use in concentration areas around 

river drainages. 

• All alternatives involve activities that may influence bald eagle or their primary prey 

species. 

• Impacts are expected to be minimal and localized to individuals. 

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

While considered a G4 species globally (relatively common), Harlequins are considered an S1 

species by the State Natural Heritage ranking for Wyoming. This is primarily due to its restricted 

range. Historical populations, distribution or abundance are unknown for this species on the 

Shoshone.

Harlequin ducks are known primarily from the northwestern and northeastern portions of North 

America and southern Greenland. In its western range, populations may have declined, though 

breeding populations in the Rocky Mountain Region appeared stable during the 1990s (Robertson 

and Goudie 1999). Their distribution in Wyoming is restricted to the northwestern portion of the 

state. Harlequins are known to occur on the Shoshone and in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 

as recorded in recent surveys conducted by the WGFD (WGFD 2003, 2008, 2009). 

Based on surveys in 2002, the WGFD (2009) estimated that there are 70 breeding pairs in 

Wyoming. In 2007, these areas were resurveyed and the number of pairs observed was 

substantially lower (-67 percent) (WGFD 2009). On the Shoshone, the WGFD (2009) also found 

fewer pairs than during surveys in 2002. It should be noted that 2007 was a low water year, so 

breeding pairs may have departed early in response to those conditions.

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Harlequin ducks use fast-moving stream systems for breeding habitat and winter along rocky 

coastlines. They typically nest on mid-stream islands (Wiggins 2005). 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

97

Based on past observations, Harlequins are known to occur along several rivers on the Shoshone 

including; North Fork Shoshone River, South Fork Shoshone River, Torrey Creek, Jakey’s Fork, 

Crandall Creek, Hoodoo Creek, Clarks Fork, Lake Creek, Sunlight Creek, and Greybull River. 

All of these watersheds are in good or excellent condition, with the exception of a subwatershed 

in Crandall Creek (USFS 2008). Lodgepole Creek was highly impacted by the 1988 Clover Mist 

Fire and a damaging thunderstorm and flash flood event in 1989. This resulted in significant 

changes in upland and stream channel stability. Recovery of this subwatershed will take time. 

Risk Factors

The primary risk factors from forest management are recreational activities (such as rafting and 

hiking) disturbing nesting birds and livestock grazing.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Disturbance to females at nest sites and degradation of water quality (Wiggins 2005) are the 

primary threats within Region 2. Harlequin females have abandoned nest sites after repeated 

human disturbance (Wiggins 2005).

Timber harvest and associated activities such as road building could create potential impacts to 

Harlequin duck habitat. This is primarily due to increased runoff and altered water flow (Wiggins 

2005). 

Livestock grazing may have an impact to Harlequin duck habitat. Impacts could include: 

reduction in streamside vegetation, increased runoff, and direct disturbance to nesting birds 

(Wiggins 2005).

Maintaining potential habitat for this species is necessary through proper riparian and aquatic 

habitat management that maintains adequate amounts of vegetative cover, with both herbaceous 

and woody types being important, along stream courses and in wetland areas. Any activities, 

including livestock grazing and timber harvest, should be carefully managed in these areas to 

maintain adequate cover components. Loss of vegetative cover directly relates to higher levels of 

predation and water quality issues.

Minimizing human disturbance during the nesting season along streams that contain potential 

habitat also is important.

Conservation Measures

In order to maintain and improve the Harlequin duck population and potential habitat on the 

Shoshone, the following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into Revised 

Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. Since this species is of viability concern, 

it is recognized that inclusion of these measures would continue to provide adequate habitat for 

this species.

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Manage livestock grazing so that potential habitat is improved or maintained, particularly 

during drought years. Retention of vegetative cover at the stream edge would be the primary 

emphasis factor, as well as maintaining the ecological processes that provide for the long 

term maintenance of these habitats. 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

98

2. Manage dispersed camping and recreational uses so that degradation of riparian areas does 

not occur, and achieve improvements in existing degraded areas. Where known nesting of this 

species occurs, consider regulating recreational use during the nesting season to avoid 

disturbance.

3. Maintain forested cover along edges of riparian areas where it naturally exists.

4. Locate roads and trails outside of riparian areas to prevent loss of habitat and to reduce 

potential disturbance during nesting. 

5. Re-vegetate decommissioned roads within riparian areas.

6. Use standard water quality conservation practices when conducting activities within riparian 

areas, including timber harvest or road and trail construction/reconstruction.

Monitoring Considerations

The most beneficial monitoring for Harlequin ducks will be to improve information on known 

observations and any potential breeding areas. The Shoshone should continue to coordinate with 

the WGFD to complete Harlequin duck surveys. If breeding sites are found, an evaluation of the 

habitat being used may help provide further information for future monitoring, including human 

uses that may be disturbing any potential nest sites.

Effects Analysis: Management activities that may have effects to Harlequin ducks include loss or 

degradation of habitat that eliminate or reduces cover and food supply and disturbance at the nest 

site or of nesting. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed 

in Table BE- 22.

Table BE- 22. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence Harlequin duck, by 

alternative

Alt A Alts B and G* Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Livestock grazing 

Suitable 

acres (total) 375,368 375,368 216,847 375,368 375,368 415,370

Permitted 

AUMs (total) 55,881 55,881 31,401 55,881 58,329 61,497

Dispersed 

recreation 

management

Prohibits 

camping 

within 

100 feet of 

lakes/streams

Prohibits 

camping within 

100 feet of 

streams and 

200 feet of 

lakes

Same as Alt

B

Same as 

Alt B

Same as Alt

B

Same as Alt

B

Road 

construction 

miles-timber

2 2 2 2 3 3

Special areas 

and 

designations

Five 

wilderness 

areas

One 

wilderness 

study area

No new 

wilderness 

recommendations

Recommends 

628,800 

acres of 

wilderness 

additions

Recommen

ds 194,500 

acres of

wilderness 

additions

No new 

wilderness 

recommendation

No new 

wilderness 

recommendation

One special Proposes three Proposes Proposes Proposes Proposes 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

99

Table BE- 22. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence Harlequin duck, by 

alternative

Alt A Alts B and G* Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

interest area new special 

interest areas

three new 

special 

interest areas

three new 

special 

interest 

areas

one new 

special 

interest area 

(Kirwin)

no new 

special 

interest 

areas

One special 

management 

unit

One research 

natural area

Alt B-Proposes 

six new 

research 

natural areas –

Beartooth 

Butte, Lake 

Creek, Grizzly 

Creek, Sheep 

Mesa, Arrow 

Mountain, 

Roaring Fork

Alt G-Proposes 

eight new 

RNA’s (all the 

above and Bald 

Ridge and Pat 

OHara).

Proposes 

eight new 

research 

natural areas 

- Beartooth 

Butte, Lake 

Creek, Pat 

O’Hara, Bald 

Ridge, 

Grizzly 

Creek, Sheep 

Mesa, Arrow 

Mountain, 

Roaring Fork

Proposes 

eight new 

research 

natural 

areas -

Beartooth 

Butte, Lake 

Creek, Pat 

O’Hara, 

Bald Ridge, 

Grizzly 

Creek, 

Sheep 

Mesa, 

Arrow 

Mountain, 

Roaring 

Fork

Proposes 3 

new 

research 

natural 

areas -

Sheep 

Mesa, Lake 

Creek, and 

Arrow 

Mountain

Proposes 

no new 

research 

natural 

areas 

One 

wild/scenic 

river

Protects 16

eligible 

wild/scenic river 

segments

Protects 16

eligible 

wild/scenic 

river 

segments

Protects 16

eligible 

wild/scenic 

river 

segments

Protects 16

eligible 

wild/scenic 

river 

segments

Protects 16

eligible 

wild/scenic 

river 

segments

* Alternative G is the same as alternative B unless otherwise indicated. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in Table BE- 22, although differences between alternatives are difficult to evaluate 

in regard to potential influences on Harlequin ducks, it is possible that alternative A provides as 

much potential habitat protection for the species as the alternative F because it provides less 

indirect influences from livestock grazing that could potentially influence stream bank habitat and 

water quality. Alternatives B through E, and G provide more potential habitat protection then 

alternative A due to no increase in or less livestock grazing.

Construction of new roads as result of timber harvest that would remain open to public use is very 

minimal for all alternatives; estimated between 2 to 3 miles. Effects may be associated with these 

activities, but are expected to be minor because of best management practices in riparian habitat 

and the large amount of unroaded area that remains undeveloped. 

Alternative A does not identify any additional waterbodies for protection under special area 

designations such as wild and scenic river corridors that may better control some humanassociated impacts. Overall, however, Harlequin ducks continue to expand, and the effect from all 

alternatives is expected to be secondary to other factors such as drought and private water 

management activities. 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

100

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

All action alternatives (B through G) are expected to allow the continued expansion of Harlequin

duck into potential habitat on Shoshone. However, alternatives B, C, D, and G allow for 

additional protective measures above baseline conditions that may indirectly benefit the duck. 

Examples of these include better control of potential erosion from road construction due to 

vegetation management and more potential protection of riverine habitat from special area 

designations. Although continued expansion of Harlequin ducks is also expected under 

alternatives E and F, these alternatives may require more site-specific mitigation measures 

because they allow more active management. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects over and above the direct and indirect effects mentioned above are minimal on 

the Shoshone due to the limited amount of private land within the Shoshone boundary. There are 

no known proposals for additional development of any of these lands. Lands adjacent to the 

Forest are primarily private and/or BLM. Private lands receive minimal pressure from urban 

development trends. These adjacent lands would likely continue to receive impacts from livestock 

grazing and water depletions that are ongoing. These activities should not impact habitat on the 

Shoshone, but may increase the value of riparian habitat on the Forest. Individual species 

protection would be ensured through preparation of site-specific NEPA analysis and biological 

evaluations, with protection offered through Forest-wide standards and guidelines. 

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (Harlequin ducks), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” 

The rationale for this determination follows: 

• There is uncertainty of some recreational uses and expanded road network and potential 

ground disturbances in riparian habitat.

• Streams used by Harlequin ducks are in good or excellent condition 

• Water management activities are managed to reduce impacts on aquatic species; however, 

reduced water flows have direct and indirect influences on prey species and habitat 

conditions. 

Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinators)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

Trumpeter swans are considered a G4/S2 species by the State Natural Heritage ranking for 

Wyoming. This is primarily due to its restricted range. Historical populations, distribution or 

abundance are unknown for this species on the Shoshone.

Historically, trumpeter swans ranged across the northern United States, Canada, and Alaska. Their 

current distribution is sporadic, with populations in northwest Canada and Alaska, the northern 

Rocky Mountains, and the Upper Midwest. The Tri-State Flock, which includes the Shoshone, is 

within the Rocky Mountain Population. The Shoshone is outside of the “Core” Tri-State Area 

which includes Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana directly outside of Yellowstone National Park 

(USFWS 2010).
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

101

Trumpeter swans are surveyed annually within and outside of the Tri-State Core Area (WGFD 

2010). On the Shoshone, trumpeter swans are occasionally observed; however, no breeding pairs 

have been observed (WGFD 2010). They have primarily been seen in the Swamp Lake area.

Trend data are not available for the trumpeter swan population on the Shoshone, but trend data 

are available for the Tri-State Flock, which includes northwestern Wyoming. Counts of swans in 

the fall in northwestern Wyoming have increased steadily since about 1995 (Figure BE- 10).

Figure BE- 10. Counts of swans in Wyoming during the Fall Trumpeter Swan Survey, 1967−2010 

(dotted, solid, and dashed lines depict trends for total swans, white birds, and cygnets, respectively) 

(USFWS 2010)

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Trumpeter swans breed primarily in shallow marshes, ponds, and lakes (Slater 2006). Nests are 

usually in or surrounded by water. They often nest on beaver or muskrat houses. 

Based on past observations, trumpeter swans are occasionally observed on the Shoshone with 

most observations around Swamp Lake. Swamp Lake and the adjacent wetlands probably provide 

the highest potential habitat on the Shoshone. Swamp Lake and the adjacent wetlands are 

currently managed as the Swamp Lake Botanical Area, and will continue to be managed as such 

in the Forest Revised Forest Plan.

Risk Factors

The primary risk factor from forest management is recreational activities disturbing nesting birds. 

Another primary risk factor is over-crowding of wintering birds; however, trumpeter swans are 

not known to winter on the Shoshone.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

102

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Motorized and non-motorized recreation can reduce habitat availability and quality for trumpeter 

swans in breeding and non-breeding areas (Slater 2006). Therefore, minimizing human 

disturbance during the nesting season is important.

Breeding habitat is very limited on the Shoshone, as shallow wetlands are not a common feature 

on the landscape. The highest potential habitat on the Shoshone is at Swamp Lake and is 

protected as the Swamp Lake Botanical Area.

Currently, there are no known breeding pairs on the Shoshone. Past use by trumpeters has 

primarily been individual birds and fall migrants. Since no known breeding pairs currently exist 

on the Shoshone, the risk to viability of the species on the Forest is low.

Conservation Measures

In order to maintain and improve potential habitat for trumpeter swans on the Shoshone, the 

following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into Forest Plan goals, 

objectives, standards and guidelines. Since this species is not of viability concern, these measures 

would continue to maintain and improve potential habitat for this species.

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Coordinate with the WGFD to identify potential breeding wetlands and evaluate if there is 

potential to improve breeding habitat.

2. Maintain wetlands.

3. Locate roads and trails outside of riparian areas to prevent loss of habitat and to reduce 

potential disturbance during nesting. 

4. Use standard water quality conservation practices when conducting activities within riparian 

areas, including timber harvest or road and trail construction/reconstruction.

5. Avoid disturbing trumpeter swan pairs during the breeding season.

Monitoring Considerations

The most beneficial monitoring for trumpeter swans will be to improve information on known 

observations and any potential breeding areas. The Shoshone should coordinate with the WGFD 

for completion of annual swan surveys. If breeding sites are found, an evaluation of the habitat 

being used may help provide further information for future monitoring, including human uses that 

may be disturbing any potential nest sites.

Effects Analysis: The primary risk factor from forest management is recreational activities 

disturbing nesting birds. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are 

displayed in Table BE- 23.

Table BE- 23. Acres of management areas by alternative

Mgmt Area Description Alt A Alts B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

3.1A Swamp Lake SIA 581 581 581 581 581 581
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

103

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

No direct or indirect effects on the trumpeter swan are expected from alternative A because the 

only known location this species has been observed is at Swamp Lake. Swamp Lake is designated 

a special interest area under the current Forest Plan and provides for management direction to 

prohibit road construction and limits recreational use of the area to day activities only.

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

No direct or indirect effects on the trumpeter swan are expected from implementation of any of 

the action alternatives because occurrence of this species is considered incidental to rare and all 

of the alternatives maintain Swamp Lake as a special interest area, including alternative A 

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects are expected because of lack of suitable nesting habitat. 

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, are expected to have No Impact on 

the trumpeter swan or its primary habitat. The rationale for this determination follows: 

• The trumpeter swan is considered incidental or extremely rare on the Shoshone, with no 

breeding populations known to occur. 

6.7 Riparian (lakes, streams, marshes) amphibians

Boreal western toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas), Columbia spotted 

frog (Rana luteiventris), northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

These three species are grouped into this section, but each received its own specific assessment 

when needed, as they can occupy similar habitat and are subject to the same threats.

Northern leopard frog

The northern leopard frog is, or was, one of the most visible and abundant amphibians, occurring 

in small ponds throughout much of the northern United States and southern Canada. In some 

places, however, it is now almost completely eliminated. Leopard frogs occur through much of 

North America, excluding the southeastern United States and the far northwestern areas of Alaska 

and Yukon Territories. They are found throughout most of Wyoming where suitable habitat exists. 

The northern leopard frog has a natural heritage ranking of G5/S3. Leopard frogs are known to 

occur on the Shoshone based on past surveys. During amphibian surveys conducted on the 

Shoshone by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) in 2009, no leopard frogs were 

found during surveys. No trend data are available for the Shoshone, but it is suspected that the 

population is declining in Wyoming (Smith and Keinath 2007).

Various studies of northern leopard frog breeding habitats have been conducted in the Rocky 

Mountain region. In northern Colorado and in Wyoming, Corn and Livo (1989) found that 

northern leopard frogs bred and successfully hatched in a gravel pit, stock ponds, and beaver 

ponds. Hammerson (1999) noted that the northern leopard frogs bred in shallow, quiet areas of 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

104

permanent bodies of water, in beaver ponds, and in seasonally flooded areas adjacent to or 

contiguous with permanent pools or streams in Colorado (in Smith and Keinath 2007).

Tadpoles need bodies of water with no overhead canopy and that are free of introduced 

predaceous fish (Kruse and Francis 1977, Hecnar and M’Closkey 1997a, Werner and 

Glennemeier 1999). These bodies of water should be reasonably shallow so that the sun can heat 

them to temperatures suitable for rapid development, especially at higher elevations, where the 

growing season may be short. However, the ponds should not be too shallow because they would 

dry too rapidly for tadpoles to complete their 58 to 105 day larval period (Hammerson 1999) (in 

Smith and Keinath 2007).

In various locations across their range, subadult frogs, after completing their larval period, 

migrate across land to suitable feeding sites at larger lakes (see Activity and movement patterns 

section). The habitat through which successful dispersal occurs is not known completely. The 

destination habitat for subadults is other ponds and suitable foraging habitat around those ponds. 

Seburn et al. (1997) have shown that juvenile northern leopard frogs disperse farther and more 

rapidly along streams than they do over land in (Smith and Keinath 2007).

Conant and Collins (1991) point out that the northern leopard frog is one of the more terrestrial of 

the ranid frogs, using a considerable amount of upland habitat around breeding ponds. Following 

reproduction, adult northern leopard frogs move into upland habitat in which they may feed for 

the summer. In a study by Merrell (1970), northern leopard frogs tended to frequent grassy 

meadows in the summer when grass was from “several inches to a foot” (i.e., up to 

30 centimeters) in height. USFS biologists working in the Black Hills have commented that they 

have found northern leopard frogs a considerable distance from water in wet meadows or 

grasslands (Martinez personal communication 1998). Many citations mention movements by this 

species of up to 3.0 km from water, and Dole (1971) notes that subadults move up to 5.2 km away 

from natal ponds (in Smith and Keinath 2007).

Frog movements among habitats and pond spacing are two of the most important factors to 

consider in management of northern leopard frogs, as both factors are likely to affect population 

density in this species greatly, as Semlitsch (2000a) has noted for other amphibians. The pattern 

of spacing of suitable breeding sites across the landscape and upland movements made by 

northern leopard frogs are probably both very important in colonization or recolonization of 

ponds and the maintenance of healthy metapopulations. In the Rocky Mountain Region, 

meadows, wetlands, and riparian areas are probably important connecting habitats due to 

relatively humid microclimates compared to surrounding habitats (see Seburn et al. 1997 for data 

from other parts of their range) (in Smith and Keinath 2007).

In the fall, subadult and adult frogs migrate to overwintering sites. Little is known of potential 

overwintering sites for northern leopard frogs in Region 2; however, winter habitat in the Rocky 

Mountain region is expected to be similar to that throughout the species’ range. It is suspected

they use the bottoms of flowing streams and ponds (and possibly springs) that are large enough 

that they do not freeze solid in winter (in Smith and Keinath 2007).

A variety of predators eat northern leopard frogs at all life stages. Merrell (1977) reported that 

most mortality occurred in the tadpole stage and was largely caused by predators, although 

overwintering mortality was important to subadults (i.e., recently metamorphosed tadpoles). He 

also noted that various early authors recorded the following as predators of tadpoles: waterfowl, 

garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.), water snakes (Nerodia spp.), newts (unknown species), fishes, 

leeches, and aquatic insects, including diving beetle larvae and adults (Dytiscidae), dragonfly 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

105

larvae (Libellulidae and probably other families), caddisfly larvae (Phryganeidae), backswimmers 

(Notonecta spp.), and giant water bugs (Belostoma spp.). Spiders (Lycosidae and Pisauridae) may 

also eat tadpoles (Merrell 1977). More recently, Woodward (1983) identified the following 

important northern leopard frog predators in his predation experiments: checkered garter snakes 

(T. marcianus), tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) larvae, belostomatids (diving beetles), 

aeshnid (dragonfly) larvae, corydalid (dobsonfly) larvae, and notonectids (backswimmers). It is 

probable that all of these predators are also found in Region 2, but the garter snake species may 

differ (T. elegans, T. radix, and T. sirtalis are found in Region 2) (in Smith and Keinath 2007).

Because northern leopard frogs probably have no natural defense against introduced predaceous 

fish, the widespread establishment of these non-native species is a serious issue, probably causing 

significant declines in Region 2. Hecnar and M’Closkey (1997a) showed that introduced 

predaceous fish reduced the abundance and diversity of frog communities in Canada, including 

those in ponds that contained northern leopard frogs (in Smith and Keinath 2007).

Introduced predaceous fish known to occur in parts of Region 2 include rainbow trout, brown 

trout, brook trout, northern pike, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), green sunfish 

(Lepomis cyanellus), and rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris). The various trout species will all eat 

tadpoles (Smith et al. 1998) and probably also eat frog eggs (in Smith and Keinath 2007).

Columbia spotted frog

The range of the Columbia spotted frog extends from southern Alaska south through British 

Columbia, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada (Patla and 

Keinath 2005). Disjunct populations exist south of the main range in southeastern Oregon, 

Nevada, southwestern Idaho, and Utah; these are isolated, distinct population units (Ibid). This 

species is known to occur within Wyoming’s NW mountain ranges in the GYE and in the Bighorn 

Mountains (WGFD 2010). The Bighorn Mountain population is disjunct from other spotted frog 

populations and is concentrated within the Tongue River Watershed (WGFD 2010). The 

Columbia spotted frog has a global and state conservation status ranking of G4/S3. Historical 

populations, distribution or abundance are unknown for the spotted frog on the Shoshone.

Spotted frogs only occur in northwestern North America from British Columbia to Utah. In 

Wyoming and in Region 2, they are known to occur on the Shoshone and Bighorn National 

Forests. Columbia spotted frogs inhabit a variety of vegetation communities, including coniferous 

or mixed forests, grasslands, and riparian areas of sage-juniper brush-lands. Elevation range for 

the species is reported up to 3,036 m (9,960 feet), with frogs ranging up to 2,890 m (9,482 feet)in 

the GYE (Reaser and Pilliod 2005). Dumas (1964) reported that relative humidity of 65 percent at 

25 °C (77°F) is lethal to adult spotted frogs in approximately two hours; this would restrict 

spotted frogs to higher elevations or moist riparian zones in arid western landscapes. Because 

both breeding and over-wintering occur at aquatic sites, populations are located in the general 

vicinity of ponds, lakes, springs, and/or streams. The examination of movement distances 

suggests that breeding and wintering sites are generally less than 600 m (1,968 feet) apart 

although adults are capable of moving longer distances. There are only five known breeding sites 

on the Shoshone based on surveys from 1993 to 2002 (Patla and Keinath 2005). Known locations 

on the Shoshone are concentrated in the tributaries of the Upper Wind River and tributaries of the 

Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone. 

The apparent rarity of spotted frogs on much of the Shoshone may relate either to the actual 

scarcity of this species on the southeastern edge of its range or to low survey effort (Patla and 

Keinath 2005). No trend data are available for the Shoshone, but trends are being developed for 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

106

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. While trends have not yet been quantitatively assessed for 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, initial assessments indicate that spotted frogs are not 

experiencing a widespread decline in the ecosystem’s national parks, based on the number of new 

breeding sites found each year and the general persistence of the species in previously identified 

occupied areas. However, some local declines of spotted frogs have been observed in the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem (in Patla and Keinath 2005).

Columbia spotted frogs inhabit a variety of vegetation communities, including coniferous or 

mixed forests, grasslands, and riparian areas of sage-juniper brush-lands. Elevation range for the 

species is reported up to 3,036 meters (9,960 feet), with frogs ranging up to 2,890 meters

(9,482 feet) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Reaser and Pilliod 2005). Dumas (1964) 

reported that relative humidity of 65 percent at 25 °C (77 °F) is lethal to adult spotted frogs in 

approximately two hours; this would restrict spotted frogs to higher elevations or moist riparian 

zones in arid western landscapes. Because both breeding and over-wintering occur at aquatic 

sites, populations are located in the general vicinity of ponds, lakes, springs, and/or streams. The 

examination of movement distances suggests that breeding and wintering sites are generally less 

than 600 meters (1,968 feet) apart although adults are capable of moving longer distances. 

Surveys for amphibians in Yellowstone National Park during 2000−2001 found a strong 

association of Columbia spotted frogs with particular National Wetland Inventory classifications

(Cowardin et al. 1979): 69 percent of 116 wetland sites occupied by spotted frogs had the 

classifications palustrine (marshes) and emergent; 19 percent were classed palustrine and aquatic 

bottom (the remaining 12 percent were at other types of wetlands or in unclassified areas). With 

regards to water regime, the majority (54 percent) were in seasonally flooded areas; 22 percent 

were in semi-permanently flooded areas; and 16 percent were in saturated areas (remainder 

unclassified) (Patla and Peterson unpublished data). A study in arid southwestern Idaho (Munger 

et al. 1998) found that adult spotted frogs were associated with palustrine, shrub-scrub, seasonally 

flooded sites, or with intermittent riverine, streambed, seasonally flooded sites. Frogs were also 

associated with vegetation indicative of permanent water sources (i.e., willows and submerged 

aquatic plants rather than emergent vegetation such as sedges) and vegetation that provides hiding 

and thermal cover (e.g., willows) (in Patla and Keinath 2005).

Characteristics of the waterbody, vegetation, and water temperature are important aspects of 

breeding and larval habitat. Breeding and egg deposition take place in stagnant or slow-moving 

water, including permanent and temporary ponds, marshes, stream oxbows, small springs, the 

edges of lakes and slow-flowing streams, and man-made bodies of water (Monello and Wright 

1999). Shallow water must be available; e.g., Maxell (2000) reported eggs deposition in water 10 

to 15 centimeters (4 to 6 inches) deep, and Reaser and Pilliod (2005) reported egg deposition in 

water 10 to 20 centimeters (4 to 8 inches) deep. Emergent vegetation (e.g., sedge) is usually 

present at breeding sites (Maxell 2000; Reaser and Pilliod 2005; Patla and Peterson unpublished 

data), but egg deposition occurs soon after snowmelt and thus prior to significant seasonal growth 

by most emergent and aquatic vegetation. Morris and Tanner (1969) report that eggs are never 

deposited among cattails; however, spotted frog tadpoles use tall stands of emergent vegetation 

(e.g., cattail and bulrush) following dispersal from the site of egg deposition (in Patla and Keinath 

2005). 

Frogs of the genus Rana generally over-winter underwater in permanent waterbodies, or 

terrestrially, depending on physiological tolerances for chilling and hypoxia. Columbia spotted 

frogs over-winter in or immediately adjacent to aquatic sites, where they can avoid the threat of 

freezing or oxygen depletion (Bull and Hayes 2002). Winter habitat may include ponds, streams, 

undercut stream banks, springs, beaver dams, and underground areas (associated with water 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

107

bodies), but all such sites must have above-freezing temperatures, be moist or wet, and be welloxygenated. In southwestern Idaho, spotted frogs are known to over-winter in spring-fed ponds 

with willows (Engle 2001). Beaver dams also serve as spotted frog winter habitat (in Patla and 

Keinath 2005).

Amphibians, including spotted frogs, are less likely to exist or successfully breed in lakes with 

predatory fish. The embryonic and larval life stages of spotted frogs are particularly vulnerable to 

some fish species (Munger et al. 1997, Pilliod and Peterson 2000, Pilliod and Peterson 2001). In

addition to the direct effects of predation, female amphibians avoid depositing eggs at sites with 

predatory fish (Pilliod and Peterson 2001) (in Patla and Keinath 2005).

A large variety of other animals also prey on spotted frogs. Tadpoles and metamorphosing young 

are preyed on by some aquatic insects, particularly dystiscid (diving) beetle larvae, and by adult 

amphibians, including con-specifics (Pilliod 1999) and tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum). 

Many avian species prey on spotted frogs, including herons and cranes, gulls, waterfowl, hawks 

and owls, ravens and other corvids (Turner 1960, Koch and Peterson 1995, Pilliod 2002, Reaser 

and Pilliod 2005). Some smaller birds, such as blackbirds and robins, consume spotted frog 

tadpoles; Turner (1960) surmised that predation on tadpoles could only affect population levels if 

metamorphosis occurred coincident with desiccation of breeding pools. A number of mammals 

are known or thought to be predators of spotted frogs, including badgers (Taxidea taxus), weasels 

(Mustela sp.), minks (M. vison), and river otters (Lutra canadensis) (Koch and Peterson 1995, 

Roberts 1997, Pilliod 2001), and bears (Ursus sp.) and coyotes (Canis latrans) (Turner 1960) (in 

Patlas and Keinath 2005). 

Boreal western toad

The range of the boreal toad currently extends from southern Alaska through British Columbia, 

Washington, Oregon, and northern California and east through Idaho, western Montana, western 

and south-central Wyoming, Nevada, the mountains and higher plateaus of Utah, and portions of 

the mountains of Colorado. It has not been recorded at low elevations (less than 6,000 ft.) east of 

western Wyoming (Baxter and Stone 1985), western Montana, and central Colorado (Stebbins 

1985) (in Keinath and McGee 2005). The boreal toad has a global and state conservation status 

ranking of G4/S1.

The boreal toad was once widely distributed in Region 2 from the mountains of southeastern 

Wyoming through the Rocky Mountains in Colorado to the San Juan Range in northern New 

Mexico (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). In Wyoming, they occur in the western and southcentral mountain ranges. Boreal western toads are found throughout the Shoshone; however, no 

trend data are available. Within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, declines have been reported 

in both Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks (Keinath and McGee 2005). Historical 

populations, distribution or abundance are unknown for this species on the Shoshone.

During amphibian surveys conducted on the Shoshone by the Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database (WYNDD) in 2009, boreal toads were found at 4 sites (and 2 additional unconfirmed 

boreal toad sites) (Keinath et al. 2009).

Boreal toads live in a wide range of habitats in western North America: wetlands, forests, 

woodlands, sagebrush, meadows, and floodplains in the mountains and valleys (Carpenter 1953, 

Campbell 1970, Black 1971, Stebbins 1985). Boreal toads require three main habitat components: 

(1) shallow wetlands for breeding, (2) terrestrial habitats with vegetative cover for foraging, and 

(3) burrows for winter hibernation (Loeffler 2001). There is no detailed information on the 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

108

relative proportion of these habitat types required by boreal toads in Region 2. While they 

primarily use wetland habitats, boreal toads may be observed in other habitats during dispersal to 

and from breeding sites. Although they have been observed in a wide range of elevations (from 

sea level to near or above tree line), boreal toads generally occur between 2,250 and 3,600 meters

(7,500 and 12,000 feet.) in Region 2 (Campbell 1970, Stebbins 1985, Livo and Yackley 1997, 

Hammerson 1999). This species is usually found in wetlands near ponds, lakes, reservoirs, rivers, 

and streams, and it is typically less common in densely forested areas (Campbell 1970, 

Hammerson 1999). The wetland habitat classification system of Cowardin et al. (1979) defines 

the following wetland classes: aquatic bed, streambed, rocky shore, unconsolidated shore, 

emergent wetland (persistent and non-persistent), scrub-shrub wetland, and forested wetland. 

These wetland classes are likely to be used by boreal toads based upon the general habitat use 

patterns described by Campbell (1970). Boreal toads are likely to be found within these classes in 

Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine wetland systems. The terrestrial habitat classification system 

of Grossman et al. (1998) defines the following habitat classes that boreal toads are likely to use: 

Herbaceous, Forest, Woodland, and Shrubland. In Wyoming, boreal toads use wet habitats in 

foothills, montane, and subalpine areas, and they are seldom far from water (Baxter and Stone 

1985). They may be found in all riparian habitat types (Gerhart and Olson 1982) (in Keinath and 

McGee 2005).

In the early summer, breeding adult boreal toads are found in or near water, and as the season 

progresses they may use more terrestrial habitats (Campbell 1970). Breeding habitats typically 

include shallow water [less than 20 centimeters (8 inches)] at the edges of ponds and lakes, 

stream and river edges where the water is pooled or very slow moving, oxbow ponds, thermal 

pools and streams, flooded meadows, ephemeral pools, abandoned and active beaver (Castor 

canadensis) ponds, and man-made impoundments including reservoirs and quarries (Patla 2001). 

Hawk (2000) observed that breeding sites for boreal toads in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

have waters with relatively high conductivity. Koch and Peterson (1995) also observed that the 

water of boreal toad breeding sites generally has a high pH (greater than 8.0) and high acid 

neutralizing capacity. Hawk (2000) hypothesized that thermally influenced waters with high 

conductivity may provide some protection from bacterial infections) (in Keinath and McGee 

2005).

Terrestrial habitats occupied by boreal toads in the summer after breeding include a diversity of 

forested and non-forested wet and dry areas. Adult boreal toads have been observed spending up 

to 90 percent of their life in upland terrestrial habitats (Jones et al. 2000). Bartelt (2000) observed 

that radio-tagged boreal toads occupied underground burrows over 26 percent of the time. Bartelt 

(2000) also observed that willows, woody debris, and breaks in the shrub or tree canopy layers 

that allowed sunlight to reach the ground were also frequently used terrestrial habitat features. 

There also appears to be a great deal of heterogeneity among individuals regarding habitat 

preferences. Some toads were observed using a single habitat type, such as conifer forest, while 

others moved frequently and used a variety of habitats (Jones et al. 2000) (in Keinath and McGee 

2005).

In early fall, adults and young of the year migrate to terrestrial hibernacula, which are typically 

burrows made by other animals, such as rodents. Boreal toads also commonly over-winter 

beneath debris piles, such as rockslides or deadfall timber. On the National Elk Refuge, Patla 

(2000b) observed boreal toads using streamside cavities and old rodent burrows for hibernation 

sites. Bartelt and Peterson (1997) documented radio-tagged boreal toads using underground 

burrows within 1 mile of a small flowing stream and under a slash pile on the Targhee National 

Forest. Boreal toads in Colorado have be observed using underground chambers near creeks, 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

109

ground squirrel burrows, and beaver lodges/dams where flowing water keeps the air temperature 

above freezing (Boreal Toad Recovery Team 1998). Boreal toads do not hibernate in the water 

like spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) or leopard frogs (Rana pipiens), nor are they able to tolerate 

freezing as do boreal chorus frogs (Pseudacris triseriata maculata) (in Keinath and McGee 

2005).Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Amphibians are associated with riparian and wetland areas with perennial water, largely at the 

higher elevations where gradients are gentle in streams and more ponded habitats occur. Outside 

of the breeding season, boreal toads use a diversity of forested and non-forested habitat. 

At the watershed scale, most are in good or excellent condition, with the exception of a 

subwatershed in Crandall Creek (USFS 2008). Lodgepole Creek was highly impacted by the 

1988 Clover Mist Fire and a damaging thunderstorm and flash flood event in 1989. These events 

resulted in significant changes in upland and stream channel stability. Recovery of this 

subwatershed will take time. 

Riparian habitat is mostly stable and existing protection measures should prevent the loss of any 

of this habitat type. The conditions of some riparian systems on the Shoshone are outside of their 

historic ranges of variability due to past impacts from tie hacking, grazing, and water diversions 

(USFS 2009).

The Shoshone has been improving its management of riparian and wetland areas for the past 

planning period through improved livestock management efforts in coordination with grazing

permittees. Historic levels of livestock grazing were very high in the early 1900s, and have been 

steadily reduced to bring stocking rates more in line with carrying capacity. Many of the sheep 

allotments on the Forest have been closed or converted to cattle.

Improvements in road locations and design are also likely to continue across the Shoshone, and 

this may also reduce recreation impacts to these sites. 

Amphibians have persisted on the Shoshone despite high historic levels of grazing that likely 

reduced vegetative cover along riparian areas, compacted soils, incised streams, and eroded 

stream banks. These effects varied by stream reach. Reductions in both cattle and particularly 

sheep livestock grazing from historical levels have likely improved riparian areas. 

Risk Factors

Primary risk factors from forest management for the individual species are discussed below. 

Northern leopard frog

There are a number of potential threats to the continued viability of northern leopard frogs in the 

Rocky Mountain region. Although it is difficult to say which of these is most important, risk 

factors threatening northern leopard frogs in Region 2 fall into three main categories: 

(1) landscape-scale processes that threaten the viability of populations (such as loss and

fragmentation of breeding habitat, disruption of migratory pathways, and loss or alteration of 

over-wintering sites) (2) direct threats of mortality from various non-indigenous biotic agents

(such as fish stocking and diseases), and (3) water quality issues.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

110

Columbia spotted frog

Threats considered to be most significant for spotted frogs in Region 2 include drought, disease, 

road construction, introduction of non-native fish, heavy livestock grazing, timber harvest and 

fuels reduction. 

Boreal toad

Specific threats to boreal toads on Region 2 National Forest System lands include disease, 

decreased water and air quality, timber harvest, livestock grazing, fire and fire management 

activities, environmental pollutants, non-native species and their management, habitat 

development and fragmentation, harvest and commerce, and finally the lack of information on 

specific populations

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Amphibian populations have declined worldwide and within Region 2. Maintaining potential 

habitat for these species is necessary through proper riparian and aquatic habitat management that 

maintains adequate amounts of vegetative cover, with both herbaceous and woody types being 

important, along stream courses and in wetland areas. 

Any activities, including livestock grazing and logging, should be carefully managed in these 

areas to maintain adequate cover components, especially near known breeding sites. Loss of 

vegetative cover directly relates to higher levels of predation and other important physical habitat 

characteristics, including temperature regulation of ponds and stream courses and water quality 

issues. Information on amphibian responses to fire and fuels reduction is limited but can be far 

reaching. Generalizations are confounded by great taxonomic and ecological diversity among 

amphibians; as well as complex life histories. Furthermore, each life-history could be affected by 

fire differently (Pilliod et al. 2003). Effects of fire may be greatest for amphibians that are habitat 

specialists compared to species that occupy different types of habitat and tolerate a range of 

environmental conditions (Pilliod et al. 2003).

Amphibians may experience high levels of predation if vegetative cover is greatly reduced. 

Multiple sources of predation are known, including birds, reptiles, mammals, and fish. Predation 

by non-native trout is a concern. 

The occurrence of amphibian disease and mortality events elsewhere in northwestern Wyoming 

suggests a high likelihood for spotted frog populations of the Shoshone to be affected eventually, 

if not currently, by the diseases chytridiomycosis and ranavirus (Patla and Keinath 2005).

Roads and culverts have also been known to have an effect on distribution of amphibians by 

functioning as barriers or a large source of mortality. 

Changes in water quality from chemical pollution (insecticides) and increased sedimentation have 

also been of concern in other areas. Stevens et al. (2006) found that almost all beaver ponds in 

their study supported breeding frogs and toads whereas unobstructed streams had essentially 

none. Their data suggested that to further amphibian conservation in boreal forests, beaver and 

their dam-building activity should be incorporated into forestry planning and management.

Climate change has the potential to reduce amphibian populations and habitat on the Shoshone. 

Amphibians have low adaptability potential and narrow environmental tolerance, which make 

them susceptible to climate change (Rice et al. 2012).
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

111

Conservation Measures

In order to provide management for these species to maintain and improve their potential 

distribution on the Shoshone, the following conservation measures were developed for 

incorporation into Revised Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Since there is 

some viability risk to these species from forest management, it is recognized that inclusion of 

these measures would alleviate those risks and continue to provide adequate habitat for 

amphibians.

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Manage livestock and ungulate grazing/browsing so that potential habitat is improved or 

maintained, particularly during drought years. Retention of vegetative cover at the wetland 

edge would be the primary emphasis factor, as well as maintaining the ecological processes 

that provide for the long-term maintenance of these habitats. 

2. Maintain and improve known breeding sites.

3. Manage dispersed camping and recreational uses such that degradation of riparian areas does 

not occur and achieve improvements in existing degraded areas.

4. Provide forested cover along edges of riparian areas where it naturally exists to maintain 

temperature control of water.

5. Maintain water abundance and associated vegetation at springs and seeps.

6. Maintain existing beaver habitat and where appropriate, introduce beaver into historical 

habitat. 

7. Coordinate with WGFD in assessing the impact of non-native trout on amphibian 

populations.

8. Do not allow for the application of insecticides or herbicides in aquatic habitats, or any other 

chemical that would threaten water quality or aquatic life, with the exception of pesticides 

used to restore native aquatic life (e.g., rotenone).

9. Locate roads and trails outside of riparian areas to prevent loss of habitat. Use standard water 

quality conservation practices when conducting activities within riparian areas, including 

timber harvest or road and trail construction/reconstruction.

10. Assess road crossings and prioritize which barriers need to be fixed.

11. Do not introduce non-native trout to lakes and rivers known to be of high value to 

amphibians.

Monitoring Considerations

The most likely beneficial monitoring for amphibians is to ascertain continued existence of 

populations in known occupied habitat. A continued effort to determine Forest-wide distribution 

is also needed.

Effects Analysis: Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the boreal toad 

primarily involve timber harvest, livestock grazing road construction/ reconstruction, motorized
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

112

and non-motorized recreation, and fuels treatment activities (wildland fire use only). Differences 

in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in Table BE- 24.

Table BE- 24. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the boreal toad,

Columbia spotted frog and northern leopard frog, by alternative

Alt A Alts B and G* Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Suitable timber 

base acres 86,269 127,009 122,103 124,453 179,666 251,205

Vegetation 

treatment 

acres 

mechanical 

and 

mechanical w/

prescribed fire

(total)

15,470 15,575 14,471 15,062 17,905 21,176

Spruce/fir 1,411 1,399 1,057 1,263 1,547 1,768

Aspen 624 628 529 616 641 664

Vegetation 

treatment 

acres 

prescribed fire

(total)

23,559 23,302 23,299 23,342 22,823 21,910

Spruce/fir 550 544 495 525 554 566

Aspen 918 909 899 911 878 823

Road 

reconstruction 

miles-timber

2 2 2 2 3 3

Wildfire acres 185,152 182,900 184,132 183,703 174,983 161,363

Livestock grazing

Suitable acres 

(total) 375,368 375,368 216,847 375,368 375,368 415,370

Permitted 

AUMs (total) 55,881 55,881 31,309 55,881 58,300 61,500

Motorized 

recreationsummer (acres 

available)

569,975 Alt B-570,246

Alt G-529,019 321,800 349,992 655,879 823,326

*Alternative G is the same as alternative B unless otherwise indicated. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in Table BE- 24, there are several activities that could potentially influence habitat 

suitability for the boreal toad, Columbian spotted frog and northern leopard frog. Because 

wetlands and alpine systems are particularly vulnerable to human impacts and disturbances, it is 

probable that themes with more active management may offer more risk of impact to these 

sensitive habitats. Alternative A offers approximately the same amount of acres of active 

management area as alternatives B, C, D, and G. Therefore, it is likely that alternative A has a 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

113

static (maintains existing condition) potential of having negative impacts to the primary habitat 

components for the boreal toad. Alternatives E and F exceed alternative A in active management 

area and acres and may offer the highest risk of potential impacts. 

The predicted timber harvest output in primary amphibian habitat (spruce/fir) varies from 1,552

to 2,334 acres and is very minimal in all alternatives. Additional timber harvest in aspen varied 

from 1,428 to 1,537 acres of harvest during the life of the Revised Forest Plan (10 to 15 years). 

Although impacts could occur if timber sale activities occurred around a currently extant yet 

unknown population or breeding site, it is unlikely that this would occur due to historic 

knowledge and continued survey requirements and conservation measures. The overall amount of 

timber harvest associated with alternative A is also very minimal, thereby reducing the risk that 

unknown populations could be impacted. Alternative A is therefore expected to have little, if any, 

influence on potential boreal toad habitat on the Shoshone. 

Construction of new roads for timber harvest is very minimal and is estimated to be between 2 to 

3 miles across all alternatives. The primary direct effect of roads on amphibians involves the 

crushing of individuals from vehicle use. Roads can also create barriers to water flow and to the 

movement of toads across the landscape. Many indirect effects can also occur that influence 

riparian vegetation and water quality. Potential activities that could influence boreal toad 

populations and/or habitat include off-road vehicle use, trail construction and use, camping in 

riparian areas, and activities related to fisheries management such as in-stream channel work, 

poisoning, and stocking of fish in areas that historically did not support them (Loeffler et al. 

2001). Alternatives A, B, and G offer a balanced approach to motorized recreation with fewer 

acres affected than alternatives E and F, but more motorized recreation than alternatives C and D. 

This difference could potentially lessen impacts to high-elevation upland sites that could be 

considered potential habitat. 

Cattle and sheep are grazed at higher elevations and can frequently overlap with potential 

amphibian habitat. Potential direct effects from grazing can include trampling. Potential indirect 

effects can include reduced egg and tadpole survival from changes in water chemistry and/or 

riparian vegetation related to grazing. Alternative A and all action alternatives continue to allocate 

allotments to livestock grazing. Alternative A maintains the same permitted numbers and area as 

alternatives B, D, and G—currently set at 55,881 AUMs and 375,368 acres. Some historic 

domestic sheep allotments have been maintained as vacant because of conflicts with grizzly 

bears. Alternative A maintains these allotments as vacant. 

Prescribed fire activities most likely do not overlap in elevation with boreal toad habitat on the 

Shoshone. However, wildland fire use will be utilized as a tool to allow natural disturbances to 

occur within high-elevation spruce/fir zones as opportunities arise. It is estimated that all 

alternatives may allow from 161,363 to 185,152 acres of wildland fire use. Depending upon fire 

severity and scale, these outputs could have negative or positive influences on amphibians. 

Primary influences of fire in amphibian habitat involves the burning of small diameter (7 to 

10 inches) ground fuels and slash piles that toads may use as refugia sites. Positive influences can 

occur if fire stimulates the growth of the shrub component used in upland sites (Loeffler et al. 

2001). Potential positive or negative influences cannot be predicted at this time because wildland 

fire use is not a planned output. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

As displayed in Table BE- 24, the projected timber harvest output in spruce/fir and aspen forest in 

alternatives B through G varies from about 2,976 acres (alternative C) to 3,847 acres (alternative 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

114

F). Overall, little effects difference exists among all of the alternatives because all of the outputs 

represent a minimal amount of the forest cover types involved, and potential impacts would only 

be possible around waterbodies. Construction of new roads for timber harvest that would remain 

open to public use is very minimal for all alternatives; estimated between 2 to 3 miles. Effects 

may be associated with these activities but are expected to be minor because of best management 

practices in riparian habitat and the large amount of unroaded area that remains undeveloped. As 

is consistent with the active management theme, alternative F also offers the greatest amount of 

projected timber output and greatest amount of area where this activity may occur. However, all 

alternatives influence less than 0.01 percent of the cover type and are expected to have no 

minimal effects on amphibian habitat. 

Alternative B offers the same amount of disturbance from summer motorized use as alternative A. 

The effects from these two alternatives maintain suitable amphibian habitat at the existing 

condition. Alternatives C,D and G offer fewer potential disturbances than no action from summer 

motorized recreation because of the decrease in the amount of permitted motorized use area. 

Consistent with their themes, alternatives E and F offer the largest motorized acres, with 

alternative F offering the highest amount of acreage of the two alternatives. This difference could 

potentially allow greater impacts to high-elevation upland sites that could be considered potential 

habitat.

As displayed in Table BE- 24, alternative B and G maintains the same permitted numbers and 

area for livestock grazing as alternative D, currently set at 55,881 AUMs and 375,368 acres, and 

potential effects would be similar to alternative A. Alternative C reduces livestock numbers and 

allotment area to 31,309 AUMs and 216,847 acres. This alternative may reduce the amount of 

potential habitat influenced, but is not expected to have any measurable difference in regard to 

protection of habitat for the boreal toad. Alternatives E and F allow more livestock grazing than 

the other alternatives, and increases livestock numbers and allotment area to 58,300 AUMs and 

375,368 acres and 61,500 AUMs and 415,370 acres, respectively. Current vacant sheep 

allotments could be filled under alternative E. Alternative F would require more management 

attention to assure that livestock do not damage potential amphibian habitat.

As with no action, it is estimated that wildland fire use may be used as a management tool on 

161,363 to 185,152 acres in all action alternatives. The amount of area potentially used for 

wildland fire use is not dependent upon which alternative is selected, and no differences are 

expected. 

Cumulative Effects 

Declines in amphibian species can be characterized under two general patterns: those species that 

have been effected due to habitat alteration and those species for which no obvious causes of 

declines have been determined (Muths et al. 2003). The latter has been relatively recently 

associated with a pathogenic chytrid fungus. Boreal toad declines in the southern Rockies along 

with Wyoming toad declines in Wyoming have been attributed to chytrid fungal infections (Muths 

et al. 2003).

Cumulative effects over and above the direct and indirect effects mentioned above are minimal on 

the Shoshone due to the limited amount of private land within the Forest boundary. There are no 

known proposals for additional development of any of these lands. Lands adjacent to the 

Shoshone are primarily private and/or BLM. Private lands receive minimal pressure from urban 

development trends. These adjacent lands would likely continue to receive impacts from livestock 

grazing and water depletions that are ongoing. These activities should not impact habitat on the 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

115

Forest, but may increase the value of riparian habitat. Individual species protections would be 

ensured through preparation of site-specific NEPA analysis and biological evaluations, with 

protection offered through Forest-wide standards and guidelines.

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (Boreal western toads, Columbia spotted frogs and Northern leopard frogs), but 

would not likely result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to 

federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” The rationale for this determination 

follows: 

• There is uncertainty about some recreational uses and expanded road network and 

potential ground disturbances in riparian habitat.

• Riparian and wetland habitat used by amphibians is in good or excellent condition 

• All alternatives are associated with activities and outputs that may have potential 

influences on occupied habitat.

• Water management activities are managed to reduce impacts on aquatic species; however, 

reduced water flows have direct and indirect influences on prey species and habitat 

conditions. 

6.8 Caves and mines mammals

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes pahasapensis), Spotted bat 

(Euderma maculatum), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

Fringed myotis, spotted bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat were combined into one species 

viability assessment due to similar habitats and similar risks. Globally all three species are G4. At 

the State level, fringed myotis and Townsend’s big-eared bat are S2, and the spotted bat is S3. 

Historical populations, distribution, or abundance are unknown on the Shoshone. Also, no current 

trend data are available that is specific to the Shoshone or Wyoming for any of these bat species.

The fringed myotis ranges across the Pacific Northwest and central Rocky Mountains south to 

Mexico (Keinath 2004). Wyoming is within their current range. The Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD) surveyed for bats in northwestern Wyoming in 2009 and detected fringed 

myotis on the Shoshone, based on acoustic calls and mist netting (WGFD 2010).

Currently, the spotted bat is known to occur across large areas of western North America from 

southern British Columbia to Mexico (Luce and Keinath 2007). Its distribution in Wyoming is 

still unknown, but the spotted bat is expected to occur statewide in suitable habitat (Hester and 

Grenier 2005). The WGFD surveyed for bats in northwestern Wyoming in 2009 and detected 

spotted bats at one location on the Shoshone, based on acoustic calls (WGFD 2010).

Townsend’s big-eared bats are widely distributed in western North America. They occur from 

southern British Columbia south to Mexico and east to South Dakota and Kansas with disjunct 

populations in the eastern United States (Gruver and Keinath 2006). Townsend’s are a year-round 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

116

resident throughout most of Wyoming, but are primarily found in the north-central and 

southeastern parts of the state (Hester and Grenier 2005). During the 2009 WGFD bat survey T 

northwestern Wyoming. Townsend’s big-eared bats were detected at multiple locations on the 

Shoshone, based on acoustic calls (WGFD 2010).

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

These three bat species use a variety of habitats (Table BE- 25). Townsend’s big-eared bats and 

fringed myotis use caves and abandoned mines for roosting and hibernacula, with spotted bats 

possibly using them for hibernacula.

Table BE- 25. Habitat for fringed myotis, spotted bats, and Townsend’s big-eared bats (Hester and 

Grenier 2005)

Species Foraging Summer Roost Hibernacula

Fringed myotis Dry conifer forest Buildings, caves, rock 

crevices Caves and mines

Spotted bat Canyons, riparian, 

forest edge Cliffs

Possibly caves and 

mines, may migrate 

south or to lower 

elevations

Townsend’s big-eared bat Forest edge, riparian Caves, Mines, Buildings Caves and mines

Forested foraging habitat is abundant on the Shoshone. There are about 309,442 acres of 

spruce/fir, 345,273 acres of Douglas-fir, 382,886 acres of lodgepole pine, 190,609 acres of 

whitebark pine, and 35,251 of limber pine on the Shoshone (USFS 2012b). Shrubland foraging 

habitat is limited on the Forest. There are about 76,060 acres of willow, sagebrush, and aspen 

(USFS 2012b). Some evidence suggests that lodgepole pine has become less abundant in the last 

century, while spruce/fir has increased (USFS 2012a). Fire suppression reinforces this trend, but 

increases in wildfire and insect outbreaks may begin to reverse this trend.

Forest inventory data indicate that about 30 percent of the spruce/fir is mature (over 200 years 

old); about 22 percent of the lodgepole pine is mature (over 150 years old), about 16 percent of 

the Douglas-fir is mature (over 200 years old), about 23 percent of the whitebark pine is mature 

(over 200 years old), and about 28 percent of the limber pine is mature (over 200 years old) 

(USFS 2009). Data on current aspen age classes are inconclusive. 

In recent years, the Shoshone has experienced large wildfires and insect epidemics. About 

115,000 acres have burned in the last 5 years and about 161,500 acres in the last 10 years (USFS 

2012a). 

Over the past 11 years, widespread bark beetle epidemics have occurred on the Shoshone. 

Insect outbreaks and wildfires are likely altering foraging habitat to some degree for these bats on 

the Shoshone. Climate change increases the potential for more and continued insect outbreaks and 

also increases the frequency of fires (Rice et al. 2012).

Caves and abandoned mines are rare on the Shoshone. Currently, there is very little human use of 

caves and abandoned mines on the Forest. Suitable cliff habitat for spotted bats is also a rare 

feature on the Shoshone. Based on distribution modeling, the highest probability of occurrence 

for spotted bats is the very northeastern edge of the Forest (Keinath et al. 2010).
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

117

Risk Factors

The primary risk factors from forest management are recreational use of caves and abandoned 

mines and vegetation treatments in shrubland and aspen habitat. A potential major risk factor 

associated with bats using caves and mines for hibernacula is white-nose syndrome. 

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

The most important forest management emphasis for the conservation of bats on the Shoshone is 

protection of caves and abandoned mines from human use. This will reduce the potential risk of 

spreading white-nose syndrome. Vegetation management projects should focus on restoration of 

aspen stands and reduction of conifer encroachment into the stands.

Conservation Measures

In order to provide management for these species and to maintain or improve their potential 

distribution on the Shoshone, the following conservation measures were developed for 

incorporation into Revised Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Given the 

abundance of foraging habitat and recommended protection of caves and abandoned mines on the 

Shoshone, current viability risk from forest management to these bat species is low. If white-nose 

syndrome occurs in the region in the future, the viability risk will increase.

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Limit human disturbance, and where necessary, close caves and abandoned mines to human 

use that have documented bat populations.

2. When closing mines or caves, minimize disturbance and effects to microclimate, and provide 

access for bats.

3. Manage aspen, willow, and sagebrush cover types to reduce or halt the decline of acres due to 

conifer encroachment. 

Monitoring Considerations

Important monitoring considerations for these bats would be to cooperate with the WGFD to 

continue to survey for bats and determine their distribution on the Shoshone. An inventory of 

known hibernacula and summer cave and abandoned mine roosting sites would be important.

Effects Analysis: Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the fringed 

myotis, spotted bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat include abandoned mine closures and, possibly 

fuels treatment and timber management activities. Influences from fuels and timber treatments 

would be limited to the lower-elevation habitat types where the fringed myotis may potentially 

occur Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in Table 

BE- 26.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

118

Table BE- 26. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the fringed myotis, 

spotted bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat, by alternative

Alt A Alts B and G Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Suitable timber base 

acres 86,269 127,009 122,103 124,453 179,666 251,205

Vegetation treatment 

acres mechanical and 

mechanical w/

prescribed fire (total)

15,470 15,575 14,471 15,062 17,905 21,176

Douglas-fir 2,924 2,744 2,336 2,632 3,181 4,250

Lodgepole pine 5,291 5,330 5,641 5,361 7,058 9,211

Aspen 624 628 529 616 641 664

Vegetation treatment 

acres prescribed fire

(total)

23,559 23,302 23,299 23,342 22,823 21,910

Douglas-fir 4,949 4,869 4,836 4,871 4,748 4,585

Lodgepole pine 1,974 1,969 2,021 1,977 2,191 2,449

Aspen 918 909 899 911 878 823

Install structures to 

maintain bat habitat 

on mine closures

As 

opportunities 

arise

Same as alt A Same as 

alt A 

Same as 

alt A 

Same as 

alt A

Same as 

alt A

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

Alternative A offers similar timber management treatments as alternatives B, C, D, and G in dry 

forest types that may support fringed myotis, spotted bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat. Because 

the fringed myotis is known to day roost in both conifer and aspen snags, potential impacts to the 

species could occur if the planned activities result in reductions in these components. This 

potential affect would be similar across most alternatives with the potential of the greatest effects 

in alternative F, as it proposes the most amount of vegetation treatment. Conversely, restoration 

activities that include thinning of small dense trees might benefit the foraging patterns of many 

bat species. Several plan components also focus on snag management and retention, and although 

impacts will occur, they are anticipated to be minor. 

Alternative A offers similar prescribed fire treatments as alternatives B through G in the dry forest 

types that offer potential habitat for the fringed myotis, spotted bat, and Townsend’s big-eared 

bat. Impacts to potential roost sites or individual bats could occur in these locations if snags are 

fire-hardened, removed, or burned. 

Alternative A provides the same wildlife management actions in regard to mine closures with bat 

gates as opportunities arise. Thus, all alternatives install the same quantity and quality of mine 

closure bat gates over the life of the Revised Forest Plan. This action could be quite beneficial to 

the fringed myotis, spotted bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat because they readily roost in 

abandoned mines. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative)

As displayed in Table BE- 26.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

119

In general, alternatives E and F offer a higher risk of negative influences on some potential 

habitat components for the fringed myotis, spotted bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat, such as 

snags, because they both allocates a greater amount of area to active vegetation management 

scenarios. However, potential impacts are expected to be minimal because abandoned mines and 

cave habitat represent one of the most significant landscape features for this species and all 

alternatives include active wildlife management goals that target important underground roost 

sites for closure and protection. Plan components are also expected to reduce impacts to snags 

and other vegetation where active management occurs. Alternatives B through D and G offer 

similar timber management treatments in dry forest types as the no action therefore the effects are 

similar to those in alternative A.

The protection of abandoned mines with bat gates could be the single-most important Plan output 

in regards to conservation of the fringed myotis because it frequently utilizes mines and caves for 

reproductive habitat. The fringed myotis spotted bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat is also very 

sensitive to disturbances within these habitats. There is no difference among the Revised Forest 

Plan alternatives in regard to implementation of wildlife management activities that may provide 

bat gates on abandoned mines used by bat species. The same potential benefits are associated 

with each action alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are minimal on the Shoshone due to the limited amount of private land within 

the Forest boundary, and minimal if any development of National Forest System land anticipated 

in the future. There are no known proposals for additional development of any of these lands. 

Lands adjacent to the Shoshone are primarily private and/or BLM. Many cave resources occur 

adjacent to the Forest, some on private, and some on BLM. Recreational use of caves on the 

Shoshone is currently unknown, indicating a need for monitoring these habitats, and 

implementing protection measures if necessary. Some of the caves adjacent to the Forest have 

received bat-friendly closure gates to mitigate human recreation impact. The most significant 

cumulative impact to rock outcrops, cave habitats, and species on the Forest would continue to be 

from non-native species and/or recreation-related disturbances. Both potential impacts may 

increase over time.

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (fringed myotis, spotted bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat), but would not 

likely result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or 

a loss of species viability rangewide.” The rationale for this determination follows: 

• The single-most important habitat element for the fringed myotis, spotted bat, and 

Townsend’s big-eared bat on the Shoshone is most likely suitable mines and caves that 

provide reproductive habitat. Protection of these features is similarly associated with all 

alternatives. 

• All potential impacts cannot be completely discounted because some Revised Forest Plan 

activities may occasionally remove potential snag and tree roosts utilized by the species. 

• Information on use of caves and mines by bats is limited on the Shoshone. 
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

120

6.9 Cliff birds

American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

The American peregrine falcon has a natural heritage ranking of G4/S2. Historical populations, 

distribution, or abundance are unknown on the Shoshone. The peregrine falcon was removed 

from the Endangered Species list in 1999.

Peregrine falcons are known to breed worldwide. Historically, peregrine falcons bred throughout 

North America. They were extirpated from much of their range due primarily to DDT 

(dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). Through reintroduction and recovery efforts peregrine falcons 

have re-populated much of their former range. They are found scattered throughout most of 

Wyoming, but breed primarily in the western half of the state (WGFD 2010). Peregrines are 

considered a rare resident species in Wyoming. They are known to breed on the Shoshone.

The WGFD annually monitors peregrine eyries with the number of known eyries in the State 

steadily increasing since 1998 (WGFD 2010). This data includes eyries on the Shoshone. In 2009, 

more than 90 pairs of falcons nested in Wyoming. Trend data are also available for Yellowstone 

National Park, which is adjacent to the Shoshone. The number of nesting pairs has steadily 

increased in the park since about 1990 (Figure BE- 11). No trend data are available that is specific 

to the Shoshone, but the trend is also likely increasing.

Figure BE- 11. Total counted peregrine falcon nesting pairs and fledglings in Yellowstone National 

Park, 1984−2007 (YNP 2010)

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Peregrines nest on cliffs which are often located near water and are usually close to habitat with 

abundant prey (WGFD 2010). They forage in a variety of open habitats from open woodlands and 

forests to shrub-steppe, grasslands, marshes, and riparian habitats. Due to specific cliff-nesting 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

121

habitat requirements, nesting habitat for peregrine falcons is inherently limited on the Shoshone. 

The Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River canyon likely provides some of the best habitat on the 

Forest based on past observations (WYNDD 2010).

Due to the typical inaccessibility to cliffs, forest management activities have had little effect on 

potential peregrine falcon nesting habitat. Of the various forest management activities, ice 

climbing could have the great potential of affecting suitable habitat for this species, but this needs 

to be further investigated.

Management Emphasis Species Consideration

Peregrine falcons are a Region 2 sensitive species on the Shoshone and are brought forward 

through the Revised Forest Plan process.

Risk Factors

The primary risk factor from forest management would be recreational activities that disturb 

eyries. Other factors would include falconry.

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Maintaining undisturbed habitat near eyries would be the most important forest management 

emphasis for peregrine falcon habitat. Human disturbance near eyries has been known to cause 

site abandonment (White et al. 2002).

Conservation Measures

In order to provide management for peregrine falcons and to maintain or improve its potential 

distribution on the Shoshone, the following conservation measures were developed for 

incorporation into Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Given the typical 

inaccessibility to peregrine falcon eyries on the Forest and by protecting known eyries, overall 

viability risk from forest management to peregrine falcons is low. 

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. If an active eyrie is located, avoid project activities and human disturbance within 0.5 mile of 

the eyrie from February 1 to August 1.

Monitoring Considerations

Important monitoring considerations for peregrine falcons would be to continue to cooperate with 

the WGFD to continue the monitoring of known eyries to determine territory occupancy, nest 

success, and productivity. 

Effects Analysis. Revised Forest Plan activities that could potentially influence the peregrine 

falcon primarily involve motorized and non-motorized recreation (i.e., rock climbing). Riparian 

management activities could potentially improve prey habitat for the falcon. Differences in 

projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in Table BE- 27.
Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife

122

Table BE- 27. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the peregrine falcon, 

by alternative

Alt A Alts B and G* Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Motorized recreationsummer (acres 

available)

569,975 Alt B-570,246

Alt G-529,019 321,800 349,992 655,879 823,326

Riparian and 

watershed 

improvements

No acres 

available

No acres 

available

No acres 

available

No acres 

available

No acres 

available

No acres 

available

*Alternative G is the same as alternative. B unless otherwise indicated.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action

Existing conditions have recovered the peregrine falcon to the point that it has been delisted from 

the Endangered Species Act. Alternatives A, B, and G are expected to continue this trend because 

most nest sites are inaccessible to human impacts. However, it is possible that alternative A 

provides a higher risk of disturbance to individuals than alternatives C and D, because there is 

more “suitable opportunity” land for motorized travel in alternative A. Both alternatives E and F 

increase the amount of motorized travel and human activity over alternative A, therefore, they 

could potentially disturb peregrine falcons while they are nesting. 

Rock and ice climbing activities also have the potential to disturb falcons if the activity occurs 

near nest sites. Although both rock and ice climbing are popular sports on the Shoshone, there is 

no evidence to suggest that it is currently influencing nest productivity or causing disturbances. 

The amount of riparian improvement by alternatives is not known at this time. This activity may 

benefit prey species if it occurs in areas where falcons forage. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G (alternative G is the preferred alternative) 

Alternatives C and D are the only action alternatives that have the potential to reduce impacts 

from motorized travel in a similar manner, with most road access restricted to current routes and 

trails. Although travel impacts to individual falcons may still occur, it is likely that these travel 

management actions will reduce potential disturbances to nesting falcons. Both alternatives E and 

F increase the amount of motorized travel and human activity over the other alternatives, 

therefore, they could potentially disturb peregrine falcons the most while they are nesting. 

Potential influences from rock and ice climbing are not expected to be different under the action 

alternatives. Site-specific management and protection of nest sites will occur. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are minimal on the Shoshone due to the limited amount of private land within 

the Forest boundary, and minimal if any development of Forest Service land anticipated in the 

future. There are no known proposals for additional development of any of these lands. Lands 

adjacent to the Forest are primarily private and/or BLM. Cliff resources, while limited, occur 

adjacent to the Forest, some on private, and some on BLM. Recreational use of cliffs on the 

Shoshone is currently limited, indicating a need for monitoring these habitats, and implementing

protection measures if necessary. 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 

Shoshone National Forest

123

Determination

All Revised Forest Plan alternatives, including Alternative A, “may adversely impact 

individuals (peregrine falcons), but would not likely result in a loss of viability on the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” 

The rationale for this determination follows: 

• Persistent populations of the peregrine falcon occur on the Shoshone and the species has 

been declared recovered throughout the contiguous United States. 

• Minimal influences from human disturbances are expected because of nest site 

inaccessibility. 

• All potential impacts to individuals cannot be completely discounted because of some 

planned activities such as motorized travel, rock and ice climbing, and other recreational 

pursuits.