2015 Amendment to the 2013 Biological Assessment for the Revised 

Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan

Shoshone National Forest/Rocky Mountain Region

Prepared by: _/s/James Wilder Date: February 18, 2015 

 James Wilder

 Wildlife Biologist
2015 Amendment to the 2013 Biological Assessment for the Revised Shoshone 

National Forest Land and Natural Resource Management Plan

Table of Contents

Table of Contents....................................................................................................2

Introduction..........................................................................................................3

Description of Proposal (Proposed Action) including Conservation Measures.............................4

Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species Reviewed and Considered.................................5

Species Status and Environmental Baseline ....................................................................5

Effects of the Action ..............................................................................................14

Determination of the Effects.....................................................................................15

Literature Cited.....................................................................................................16

2
1. Introduction

This amended biological assessment/biological evaluation documents the evaluation of possible 

effects of the Revised Shoshone National Forest Land and Natural Resource Management Plan

on endangered, threatened, and proposed species known to occur on the Shoshone National 

Forest (SNF). Forest Service policy on threatened and endangered species is found in Forest 

Service Manual 2670.31. This assessment/evaluation was prepared in accordance with Section 

7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as amended (50 CFR 402.13), and Forest Service 

Manual 2672.42. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs Federal departments and 

agencies to ensure actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of Endangered or Threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats (16 USC 1536, 2009). 

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act as provided in 50 CFR 402.16, re-initiation 

of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control 

over the action has been maintained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent 

of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that 

may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in a 

biological opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an 

effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in a biological opinion; 

or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. 

The need for this amendment is the result of the change of status of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) 

and the North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) under the ESA since the 2013 BA was 

written. 

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

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

of Federal protections that were in place prior to the wolves’ 2012 delisting. Therefore, wolves 

are again listed as a nonessential experimental population in all of Wyoming. Take of wolves 

may be authorized only by the nonessential experimental population rules or by permits issued 

under section 10 of the ESA. All of Wyoming except the Wind River Indian Reservation again 

operates under the 1994 nonessential experimental population rule.

On August 13, 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service withdrew a proposal to list the North 

American wolverine in the contiguous United States as a threatened species under the ESA. 

After carefully considering the best available science, the Service has determined that the 

effects of climate change are not likely to place the wolverine in danger of extinction now or in 

the foreseeable future. As a result, the wolverine does not meet the statutory definition of either 

a “threatened species” or an “endangered species” and does not warrant protection under the 

ESA.

This biological assessment amends the previous 2013 BA and will be used to tier to for future 

BA’s prepared for the Revised Forest Plan. For the most part, information used to prepare 

this amendment was taken from the 2013 Biological Evaluation (BE) of Terrestrial 

Wildlife prepared for the Revised Shoshone National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. That BE addressed Rocky Mountain Region sensitive species which at 

3
that time included the gray wolf. 

2. Description of the Proposal (Proposed Action)

The 1986 Shoshone National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) is being 

revised. Since 1986, the Forest Plan has been amended 14 times. Land use plans provide broad 

guidance and information needed for project and activity decision-making. This 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 land use plan.

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; it is the only alternative analyzed in this amendment, as was the case in the 

original 2013 biological assessment.

Issue 1. Recreation Uses and Opportunities.

Issue 2. Special Areas and Designations.

Issue 3. Vegetation Management.

Issue 4. Wildlife Habitat Management.

Issue 5. Minerals.

Issue 6. Commercial Livestock Grazing.

Alternative G: Preferred alternative. This alternative describes the 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. 

This alternative provides for the protection of federally listed species and their habitats using best 

available science, the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 2007 (NRLMD) (USDA 

Forest Service 2007) and it specifically incorporates the Final Conservation Strategy for the 

Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area 2007 (Interagency Conservation Strategy Team 

2007). This alternative proposes to add 2,130 acres of precommercial thinning in lynx habitat 

that was not brought forward in the NRLMD. 

All Shoshone National Forest System lands have been allocated to one of 29 management areas 

that range from areas where backcountry nonmotorized is emphasized to areas that are more 

intensely managed. In general, those management areas that allow a higher level of management 

4
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.

3. Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species Reviewed and Considered

The need for this amendment is the result of the change in status of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) 

and the North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) under the ESA since the 2013 BA was 

written. 

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

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

of Federal protections that were in place prior to the wolves’ 2012 delisting. Therefore, wolves 

are again listed as a nonessential experimental population in all of Wyoming. Take of wolves 

may be authorized only by the nonessential experimental population rules or by permits issued 

under section 10 of the ESA. All of Wyoming except the Wind River Indian Reservation again 

operates under the 1994 nonessential experimental population rule.

On August 13, 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service withdrew a proposal to list the North 

American wolverine in the contiguous United States as a threatened species under the ESA. 

After carefully considering the best available science, the Service has determined that the effects 

of climate change are not likely to place the wolverine in danger of extinction now or in the 

foreseeable future. As a result, the wolverine does not meet the statutory definition of either a 

“threatened species” or an “endangered species” and does not warrant protection under the ESA.

Because wolverines were not listed under the ESA, they will not be considered further in this 

document. However, the analysis of possible effects to wolverines from the Revised Forest Plan 

has not changed from the original 2013 BA.

4. Species Status and Environmental Baseline- Gray wolf (Canis lupus)

History, Status, and Distribution on the Shoshone

The gray wolf is currently federally listed as a non-essential experimental population under 

section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act in the Yellowstone ecosystem. 

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). 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. In 2005 and 2008, the 

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

5
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. 

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

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

of Federal protections that were in place prior to the wolves’ 2012 delisting. Therefore, wolves 

are again listed as a nonessential experimental population in all of Wyoming. Take of wolves 

may be authorized only by the nonessential experimental population rules or by permits issued 

under section 10 of the ESA. All of Wyoming except the Wind River Indian Reservation again 

operates under the 1994 nonessential experimental population rule.

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).

Gray wolves 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. 

6
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, intraspecies 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 lowdensity suitable habitat (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 181–183; Service et al. 2008, Table 4).

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

Wyoming

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 16 percent, 2012 became the eleventh consecutive year that the wolf population in 

7
Wyoming has exceeded the numerical, distributional, and temporal recovery goals established by 

the USFWS.

8
Figure BE- 2. Home ranges of confirmed wolf packs in Wyoming in 2012 (Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 2013)

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.

9
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. 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.

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.

10
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

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).

11
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.

12
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:

Under the Forest Plan, the Shoshone National Forest will continue to carry out programs for the 

conservation of gray wolves. Specifically, the LMP (pp. 45-47) provides the following goals and 

management direction pertaining to gray wolves:

Provide habitat capable of contributing to conservation and viability of sensitive species, which 

will keep sensitive species from being listed under the Endangered Species Act (SENS-GOAL01).

Habitat for ungulate prey populations is available to support a recovered wolf population (SENSGOAL-09).

Design management actions within known nesting or denning sites of sensitive species to avoid 

disrupting the reproductive success of those sites during the nesting and denning periods (SENSSTAND-02).

Furthermore, the SNF will:

Encourage livestock producers to minimize depredations by proactively increasing riders on 

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

13
Encourage the use of techniques such as the presence of sheep dogs or herders, delaying 

livestock turn-out dates until after lambing/calving is complete, and the use of electric fencing 

and fladry at localized sites to minimize wolf depredation on livestock. 

Monitoring Considerations

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

wolf populations in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

5. Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives G (Alternative G is the preferred alternative). The number of animal unit months 

would remain unchanged. 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. 

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

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 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 

14
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).

6. 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), although some actions anticipated by the Forest Plan may adversely 

impact some individual gray wolves, no action would result in jeopardy to gray wolves, nor 

cause a loss of species viability range-wide.

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

programs for the conservation of gray wolves. Specifically, the LMP (pp. 45-47) provides the 

following positive 7(a)(1) conservation goals and management direction pertaining to gray 

wolves:

Provide habitat capable of contributing to conservation and viability of sensitive species, which 

will keep sensitive species from being listed under the Endangered Species Act (SENS-GOAL01).

Habitat for ungulate prey populations is available to support a recovered wolf population (SENSGOAL-09).

Design management actions within known nesting or denning sites of sensitive species to avoid 

disrupting the reproductive success of those sites during the nesting and denning periods (SENSSTAND-02).

Encourage the use of techniques such as the presence of sheep dogs or herders, delaying 

livestock turn-out dates until after lambing/calving is complete, and the use of electric fencing 

and fladry at localized sites to minimize wolf depredation on livestock. 

Encourage livestock producers to minimize depredations by proactively increasing riders on 

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

15
7. Literature Cited

Gore, J. 1995. B. E. Inserts for Yellowstone Wolf/Grazing Permit Reissuance. Unpublished 

paper. 2 pp.

Jimenez, M.D., D.W. Smith, D.R. Stahler, E. Albers, and R.F. Krischke. 2010. Wyoming Wolf 

Recovery 2009 Annual Report. Ecological Services. Helena: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2010, pp. WY-1 to WY-28.

Jimenez, M.D., D.W. Smith, D.R. Stahler, E. Albers, and R.F. Krischke. 2011. Wyoming Wolf 

Recovery 2010 Annual Report. Ecological Services. Helena: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2010.

Jimenez, M.D., D.W. Smith, S.A. Becker, D.R. Stahler, E. Stahler, M. Metz, R. McIntyre, J. 

Irving, R. Raymond, C. Anton, R. Kindermann, N. Bowersock, and R.F. Krischke. 2012. 

Wyoming Wolf Recovery 2011 Annual Report. Pages WY-1 to WY-25 in U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Rocky Mountain Wolf Program 2011 Annual Report. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 

Shepard Way, Helena, Montana, 59601

USFWS, 2009a. 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. April 2, 2009. Federal Register 74, 

15123-15188.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, 

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, and Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Tribal Fish and 

Game Department. 2013. 2012 Wyoming Gray Wolf Population Monitoring and Management 

Annual Report. K.J. Mills and R.F. Trebelcock, eds. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 5400 

Bishop Blvd. Cheyenne, WY 82006.

16