United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service

Shoshone Land Management Plan 

Revision

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Volume I

Chapters 1 through 4, Glossary, Literature Cited, and Index

Shoshone National Forest, Park, Fremont, Sublette, Teton, and Hot Springs Counties, Wyoming

January 2014
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 TDD). 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 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.
iii

Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Park, Fremont, Sublette, Teton, and Hot Springs Counties, Wyoming

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: State of Wyoming

Fremont County Commission

Hot Springs County Commission

Park County Commission

Cody Conservation District

Big Horn County Commission

Dubois-Crowheart Conservation District

Hot Springs Conservation District

Lower Wind River Natural Resource District

Meeteetse Conservation District

Popo Agie Conservation District

Teton Conservation District

Responsible Official: DANIEL JIRÓN, REGIONAL FORESTER 

Rocky Mountain Region

740 Simms Street

Lakewood, Colorado 80401

For Information Contact: JOESEPH G. ALEXANDER, FOREST 

SUPERVISOR

Shoshone National Forest

808 Meadow Lane Avenue

Cody, Wyoming 82414

CARRIE CHRISTMAN, FOREST 

PLANNING STAFF

Shoshone National Forest

808 Meadow Lane Avenue

Cody, Wyoming 82414

(307) 578-5118

JOHN RUPE, REGIONAL PLANNER

Rocky Mountain Region

740 Simms Street

Lakewood, Colorado 80401

(303) 275-5148

Abstract: This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) documents analysis of seven 

alternatives developed for programmatic management of the 2.4 million acres administered by the 

Shoshone National Forest. The Forest Service has identified alternative G as the preferred 

alternative.

The announcement of the release of the final plan and this final environmental impact statement 

will be published in the Federal Register. This will be followed by a 60-day objection period. To 

qualify for “standing,” objections must be linked to a prior substantive comment submitted during 
iv

opportunities for comment on the proposed decision. Objections will be resolved and/or 

responded to within 90 days following the 60-day objection period. The Record of Decision for 

the revised Forest Plan will not be issued until the reviewing officer has responded to the 

objections.
v

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Shoshone National Forest
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

vi

Acronyms

AIS

AMP

AMS

Aquatic Invasive Species

Allotment Management Plan

Analysis of the Management 

Situation

ASQ Allowable Sale Quantity

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle

AUM Animal Unit Month

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMU Bear Management Unit

Ccf

CER

Hundred Cubic Feet

Comprehensive Evaluation 

Report

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EDRR

EIS

Early Detection Rapid Response

Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection 

Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FSEIS Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement

FSH

FSM

Forest Service Handbook

Forest Service Manual

GIS Geographic Information System

GYA

IDT

Greater Yellowstone Area

Interdisciplinary Team

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area

LMP Land Management Plan

LTSYC Long-term Sustained Yield 

Capacity

MA Management Area

MCF Thousand Cubic Feet

MIS Management Indicator Species

MMBF Million Board Feet

MMCF Million Cubic Feet

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map

NEPA National Environmental Policy 

Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NHPA National Historic Preservation 

Act

NOI Notice of Intent

NRLMD Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction

PCA Primary Conservation Area

RNAs Research Natural Areas

ROD Record of Decision

ROS Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum

SIA 

SIO

U.S.C.

Special Interest Area

Scenic Integrity Objective

United States Code

USDA United States Department of 

Agriculture

USDI United States Department of 

Interior

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface

Note regarding acreages and data sources: The 

information in the tables, figures and maps in the 

following document was generated from a variety of 

sources, including geographical information system 

(GIS) software, tabular databases, and data from a 

variety of models used in planning analysis. The 

acreage figures from the various sources do not match 

exactly in all cases. However, when added, acres of 

National Forest System lands (regardless of the 

source) are within acceptable margins of error.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Summary

vii

Summary

Purpose and Need for Action

This action is needed to meet the requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (16 

U.S.C. 1604) and associated regulations at 36 CFR 219. The revision of the forest plan is based on a need 

to change. 

Proposed Action

The Forest Service proposes to revise the 1986 Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan as 

amended (1986 Forest Plan as amended). The area affected by the proposal includes about 2.4 million 

acres of public land in northwestern Wyoming (see figure 1). The Shoshone Revised Land Management 

Plan (revised Forest Plan) would designate 26 management area themes across the Shoshone National 

Forest (Shoshone or Forest) and would guide natural resource management activities on the Shoshone for 

the next 10 to 15 years. The revised Forest Plan will contain the following elements:

• Establishment of forest multiple-use goals and objectives, 36 CFR 219.11(b) (1982 regulations);

• Establishment of Forest-wide management requirements (standards and guidelines) to fulfill the 

requirements of 16 U.S.C. 1604 applying to future activities (resource integration requirements 

36 CFR 219.13 to 219.27 (1982 regulations));

• Establishment of management areas and management area direction (management area 

prescriptions) applying to future activities in that management area (resource integration and 

minimum specific management requirements) 36 CFR 219.11(c) (1982 regulations);

• Designation of suitable timber land (16 U.S.C. 1604(k) and 36 CFR 219.14 (1982 regulations)) 

and establishment of an allowable sale quantity (16 U.S.C. 1611 and 36 CFR 219.16 (1982 

regulations));

• Nonwilderness allocations or wilderness recommendations where 36 CFR 219.17 (1982 

regulations) applies; and

• Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements 36 CFR 219.11(d) (1982 regulations).

Decision Framework

Under the provisions of the 1982 regulations, the Rocky Mountain Regional Forester is the deciding 

official. Given the purpose and need, the regional forester will review the proposed action, the other 

alternatives, and the environmental consequences to decide upon a plan based on one of the alternatives 

or a combination of the alternatives.

The regional forester will make his decision based on the following criteria, utilizing input, information, 

and analysis provided by the forest supervisor, interdisciplinary team, cooperators, and the public. 

• Is the decision the best resolution of the revision topics?

• Does the decision reflect an ability to best maximize net public benefits, consistent with resource 

integration, management requirements, and legal constraints?

• Is the decision consistent with laws, regulations, and policy?

Prior to the final decision, a predecisional objection process will be available in accordance with 36 CFR 

219.52.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

viii

Public Involvement

Public meetings were conducted in 2005 through 2009, when the revision was following previous 2005 

and 2008 versions of the planning regulations. This work was halted in June 2009, when a California 

District Court struck down the 2008 version of the rule, but we used some information from these 

meetings that is not specific to a version of the rule. 

The notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the Federal 

Register on September 24, 2010 (75 FR 58348−58350). The NOI asked for public comment on the 

proposal through October 25, 2010. A series of public meetings and cooperator meetings were also 

conducted from February through December of 2011, to clarify and refine the revision topics, and to 

refine the proposed draft of the revised Shoshone National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(proposed Draft Revised Plan). On January 4, 2012, the proposed Draft Revised Plan was sent out for 

public comment. Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and governments, the 

interdisciplinary team developed the revision topics which helped guide the development of alternatives

analyzed in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

The notice of availability (NOA) of the Shoshone Land Management Plan Revision DEIS was published 

in the Federal Register on August 3, 2012 (77 FR 46433). The July 2012 Draft Land Management Plan 

was available with the DEIS. The NOA began the official 90-day comment period, which ended on 

November 1, 2012. The Forest received approximately 23,480 responses; of which, approximately 22,400 

were form letter submissions and 1,080 were unique extensive and detailed comment letters from 

individuals, organizations, agencies, and businesses and were received via email or U.S. Post Office. The 

Forest Service prepared responses to the public comments that were not determined by majority opinion,

but rather by the substance of the comments. The content analysis process ensured that every comment 

was read, analyzed, and considered, and in some cases, the analysis resulted in changes to the DEIS. See 

appendix A for more information regarding the public involvement process.

Revision Topics

Six major plan revision topics are the major issues addressed by the revised Forest Plan. These topics 

represent areas where resource conditions, technical knowledge, public perception of resource 

management, or unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources have created a 

potential “need for change.” Needed changes generally are important enough to affect large areas, change 

the mix of goods and services produced, and involve choices in management direction where there is no 

public consensus on the best course of action.

We based selection of the topics upon both the need for change from the 1986 Forest Plan as amended

and the strong public interest in how the revised Forest Plan will answer these questions. These topics 

were the ones identified repeatedly in the public meetings held across the Forest and by the Government 

Cooperators Work Group from 2005 through 2010, and validated during the scoping period in late 2010.

The six major plan revision topics are:

• Recreation uses and opportunities

• Special areas and designations

• Vegetation management

• Wildlife habitat management

• Oil and gas development

• Commercial livestock grazing
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Summary

ix

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

The revision topics led the agency to develop alternatives to the proposed action. Variations among 

alternatives are primarily the difference in allocation of acres by management area to meet the purpose 

and need for change. Prescriptions are grouped in categories with similar management characteristics (see 

table 1). Categories range from little human-caused alteration (Category 1) to substantial human-caused 

alteration (Category 8). Each alternative allocates land to management area prescriptions at various levels. 

For a more complete discussion of the categories and management area prescriptions, see chapter 2 of the 

revised Forest Plan. 

Table 1. Management area prescription categories

Category Management area prescriptions

Category 1 Wilderness and non-motorized back country

Category 2 Research and minimal use areas

Category 3 Natural processes predominate

Category 4 Recreation use

Category 5 Forested and grassland ecosystems with a variety of uses

Category 8 Developed areas

Management area (MA) acres only provide partial information on what activities can occur on which

lands. Suitability for activities is based upon management area allocation, Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines, and other underlying direction for any particular acre. The effects analysis in chapter 3 is a 

better source of information for determining the effects of the alternative on any particular activity.

Table 2 provides a comparison of management area allocations by alternative. Alternative A, the no-action 

alternative, is included even though it does not use the same management areas as those in the revised 

Forest Plan. Alternative A management areas were cross walked to the revised Forest Plan management 

areas for comparison purposes (see FEIS table 10). See the forest plan for a full description of each 

management area.

The following brief descriptions of the alternatives precede figure 2, which displays the management area 

allocations by category for the alternatives:

Alternative A (No Action): The no-action alternative reflects current Forest-wide direction. It meets 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act requirement (36CFR 219.12(f)(7) that a no-action 

alternative be considered. “No action” means that current management allocations, activities, and 

management direction found in the 1986 Forest Plan as amended would continue. This alternative serves 

as a baseline for comparison with the six “action” alternatives.

Alternative B: This alternative was the proposed action. Based on early public scoping comment it 

includes elements that emphasize active vegetation management to achieve biological and habitat 

diversity and continues to provide a mix of motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities while 

protecting wildlife habitat.

Alternative C: Alternative C emphasizes wilderness values and protection of back country while moving 

toward desired conditions. There is an increased emphasis on natural disturbance processes. Alternative C 

could have more opportunities for back country non-motorized recreation and more acres of management 

area category 1 (MA 1- 2.1 million acres) than any other alternative. This alternative was developed in 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

x

response to public comment that the undeveloped land on the Shoshone should remain undeveloped to 

provide non-motorized opportunities, natural processes, minimal recreational facilities, and undeveloped 

recreational settings. Alternative C would retain the eligibility for 16 eligible wild and scenic river 

segments and recommends the most amount of land allocated for wilderness, with no motorized use in 

remaining inventoried roadless areas.

Alternative D: Alternative D was developed to be responsive to public and conservation group comments 

regarding specific areas of the Forest remaining undeveloped to provide non-motorized opportunities, 

natural processes, minimal recreational facilities, and undeveloped recreational settings. This alternative 

would recommend 194,500 acres for wilderness, 8 new research natural areas, and 3 special interest areas. 

Alternative E: Alternative E was developed to be responsive to comments regarding specific uses of the 

Forest to support local communities and provide access for motorized recreation. This alternative 

emphasizes commodity production and motorized use and addresses issues shared by some of the public, 

local industry, and motorized user groups.

Alternative F: Alternative F was developed to respond to comments regarding specific uses of the 

Shoshone to support local communities and provide increased access for motorized recreation and use. 

This alternative emphasizes commodity production and motorized use while addressing issues shared by 

some of the public, local industry, and motorized user groups. This alternative demonstrates the highest 

level of management area category 5 (528,000 acres) that emphasize commodity production and 

motorized use within parameters, such as designated wilderness, the grizzly bear primary conservation 

area, etc. 

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 DEIS. The alternative provides a diversity of forest uses and 

emphasizes active management of suitable timber lands, protects wildlife habitat, maintains a diversity of 

recreation opportunities, and maintains the dominant back country character of the Forest. Alternative G 

is similar to alternative B. The main differences include additional acres of winter motorized recreation 

outside of crucial winter range, changes to summer motorized recreation, changes to suitability for oil and 

gas development, and modification to special areas boundaries.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Summary

xi

Figure 2. Comparison of management area prescription categories by alternative
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xii

Table 2. Comparison of management allocations (in acres)

MA MA Description Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

1.1 Wilderness 1,358,592 1,358,592 1,358,592 1,358,592 1,358,592 1,358,592 1,358,592

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

1.2 Recommended Wilderness 584,734 165,587

1.2A Recommended High Lakes Wilderness 15,224

1.2B Recommended Dunoir Wilderness 28,879 28,879

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

1.5A Clarks Fork of Yellowstone Wild River 6,924 6,924 3,350 6,924 6,924 6,924 6,924

1.6A High Lakes Wilderness Study Area 15,224 15,224 15,224 15,224 15,224 15,224

1.6B Dunoir Special Management Unit 28,879 28,879 28,879 28,879 28,179

2.2A Line Creek Research Natural Area 1,278 1,278 186 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278

2.3 Proposed Research Natural Area 1,386 12,127 4,298 15,201 13,831

3.1A Swamp Lake Botanical Area 581 581 581 581 581 581 581

3.1B Proposed Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological Area 1,714 1,714 1,714 1,714

3.1C Proposed Sawtooth Peatbeds Geological Area 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 43,485 185,879

3.3C Back Country Summer Motorized 72,735 4,936 11,500 98,030 4,563 46,596

3.5 Back Country Recreation and 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

3.5D Back Country Restoration Non-motorized 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 Historical Area 481 481 481 481 481 4,603

5.1 Managed Forests and Rangelands 157,215 173,190 72,298 168,423 253,799 528,146 173,190

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 53,983 79,935 54,978

8.2 Ski-based Resort 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Summary

xiii

Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 of the draft environmental impact statement presents the affected environment and the analysis 

of potential outcomes. Following is a summary of the potential impacts, by resource area, predicted to 

result from implementation of the alternatives.

Soil and water

Most of the watersheds (131 out of 147) on the Shoshone National Forest are in a properly functioning

condition. Sixteen watersheds have some impacts and are functioning at risk. No watersheds on the 

Shoshone are classified as having impaired function. Properly functioning watersheds will be maintained 

and watersheds functioning at risk will be improved with application of standards and guidelines that are 

included in all of the alternatives. There are little to no negative effects to soil and water resources from 

any of the alternatives.

Vegetation

Climatic and biological processes will continue to be the dominant influences on vegetation composition 

and structure on the Shoshone under all alternatives. Wildland fire and insect epidemics are two factors 

that will have the greatest impacts on vegetation, creating younger age class conditions, and favoring 

earlier succession species.

Vegetation management activities, including mechanical harvesting and prescribed fire, will impact 

vegetation composition and structure where activities occur. These activities generally create younger 

stand conditions and smaller patch sizes.

Most cover types are minimally affected by the alternatives. Alpine, grasslands, Douglas-fir, spruce/fir, 

and lodgepole pine will continue to fluctuate as they have under the 1986 Forest Plan as amended.

Protection and management of sagebrush are emphasized in all alternatives to maintain this cover type 

and reduce the risk of it converting to cheatgrass. Alternatives include direction to manage prescribed fire 

and wildfire to maintain sagebrush cover type. There is little change in actual sagebrush acres across the 

alternatives.

Aspen restoration is emphasized in all alternatives, resulting in an increase of the aspen cover type. The 

action alternatives contain objectives for increasing aspen acreage, ranging from 2,000 acres in alternative 

C to 3,500 acres in alternative G. 

Whitebark pine restoration is emphasized in all alternatives. All action alternatives include an objective 

for restoring whitebark pine acreage, ranging from 500 acres in alternative C to 1,400 acres in alternative 

G. The whitebark pine objective in alternatives B, D, and E is 750 acres. In alternative F the objective is 

1,250 acres. Some restoration activity may take place in wilderness, but the associated costs would limit 

the overall acres of whitebark restoration occurring in wilderness. Alternative A does not have an 

objective for whitebark; however, it does include direction for restoring whitebark and it is projected to 

result in an increase similar to alternatives B, D, and E. Alternative F has a larger objective because a 

larger amount of whitebark cover type would be within suitable timber lands. This increase would be 

partially tempered by the fact that the commercial opportunity provided by whitebark pine is limited and 

commercial timber would be emphasized on those lands. The objective for alternative G was set higher to 

indicate an even greater emphasis on whitebark pine restoration. The opportunity for restoration of 

whitebark pine will be limited in the short term until a suitable supply of whitebark seedlings that are 

resistant to blister rust are available for planting.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xiv

Differences in vegetation for the alternatives will be influenced most by differences in the acres available 

for active management. Acres allocated to management areas where management activity will be most 

frequent range from 312,800 acres in alternative C to 635,400 acres in alternative F (see table 3). 

Projections for prescribed fire and mechanical vegetation management that will occur in the planning 

period range from 35,000 acres in alternative C to 39,700 acres in alternative F (see table 3). 

Sensitive plant species

The alternatives that allocate lands to research natural area and special interest area management provide 

important lands that contribute to the conservation of sensitive plant species on the Shoshone and within 

the Greater Yellowstone Area.

Alternatives proposing greater levels of disturbance (fire, timber, grazing, roads, etc.) increase the 

potential for impacts to sensitive plant populations. The exception is whitebark pine, where disturbance 

processes may be a beneficial effect and may aid in restoration of this species. The amount of land 

impacted by various management activities is small compared to total Shoshone National Forest acreage. 

All alternatives include design criteria to maintain sensitive plant habitat and limit negative effects. 

Under alternatives A and F, lands allocated to research natural areas do not include the sensitive plant 

habitat in calcareous montane grasslands, rocky slopes, and ridges that occur within the potential Bald 

Ridge and Pat O’Hara research natural areas. Alternatives A and F may increase the risk of impacts to 

some sensitive plant species. Alternative B proposes six additional research natural areas and three 

additional special interest areas. Alternative E proposes three additional research natural areas and one 

additional special interest area. Alternatives C, D, and G propose eight new research natural areas, 

including Bald Ridge and Pat O’Hara research natural areas, and would reduce potential risk of impacts to 

sensitive plant species in calcareous montane grasslands, rocky slopes, and ridges. Alternatives C, D, and 

G also propose three additional special interest areas.

For all alternatives, the overall determination for most species is “may adversely impact individuals but 

not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” For 

whitebark pine, the determination is the same, but some management elements will have a “beneficial 

impact” for the species across its range.

Fish and wildlife

All alternatives affect wildlife resources to some degree. The greatest impacts from management activities 

are associated with timber harvest, roads and trails, and land use authorizations. Alternatives that allow 

the least ground-disturbing activity and emphasize wilderness and non-motorized back country 

designations will result in the least risk of impact to fish and wildlife species. Impacts to specific species 

are addressed in the following discussion.

Wolf and grizzly bear conflicts with livestock will continue under all alternatives and would likely 

increase under alternatives E and F, which increase livestock grazing. Alternative F allows increases in 

snowmobile use in lynx habitat and in wheeled motorized recreation in the grizzly bear primary 

conservation area. Both these actions reduce secure habitat for these species and are not consistent with 

the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction and the Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy.

Alternatives E and F do not have a pack goat closure in core bighorn sheep habitat. Alternative A allows 

the current temporary closure to expire. That action increases the risk of disease transmission from pack 

goats to bighorn sheep. Other sensitive species affected by the various alternatives retain their population 

viability determinations.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Summary

xv

Four management indicator species were chosen to be surrogates for habitat conditions affected by 

activities associated with forest plan implementation. These include ruffed grouse for aspen, Brewer’s 

sparrow for sagebrush communities, red-breasted nuthatch for mature conifer forests and snags, and game 

trout for aquatic habitat. Potential impacts to these species are similar for all alternatives. 

The alternatives have differing effects on elk habitat. Elk secure habitat is affected by the miles of roads 

and trails that are open to wheeled motorized recreation. Depending upon location, wheeled motorized 

recreation can decrease habitat security. Alternative C provides the greatest amount of secure elk habitat. 

The other alternatives have the same amount of secure habitat, which is less than alternative C. 

Management of big game winter range is also affected by the alternatives. In most alternatives, big game 

crucial winter range that is to be actively managed is assigned to MA 5.4. This designation manages for 

big game on crucial winter range, while providing forest products. Alternative B provides for 55,000 acres 

and alternative G provides for 54,980 acres of MA 5.4. Alternative F does not designate any MA 5.4 lands 

(see table 2). Two alternatives assign acres of big game crucial winter to active management areas that do 

not specifically manage for big game winter range: 26,700 acres in alternative A and 132,300 acres in 

alternative F. 

Aquatic habitat and aquatic invasive species

All alternatives include standards and guidelines to protect and maintain aquatic and riparian resources, 

although those with the most disturbances would have the potential for greater impacts. The greatest 

potential impacts to aquatic resources from land management activities are primarily associated with 

livestock grazing, timber harvest, roads, trails, and motorized use. Water hauling/moving for wildfire 

suppression activities has the potential to spread aquatic invasive species. Alternatives in order of least to 

most potential impact to aquatic resources are alternatives C, D, G, B, A, E, and then F. 

Fire and fuels

Wildfire will continue to be a significant influence on the landscape for the next 10 to 15 years. Estimated 

acres that could burn as result of wildfire for alternatives A through D and G are similar at over 

182,000 acres. In alternatives E and F, the number of acres allocated to management areas with active 

management will increase, resulting in increased fire suppression. In these alternatives, acres of wildfire 

are projected at 175,000 for alternative E and 161,400 for alternative F (see table 3).

Hazardous fuels

All alternatives would contribute to reducing hazardous fuels using vegetation treatments and wildfire. 

Mechanical and prescribed fire treatments will be targeted specifically in areas where hazardous fuels 

conditions are a concern. Total hazardous fuel reduction from mechanical and prescribed fire treatments 

ranges from 35,000 acres in alternative C to 41,200 acres in alternative F (see table 3). 

Bark beetles

All alternatives contain direction to manage stands to reduce impacts from bark beetles in actively 

managed areas of the forest. Actively managed areas of the forest can reduce stand susceptibility to bark 

beetles, by reducing stand ages and increasing age class and species diversity. Because of the low number 

of acres that are managed in any particular time period (timber sales, timber stand improvement, or fuels 

reduction projects), little change can be achieved at the forest scale. There is little difference in Forestwide effects among the alternatives, though more individual stands are affected in alternative F, which 

actively manages the most land, than in alternative C, which actively manages the least land.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xvi

Invasive plants

All alternatives include direction that new invasive plant species are treated, and existing populations are 

contained or eradicated. The effects are similar across all alternatives, though the alternatives that disturb 

more soil have a greater likelihood of weed introduction and spread, and will have a need for more 

control.

Commercial livestock grazing

Alternatives manage for different levels of commercial livestock grazing ranging from 31,400 permitted 

animal unit months in alternative C to 61,500 in alternative F (see table 3). Acres suitable for commercial 

livestock grazing range from 216,800 acres in alternative C to 415,400 acres in alternative F (see table 3).

Forest products

Alternatives manage for different levels of timber products ranging from 14,900 hundred cubic feet (Ccf) 

in alternative C to 30,500 Ccf in alternative F (see table 3). Acres suitable for timber production range 

from 86,300 acres in alternative A and 122,100 acres in alternative C to 251,200 acres in alternative F 

(see table 3).

Oil and gas

Effects to other resources from oil and gas development depend on the actual discovery and development 

of a field. The projected development potential for oil and gas on the Shoshone is low to very low. This 

projection applies even in those acres (255,000) that have high potential for oil and gas resources to occur. 

Given the low potential for development, there is little difference among the alternatives.

The analysis also considers the potential loss of the opportunity to discover and develop oil and gas 

resources when National Forest System lands are withdrawn from development or plan direction states 

that surface occupancy for oil and gas development is not suitable. The percentage of land with a high 

potential for oil and gas occurrence (255,000 acres) that is generally available for oil and gas development 

with surface development1 ranges from 91 percent in alternative A to 32 percent in alternative C (see table 

3). 

Recreation 

Approximately 909 miles of National Forest System (System) roads are currently open and would remain 

open under alternatives A, B, D, E, F, and G. The analysis projects that 107 miles of currently open roads 

would be closed under alternative C. 

Currently, 32 miles of trails are open to wheeled motor vehicle use. The action alternatives project 

changes in miles of motorized trails ranging from 21 miles in alternative C to 92 miles in alternative F 

(see table 3). 

Over-snow motorized use is not allowed within MA 1.6B in any of the action alternatives. In alternatives

B and G, over-snow motorized use is allowed within MA 5.4, where the Wyoming Game and Fish

Department (WGFD) staff indicates that current use levels are not negatively impacting wintering big 

game. In alternatives C and D, all MA 5.4 acres are closed to over-snow vehicle use. Alternative C would 

have the lowest amount of opportunities for winter motorized use and would prohibit any winter 

motorized use in all inventoried roadless areas. Alternative C is also the only alternative that would 

decrease the total miles of trail allowing over-snow vehicle use (approximately a 113-mile reduction). 

 1 Lands where surface occupancy is allowed or that are within 1 mile of lands where surface occupancy is allowed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Summary

xvii

Under alternative F, winter recreation would be allowed in all capable areas assigned as open year-round

to motorized activity. Alternative G would provide somewhat more winter motorized use areas when 

compared to alternatives B and E, and less than alternatives A and F.

Wilderness

Alternatives C and D propose new wilderness recommendations of 628,800 and 194,500 acres 

respectively. Alternatives A, B, E, F, and G propose no new wilderness recommendations. 

Research natural areas

Research natural areas are selected to provide a spectrum of relatively undisturbed areas representing 

important natural ecosystems and environments, for example, forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, aquatic, 

and geologic environments. They are also selected to represent areas with special or unique, scientifically 

important characteristics.

Alternatives C, D, and G establish eight potential research natural areas, which would lead to currently 

unrepresented plant associations and communities on the Shoshone being represented within a designated

research natural area, meeting Forest Service research natural area goals. No new research natural areas 

are proposed under alternatives A and F, resulting in some plant associations and communities on the 

Shoshone not being represented within a designated research natural area. In alternatives E and B, the 

potential Bald Ridge and Pat O’Hara research natural areas are not included. Both contain areas important 

to biodiversity.

Special interest areas

Special interest areas have outstanding or unique examples of plant and animal communities, geological 

features, scenic grandeur, or other special attributes that merit special management. These areas are 

managed to emphasize uses in harmony with the purpose for designation. 

Currently, one special interest area is established, Swamp Lake Botanical Area. Three additional special 

interest areas are proposed: Sawtooth Peatbeds Geological Area, Kirwin Historical Area, and Little Popo 

Agie Moraine Geological Area. 

Overall, potential impacts to special interest area resources would be least under alternatives G, B, C, and 

D, with the establishment of the three potential special interest areas. Alternative E would protect one 

potential special interest area, Kirwin Historical Area. No new special interest areas are proposed under 

alternatives A and F; their features would not be emphasized for their biological, geological, or historical 

values.

Social and economic resources

The economic differences among the alternatives in many cases are relatively small; the impacts may be 

considerable to individuals, families, or businesses. In small communities, the loss of a single job may be 

important, yet negligible when averaged across the analysis area on the Shoshone National Forest.

The largest difference among the alternatives and the current situation on the Shoshone is changes to 

potential timber harvest, with alternatives E and F showing the highest increases in employment related to 

timber output.

Recreation and tourism outputs from the Shoshone are assumed constant for all alternatives. Types of use 

may change, with one activity substituting for another, but overall use numbers are anticipated to be 

similar. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xviii

Livestock grazing on the Shoshone, similar to timber outputs, increases under alternatives E and F. 

Economic contribution increases within the analysis area as well. In alternative C, outputs and 

contributions would decline, as fewer acres would be available for livestock grazing. There is some 

probability that this decline in available forage could affect some ranches’ economic viability. 

Alternative Comparison

Table 3 summarizes effects by alternative. Information in this table focuses on activities and effects 

related to the revision topics. Activities and effects displayed for the different alternatives are only 

projections for the purposes of comparing alternatives. On-the-ground activities and effects associated 

with implementing forest plan direction would not occur until project-level decisions are completed, 

including compliance with NEPA and other federal laws and regulations.

Summary of Changes from the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

Changes to the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that led to the development of this document 

were based on new information and comments from the public and other agencies on the draft EIS (see 

appendix A). Additional changes are editorial for clarity and correcting typos. The more substantive 

changes include the following: 

• Development of alternative G, the preferred alternative, in response to comments received on the 

draft EIS. Analysis updates to disclose alternative G effects. 

• Mapping corrections and corresponding acre corrections. 

• Incorporation of new information and consideration of additional literature. 

• Addition of the response to comments submitted for the DEIS, updating appendix A.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Summary

xix

Table 3. Summary comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Recreation

Effect of 

alternative on 

over-snow 

motorized 

recreation

Continues to 

allow use on 

lands where it 

currently occurs 

including within 

Dunoir SMU 

(1.6B).

Lands available 

for use are 

reduced. Use is 

prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU. 

Use prohibited 

in some crucial 

winter range 

and some back 

country areas.

Lands available 

for use are 

reduced. Use 

prohibited in all 

inventoried 

roadless areas 

and all big game 

winter range. 

Existing 

snowmobile 

trails reduced.

Lands available 

for use are 

reduced. Use 

prohibited in all 

inventoried 

roadless areas 

and all big game 

crucial winter 

range.

Lands available 

for use are 

reduced. Use is 

prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU. 

Use prohibited 

in some back 

country areas.

Landsavailable 

for use are 

reduced. Use is 

prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU. 

Most capable 

areas are open 

to use

Lands available 

for use are 

reduced. Use is 

prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU. 

Use prohibited 

in some crucial 

winter range 

and some back 

country areas.

Lands where 

allocation allows 

over the snow 

motorized 

recreation 

(acres)

(% of Forest 

acres)

887,600 

(36%)

480,200 

(20%)

103,000 

(4%)

323,800 

(13%)

526,400 

(22%)

825,200 

(34%)

592,400 

(24%)

Snowmobile 

trails (miles) 276 276 163 276 276 367 276

Effect of 

alternative on 

summer 

motorized 

recreation

Continues to 

allow use on 

lands where it is 

currently 

occurring.

Total lands 

available are the 

same. More 

land available

outside grizzly 

primary 

conservation 

area

Lands available 

for use are 

reduced. Use 

prohibited in 

inventoried 

roadless areas 

and 

recommended 

wilderness. 

Existing roads 

and motorized 

trails reduced.

Lands available 

for use are 

reduced. Use 

prohibited in 

inventoried 

roadless areas 

and 

recommended 

wilderness.

Lands available 

for use are 

increased.

Landsavailable 

for use are 

increased. Most 

capable areas 

are open to use.

Total lands 

available are 

slightly reduced. 

More land 

available 

outside grizzly 

primary 

conservation 

area
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xx

Table 3. Summary comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Lands where 

allocation allows 

motorized 

summer 

recreation

(% of Forest 

acres)

570,000 

(23%)

570,200 

(23%)

321,800

(13%)

350,000 

(14%)

655,900 

(27%)

823,300 

(34%)

529,000 

(22%)

Total miles 

motorized trails 32 54 21 39 62 92 54

Total miles open 

roads 909 909 802 909 909 910 909

Effect of 

alternative on 

mechanized use 

(bicycles)

Use is allowed 

outside 

wilderness. Use 

is allowed in 

Dunoir SMU.

Use is allowed 

outside 

wilderness. Use 

is prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU.

Use is allowed 

outside 

wilderness. Use 

is prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU and 

High Lakes 

WSA.

Use is allowed 

outside 

wilderness. Use 

is prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU.

Use is allowed 

outside 

wilderness. Use 

is prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU.

Use is allowed 

outside 

wilderness. Use 

is prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU.

Use is allowed 

outside 

wilderness. Use 

is restricted to a 

single trail in 

Dunoir SMU.

Lands where 

allocation allows 

mechanized 

(bicycle use) 

(% of Forest 

acres)

1,072,900 

(44%)

1,044,000

(43%)

1,028,800

(42%)

1,044,000

(43%)

1,044,000

(43%)

1,044,000

(43%)

1,044,000

(43%)

Special Areas and Designations

Effect of 

alternative on 

special area 

designations

Existing 

wilderness (56% 

of forest), one 

existing RNA, 

one existing SIA

No new 

wilderness, six 

RNAs proposed, 

three SIAs 

proposed

Recommends 

new wilderness 

(+26% of forest), 

eight proposed 

RNAs, three

proposed SIAs

Recommends 

new wilderness 

(+8% of forest), 

eight proposed 

RNAs, three

proposed SIAs

No new 

wilderness, 

three RNAs 

proposed – all 

within 

wilderness, one 

SIA proposed

No new special 

areas

No new 

wilderness, 

eight RNAs 

proposed –

boundaries 

adjusted to 

exclude existing 

motorized use, 

three SIAs 

proposed –

Sawtooth 

Peatbed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Summary

xxi

Table 3. Summary comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

boundary 

adjusted to 

exclude existing 

motorized use, 

Kirwin expanded 

to include 

additional 

features

Acres 

recommended 

wilderness

0 0 628,800 194,500 0 0 0

Number of 

proposed new 

research natural 

areas (acres)

0 6

(63,200)

8

(70,600)

8

(70,600)

3

(35,600) 0 8

(68,600)

Number of 

proposed new 

special interest 

areas (acres)

0 3

(2,840)

3

(2,840)

3

(2,840)

1

(480) 0 3

(6,720)

Effect of 

alternatives on 

wild and scenic 

rivers

One designated 

wild river

Eligibility 

maintained on 

16 eligible river 

segments

Eligibility 

maintained on 

16 eligible river 

segments

Eligibility 

maintained on 

16 eligible river 

segments

Eligibility 

maintained on 

16 eligible river 

segments

Eligibility 

maintained on 

16 eligible river 

segments

Eligibility 

maintained on 

16 eligible river 

segments

Vegetation Management

Management 

area acres with 

frequent 

vegetation 

management 

(MAs 3.5-, 4.2, 

4.3, 4.5A, 5.1, 

5.2, 5.4)

377,100 422,800 312,800 345,700 459,300 635,400 424,500
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xxii

Table 3. Summary comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Acres of 

hazardous fuels 

reduction 

management 

activity 

(next 10 years)

36,100 35,800 35,000 35,600 37,400 41,200 35,800

Acres of wildfire 

(next 10 years) 185,200 182,900 184,100 183,700 175,000 161,400 182,800

Effect on timber 

harvest

No change in 

timber 

production acres 

and focus of 

harvest activities

Timber 

production acres 

increased as 

result of 

updated 

mapping. Focus 

on acres outside 

inventoried 

roadless. Some 

restoration 

harvests in 

inventoried 

roadless. 

Increased 

volume per acre 

of restoration 

harvests 

reduces total 

harvest acres 

slightly

Timber 

production acres 

increased as 

result of 

updated 

mapping. Focus 

on acres outside 

inventoried 

roadless. No 

harvest in 

inventoried 

roadless.

Timber 

production acres 

increased as 

result of 

updated 

mapping. Focus 

on acres outside 

inventoried 

roadless. No 

harvest in 

inventoried 

roadless.

Timber 

production acres 

increased as 

result of 

updated 

mapping. Allows 

harvest in 

inventoried 

roadless areas.

Timber 

production acres 

increased as 

result of 

updated 

mapping. Allows 

highest level of 

harvest in 

inventoried 

roadless areas.

Timber 

production acres 

increased as 

result of 

updated 

mapping. Focus 

on acres outside 

inventoried 

roadless. Some 

restoration 

harvests in 

inventoried 

roadless. 

Increased 

volume per acre 

of restoration 

harvests 

reduces total 

harvest acres

Lands suitable 

for timber 

production

86,300 127,000 122,100 124,400 179,700 251,200 127,000

Total sale 

program 

quantity (Ccf) 

(annual 

estimate, 

constrained by 

budget)

17,000 16,600 14,900 15,900 22,100 30,500 16,600
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Summary

xxiii

Table 3. Summary comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Allowable sale 

quantity (ASQ) 

(Mcf) (decadal 

estimate)

19,800 22,800 21,900 22,400 32,800 46,600 22,800

Invasive plant 

treatments 

(annual acres)

2,000 2,000 1,500 2,000 2,000 3,000 2,000

Wildlife Habitat Management

Effects on 

grizzly bear and 

its habitat

Secure habitat 

maintained and 

livestock 

managed 

consistent with 

conservation

strategy, no 

increase in 

grazing 

allotments

Secure habitat 

maintained and 

livestock 

managed 

consistent with 

conservation 

strategy, no 

increase in 

grazing 

allotments

Secure habitat 

increased and 

livestock 

conflicts 

decreases with 

reduction in 

livestock 

allotments

Secure habitat 

increased and 

livestock 

managed 

consistent with 

conservation 

strategy, no 

increase in 

grazing 

allotments

Secure habitat 

maintained and 

livestock 

managed 

consistent with 

conservation 

strategy, no 

increase in 

grazing 

allotments, 

conflicts likely 

increase with 

increased 

livestock grazing

Secure habitat 

decrease and 

livestock 

conflicts 

increase. 

Management 

not consistent 

with 

conservation 

strategy

Secure habitat 

maintained and 

livestock 

managed 

consistent with 

conservation 

strategy, no 

increase in 

grazing 

allotments

Management of 

permitted 

domestic sheep 

and goat and 

recreation pack 

goat use on big 

horn sheep 

habitat

Temporary 

Closure for pack 

goats in Core 

Native BHS 

Habitat on 

Clarks Fork, 

Wapiti, Greybull 

and Wind River 

RD will expire.

No Permitted 

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.

No domestic 

goats (including 

pack goats) on 

entire SNF.

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.

No domestic 

goats (including 

pack goats) in 

Core Native 

BHS Habitat

Livestock

Allotments 

closed to 

Domestic sheep 

grazing in Core 

Native BHS 

Habitat.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xxiv

Table 3. Summary comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Winter 

motorized use 

on big game 

winter range

Allowed on less 

than one third of 

crucial winter 

range

Allowed on just 

over 5% of 

crucial winter 

range

Prohibited on all 

winter range 

including crucial 

winter range.

Prohibited on all 

crucial winter 

range

Allowed on 10% 

of crucial winter 

range

Allowed on 40% 

of crucial winter 

range. No winter 

range timing 

restrictions.

Allowed on just 

under 10% of 

crucial winter 

range

Oil and Gas Development

Effect on 

suitability for oil 

and gas surface 

development

Covered by 

existing leasing 

decision. 

Development 

not tied to 

management 

area direction. 

Most of forest 

suitable for 

development.

Reduced 

availability. Nonmotorized 

management 

areas are not 

suitable for 

development.

Much reduced 

availability. Nonmotorized 

management 

areas are not 

suitable for 

development. 

Recommended 

wilderness 

unavailable.

Much reduced 

availability. Nonmotorized 

management 

areas are not 

suitable for 

development. 

Recommended 

wilderness 

unavailable.

Reduced 

availability. Nonmotorized 

management 

areas are not 

suitable for 

development.

Slightly reduced 

availability.

Small number of 

non-motorized 

management 

areas are not 

suitable for 

development.

Much reduced 

availability. 

Focus on 

portion of forest 

with high 

potential for oil 

and gas 

occurrence, 

maintaining 

consistency with 

direction on 

adjacent BLM 

ownership, and 

not allowing 

development on 

key crucial 

winter range 

areas.

Percentage of 

acres with high 

potential for oil 

and gas 

occurrence 

(255,000 acres) 

generally 

available with 

surface 

development

91% 71% 32% 47% 74% 87% 38%
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Summary

xxv

Table 3. Summary comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Commercial livestock grazing

Effects on

permitted 

livestock grazing

Existing 

stocking and 

allotments 

maintained.

No change from 

existing stocking 

and allotments

Reduced 

stocking and 

allotments. No 

grazing on 

crucial winter 

range

No change from 

existing stocking 

and allotments

Stocking 

increased, no 

constraints 

saving forage 

for big game 

crucial winter 

range. No 

change in 

existing 

allotments.

Stocking 

increased, no 

constraints 

saving forage 

for big game 

crucial winter 

range. 

Additional 

acreage and 

allotment added.

No change from 

existing stocking 

and allotments

Acres suitable 

for commercial 

livestock grazing

375,400 375,400 216,800 375,400 375,400 415,400 375,400

AUMs permitted 55,900 55,900 31,400 55,900 58,300 61,500 55,900

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Consistency 

with Roadless 

Rule

No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

Acres of 

management 

areas allocated 

to inventoried 

roadless areas 

where desired 

conditions are 

not consistent 

with roadless 

rule

87,300 0 0 0 107,400 257,100 0

Economics*

Effect on labor 

income in local 

counties 

associated with 

forest 

management

Existing labor 

income of $38 

million

Very slight 

decrease in 

labor income

An almost eight 

percent 

decrease in 

labor income

Slight decrease 

in labor income

An almost six 

percent increase 

in labor income

An eleven 

percent increase 

in labor income

Very slight 

decrease in 

labor income
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xxvi

Table 3. Summary comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Livestock 

grazing (avg. 

annual labor 

income 

thousands of 

dollars)

$5,794 $5,794 $3,246 $5,794 $6,953 $7,280 $5,794

Timber harvest 

(avg. annual 

labor income 

thousands of 

dollars)

$2,487 $2,422 $2,178 $2,324 $3,239 $4,463 $2,422

*Recreation and tourism outputs are constant for all alternatives. Levels may increase over current levels based on expected population growth, but there is no available study or 

information from the recreation section to indicate that such growth will create different levels of demand for the different levels of opportunities offered by the different themes of the 

alternatives, so it is assumed use will remain constant. Types of use may change, with one activity substituting for another, but overall use numbers are assumed to be similar.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

xxvii

Table of Contents

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................... vi

Summary .................................................................................................................................................... vii

Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................................. vii

Proposed Action..................................................................................................................................... vii

Decision Framework.............................................................................................................................. vii

Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................... viii

Revision Topics..................................................................................................................................... viii

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail.............................................................................................................. ix

Environmental Consequences............................................................................................................... xiii

Alternative Comparison ...................................................................................................................... xviii

Summary of Changes from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ............................................ xviii

Preface...........................................................................................................................................................1

Document Structure ..................................................................................................................................1

Planning Area................................................................................................................................................1

Summary of Changes from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ..................................................2

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action.......................................................................................................3

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

Planning Rule Background .......................................................................................................................3

Purpose and Need for Action ....................................................................................................................3

Proposed Action........................................................................................................................................4

Decision Framework.................................................................................................................................4

Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................................5

Revision Topics.........................................................................................................................................6

Other Related Efforts..............................................................................................................................21

Chapter 2. Alternatives................................................................................................................................23

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................23

Development of Alternatives..................................................................................................................23

Important Points about All Alternatives .................................................................................................24

The Preferred Alternative........................................................................................................................24

Elements Common to all Alternatives....................................................................................................25

Description of Alternatives Considered in Detail ...................................................................................30

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study................................................................48

Comparison of Alternatives....................................................................................................................53

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences........................................................65

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................65

Biological and Physical Elements...........................................................................................................71

Species Diversity...................................................................................................................................148

Sensitive Species Considered................................................................................................................189

Forest mammals....................................................................................................................................191

Forest Birds...........................................................................................................................................203

Grassland/sagebrush mammals.............................................................................................................217

Grassland/sagebrush birds.....................................................................................................................227

Riparian (lakes, streams, marshes) mammals.......................................................................................253

Riparian (lakes, streams, marshes) birds...............................................................................................260

Riparian (lakes, streams, marshes) amphibians ....................................................................................270

Caves and mines mammals...................................................................................................................277

Cliff birds..............................................................................................................................................281

Management indicator species..............................................................................................................285

Species of local concern........................................................................................................................293
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xxviii

Aquatic, Riparian and Fisheries Resources..........................................................................................316

Rare Plants............................................................................................................................................336

Disturbance Processes ..........................................................................................................................355

People and Communities − Goods and Services..................................................................................408

Special Areas........................................................................................................................................523

Other Required Disclosures..................................................................................................................619

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination................................................................................................627

Preparers and Contributors...................................................................................................................627

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement...........................................................................628

Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................635

Literature Cited .........................................................................................................................................655

Index .........................................................................................................................................................683

Volume II - Appendix A. Content Analysis Process................................................................................687

Volume III - Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process.............................................................1093

Appendix C. Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness..............................................1139

Appendix D. Wild and Scenic River Eligibility ................................................................1267

Appendix E. Maps (list).....................................................................................................1301

Appendix F. Commercial Livestock Allotment Capable and Suitable Acres and AUMs.1305

Appendix G. Detail Information for Watersheds Functioning at Risk ..............................1309

Appendix H. Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook Design Criteria....................1317

List of Tables

Table 1. Management area prescription categories......................................................................................ix

Table 2. Comparison of management allocations (in acres).......................................................................xii

Table 3. Summary comparison of alternatives by revision topics.............................................................xix

Table 4. Recreation opportunity spectrum classes and acres on the Shoshone.............................................8

Table 5. Potential research natural areas in Shoshone National Forest ......................................................11

Table 6. Current cover type acreages on the Shoshone (percentage of National Forest System lands) .....13

Table 7. Hazardous fuel conditions in Shoshone National Forest ..............................................................16

Table 8. Proposed management indicator species on the Shoshone National Forest .................................19

Table 9. Management area prescription categories.....................................................................................26

Table 10. Revised Forest Plan management area (MA) descriptions for all action alternatives ................26

Table 11. Alternative A percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS).............32

Table 12. Alternative B percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes.34

Table 13. Alternative C percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes.36

Table 14. Alternative D percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes.39

Table 15. Alternative E percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes..42

Table 16. Alternative F percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes..44

Table 17. Alternative G percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes.47

Table 18. Comparison of management area allocations (in acres) .............................................................55

Table 19. Comparison of alternatives by revision topics............................................................................56

Table 20. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions for the cumulative effects analysis...............66

Table 21. Acres of vegetation treatments accomplished (2002−2011) and planned (pending 

implementation)..................................................................................................................................68

Table 22. Watersheds serving municipal water systems.............................................................................77

Table 23. Shoshone watersheds functioning at risk....................................................................................79

Table 24. Shoshone National Forest riparian condition (2010)..................................................................82

Table 25. National ambient air quality standards........................................................................................93

Table 26. Total point, area, and mobile source emissions for counties near the Shoshone National Forest 

for 2005 (tons).....................................................................................................................................96
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

xxix

Table 27. Management area acres by alternative within ozone nonattainment area ...................................97

Table 28. Ozone monitoring results near the Shoshone National Forest, 2009−2011 ..............................100

Table 29. Criteria pollutant monitoring in Wyoming counties near the Shoshone ...................................101

Table 30. Acres of cover types on the Shoshone National Forest.............................................................121

Table 31. Current Forest-wide age class diversity by cover type for the Shoshone (Menlove 2008) 

(percentage of cover type acres*)......................................................................................................129

Table 32. Diameter of snags per acre in untreated stands (Harris 1999)...................................................130

Table 33. Diameter of snags per acre on the Shoshone (USDA Forest Service 1998 (FIA data))............131

Table 34. Desired cover types on the Shoshone........................................................................................134

Table 35. Desired age class diversity by cover type for the Shoshone (percentage of cover type acres*.135

Table 36. Management areas with frequent management activity ............................................................142

Table 35. Threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species and their habitats on the Shoshone.154

Table 36. Canada Lynx habitat and critical habitat acres by lynx analysis unit........................................157

Table 37. Grizzly bear human-caused mortalities on all national forest system lands within the Greater 

Yellowstone Area 2003−2010 (IGBST 2003−2011).........................................................................164

Table 38. Grizzly bear human-caused mortalities on the Shoshone National Forest 2003−2011 (IGBST 

2003−2011) .......................................................................................................................................165

Table 39. Documented grizzly bear/livestock conflicts Shoshone National Forest (2003 to 2012) (WGFD 

2003-2012) ........................................................................................................................................168

Table 40. 1998 baseline and 2011 for secure habitat for bear management unit (BMU) subunit on the 

Shoshone ...........................................................................................................................................176

Table 41. Grizzly bear conflicts on the Shoshone National Forest 2003 to 2012 (IGBST 2003−2012, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 2012) ....................................................................176

Table 42. Documented grizzly bear/livestock conflicts Shoshone National Forest (2003 to 2012) (WGFD 

2003−2012) .......................................................................................................................................177

Table 43. Grizzly bear denning habitat in thousands of acres, closed to snow machine use within the 

primary conservation area .................................................................................................................179

Table 44. The 1998 baseline for numbers of developed sites on the Shoshone within each bear 

management unit ...............................................................................................................................180

Table 45. Activities and outputs that could Influence the North American wolverine by alternative ......186

Table 46. Rocky Mountain Region sensitive species on the Shoshone National Forest (as of March 2012)

...........................................................................................................................................................189

Table 47. Activities and outputs that could Influence the American marten and hoary bat by alternative

...........................................................................................................................................................193

Table 48. Wolf depredations in Wyoming: 2000−2012 (Jimenez et. al 2012, Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department et al. 2013).....................................................................................................................197

Table 49. Composition of confirmed wolf packs on the Shoshone National Forest in 2012 (Jimenez et al. 

2012, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2013 ).........................................................................198

Table 50. Acres of insect-caused mortality on the Shoshone National Forest, 2000−2009 and 2010 ......204

Table 51. Shoshone vegetation treatment history 2002 to 2011 (acres)....................................................204

Table 52. Activities and outputs that could Influence the black-backed woodpecker by alternative........206

Table 53. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially Influence the boreal owl, by alternative

...........................................................................................................................................................210

Table 54. Activities and outputs that could Influence the northern goshawk by alternative.....................213

Table 55. Activities and outputs that could Influence the olive-sided flycatcher by alternative...............216

Table 56. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep (BHS), by alternative...............................................................................................................225

Table 57. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence Brewer’s sparrow and sage 

sparrow, by alternative ......................................................................................................................230
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xxx

Table 58. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence grasshopper sparrow, by 

alternative..........................................................................................................................................236

Table 59. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence greater sage-grouse, by 

alternative..........................................................................................................................................241

Table 60. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence loggerhead shrike, by 

alternative..........................................................................................................................................245

Table 61. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence northern harrier, by alternative

..........................................................................................................................................................248

Table 62. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence short-eared owl, by alternative

..........................................................................................................................................................252

Table 63. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence river otter by alternative .....255

Table 64. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence water vole, by alternative ...259

Table 65. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence bald eagles, by alternative ..261

Table 66. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence Harlequin duck, by alternative

..........................................................................................................................................................266

Table 67. Acres of management areas by alternative ...............................................................................269

Table 68. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the boreal toad, by alternative

..........................................................................................................................................................274

Table 69. Habitat for fringed myotis, spotted bats, and Townsend’s big-eared bats (Hester and Grenier 

2005).................................................................................................................................................277

Table 70. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the fringed myotis, spotted bat 

and Townsend’s big-eared bat., by alternative..................................................................................279

Table 71. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the peregrine falcon, by 

alternative..........................................................................................................................................283

Table 72. Amount of existing and minimum security for the five elk herd units.....................................295

Table 73. Amount of secure and potential secure elk habitat for elk herd units, by alternative ...............298

Table 74. Crucial winter range acres by alternative management areas...................................................299

Table 75. Winter motorized use on winter range......................................................................................300

Table 76. Acres of suitable timber, by alternative ....................................................................................300

Table 77. Management area 5.4 acres of crucial winter range, by alternative..........................................306

Table 78. Activities that could potentially influence the checkerspot, by alternative...............................311

Table 79. Potential use of wildland fire, by alternative ............................................................................314

Table 80. Rocky Mountain Region sensitive plant species on the Shoshone National Forest (documented)

..........................................................................................................................................................339

Table 81. Shoshone National Forest plant species of local concern (documented)..................................341

Table 82. Annual number of wildfires in Shoshone National Forest, 1970 through 2011 .......................358

Table 83. Annual acreage burned in Shoshone National Forest, 1970 through 2011...............................359

Table 84. Fire regime groups and description...........................................................................................362

Table 85. Fire regime condition class acres on the Shoshone National Forest.........................................362

Table 86. Fire regimes and associated vegetation communities...............................................................363

Table 87. Hazardous fuel conditions on the Shoshone National Forest....................................................364

Table 88. Projected acres that could experience wildfire by alternative...................................................367

Table 89. Estimated wildfire management cost (2013 dollars).................................................................368

Table 90. Acres of fire regime condition class improved or maintained as a result of vegetation 

management and wildfire..................................................................................................................369

Table 91. Acres of hazardous fuels reduced as a result of vegetation management and wildfire.............371

Table 92. Acres of fire regime condition class maintained or improved and hazardous fuels reduced as a 

result of timber harvest .....................................................................................................................371

Table 93. Effects from lands allocated to management areas...................................................................377

Table 94. Acres of insect-caused mortality on the Shoshone National Forest, 2000 through 2009, 2010, 

2011...................................................................................................................................................381
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

xxxi

Table 95. Occurrence and acres of noxious weeds on the Shoshone ........................................................395

Table 96. Changes in management and alignment of allotments, 1986 to present....................................411

Table 97. Permitted and actual use livestock grazing, 1986 to present.....................................................416

Table 98. Shoshone National Forest grazing allotments—existing condition ..........................................418

Table 99. Livestock summary effects by alternative for the Shoshone National Forest ...........................421

Table 100. Affected existing commercial livestock allotments and acreage from wilderness, by alternative

...........................................................................................................................................................428

Table 101. Research natural area/special interest area (RNA/SIA) acres in active allotments.................430

Table 102. Volume sold and harvested, by product, in hundred cubic feet (Ccf).....................................435

Table 103. Clearcut acres on the Shoshone National Forest, 1986 to 2012 ..............................................436

Table 104. Suitability acres for timber harvest and production by alternative..........................................438

Table 105. Predicted volume sold for each alternative .............................................................................440

Table 106. Allowable sale quantity for each alternative (per decade) ......................................................440

Table 107. Harvesting acres by alternative from allowable sale quantity versus other vegetation 

management ground (per decade)......................................................................................................440

Table 108. Revenue by product and alternative (per decade) ...................................................................441

Table 109. Road costs to implement the allowable sale quantity by alternative (per decade)..................441

Table 110. Acres expected to be planted and associated costs by alternative (per decade)......................441

Table 111. Association of special forest product with cover types...........................................................446

Table 112. Acres of management areas where commercial use of special forest and botanical products is 

not allowed, by alternative ................................................................................................................447

Table 113. Shoshone National Forest acreage for 1986, 1991, 2005, and 2009 to 2011 ..........................454

Table 114. Acres of land acquired 1986 to 2011.......................................................................................454

Table 115. Acres of land disposed of 1986 to 2011 ..................................................................................455

Table 116. Non-recreational special use authorizations in 2011...............................................................455

Table 117. Special use communication sites in 2011................................................................................456

Table 118. Special-use authorizations by type, 2006 to 2011 ...................................................................458

Table 119. Acres of oil and gas leased on the Shoshone National Forest per year, 1970, 1973 through 

2003, 2005, and 2007 ........................................................................................................................466

Table 120. Oil and gas surface occupancy suitability by alternative ........................................................469

Table 121. Acres open to oil and gas surface occupancy where suitability is restricted by steep slopes and 

riparian areas by alternative...............................................................................................................470

Table 122. Percentage of acres with high potential for oil and gas occurrence that would allow surface 

development by alternative................................................................................................................470

Table 123. Percentage of acres with high potential for oil and gas occurrence and some potential for 

development that would allow surface development by alternative..................................................470

Table 124. Summary of Shoshone roads by operational maintenance level .............................................477

Table 125. Summary of Shoshone roads by functional class....................................................................478

Table 126. Roads by functional class in miles (based on management area allocation)...........................486

Table 127. Summary of Shoshone roads by travel management status ....................................................493

Table 128. Summary of Shoshone trails by season and managed use.......................................................493

Table 129. Average annual trail maintenance accomplished ....................................................................494

Table 130. Total percentage of top six outdoor recreation activities in Wyoming* .................................498

Table 131. Activity participation on the Shoshone National Forest (FY 2009)a.......................................500

Table 132. Percent Satisfaction Index* scores from recreation users.......................................................501

Table 133. Visitors' self-reported use of selected facilities and areas, Shoshone National Forest (FY 2009)

...........................................................................................................................................................501

Table 134. Recreation opportunity spectrum class and associated acreages of the Shoshone National 

Forest.................................................................................................................................................502

Table 135. Developed recreation sites on the Shoshone, 1986 and 2010..................................................503

Table 136. North Fork Corridor: 2010 campground occupancy rates.......................................................503
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xxxii

Table 137. Recreation special uses on the Shoshone National Forest ......................................................504

Table 138. Total acres allowable for motor vehicles use by alternative...................................................505

Table 139. Existing and projected additional motorized trail miles by alternative...................................506

Table 140. Existing and projected additional road miles by alternative ...................................................506

Table 141. Summary of system roads by operational maintenance level.................................................507

Table 142. Snowmobile trail miles by alternative ....................................................................................507

Table 143. Total acres allowable for mechanized use by alternative........................................................508

Table 144. Summary of access availability (acres) by alternative based on management area prescriptions 

and currently closed areas that will remain closed in all alternatives (acres/percentage of forest)...509

Table 145. Scenic integrity objectives within 1 mile corridor of existing Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail .......................................................................................................................................509

Table 146. Recreation opportunity spectrum classes within 1-mile corridor of existing Continental Divide 

National Scenic Trail ........................................................................................................................511

Table 147. Scenic integrity objectives within the 1-mile corridor of Nez Perce National Historic Trail.511

Table 148. Percentage of recreation opportunity spectrum by alternative................................................512

Table 149. Recommended wilderness acres by alternative ......................................................................517

Table 150. Total acres of wilderness recreation opportunity spectrum setting.........................................528

Table 151. Total acres of existing and recommended wilderness by alternative......................................528

Table 152. Total acres of wilderness recreation opportunity spectrum setting by alternative..................529

Table 153. Wilderness evaluation acres by management area and alternative .........................................530

Table 154. Wilderness evaluation acres available for motorized use by alternative ................................531

Table 155. Miles of wilderness boundary adjacent to areas available for winter motorized use by 

alternative..........................................................................................................................................532

Table 156. River segments having outstandingly remarkable values of regional or national importance542

Table 157. Inventoried roadless area management area acre allocation by alternative ............................548

Table 158. Potential research natural area acres.......................................................................................553

Table 159. Management area allocations for existing and potential research natural areas by alternative

..........................................................................................................................................................554

Table 160. Allotment acres compared with potential research natural areas............................................556

Table 161. Acres of special interest area by grazing allotment ................................................................562

Table 162. Scenic integrity, visual quality objective, and perception crosswalk (USDA Forest Service 

1995, 2-4)..........................................................................................................................................568

Table 163. 1986 Forest Plan as amended visual quality objectives..........................................................570

Table 164. Percentages of the Shoshone acreage by scenic integrity objective and alternative...............573

Table 165. National Forest System land within counties encompassing the Shoshone National Forest, 

2011...................................................................................................................................................590

Table 166. Population by county in Shoshone National Forest study area, 1990 to 2040........................593

Table 167. Share of population age 65 and over in Shoshone National Forest study area, 1990 to 2040 594

Table 168. Racial component of study area population by county, 2010.................................................595

Table 169. School enrollments by county in Shoshone National Forest study area, 2001 to 2010 ..........595

Table 170. Kindergarten enrollments by county in Shoshone National Forest study area, 2001−2010 ...595

Table 171. Forest values that people may hold.........................................................................................599

Table 172. Forest value/interest categories used for Shoshone analysis...................................................602

Table 173. Economic impact summary for the Shoshone National Forest, 2009 (2009 Dollars).............603

Table 174. Shoshone National Forest − forest-related industries.............................................................603

Table 175. Shoshone National Forest economic contribution ..................................................................605

Table 176. Components of Federal land payments to State and local governments by geography of origin, 

FY 2010 (2011 Dollars)....................................................................................................................607

Table 177. Employment by program for current management and by alternative (average annual jobs, 

decade 1)...........................................................................................................................................614
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

xxxiii

Table 178. Labor income by program for current management and by alternative (average annual, decade 

1; thousands of dollars) .....................................................................................................................615

Table 179. Economic efficiency by alternative (in millions of dollars)....................................................617

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Shoshone National Forest ..............................................................................v

Figure 2. Comparison of management area prescription categories by alternative..................................... xi

Figure 3. Alternative A management area categories (with current categories) .........................................31

Figure 4. Alternative B management area categories..................................................................................33

Figure 5. Alternative C management area categories..................................................................................36

Figure 6. Alternative D management area categories..................................................................................39

Figure 7. Alternative E management area categories..................................................................................41

Figure 8. Alternative F management area categories..................................................................................44

Figure 9. Alternative G management area categories..................................................................................46

Figure 10. Areas that overlap the Upper Green River Basin nonattainment area .......................................98

Figure 11. Annual deciview on clearest days, Bridger IMPROVE monitor .............................................104

Figure 12. Annual deciview on haziest days, Bridger IMPROVE monitor ..............................................104

Figure 13. Annual deciview on clearest days, North Absaroka IMPROVE monitor................................105

Figure 14. Annual deciview on haziest days, North Absaroka IMPROVE monitor.................................105

Figure 15. Annual mean temperature change for northern latitudes (24 to 90° N)...................................107

Figure 16. Rangeland vegetation condition class on the Shoshone National Forest.................................120

Figure 17. Rangeland vegetation condition trend on the Shoshone National Forest.................................120

Figure 16. Population trends for bighorn sheep herd units that encompass the Shoshone National Forest

...........................................................................................................................................................223

Figure 17. Average maximum number of males per active lek for greater sage-grouse in the Big Horn 

Basin Conservation Area, 1979 to 2006 (BBSGLWG 2007)............................................................238

Figure 18. 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)..................................................................................................................................................268

Figure 19. Total counted peregrine falcon nesting pairs and fledglings in Yellowstone National Park 

(YNP), 1984 to 2007 (YNP 2010).....................................................................................................282

Figure 20. Population trends for elk herd units that encompass the Shoshone National Forest................293

Figure 21. Population trends for mule deer herd units that encompass the Shoshone National Forest.....305

Figure 22. Number of fires in Shoshone National Forest by size, 1970 through 2011 .............................358

Figure 23. Annual acres burned in Shoshone National Forest (logarithmic scale), 1970 through 2011...359

Figure 24. Acres of hazardous fuels reduction from mechanical and prescribed fire treatments, 1997 to 

2011...................................................................................................................................................365

Figure 25. Historical permitted commercial livestock grazing, by decade ...............................................414

Figure 26. Permitted versus actual use cattle AUMs, 1986 to present......................................................415

Figure 27. Permitted versus actual use sheep AUMs, 1986 to present......................................................415

Figure 28. Number of special-use authorizations issued since 2006.........................................................457

Figure 29. Counties within the Shoshone National Forest boundary ........................................................591

Figure 30. Level of Forest use by residents during a 12-month period.....................................................597

Figure 31. Survey results, what seasons do you visit the Shoshone National Forest? ..............................598

Figure 32. Survey results, what activities do you participate in on the Shoshone National Forest? .........598

Figure 33. Survey results, respondents favor or oppose activities on Shoshone National Forest .............600

Figure 34. Survey results, what do you value about the Shoshone National Forest?................................601

Figure 35. Forest Service revenue sharing within study area, fiscal years 1986 to 2010..........................607

Figure 36. Components of Federal land payments within study area by fiscal year, 1986 to 2010..........608

Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Preface 

1

Preface

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this environmental impact statement in compliance with the−

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal laws and regulations. 

This environmental impact statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental 

impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized 

into four chapters:

 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the history 

of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for 

achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed 

the public of the proposal and how the public responded. 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more 

detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as the no-action alternative and 

other alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were 

developed based on cause/effect relationships raised by the public and other agencies. This 

discussion also includes mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table 

of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes 

the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This 

analysis is organized by components of the ecological, social, and political environment. 

 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and 

agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement. 

 Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses 

presented in the environmental impact statement.

 Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be 

found in the project planning record located at the Forest Supervisor’s Office, Cody, Wyoming.

Planning Area

The planning area encompasses the entire 2.4-million-acre2 Shoshone National Forest (hereafter 

referred to as the “Shoshone”) in Northwest Wyoming (figure 1). The Shoshone extends more 

than 180 miles from the Montana state line to South Pass near Lander. It is bordered by the 

Custer and Gallatin National Forests on the north and by Yellowstone National Park and the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest on the west. The Shoshone is set within the lee of the Absaroka, 

Beartooth, and Wind River Mountains.

The Shoshone is in Fremont, Hot Springs, Park, Sublette, and Teton Counties. It is divided into 

five ranger districts: the Clarks Fork, Greybull, and Wapiti Ranger Districts are administered 

from Cody, Wyoming; the Washakie Ranger District is administered from Lander, Wyoming; and 

 2 Note: acre figures in this document are rounded estimates derived from Forest Service databases. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

2

the Wind River Ranger District is administered from Dubois, Wyoming. The Supervisor’s Office 

is located in Cody, Wyoming.

The Shoshone is part of the Greater Yellowstone Area, or Ecosystem. Other public lands units in 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, CaribouTarghee, Custer, and Gallatin National Forests; Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks; 

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway; the National Elk Refuge; Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge, and portions of Bureau of Land Management lands.

Summary of Changes from the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement

Changes to the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that led to the development of this 

document were based on new information and comments from the public and other agencies on 

the draft EIS (see appendix A). Additional changes are editorial for clarity and correcting typos. 

The more substantive changes include the following: 

• Development of alternative G, the preferred alternative, in response to comments received 

on the draft EIS. Analysis updates to disclose alternative G effects. 

• Mapping corrections and corresponding acre corrections. 

• Incorporation of new information and consideration of additional literature. 

• Addition of the response to comments submitted for the DEIS, updating appendix A.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 1

3

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Introduction

The Forest Service has prepared this environmental impact statement in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and 

regulations. This environmental impact statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. 

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found 

in the project planning record located at the Forest Supervisor’s office in Cody, Wyoming.

Planning Rule Background

As described below, the purpose of this action is to revise the Land Management Plan (revised Forest 

Plan) for the Shoshone National Forest in accordance with the National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1604) and associated regulations at 36 CFR 219. (Note: for this discussion the 

terms “regulations” and “rule” are used interchangeably.) (See figure 1, Shoshone National Forest 

vicinity map.)

The revision will follow transition language of the current planning regulations published in the 

Federal Register on April 9, 2012 (36 CFR 219.17(b)(3)), which allow use of the provisions of a 

previous version of the regulations published in 1982. A copy of the 1982 version is available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html. Only the parts of the 1982 version about 

preparation or revision of forest plans is applicable. The final plan decision will be subject to the 

objection process of the April 9, 2012 rule.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this action is to improve resource management on the Shoshone National Forest 

through revising the Land Management Plan for the Shoshone National Forest in order to meet the 

NFMA requirements described above, to address the following “Revision Topics” identified by the 

public, and to make other updates.

The revision of the forest plan is based on a need to change, discussed in the Summary of the 

Analysis of the Management Situation in the revised Forest Plan (pages 14−16). The need for change 

approach identifies and analyzes only those aspects of the 1986 Forest Plan as amended where 

adjustments are necessary. The six major plan revision topics are:

• Recreation uses and opportunities

• Special areas and designations

• Vegetation management

• Wildlife habitat management

• Oil and gas development

• Commercial livestock grazing
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

4

Proposed Action

The action proposed by the Forest Service is to replace the existing 1986 Forest Plan as amended

with a revised Forest Plan which will guide resource management activities on the Shoshone for the 

next 10 to 15 years. The revised Forest Plan will contain the following elements:

1. Establishment of forest multiple-use goals and objectives, 36 CFR 219.11(b) (1982 

regulations);

2. Establishment of Forest-wide management requirements (standards and guidelines) to 

fulfill the requirements of 16 U.S.C. 1604 applying to future activities (resource 

integration requirements 36 CFR 219.13 to 219.27 (1982 regulations));

3. Establishment of management areas and management area direction (management area 

prescriptions) applying to future activities in that management area (resource integration 

and minimum specific management requirements) 36 CFR 219.11(c) (1982 regulations);

4. Designation of suitable timber land (16 U.S.C. 1604(k) and 36 CFR 219.14 (1982 

regulations)) and establishment of an allowable sale quantity (16 U.S.C. 1611 and 36 

CFR 219.16 (1982 regulations));

5. Nonwilderness allocations or wilderness recommendations where 36 CFR 219.17 (1982 

regulations) applies; and

6. Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements 36 CFR 219.11(d) (1982 

regulations).

It is also important to identify the types of decisions that will not be made within the revised forest 

plan. Authorization of project-level activities on the Shoshone National Forest is not a decision made 

in the forest plan, but occurs through subsequent project-specific decision making. The designation 

of routes and trails for specific uses is not considered during plan revision, but will be addressed 

through subsequent planning processes and decisions. The decision to identify lands available for oil 

and gas leasing will also be addressed through subsequent planning processes and decisions; this 

forest plan decision will not change existing lease authorizations.

Some issues, although important, are beyond the authority or control of the Shoshone National 

Forest or the Forest Service, and will not be considered. Additionally, some decisions and 

determinations, such as management direction for Canada lynx conservation and the Clarks Fork of 

the Yellowstone Wild River corridor, have been accomplished through separate forest plan 

amendment processes that occurred recently and will be incorporated into the revised Forest Plan.

Decision Framework

Under the provisions of the 1982 regulations, the Rocky Mountain Regional Forester is the deciding 

official. Given the purpose and need, the Regional Forester will review the proposed action, the other 

alternatives, and the environmental consequences to decide upon a plan based on one of the 

alternatives or a combination of the alternatives.

The regional forester will make his decision based on the following criteria, utilizing input, 

information, and analysis provided by the forest supervisor, interdisciplinary team, cooperators, and 

the public. 

• Is the decision the best resolution of the revision topics?
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 1

5

• Does the decision reflect an ability to best maximize net public benefits, consistent with 

resource integration, management requirements, and legal constraints?

• Is the decision consistent with laws, regulations, and policy?

Prior to the final decision, a predecisional objection process will be available in accordance with 36 

CFR 219.52.

Relationship to Other Entities

Forest Service planning regulations require the agency to consider other Federal, State and local 

government and tribal land management plans and policies. Meetings and discussions were held with 

adjacent and/or interested Federal, State, and local agencies along with tribal representatives 

regarding the proposed goals and objectives of the revised Forest Plan.

County Governments

Fremont County, Park County, Hot Springs County, and Bighorn County were involved in the 

Shoshone plan revision process as members of the local government cooperators group for plan 

revision. Local conservation districts were also members of the cooperators group. The Forest held 

numerous meetings and field trips with the local government cooperators throughout the revision 

process.

State Government

The Wyoming Governor’s Office and several of the Wyoming State resource agencies were members 

of the local government cooperators group for plan revision and worked closely with the Shoshone 

on the development of the revised Forest Plan.

Tribes

Members of the planning team consulted with tribal representatives of the Wind River Indian Tribes,

Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Blackfeet Nation, Northwestern 

Band of Shoshoni Tribe, Crow Tribe, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Colville

Reservation, and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla during plan revision. The Shoshone Forest 

Supervisor met with tribal representatives during the initial scoping for the revision process and then 

after the release of the draft plan and DEIS. Specific tribal comments regarding management 

direction were incorporated into the FEIS and revised Forest Plan.

Federal Agencies

Management of Bureau of Land Management, Park Service, and National Forest System lands 

adjacent to the Shoshone were considered in the formulation of alternatives and their cumulative

effects. Management of wildlife habitat, oil and gas leasing, motorized access, and other 

management concerns across boundaries were discussed with adjacent agencies.

Public Involvement

Public meetings were conducted in 2005 through 2009, when the revision was following previous 

2005 and 2008 versions of the planning regulations. This work was halted in June 2009, when a 

California District Court struck down the 2008 version of the rule, but we used some information 

from these meetings that is not specific to a version of the rule. 

The notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the 

Federal Register on September 24, 2010 (75 FR 58348−58350). The NOI asked for public comment 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

6

on the proposal through October 25, 2010. We conducted a series of public meetings and cooperator 

meetings from February through December of 2011, to clarify and refine the revision topics, and to 

refine the proposed draft of the revised Shoshone National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan (proposed Draft Revised Plan). On January 4, 2012, the proposed Draft Revised Plan was sent 

out for public comment. Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and governments, the 

interdisciplinary team developed the revision topics which helped guide the development of 

alternatives analyzed in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

The notice of availability (NOA) of the Shoshone Land Management Plan Revision DEIS was 

published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2012 (77 FR 46433). The July 2012 Draft Land 

Management Plan was available with the DEIS. The NOA began the official 90-day comment period, 

which ended on November 1, 2012. The Forest received approximately 23,480 responses; of which,

approximately 22,400 were form letter submissions and 1,080 were unique extensive and detailed 

comment letters from individuals, organizations, agencies, and businesses and were received via 

email or U.S. Post Office. The Forest Service prepared responses to the public comments that were

not determined by majority opinion, but rather by the substance of the comments. The content 

analysis process ensured that every comment was read, analyzed, and considered, and in some cases, 

the analysis resulted in changes to the DEIS. See appendix A for more information pertaining to the 

public involvement process.

Revision Topics

Revision topics are the subjects where resource conditions, technical knowledge, or public 

perception of resource management, have created a potential “need for change.” Needed changes 

generally are important enough to affect large areas, change the mix of goods and services produced, 

and involve choices in management direction where there is no public consensus on the best course 

of action.

We based selection of the topics upon both the need for change from the existing forest plan and the 

strong public interest in how the revised Forest Plan will answer these questions. These topics were 

the ones identified repeatedly in the public meetings held across the Forest and by the Government 

Cooperators Work Group from 2005 through 2010, and validated during the scoping period in late 

2010.

The six major plan revision topics are:

• Recreation uses and opportunities

• Special areas and designations

• Vegetation management

• Wildlife habitat management

• Oil and gas development

• Commercial livestock grazing
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 1

7

Recreation uses and opportunities

What type of recreation opportunities will be provided on the forest, where can they occur, and 

when can they occur?

Increasing recreation demands and different uses of the national forest have led to changed 

conditions since direction in the current forest plan was established. Changes to plan direction need 

to be considered to respond to these changing conditions.

Plan direction should generally identify what areas are suitable for recreational uses on National 

Forest System land. The plan would address how dissimilar uses can be accommodated on the same 

land base. As more people use the Shoshone for recreation, conflicts between users are likely to 

increase. The alternatives should consider options ranging from segregating uses to different areas of 

the Forest to allowing users to coexist in the same area. Plan direction should address the mix of 

recreational activities provided on the same infrastructures. This question deals primarily with the 

mix of motorized and non-motorized uses in the winter and summer, but also includes cases where 

horses and mountain bikes might use the same trail.

Plan direction would also address what recreation opportunities can be provided under special use

permits and in what areas those permits can operate. In areas where commercial uses are allowed, the 

plan will generally address the allocation between public and commercial uses. 

Recreational opportunities are an important service that is provided by the Shoshone National Forest. 

Many people rely on and have come to expect the Shoshone to provide a diversity of experiences and 

opportunities. Others choose to reside near the Shoshone because of the experiences and 

opportunities that are available. These people provide important contributions to local communities, 

both as visitors and residents.

Visitors enjoy the full range of recreational activities, including hiking, backpacking, hunting, 

fishing, horseback riding and packing, snowshoeing, off-highway vehicle riding, snowmobiling, 

camping and picnicking, viewing scenery and wildlife, dog sledding, mountain biking, cross-country 

skiing, mountaineering, whitewater rafting, and ice and rock climbing.

The 1986 Forest Plan as amended allows summer motorized activities on 25 percent of the Shoshone 

and winter motorized activities on 40 percent of the Shoshone. Recreation use trends on the Forest 

have been affected by the increasing human population in adjacent communities, changes in 

technology related to recreational activities, and an expansion of lands occupied by the growing 

population of grizzly bears. New recreational pursuits continue to attract new users. Grizzly bears 

attract people to areas such as the North Fork of the Shoshone River; conversely, increasing and 

expanding bear populations have had the effect of displacing some recreational users to other 

locations on and off the Shoshone (Duda et al. 2001). In 2009, it is estimated that about 

646,059 people visited the Shoshone (2009 National Visitor Use Monitoring).

Motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities are being addressed during forest plan 

revision. Specifically, plan direction would identify the portions of the Shoshone that are suitable for 

motorized use and how that use would be managed in subsequent travel management decisions. The 

plan would address the areas of the Forest that should be accessible by a motorized road or trail 

system for recreation, resource access, and administrative use. The forest plan decision will not 

include designation of specific road and trails for motorized or non-motorized use. The specific 

designation will be made through subsequent travel management planning.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

8

The 1986 Forest Plan as amended states that “off-road vehicle use does not represent a major 

percentage of total recreation use on the Shoshone. Because of the rugged terrain, amount of 

wilderness, and availability of challenging primitive roads, most users of motor bikes and off-road 

vehicles limit use to designated routes. Snowmobilers are the major off-road vehicle users on the 

Shoshone.” Today, off-highway vehicle use is one of the fastest growing forms of outdoor recreation. 

From 1982 to 2000, the number of people driving motor vehicles off road in the United States 

increased over 109 percent (Cordell et al. 2004). On the Shoshone, off-highway vehicle use is 

following this national trend. Increases in off-highway vehicle recreation in unauthorized areas are 

leading to increased wildlife disturbance, soil erosion, and sedimentation in streams.

Table 4 shows the recreation settings in the existing forest plan, using the Forest Service’s Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum classification system. There are five recreation opportunity spectrum settings; 

each setting is defined using specific physical, managerial, and social criteria.3

Table 4. Recreation opportunity spectrum classes and acres on the Shoshone

Recreation opportunity spectrum class Acres

Primitive 1,056,342

Semi-primitive wilderness 308,734

Semi-primitive non-motorized 571,932

Semi-primitive motorized 291,907

Roaded natural 206,781

Rural 1,379

Snowmobile use in the High Lakes Wilderness Study Area is occurring under the law which 

established the area. Consistency of the use with the law needs to be addressed.

The snowmobile and bicycle use occurring in Dunoir Special Management Unit needs to be 

consistent with enabling legislation.

Proposed research natural areas and special interest areas preclude future expansion of motorized use 

in those areas. All existing uses in those areas can remain, including continued use of the Morrison 

Jeep Trail that passes through the Sawtooth Peatbed Geologic Area. 

 3 The recreation opportunity spectrum categories are:

Rural − Altered landscape with natural appearing backdrop. Obvious signing. Motorized travel is common. 

High interaction among users. Example: moderately developed resorts.

Roaded natural − Predominantly natural-appearing landscape. There is no size restriction. Minimum controls 

with some restrictions. Evidence of other users is prevalent. Resource modification practices are evident. 

Conventional motorized use is provided for. Moderate probability of interaction with other users. Example: 

scattered structures such as power lines, microwave installations, etc.

Semi-primitive motorized − Predominantly natural-appearing landscape. 2,500 acres. There is often evidence 

of other users. Minimum controls with some restrictions. Motorized use is permitted. Moderate probability of 

solitude. Example: natural areas outside wilderness.

Semi-primitive non-motorized − Predominantly natural landscape. 2,500+ acres. Minimum signing and 

regulations. Motorized travel prohibited. High probability of solitude. Some evidence of others. Example: 

natural areas inside or outside wilderness boundaries.

Primitive − Remote. Three miles or more from motorized use. Unmodified setting. Few signs. No motorized 

travel allowed. Very high probability of solitude. Example: remote wilderness areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 1

9

Specific changes to the plan could address specific recreation issues. Plan objectives could be 

established to provide quality opportunities for motorized and non-motorized trails (although the 

individual trail-by-trail designation is more detailed than the general forest plan direction). Plan 

objectives could also align outfitter guide permits with the capacity and needs. Increased emphasis 

on user education could address user conflicts and improve the quality of experience for all users. In 

the revised Forest Plan, objectives that address unauthorized motorized use could reduce and begin 

reversing the trend of increasing unauthorized use.

Special areas and designations

Will new designated wilderness areas be recommended? How will the Dunoir Special 

Management Unit and High Lakes Wilderness Study Area be managed? Will any new 

research natural areas or special interest areas be designated? How will eligible wild and 

scenic rivers be managed?

Wilderness Recommendations

The Shoshone National Forest currently contains approximately 1.4 million acres of designated 

wilderness, which accounts for about 55 percent of the Forest. The five current wilderness areas are 

the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, the Fitzpatrick Wilderness, the North Absaroka Wilderness, the 

Popo Agie Wilderness, and the Washakie Wilderness. 

The NFMA regulations at 36 CFR 219.17 (1982 regulations) require that forest lands be evaluated 

and considered for recommendation as wilderness areas during the forest planning process. As part 

of the revision process, we completed a wilderness evaluation inventory. There are 745,650 acres of 

wilderness evaluation areas that meet Forest Service inventory criteria (FSH 1909.12 71.1). This 

amounts to approximately 31 percent of the Shoshone. The revised Forest Plan would indicate how 

these lands should be managed. Any areas recommended for wilderness must be submitted to 

Congress for possible congressional designation as part of the wilderness system. These wilderness 

evaluation areas could also be managed as they are in the existing forest plan, or in other ways.

Dunoir Special Management Unit

Management of the Dunoir Special Management Unit is described in section 5 (a) of the Act of 

October 9, 1972 (Pub. Law No. 92-476), designating the Washakie Wilderness. 

The following direction in the act applies to the unit:

“Within the area depicted as the Special Management Unit [DuNoir][sic] on the 

map referred to in sections 1 of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall not 

permit harvesting of timber or public or private vehicular use of any existing 

road and shall not construct or permit the construction or expansion of any road 

in said Special Management Unit. The Secretary shall administer said unit in 

accordance with the laws, rules, and regulations relating to the national forest 

especially to provide for non-vehicular access recreation and may construct such 

facilities and take such measures as are necessary for the health and safety of 

visitors and to protect the resources of said unit. Provided, however, that this 

section shall not affect such vehicular use and maintenance of existing roads as 

may be necessary for the administration of said unit by the Secretary of 

Agriculture.”
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

10

The Dunoir Special Management Unit is included in the list of areas to be considered in the plan 

revision for recommendation as a wilderness area. The plan could also direct other management 

consistent with the 1972 Act.

High Lakes Wilderness Study Area

Wilderness study areas are established by an act of Congress that creates the areas and provides 

direction for their management. The 14,700-acre High Lakes Wilderness Study Area was designated 

in the Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984. The Act states, 

“Subject to valid existing rights and reasonable access to exercise such 

rights, until Congress determines otherwise, the . . . High Lakes Wilderness 

Study Area shall be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture so as to 

maintain [its] presently existing wilderness character . . . . [W]ithin the . . . 

High Lakes . . . Wilderness Study Area, snowmobiling shall continue to be 

allowed in the same manner and degree as was occurring prior to the date of 

the enactment of this Act.”

The High Lakes Wilderness Study Area is included in the list of areas to be considered in the plan 

revision for recommendation as a wilderness area. The plan could also direct other management 

consistent with the 1984 Act.

Research Natural Areas

The NFMA regulations at 36 CFR 219.25 (1982 regulations) require forest planning to provide for 

the establishment of research natural areas (RNAs). Planning shall make provisions for identifying 

examples of important forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, aquatic, and geological types that have 

special or unique characteristics of scientific interest and importance and that are needed to complete 

the national network of RNAs. 

There is currently one RNA in the Shoshone. The Line Creek Plateau Research Natural Area was 

established in 2000, comprising 3,053 acres in the Shoshone and 19,369 acres in the adjacent Custer 

National Forest. The area exhibits a Rocky Mountain alpine tundra vegetation type with examples of 

alpine turf, alpine wetland, alpine snowbed, and subalpine conifer forest.

There are eight potential RNAs (table 5): Beartooth Butte, Lake Creek, Pat O’Hara, and Bald Ridge 

on the Clarks Fork Ranger District; Sheep Mesa and Grizzly Creek on the Wapiti Ranger District; 

Arrow Mountain on the Wind River Ranger District; and Roaring Fork on the Washakie Ranger 

District.

The potential RNAs represent the Shoshone’s vegetative diversity and landscapes. The Shoshone’s 

position in the middle of the continent enables the area to act as a connector for many plant and 

animal species from north to south and east to west, and its elevation differences and varieties of soil 

types also account for the diversity of species across the Forest. RNAs are selected for their abilities 

to provide representative samples of vegetation or biological communities that management 

activities have not affected.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 1

11

Table 5. Potential research natural areas in Shoshone National Forest

Potential research 

natural area Vegetationclassification Acres

Estimated 

acres in 

wilderness 

Ranger district

Grizzly Creek Sagebrush steppe;

Douglas-fir woodlands 11,687 7,998 Wapiti

Pat O’Hara Engelmann Spruce;

Subalpine forests 4,243 4,000 Clarks Fork

Beartooth Butte

Alpine tundra;

Barren slopes;

Meadows 

2,447 1,250 Clarks Fork

Arrow Mountain 

Sagebrush steppe;

Limestone and dolomite 

mountains;

Alpine tundra;

Subalpine forests 

14,398 14,216 Wind River

Roaring Fork

Alpine tundra;

Subalpine forests;

Meadows 

13,451 13,451 Washakie

Lake Creek

Engelmann Spruce;

Lodgepole Pine;

Subalpine forests;

Fens and willow carrs 

5,859 5,859 Clarks Fork

Sheep Mesa

Douglas-fir woodlands;

Engelmann Spruce;

Lodgepole Pine;

Alpine plateaus;

Whitebark Pine

15,665 7,800 Wapiti

Bald Ridge Limber Pine;

Bluebunch wheatgrass 3,115 0 Clarks Fork

70,865 54,574 TOTAL ACRES

Over 77 percent of the potential RNA acres are within designated wilderness. However, RNA 

establishment may require additional protections that wilderness areas do not provide. Wilderness

designation does not prohibit building new trails or other recreational activities that may affect 

sensitive or endemic plant species or some vegetation communities. The research natural area 

designation allows such activities to be managed to protect the features for which the area was 

designated. To balance the concern that research natural area designation would restrict recreational 

uses, the proposed areas are fairly large to allow flexibility in trail or recreational uses. 

Existing trails or recreational uses are not prohibited from research natural areas—these areas need 

to be accessible (usually via trail) to allow research.

Generally, timber harvesting and domestic livestock grazing are prohibited within research natural 

areas. For the Shoshone, potential areas were selected to minimize conflicts with timber harvesting 

or domestic livestock grazing.

Dispersed recreation is allowed within research natural areas. Some trails may be rerouted around or 

away from specific plant communities, but in general, restrictions would be similar to those already 

found within the designated wilderness.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

12

Special Interest Areas

The regional forester administratively designates special interest areas to protect and manage for 

public use and enjoyment those areas with scenic, geological, botanical, zoological, paleontological, 

archaeological, or other special characteristics or unique values. Special interest areas can be 

approved in forest plans in accordance with Forest Service Manual 2372 and 36 CFR 294.1a.

There is currently one special interest area within the Shoshone: the 580-acre Swamp Lake Botanical

Area, which was established in 1987. 

Two other areas could potentially be designated in the revised Forest Plan as special interest areas.

Kirwin Historical Area − The area around the historic mining town of Kirwin could be designated as 

a historical area. The town was formed in the mid-1880s after gold and silver were discovered in the 

area. By 1902, exploration was well established, and by 1904, about 200 miners and their families 

lived in Kirwin. Although miners found some promising veins, the geology of the area is such that 

viable quantities of silver or gold were never found. The Kirwin mines produced very little ore and 

the railroad, crucial to any mining district, never came to Kirwin. Adding to Kirwin’s troubles, a 

national financial panic in 1907 cut the flow of investment capital to the mines. The town declined

steadily after that. In 1962, the American Metals Climax Mining Company purchased the Kirwin 

properties and conducted extensive operations in the area, mapping a rich deposit of copper under 

Spar Mountain. Plans to mine the deposit were dropped after the price of copper fell and startup 

expenses for the operation became too high. In 1992, the Richard King Mellon Foundation and 

Conservation Fund purchased the Kirwin properties and facilitated the donation of 3,488 acres of 

land in the Upper Wood River Valley to the Shoshone National Forest. The property, known as the 

Kirwin property, is an eligible National Historic District. Today, visitors can explore the old mining 

town site and surrounding area, including cabins, mining equipment, and a mine shaft. 

The historical values of the site provide opportunities for education and enjoyment for visitors. The 

site is open to recreational use with emphasis on education and interpretation that does not threaten 

the site’s historical values. The recreation setting for the proposed area is defined by the setting the 

area falls within.

Sawtooth Peatbed Geological Area – The Sawtooth Peatbed could be designated in the revised Forest 

Plan as a geological area. The 577-acre peatbed is a large, unique fen palsa located in a broad 

subalpine valley shaped by glacial scouring. It is a large peat deposit with permafrost found at 

approximately 18 inches. The palsa exhibits polygons caused by frost cracking and thaw depression 

pools. This geomorphologic feature is the only known palsa in the lower 48 states. 

Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological Area −The Little Popo Agie Moraine located north of Louis 

Lake in the southern Wind River Range could be designated as a geological area. Most, if not all,

piedmont moraines in the middle Rocky Mountains were formed as late Wisconsin glaciers flowed 

onto intermountain basin floors at low elevation. This moraine is rare in the Wind River and middle 

Rocky Mountains because the ice stalled at about 8,300 feet in elevation. As a result, it provides 

habitat for different groups of species than piedmont moraines found at lower elevations.

Of particular interest is the large breeding population of ringneck ducks that inhabit the area. This 

may be the largest breeding population in the middle Rocky Mountains. The proposed Little Popo 

Agie Moraine Geological Area encompasses 1,714 acres.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 1

13

Wild and Scenic Rivers

No recommendations will be made as part of the forest plan revision for including eligible rivers in 

the Wild and Scenic River System, but the revised Forest Plan will provide direction on how eligible 

rivers will be managed to maintain their potential, in accordance with Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12 Chapter 80. River segments and their corridors will be managed to retain their free-flowing 

status and outstandingly remarkable values.

Vegetation Management

How will hazardous fuels be managed? How will forest health and the impacts from the beetle 

epidemic be addressed? What mix of vegetation types and conditions will be maintained on the 

Shoshone? What areas will be suitable for timber harvest?

This revision topic includes issues related to fire and fuels, timber products, forest health, 

rangelands, and wildlife habitat. There is some overlap between the wildlife habitat portion of 

vegetation management and the wildlife topic. 

In addition to the major vegetation types, there are also important habitat types limited in 

distribution, but important to biological diversity, such as fens.

The major vegetation types within the Shoshone are shown in table 6.

Table 6. Current cover type acreages on the Shoshone (percentage of National Forest System lands)

Cover type 2011 acreage 2011 percentage

Grasslands 459,000 18.8

Willow 14,000 0.6

Sagebrush 38,800 1.6

Alpine 297,700 12.2

Aspen 23,300 1.0

Douglas-fir 345,300 14.2

Spruce/fir 309,400 12.7

Lodgepole pine 382,900 15.7

Whitebark pine 190,600 7.8

Limber pine 35,300 1.4

Timber Products

Only a small percentage of the Shoshone is suitable timber land The NFMA and the regulations 

require a review of lands suitable for timber production when plans are revised (36 CFR 219.14 –

1982 regulations). The regulations also require identification of an allowable sale quantity and a base 

sale schedule over time compared to a long-term sustained yield capacity (36 CFR 219.15 – 1982 

regulations).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

14

The current suitable timber base is approximately 86,300 acres, or less than 4 percent of the Forest. 

The existing allowable sale quantity4 was established in a 1994 plan amendment, which changed the 

annual average volume to 9,000 hundred cubic feet of sawtimber and products other than logs. The 

9,000 hundred cubic feet includes 2,000 hundred cubic feet of standing dead trees that are cut for 

personal use firewood from suitable lands. Volume in addition to the allowable sale quantity is 

obtained from the unsuited base. Approximately 2,000 hundred cubic feet of personal use firewood 

and 2,000 hundred cubic feet of volume cut for other vegetation management purposes, including

wildlife habitat improvement, enhancement of scenic views, hazard tree removal, and other 

ecosystem management reasons. The amendment directed that all salvage volumes offered for sale 

would count toward allowable sale quantity.

The volume of products other than logs sold since 1986 has averaged slightly over 6,000 hundred 

cubic feet per year. Volume for products other than logs remained relatively stable during that period. 

Sawtimber volume sold has fluctuated greatly since 1986. Sawtimber volume sold has averaged 

11,000 hundred cubic feet since 1986. 

Total average annual volume harvested fell steadily through the1990s, until there was an increase in 

2004. Since 1997, sawtimber volume sold averaged 8,400 hundred cubic feet. During the late 1990s 

and early 2000s, sawtimber volume sold was as low as 200 hundred cubic feet. Limited quantities of 

other forest products, such as Christmas trees, mushrooms, pine cones, etc., are collected on the 

Shoshone and contribute to the social and economic environment.

Due to the bark beetle insect epidemic, harvest levels have been temporarily higher than average and 

that is expected to continue until the epidemic subsides, fuel levels are reduced, and the volume of 

damaged timber is salvaged. The increased harvest levels may continue until areas of wildland-urban 

interface can be protected and while there is some value in standing dead timber. It is anticipated the 

demand for products other than logs would continue at or above the current levels of 5,000 hundred 

cubic feet. Once the salvage effort is completed, it is anticipated the Shoshone would return to a 

harvest level near 9,000 hundred cubic feet of saw timber and 5,000 hundred cubic feet of products 

other than logs. 

The considerations for timber management and vegetation management are directly related. During 

the revision process, management direction for both will be adjusted as changes are made to one or 

the other. Additionally, there is a need to consider timber products as they relate to local and regional 

economies. Direction in the revised Forest Plan needs to consider both of these elements in light of 

current conditions. 

The revised forest plan will describe the tools that are appropriate for vegetation management on the 

Shoshone. Logging systems such as cable logging and harvest prescriptions such as seed tree 

prescriptions are two such tools that could be used. Additional site-specific analyses and project 

plans would be completed before any timber activities occur. 

The revised forest plan will identify kinds of timber products to offer. Direction in the revised Forest 

Plan will reflect the levels and types of timber products, in relationship with timber management 

objectives. The revised Forest Plan will also identify the types of activities and tools that are 

appropriate to meet the management direction established. Firewood sales are one such tool that 

 4 Per NFMA, the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is a per decade number. For the 1994 plan amendment the 

ASQ would have been 9,000 thousand cubic feet (Mcf) per decade. The numbers are displayed here as average 

annual volumes for discussion purposes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 1

15

could be used. If determined to be appropriate, separate project plans and associated environmental 

analyses would be completed before specific projects and activities occur.

Large-scale Insect Infestations

The current forest plan did not consider the scale of insect infestations that are now occurring on the 

Shoshone. Direction in the revised Forest Plan needs to address the changed conditions and latest 

scientific information on dealing with those conditions. 

Widespread bark beetle epidemics have occurred across the Shoshone over the past 10 years. All of 

the major bark beetles have been in epidemic status on at least parts of the Forest during this time.

Current epidemics are similar to historic mortality regimen of forested stands. The increase in the 

number of dead trees can change fire behavior. Increases in tree mortality make it more difficult to 

suppress wildfires and more challenging to manage natural and prescribed fire.

The Forest Service has responded to the epidemic by focusing on fuels treatments in public/private 

land interface areas. For most of the Shoshone, management options are limited because of the 

limited suitable timber acres. There is some utilization of the dead trees. 

Insect infestations have killed trees in adjacent to campgrounds, trails, and other recreation 

infrastructure. This dead vegetation creates safety issues from falling trees, as well as affecting user 

preferences due to altered viewsheds.

The effect of the infestations on wildlife is less of a concern, since individual species have evolved 

with epidemics. Wildlife species respond to the epidemics as natural variation of habitat, and species 

adapt accordingly. Mortality of overstory trees has increased understory shrubs, grasses, and forbs, 

leading to more available forage.

The revised Forest Plan will include direction for dealing with the ongoing insect epidemic.

Hazardous Fuels

The existing forest plan was amended in 2008 to provide options to use unplanned ignitions to 

accomplish resource benefits inside and outside wilderness and apply appropriate management 

responses throughout the Forest. This direction should be updated in the plan revision to provide 

more specific desired conditions and objectives pertaining to hazardous fuels, fire regime condition 

class (departure from reference conditions), ecosystem diversity, vegetation, and wilderness that 

provide more opportunities to allow fire to play its natural role where and when appropriate.

In ecosystems where periodic fire has historically played a role in maintaining structure and 

composition, past fire suppression policies have resulted in vegetation changes and allowed fuels to 

accumulate to unprecedented levels in many areas of the country, including some areas on the 

Shoshone. The departure of fire from its historic role contributes to ecosystem health and fire 

management problems. Symptoms of these problems include the development of unnaturally dense 

vegetation at broad scales and a heightened susceptibility to wildfires that are often 

uncharacteristically large, destructive, and costly to suppress. By focusing on assessing resilience to 

fire disturbance, management actions can be adjusted to restore lands to a more healthy fire 

frequency and intensity.

Hazardous fuel conditions are present throughout much of the Shoshone (see table 7). Some 

conditions are a result of fire exclusion and have resulted in changes in vegetation type and structure, 

such as sagebrush-grasslands being overgrown with juniper and other conifers, or aspen stands now 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

16

dominated by conifers. Middle-elevation conifer stands have become mature and are homogeneous 

on a broad scale. They lack diversity in age or size classes and are more prone to large-scale, highseverity, stand-replacement wildfires rather than mixed severity. The natural fuel conditions of the 

mature spruce/fir forest and high-elevation subalpine forests are typically considered to be in a state 

of high hazard. Hazardous fuel conditions are also being augmented by the insect outbreaks 

(described earlier) that have resulted in tree mortality on hundreds of thousands of acres.

Table 7. Hazardous fuel conditions in Shoshone National Forest

Hazard rating Acres Percentage of the Shoshone

None (barren and water) 367,031 15%

Low 336,874 14%

Moderate 941,075 38%

High 792,616 33%

High fuel levels result in uncharacteristically high fire intensities and sizes that can cause undesirable 

resource impacts, making it difficult to manage wildland fires and more difficult to use prescribed 

fire safely as a management tool.

As with other national forests, residential development is increasing on private lands adjacent to 

National Forest System lands. This increasing development increases the values to be protected from 

high fuel levels and wildland fire. Prescribed burns require extra planning and personnel during 

implementation to ensure infrastructure is protected in adjacent developments.

Another consequence of the increase in hazardous fuels conditions is the cost associated with fire 

suppression. While there have been only nominal increases in the average suppression costs per acre 

over the past several years, total fire suppression costs have increased substantially because of the 

increase in the number of acres burned each year.

Protection of wildland-urban interface areas is also contributing significantly to fire suppression 

costs. Impacts to communities are also increasing. Communities responsible for protecting private 

property incur additional economic costs from larger and more intense fires, and a reduction in 

visitors can economically impact local communities.

Since 1970, the Shoshone has averaged 26 wildfires annually, averaging 49 percent from natural 

ignition, 32 percent from escaped campfires, and 19 percent from all other causes. Excluding 1988, 

lightning-caused fires burned 87 percent of the acreage, campfires burned 5 percent, and all other 

human causes burned 8 percent. Due to persistent drought and widespread insect epidemics, in 

combination with changes in fire management philosophy, the trend in acreage burned since 1998 

has been increasing. The annual average acres burned for the past 30 years is approximately 

9,800 acres. The annual average over the last 10 years is over 9,300 acres; the annual average for the 

last five years is approximately 14,400 acres burned. Recent increases in fire size and intensity could 

be in response to changes in precipitation and temperature associated with changing climatic 

conditions.

Over the last century, the Shoshone’s fire management program has been focused on fire 

suppression, with efforts to keep fires as small as possible. Within the last decade, suppression efforts 

have been focused more on appropriate management responses that balance suppression efforts 

against the values to be protected from the fire. Appropriate management responses have ranged 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 1

17

from monitoring fires, to full containment and control. Fires within wilderness have been managed 

for resource benefits.

Fish and wildlife habitat management

What will the management direction be for wildlife species, including big game species? How 

will wildlife corridors and secure habitat areas be managed? What management direction 

applies to the management of streams and lakes for native fish and aquatic life?

This revision topic includes issues related to specific habitat needs of wildlife and what wildlife 

species should be highlighted in the revised Forest Plan. There is some overlap between the wildlife 

habitat portion of this topic and the vegetation management topic. They are separated because of the 

unique considerations that need to be addressed with some wildlife species. 

The 1982 NFMA regulations require fish and wildlife habitat considerations to be integrated into the 

forest plan (36 CFR 219.19 – 1982 regulations). Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to 

maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the 

planning area. 

Much of the wildlife management direction in the existing forest plan needs to be reconsidered due 

to changed conditions, new scientific information, and changed public interests. Some direction will 

be carried over and updated to conform to the new plan format. In addition to general habitat 

management, some specific areas that will be considered during revision are threatened and 

endangered species, winter range, secure habitat, and wildlife travel corridors. 

Direction for fisheries management needs to be reconsidered due to changed conditions and new 

scientific information. Yellowstone cutthroat trout conservation, aquatic invasive species, and fish 

passage were not identified as issues in the 1986 Forest Plan as amended. 

Specific aspects of this revision topic include:

• What management direction should apply to big game winter ranges for elk, deer, moose, 

and bighorn sheep? 

• What management direction should apply to wildlife corridors, including migration routes 

and dispersal corridors? 

• What management direction should apply for maintaining secure habitat for wildlife species? 

Secure habitat refers to areas where disturbance from human activities is limited. The 

concept is most often referenced in relationship to big game species, but it also applies to 

grizzly bears and other wildlife species. 

• What wildlife species will require some management focus in the forest plan for social or 

economic reasons, e.g., elk, stream game trout, and non-game birds? This question does not 

cover those species that will be identified in the plan based upon ecological considerations as 

defined in the planning handbook. There may be some overlap between the two groups. 

• What management direction should apply for management of streams and lakes for native 

fish and aquatic life? 

• What management actions should be taken to prevent establishment or spread of invasive 

species?
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

18

Canada Lynx Direction

The existing Shoshone Plan was amended in 2007 to incorporate the multi-forest Lynx Conservation 

Assessment and Strategy, which provides direction requiring the Forest Service to consider critical 

habitat elements of the Canada lynx prior to planning any project. The proposed action retains this 

direction in the revised Forest Plan and incorporates it with the overall plan direction.

Grizzly Bear Direction

The Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area (ICST 2007) 

was incorporated into the Shoshone Plan through a multi-forest Greater Yellowstone Area 

amendment in 2006. However, the amendment was conditional upon the delisting decision by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). When the delisting decision was vacated by a District 

Court in Montana in 2009, the amendment was automatically rescinded. Currently, grizzly bear 

direction is being developed through consultation with the USFWS on an individual project-byproject basis. There is a need to update direction in the forest plan revision, which will require formal 

consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Management Indicator Species

Management indicator species (MIS) are a requirement of the NFMA regulations (36 CFR 219.19(a) 

– 1982 regulations) which serve several related functions in forest plan development and 

implementation. These species are identified during forest plan development to focus attention on 

particular management issues and the environmental features related to those issues. As such, MIS 

motivate particular plan strategies and design criteria. MIS also aid in analyzing plan effects and help 

illuminate differences in plan alternatives that relate to species management. Finally, MIS aid in 

evaluating plan implementation.

Therefore, these species are monitored at the forest plan scale to assess the effects of management 

activities on their populations and on the habitats with which they are associated. Changes in MIS 

populations or their habitats could indicate that current management is adversely affecting the 

composition, structure, or function of those habitats, resulting in plan direction not being met and the 

need for changes in management direction.

In accordance with the 1982 regulations, MIS are selected from the five categories listed below:

1. Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on State and Federal lists;

2. Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped;

3. Non-game species of special interest;

4. Species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned 

management programs.

5. Additional plant or animal species selected because their population changes are believed to 

indicate the effects of management activities on other species of selected major biological 

communities or on water quality.

The 1986 Forest Plan as amended identified 18 MIS. Some species have not been effective as 

management indicators or are no longer relevant for today’s planning issues. Based on the criteria, 

four MIS are proposed for the Shoshone National Forest for evaluating management activities on 

four habitats and their associated species as shown in table 8.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 1

19

Table 8. Proposed management indicator species on the Shoshone National Forest

Management indicator species Habitats

Stream game trout Aquatic and riparian habitats

Brewer’s sparrow Sagebrush communities

Red-breasted nuthatch Mature conifer forest, snags

Ruffed-grouse Aspen communities

Oil and gas development

What areas of the Shoshone are suitable for oil and gas development?

This revision topic includes issues related to oil and gas exploration and development. While the 

plan revision will not change the existing Forest-wide leasing decision, it sets the stage for possible 

future changes to the leasing decision by indicating what areas are suitable for development and what 

standards and guidelines may apply.

The Shoshone borders on oil- and gas-producing basins in Wyoming. Approximately 255,000 acres 

of the 2.4 million acres on the Shoshone have a high potential for oil and gas occurrence (USDI 

Bureau of Land Management 2009, 2010). Though there is potential for oil and gas in those areas 

that does not mean it will be developed. Factors such as accessibility of the formations, demand, 

prices, and quality all influence future development. Overall, lands on the Shoshone have a low or 

very low potential for development (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2009, 2010).

Oil and gas leasing decisions are closely linked to forest plans. Key components of the leasing 

decision—lease stipulations—are derived in large part from forest plan standards, guidelines, and 

management area direction. A common misconception about lease stipulations is that they are part of 

a forest plan, but in actuality, they are solely part of the leasing decision. Another misconception is 

that the designation of lands available for lease is a plan decision. A more appropriate way to address 

leasing in a plan is to designate areas as suitable or unsuitable for oil and gas development and link 

the separate leasing availability decision to suitability and unsuitability determinations in the plan. 

(Suitability is the determination of where oil and gas development is compatible with the 

management areas and desired future conditions on the forest. This includes the identification of 

where oil and gas development could occur with or without surface occupancy.) 

Between 1956 and 1986, 20 oil and gas fields were discovered within 10 miles of the Shoshone’s 

boundary. Exploratory drilling is occurring off the Shoshone and seismic exploration was conducted 

on the Shoshone near Clark, Wyoming, in 2006. Of the 34 wells drilled in the past, 31 have not 

produced and three have been capped due to low production. In the last three years, there were two 

applications to drill exploratory wells on the Shoshone, one in the Line Creek area and the other 

north of Dubois.

Lands currently available for oil and gas leasing under 36 CFR 228.102(d) were identified in the Oil 

and Gas Leasing Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 1995). That decision may need to be 

amended or replaced depending on the decision made in the revised Forest Plan. Currently, 

8,570 acres of the Shoshone are leased for oil and gas. Other acres are in the process of being 

evaluated for possible leasing.

The 1995 decision made 40 percent of the Shoshone available for leasing, including 19 percent 

available for leasing with surface occupancy. The decision gave preference to surface resources 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

20

while providing opportunities for exploration and development under restricted requirements. Most 

of the 19 percent of the Forest that allows leasing with surface occupancy has restrictions that control 

surface use or restrict timing to protect resources. These restrictions are in addition to the standard 

lease restrictions for protecting surface resources.

In March 2006, the Governor of Wyoming, Under Secretary of Agriculture, and regional foresters 

from the Rocky Mountain and Intermountain Regions signed a memorandum of understanding on oil 

and gas leasing in inventoried roadless areas on the Shoshone and Bridger-Teton National Forests. 

The parties agreed that new oil and gas leases would not be issued in inventoried roadless areas until 

new leasing availability decisions are completed. The memorandum of understanding applies to the 

roadless inventory that was in effect at the time of the agreement. For the Shoshone, that is the 

inventoried roadless areas established by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

The revised Forest Plan will identify what areas of the Shoshone are suitable for surface occupancy 

for the purpose of oil and gas development.

Commercial livestock grazing

What areas of the Shoshone are suitable for livestock grazing?

Two aspects of commercial livestock grazing will be addressed in the revised Forest Plan. The first—

what areas of the Shoshone are suitable and capable of supporting commercial livestock grazing—

will be treated as a revision topic. The second—how grazing will be managed on areas where it is 

allowed—will be addressed as an update topic, that is, direction in the current forest plan will be 

updated, with public review of the updated direction.

The 1982 NFMA regulations require forest planning to determine the suitability and potential 

capability of lands for producing forage for grazing animals and for providing habitat for 

management indicator species. Lands suitable for grazing and browsing shall be identified and their 

condition and trend shall be determined (36 CFR 219.20 – 1982 regulations). Changing acres 

designated suitable for grazing on the Shoshone requires an evaluation of the potential economic, 

ecological, and social benefits and costs. 

A number of changes in commercial livestock grazing activities have occurred on the Shoshone over 

the past 70 years and have accelerated in the past 10 years. From a high point in the early 1900s, 

commercial sheep grazing steadily declined on the Shoshone. The initial decline in sheep numbers 

was primarily due to adjustments to stocking rates that reflected a more sustained use of the range 

resource. The decline in sheep animal unit months continued through the 1970s and continued to 

decline in subsequent decades, though at a slower rate, reflecting declining demand and increased 

importation of wool and mutton from overseas. The last 10 years have seen the removal of all but 

one commercial sheep-grazing permit due to an increase in predator/livestock conflicts and concern 

over the potential for disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep.

In contrast to commercial sheep use, the levels of permitted cattle grazing and demand for allotments 

have changed little for many decades. The influence of cattle grazing on the rangeland resource has 

lessened considerably. Improved livestock management, consolidation with vacant sheep allotments, 

where applicable, and construction of offsite water sources have led to improved conditions of both 

upland and riparian rangeland.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 1

21

Updating existing forest plan direction

The six revision topics do not cover all of the direction that will be included in the revised Forest 

Plan. To address other direction, the planning team will update direction from the existing forest 

plan, using the latest scientific information and considering today’s conditions. The following items 

are being updated. 

Activity mitigation Rare plants 

Air quality Reclamation 

Clarks Fork Wild River Recreation residences 

Developing public access to National Forest System 

lands 

Research natural areas

Hard rock (locatable) minerals Riparian management

Heritage resources Scenery management 

Infrastructure management Special interest areas

Invasive species (terrestrial and aquatics) Water quality 

Land exchange, acquisition, and disposal Watershed management 

Laws and regulations Wilderness management 

Rangeland and livestock grazing management Yellowstone cutthroat trout

Other Related Efforts

New planning regulations

The NFMA planning regulations have been revised. The transition language allows the continued use 

of the procedures of the 1982 regulations. The Shoshone Plan revision will follow the 1982 

procedures.

Climate change roadmap and scorecard

The USDA Strategic Plan for 2010−2015 sets a departmental goal to “Ensure our national forests and 

private working lands are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change, while 

enhancing our water resources” (USDA Forest Service 2010a). As a measure of this goal, all national 

forests are to come into compliance with a climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy. To 

achieve this goal, a roadmap and scorecard have been developed to respond to climate change at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/roadmap.shtml

The Shoshone Plan revision will follow the principles of the roadmap and scorecard. Elements of the 

scorecard related to land management planning include:

• Vulnerability − Is information about the vulnerability of key resources, ecosystem elements, 

and human communities to the impacts of climate change being used in unit decisions?
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

22

• Adaptation − Is an adaptation strategy in place that helps incorporate the vulnerability of 

resources and places into priority setting and land treatment actions?

• Monitoring − Is monitoring being conducted to track changing conditions of species, 

watershed condition, forest and grassland health, and other measures, and the effectiveness 

of treatment programs?

• Carbon Stocks and Flows − Does the unit have a baseline assessment of carbon stocks and 

flows? Does it have a strategy for integrating carbon and sustainable consumption goals with 

those of other ecosystem services being provided by the unit?
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

23

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Introduction

This chapter describes the alternatives considered for the revision of the 1986 Shoshone National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. This section also presents the alternatives in 

comparative form, defining the differences in each alternative, and providing a clear basis for choice 

among options by the decision maker and the public. The revision includes changing all or a portion 

of, the programmatic decisions that make up the revised Forest Plan. This chapter provides the 

following five discussions:

• Development of the alternatives;

• Elements common to all alternatives;

• Description of each alternative;

• Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study; and

• Comparison of the alternatives. This discussion summarizes the effects of the alternatives 

described in detail in chapter 3.

Development of Alternatives

On September 24, 2010, a notice of intent (NOI) to revise the 1986 Forest Plan as amended and 

prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 75, No. 

185:58348-58350). The NOI listed information that would be used to develop the proposed action. 

In early January 2012, the proposed Draft Forest Plan was made available to the public for informal 

review on the Shoshone National Forest website. We analyzed and considered the public’s written 

comments during the development of the draft revised forest plan and alternatives analyzed in this 

document. 

As discussed in chapter 1, this revision of the forest plan is based on “need for change.” Topics 

specifically identified as a need for change, are the focus for change. We identified a list of key 

issues, or revision topics (December 2005), based on the need for change. These topics drove 

alternative development. Some additional items are addressed in the revision because they are 

required by planning regulations (i.e., 36 CFR 219.14 through 219.26 (1982)).

Alternative A, the “no-action alternative,” reflects current management practices under the existing 

forest plan, as amended and implemented, and provides the basis for comparing alternatives to 

current management and levels of output. While all alternatives provide a wide range of multiple 

uses, goods, and services, some give slightly greater emphasis to selected resources based on the 

theme of the alternative and response to revision topics.

We based alternatives to the no-action alternative on the need for change identified in 

implementation and monitoring of the current forest plan, the Comprehensive Evaluation Report

(2009). Much of this information was carried over into the Analysis of the Management Situation 

(AMS) released January 2012, working group meetings with Cooperating Agencies (2009−2012), 

informational and comment meetings (2009−2012), public issues raised during scoping, from the 

review of the AMS, comments received on the NOI published in 2010, and public comments on the 

proposed draft revised Forest Plan released in January 2012. Alternatives represent a range of 

possible management options from which to choose. Each alternative emphasizes specific land and 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

24

resource uses and de-emphasizes other uses in response to the revision topics. This is done by 

changing management area allocations, resulting in trade-offs among the alternatives. 

A forest plan provides broad direction but does not authorize specific actions. Authorization of 

specific actions is made through site-specific project analyses. As a result, the final environmental 

impact statement (FEIS) provides an estimate of effects that may or may not occur. One of the 

primary reasons for this uncertainty is future budget levels. Outputs and effects estimated in the FEIS 

are assumed to be achievable under current and anticipated future budget levels. Because activities, 

outcomes, and effects are sensitive to budget levels, each alternative has been analyzed at a 

constrained budget, which reflects a 6-year average of funds allocated to the Shoshone for fiscal 

years 2006 through 2011. Funding by program was adjusted by alternative to meet the theme of the 

alternative. Should Congress emphasize specific programs by appropriation, a redistribution of 

priorities would follow, regardless of the alternative implemented.

We developed a range of alternatives to the proposed action (proposed revised Forest Plan) to meet 

the purpose of and need for change and address one or more of the revision topics. These alternatives 

are considered for detailed study. Not all possible alternatives were carried into detailed study as the 

list of options would have been prohibitively large. Instead, the responsible official identified those 

alternatives that met the criteria and created a reasonable range of outputs, direction, costs, 

management requirements, and effects from which to choose.

Important Points about All Alternatives

All alternatives represent, to varying degrees, the philosophies of multiple-use and ecological and 

economic sustainability. The alternatives provide basic protection of forest resources and comply 

fully with environmental laws. All the alternatives would:

• Meet law, regulation, and policy;5

• Meet the purpose and need for change and address one or more revision topics;

• Incorporate ecosystem management objectives and strategies, and contribute toward 

ecological, social, and economic sustainability;

• Provide integrated restoration direction as included in the Forest-wide goals, desired 

conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines;

• Retain all existing permitted activities and facilities; and 

• Provide sustainable and predictable levels of products and services.

The Preferred Alternative

The responsible official, the regional forester for the Rocky Mountain Region, identified alternative 

G as the preferred alternative for this FEIS. This does not represent a decision, but rather an 

indication of the agency’s preference at this stage of analysis. A final decision will be 

documented in the record of decision (ROD) and may contain refinement to the preferred alternative 

or selection of a different alternative.

 5 With the exception of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Under alternatives A, E, and F, some inventoried roadless 

areas are assigned management areas that allow timber harvest and road construction. 

All permits will be reviewed for compliance with the new Plan. Any permit found to be out of compliance will 

be brought into compliance as soon as practicable using a variety of tools, including modifications or 

amendments to the permit.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

25

See the revised Forest Plan for detailed descriptions of the management area direction. All action 

alternatives draw from the same set of management area descriptions, the differences being the acres 

allocated to each management area.

Elements Common to all Alternatives

All alternatives in this document adhere to multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services (36 

CFR 219.1(a), (b)). In addition, they share objectives and standards for managing forest resources 

and complying with applicable laws and policies. They also contain the same direction to contribute 

to the diversity of native and desired non-native plant and animal communities and contribute toward 

the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Forest-wide direction identified in the revised 

Forest Plan would apply to all action alternatives. The difference between alternatives is primarily 

the difference in allocation of acres by management area to meet the purpose of and need for change, 

and address one or more of the revision topics.

We developed each alternative with the intent of complying with all applicable laws and regulation, 

as well as national policy and direction including, but not limited to, the Healthy Forests Initiative, 

National Fire Plan, and National Energy Policy. 

The following would not change among alternatives:

• Revised Forest Plan Goals, Desired Conditions, and Standards and Guidelines –

Management area and Forest-wide direction for goals, desired condition, standards, and 

guidelines remains constant for all action alternatives.

• Developed Recreation Sites − Existing developed recreation sites are retained in all 

alternatives. Alternatives do not make decisions to remove or to create developed recreation 

sites. Allocation of primary recreation areas remains constant for all action alternatives.

• Administrative Sites − Existing administrative sites remain constant in all alternatives.

• Utility Rights-of-Way and Communication Sites − Direction for and location of designated 

utility rights-of-way and communication sites remain constant for all alternatives. 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers − Direction for and allocation of, eligible wild and scenic rivers 

remain constant for all action alternatives. Management would provide protection of 

16 eligible wild and scenic river segments.

• Designated Wilderness − The five congressionally designated wilderness areas remain 

constant for all alternatives. These existing areas are: Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness, North Absaroka Wilderness, Popo Agie Wilderness, and Washakie

Wilderness.

Prescriptions are grouped in categories with similar management characteristics (see table 9). 

Categories range from little human-caused alteration (Category 1) to substantial human-caused 

alteration (Category 8). Each alternative allocates land to management area prescriptions at various 

levels. For a more complete discussion of the categories and management area prescriptions, see 

chapter 2 of the revised Forest Plan.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

26

Table 9. Management area prescription categories

Category Included management areas

Category 1 Wilderness and non-motorized back country

Category 2 Research and minimal use areas

Category 3 Natural processes predominate 

Category 4 Recreation use

Category 5 Forested and grassland ecosystems with a variety of uses

Category 8 Developed areas

For consistency with other forests in the Rocky Mountain Region and surrounding regions, all action 

alternatives include new management area prescriptions. Table 10 includes a brief description of the 

management areas and a cross-reference to the 1986 Forest Plan as amended management area 

prescriptions. Not all of these prescriptions are used in all alternatives.

Table 10. Revised Forest Plan management area (MA) descriptions for all action alternatives

MA Category Category description 1986 MA

1.1 Wilderness

Wilderness areas are established by an act of Congress that 

creates the areas and provides direction for management. The 

primary management mandate in the 1964 Wilderness Act is 

to preserve wilderness character and to perpetuate the areas’ 

natural conditions “while allowing for the use and enjoyment of 

wilderness in such a manner that does not leave the area 

unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.”

Mixture of 

8A, 8B, 

8C

1.1A

Glacier Addition to 

the Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness

This area was established in the Wyoming Wilderness Act of 

1984, which specifically addresses bighorn sheep and 

recognizes them as an integral part and resource highlight of 

this wilderness area. The Act states, “Occasional motorized 

access for administrative purposes and related activities as 

determined by the Secretary for habitat management, 

trapping, transporting, and proper management of the area’s 

bighorn sheep population may be allowed.”

8E

1.2

Areas 

recommended for 

wilderness

Areas which the Forest Service would recommend to 

Congress for inclusion in the National Wilderness System are 

managed to protect wilderness characteristics until 

Congressional action is taken. Non-conforming activities may 

be limited or restricted. A wilderness recommendation is a 

preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive 

further review and possible modification by the Chief of the 

Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the President 

of the United States. The Congress has reserved the authority 

to make final decisions on wilderness designation.

new

1.2A

Recommended 

High Lakes 

Wilderness

Wilderness study areas are established by an act of Congress 

that creates the areas and provides direction for their 

management. The 14,700-acre High Lakes Wilderness Study 

Area was designated in the Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984.

new

1.2B Recommended 

Dunoir

Management of the Dunoir Special Management Unit is 

described in section 5 (a) of the Act of October 9, 1972 Public 

Law 92-476), designating the Washakie Wilderness.

new

1.3 Back country nonmotorized

Back country, non-motorized recreation areas are managed to 

provide recreation opportunities in a natural-appearing 

landscape

3A
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

27

Table 10. Revised Forest Plan management area (MA) descriptions for all action alternatives

MA Category Category description 1986 MA

1.5A Clarks Fork of the 

Yellowstone River

In 1990, the Clarks Fork Wild and Scenic River Designation 

Act designated a 20.5-mile segment of the Clarks Fork of the 

Yellowstone River to be included in the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System. The legislation designated the river 

corridor (0.25 mile on each side of the river’s ordinary high 

water mark) as a wild river.

Wild rivers are those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of 

impoundments, protect the outstandingly remarkable values 

and water quality of the rivers, and have essentially primitive 

shorelines.

10D

1.6A

High Lakes 

Wilderness Study 

Area

Wilderness study areas are established by an act of Congress 

that creates the areas and provides direction for their 

management. The High Lakes Wilderness Study Area was 

designated in the Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984.

10E

1.6B Dunoir Special 

Management Unit

Management of the Dunoir Special Management Unit is 

described in section 5 (a) of the Act of October 9, 1972 (Public 

Law 92-476), designating the Washakie Wilderness.

10F

2.2A

Line Creek Plateau 

Research Natural 

Area

The Line Creek Plateau Research Natural Area was 

established in 2000 to protect an example of Rocky Mountain 

alpine tundra vegetation types and associated features (USDA 

Forest Service 2000).

Research natural areas provide an opportunity for research, 

study, observation, monitoring, and those educational activities 

that maintain the natural conditions for which the research 

natural area was established.

10A

2.3 Proposed research 

natural areas

This draft plan makes a recommendation to the Forest Service 

Rocky Mountain Region Research Natural Areas Committee to 

establish research natural areas for designation. Proposed 

research natural areas are managed in unmodified conditions 

for future research, study, observations, monitoring, and 

educational activities.

10A

3.1A Swamp Lake 

Botanical Area

Botanical areas are a category of Forest Service special 

interest areas, which are managed to protect or enhance their 

special interest values. These areas can be designated to

protect and manage threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

plants and animals and other elements of biological diversity 

for their ecological significance, scenic values, or public 

popularity. Where appropriate, management emphasis may 

include developing and interpreting areas of unusual 

characteristics for public education and recreation. Currently, 

there is one designated special interest area on the Shoshone, 

the Swamp Lake Botanical Area.

10G

3.1B

Proposed Little 

Popo Agie 

MoraineGeological 

Area

Geological areas are a category of Forest Service special 

interest areas, which are managed to protect or enhance their 

special interest values.

new

3.1C

Proposed Sawtooth 

Peatbeds 

Geological Area

Geological areas are a category of Forest Service special 

interest areas, which are managed to protect or enhance their 

special interest values.

new

3.3A Back country 

motorized

Back country motorized recreation areas are managed to 

provide recreation opportunities on trails in a natural-appearing 

landscape.

2A
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

28

Table 10. Revised Forest Plan management area (MA) descriptions for all action alternatives

MA Category Category description 1986 MA

3.3B Back country winter 

motorized

Back country recreation areas are managed to provide 

recreation opportunities in a natural-appearing landscape. 

Summer use is non-motorized. Over-the-snow vehicles are 

allowed during the snow season.

new

3.3C Back country 

summer motorized

Back country recreation areas are managed to provide back 

country recreation opportunities in a natural-appearing 

landscape. Motorized use is allowed in summer. Motorized 

use, including snowmobiles, is not allowed in winter.

new

3.5

(A, 

B, C, 

D)

Back country 

recreation and 

forest restoration

(year-round 

motorized, winter 

motorized, summer 

motorized, yearround nonmotorized)

Back country recreation and forest restoration areas are 

managed to provide recreation opportunities on trails in a 

natural-appearing landscape while emphasizing the use of 

vegetation management activities to enhance vegetation 

diversity and speed vegetation recovery from wildfire and 

insect epidemics.

new

3.6A

Continental Divide 

National Scenic 

Trail

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) is 

managed to provide recreation opportunities in a naturalappearing landscape consistent with the 2009 Continental 

Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan (USDA 

Forest Service 2009).

new

3.6B Nez Perce National 

Historic Trail

The Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail (NPNHT) 

is managed to be consistent with the 1990 Comprehensive 

Management Plan for the NPNHT to protect historic resources.

new

4.2

Scenic byways,

scenic areas, vistas 

and travel corridors

These areas are managed to protect or preserve the scenic 

values and recreation uses of designated scenic byways, 

scenic areas, vistas, and other heavily used scenic travel 

corridors.

2B

4.3 Back country 

access corridor

These areas contain scenic roads that provide primary access 

to back country areas in management area categories 1 and 3. 

These areas are managed to protect or preserve the scenic 

values and recreation uses of the corridors.

2B

4.5A Proposed Kirwin 

Historical Area

Historical areas are a category of Forest Service special 

interest areas, which are managed to protect or enhance their 

special interest values.

10H

5.1 Managed forests 

and rangelands

General forest and intermingled rangeland areas are managed 

to produce forest products, forage, and wildlife habitat, while 

providing for visual quality and recreational opportunities and a 

variety of other goods and services. Vegetation is managed to 

achieve and maintain the desired vegetation condition for 

livestock, wildlife, recreation, and wood fiber production.

7E

5.2 Public water supply Watersheds used for public water supply are managed for high 

quality water, along with other multiple uses. new

5.4 Managed big game 

crucial winter range

General forest and intermingled rangeland areas are managed 

to provide habitat for big game on winter range and spring 

birthing areas, while also providing forest products, 

recreational opportunities, and a variety of other goods and 

services. Vegetation is managed to achieve and maintain the 

desired vegetation condition of big game ranges while also 

providing for livestock, other wildlife, recreation, and wood 

fiber production.

Mixture of 

4B, 5A 

and 5B
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

29

Table 10. Revised Forest Plan management area (MA) descriptions for all action alternatives

MA Category Category description 1986 MA

8.1 Developed 

recreation areas

These are recreation areas with at least some investment, site 

modification, and Forest Service improvements either for the 

protection of the natural site and/or comfort of the users. They 

provide an array of recreational opportunities and experiences.

1A

8.2 Ski-based resorts

This area contains a developed recreation site that provides 

an array of recreational opportunities and experiences in a 

forested environment. The management area includes the 

area operating under a special use authorization for Sleeping 

Giant Ski Area.

1B

8.6 Administrative sites

Administrative sites are areas where Forest Service-owned 

and leased facilities are present and used to facilitate 

management of the Shoshone. The management area 

boundary for Forest Service-owned facilities located on 

National Forest System lands, such as the Wapiti Ranger 

Station, includes the area within 150 feet of any improvement. 

The boundary for Forest Service-owned or leased facilities 

located in a municipality, such as the ranger district offices and 

the supervisor’s office, includes the lot on which the office is 

located.

new

(falls under other 

MA where these 

exist)

Emphasis on management of riparian areas and adjacent 

ecosystems within approximately 100 feet from perennial 

streams and shores of lakes and other still waterbodies.

Management of water impoundment sites. 

9A and 9E

Standards and guidelines vary among management areas in the previous tables; however, for the 

most part, standards and guidelines for the specific management area are the same for the action 

alternatives considered in detail and analyzed in chapter 3. The revised Forest Plan contains the 

complete direction proposed for use. Reiterating that direction here would be redundant; citing the 

location of that direction by reference is consistent with NEPA regulation, 40 CFR 1500.

All alternatives represent, to varying degrees, the philosophies of multiple use and ecosystem 

management. The alternatives provide basic protection for the forest resources. As directed by 

Federal law, Forest Service policy, and regulations, all the alternatives will do the following:

• Maintain soil, air, water, and land resources.

• Provide for a variety of life through management of biologically diverse ecosystems, though 

they differ in how they emphasize native plant and animal management.

• Provide recreation opportunities and maintain scenic quality in response to the needs of 

national forest users and local communities. Protect heritage resources in accordance with 

applicable laws and regulations, while also providing recreational and educational 

opportunities.

• Sustain multiple uses, products, and services in an environmentally acceptable manner. This 

includes timber harvest, livestock grazing, locatable and leasable mineral extraction, and 

recreation uses.

• Improve financial efficiency for most programs and projects by minimizing expenses, 

recognizing that not all programs and projects produce revenue.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

30

• Emphasize cooperation with individuals, organizations, Indian tribes, and other agencies to 

coordinate the planning and implementation of projects.

• Promote rural development opportunities to enrich rural cultural life, to enhance the 

environment, to provide employment, and to improve rural living conditions.

• Use new management area prescription numbers to be consistent with other national forests 

in Region 2 (in all alternatives except for the no-action alternative).

On January 12, 2001, the Forest Service issued the final Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 

Roadless Rule) and the record of decision on the rule. The 2001 Roadless Rule took effect March 12, 

2001. A lawsuit was filed and on July 14, 2003 the United States District Court for the District of 

Wyoming issued a permanent national injunction of the 2001 Roadless Rule. On October 21, 2011, 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the Wyoming District Court 

decision and remanded the case back to the Wyoming District Court to vacate the permanent 

injunction. On March 1, 2012, the permanent injunction on the Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

(2001) was vacated. Alternatives A, E, and F designate management areas in inventoried roadless 

areas that would not meet the 2001 Roadless Rule direction.

We estimated actual outcomes and practical results for each alternative using current budget levels, 

which assumes that future funding levels will keep pace with inflation. Historically, the Forest 

Service has not received the funds necessary to fully implement its management plans. The budgets 

were allocated between programs based on the theme of each alternative, the expected goods and 

services provided, and the necessary actions and expenditures required to deliver those goods and 

services. 

Management direction contained in the revised Forest Plan applies to all alternatives, except for 

alternative A (the no -action alternative), which has the direction from the 1986 Forest Plan as 

amended.

Description of Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service developed seven alternatives, including no-action and proposed action 

alternatives, in response to issues raised by the public. In the case of no action, ongoing programs 

would continue under current direction without changes. 

Alternatives differ from each other in the way they respond to revision topics. They address changes 

to each component of the 1986 Forest Plan as amended: standards and guidelines, management area 

allocations, monitoring and evaluation, allowable sale quantity, surface occupancy for oil and gas 

leasing, wilderness recommendations, special interest areas, and potential research natural areas.

Alternative A

No Action

The no-action alternative reflects current Forest-wide direction. It meets the NEPA requirement 

(36CFR 219.12(f)(7) that a no-action alternative be considered.

“No action” means that current management allocations, activities, and management direction found 

in the 1986 Forest Plan as amended would continue. The no-action alternative estimates 

approximately the current level of outputs and types of Forest Service management activities. The 

15 amendments to the 1986 Forest Plan, changes in law, regulation, Forest Service policy, and other 

factors that affect current management are reflected in this alternative. The no-action alternative 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

31

retains the 1986 Forest Plan goals and objectives, standards and guidelines, and management area 

prescriptions, as amended. 

This alternative serves as a baseline for comparison with the six “action” alternatives. After

reviewing the Comprehensive Evaluation Report (2009) and Analysis of the Management Situation

(2012) documents, it is apparent that the no-action alternative is not desirable for several reasons, 

including, but not limited to:

• Species and habitat management direction and monitoring protocols have only been slightly 

amended since the 1986 Forest Plan as amended and are not the direction the Shoshone 

National Forest desires to continue for the next 10- to 15-year planning period.

• There is no distinction between standards and guidelines in the 1986 Forest Plan as 

amended.

• Changed circumstances from insect epidemics, larger wildfires, and climate change are not 

addressed in the 1986 Forest Plan goals.

Figure 3 displays the management area allocations by category. (See map 1.)

Figure 3. Alternative A management area categories (with current categories)

Relationship to Revision Topics and Need for Change

Recreation uses and opportunities

The recreation uses and opportunities topic deals primarily with the mix of motorized and nonmotorized uses in the winter and summer. Table 11 shows the percentage of the Forest by recreation 

opportunity spectrum, which reflects the motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities.

MA 1

77%

MA 2

<1%

MA 3

7%

MA 4

7%

MA 5

9%

MA 8

0%

Alternative A Management Area Categories
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

32

Table 11. Alternative A percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS)

ROS class Percentage of the Forest

Rural 0.06

Roaded natural 9

Semi-primitive motorized 12

Semi-primitive non-motorized 23

Primitive 56

Special areas and designations

The Shoshone National Forest contains approximately 1.4 million acres of designated wilderness, 

which accounts for about 55 percent of the Forest. This alternative maintains the five existing 

designated wilderness areas. 

• Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness − 943,600 acres in Montana and Wyoming (23,750 acres on 

the Shoshone)

• Fitzpatrick Wilderness − 198,500 acres

• North Absaroka Wilderness − 350,500 acres 

• Popo Agie Wilderness – 101,900 acres 

• Washakie Wilderness − 704,300 acres 

The Shoshone National Forest contains one designated wild and scenic river, the Clarks Fork of the 

Yellowstone Wild River. This alternative would maintain this wild river.

Existing special designations would be maintained, including the following: 

• High Lakes Wilderness Study Area – 15,200 acres

• Dunoir Special Management Unit – 28,900 acres

• Line Creek Plateau Research Natural Area – 1,280 acres

• Swamp Lake Botanical Area – 580 acres

Vegetation management

Vegetation is managed to provide wildlife habitat, timber products, and areas of reduced fuels. 

Timber management activities are evident on the lands suitable for timber production (86,300 acres 

suited) which comprise about 7 percent of the forested area. Annual timber sold averages would be 

17,000 hundred cubic feet.

In management area categories 4, 5, and 8, the hazardous fuels rating would be reduced on 30,000 to 

40,000 acres. 

Treatments to reduce invasive plant species would occur on approximately 2,000 acres.

Wildlife habitat management

Alternative A protects federally listed species and Forest Service sensitive species. This alternative 

proposes to restore approximately 750 acres of whitebark pine; treatments are tied to suitable and 

generally accessible acres.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

33

This alternative includes 18 management indicator species, timing stipulations applied to some big 

game crucial winter range, and the temporary closure for domestic goats would expire.

Oil and gas development

Oil and gas leasing is allowed on approximately 1 million acres. Approximately 798,000 acres are 

suitable for surface development. Ninety-one percent of the acres with high potential for oil and gas 

occurrence are suitable for surface development.

Commercial livestock grazing

A total of 375,400 acres are generally suitable for grazing. Term-permitted commercial livestock 

grazing would continue near the current level of 55,900 animal unit months plus or minus 10 percent 

in response to resource conditions and uses.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried roadless areas identified for the 2001 Roadless Rule were included in areas allocated to

Management Areas 5.1 and 5.4. These management areas allow road construction and timber 

harvest, which is not consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule.

Alternative B 

This alternative was the proposed action. Based on early public scoping comments, it includes 

elements that emphasize active vegetation management to achieve biological and habitat diversity

and continues to provide a mix of motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities while 

protecting wildlife habitat. Figure 4 displays the management area allocations by category. (See map 

2.)

Figure 4. Alternative B management area categories

MA 1

73%

MA 2

0%

MA 3

12%

MA 4

5%

MA 5

10%

MA 8

<1%

Alternative B Management Area Categories
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

34

This alternative responds to the issues raised during revision and continues management that is 

working, and adjusts management direction, to the extent possible, to be responsive to the issues the 

public raised.

Alternative B balances management of vegetation types outside designated wilderness areas, 

including the use of timber harvest and fire, to meet desired conditions.

Alternative B Relationship to Revision Topics and Need for Change

Recreation uses and opportunities

This alternative would maintain existing miles of open roads and motorized trails. Areas with 

existing winter motorized use, such as Togwotee Pass (referring to Two Ocean Mountain area), are 

retained. New summer motorized trails allowed in some inventoried roadless areas with some areas 

of existing winter motorized use are retained. Table 12 shows the percentage of the Forest by 

recreation opportunity spectrum which reflects the motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities.

Table 12. Alternative B percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes

ROS class Percentage of the Forest

Rural 0.05

Roaded natural 7

Semi-primitive motorized 17

Semi-primitive non-motorized 21

Primitive 56

Special areas and designations

This alternative retains the five existing designated wilderness areas. No new wilderness 

recommendations are proposed.

Existing special designations are maintained and three new special interest areas are proposed—

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

Historical Area.

Six new research natural areas would be proposed—Beartooth Butte, Lake Creek, Grizzly Creek, 

Sheep Mesa, Arrow Mountain, and Roaring Fork.

In addition to the designated Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone Wild River, the eligibility for 16 eligible 

wild and scenic river segments would be maintained.

Vegetation management

Vegetation would be managed to provide wildlife habitat, timber products, forage for grazing, and 

areas of reduced fuels. This alternative addresses insect and disease epidemics and fuels issues.

Timber management activities are evident on lands suitable for timber production (127,000 acres 

suited) which comprise about 10 percent of the forested area. Annual timber sold averages would be 

16,600 hundred cubic feet. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

35

In management area categories 4, 5, and 8, the hazardous fuels rating would be reduced on 30,000 to 

40,000 acres. 

Treatments to reduce invasive plant species would occur on approximately 2,000 acres.

Wildlife habitat management

Updates the list of federally protected species and Forest Service sensitive species.

Adds five species of local concern and includes four management indicator species. Timing 

stipulations would be applied to most big game crucial winter range. Some areas of crucial winter 

range have stipulations waived where current recreation winter use patterns do not impact winter 

range (map 72). Domestic goats would not be allowed in core native bighorn sheep range. 

This alternative proposes increasing aspen cover type on 2,500 acres using mechanical treatments 

and restoring approximately 750 acres of whitebark pine. These treatments are tied to suitable and 

generally accessible acres.

Oil and gas development

Acres available for leasing are the same as Alternative A. For surface development suitability 

alternative B is similar to alternative A, except all back country non-motorized areas and land in the 

grizzly bear primary conservation area are not suitable for surface development. Approximately 

403,000 acres are suitable for surface development. Seventy-one percent of the acres with high 

potential for oil and gas occurrence are suitable for surface development.

Commercial livestock grazing

A total of 375,400 acres are generally suitable for grazing. Term permitted commercial livestock 

grazing would continue at a level of 55,900 animal unit months plus or minus 10 percent in response 

to resource conditions and uses.

Inventoried Roadless Areas and 2001 Rule

This alternative is consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. Timber harvest in inventoried roadless 

areas is consistent with the rule. Vegetation within inventoried roadless area allocated to 

Management Area 3.5 will be actively managed to the extent allowed by the 2001 Roadless Rule.

Alternative C

Alternative C emphasizes wilderness values and protection of back country while moving toward 

desired conditions. There is an increased emphasis on natural disturbance processes. Alternative C 

could have more opportunities for back country non-motorized recreation and more acres of 

management area category 1 (MA 1- 2.1 million acres) than any other alternative (see figure 5) (see 

map 3). This alternative was developed in response to public comment that the undeveloped land on 

the Shoshone should remain undeveloped to provide non-motorized opportunities, natural processes, 

minimal recreational facilities, and undeveloped recreational settings.

Alternative C would retain the eligibility for 16 eligible wild and scenic river segments and 

recommends the most amount of land allocated for wilderness, with no motorized use in remaining 

inventoried roadless areas. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

36

Figure 5. Alternative C management area categories

Relationship to Revision Topics and Need for Change

Recreation uses and opportunities

This alternative emphasizes back country non-motorized opportunities with the most acres of back 

country allocated for non-motorized use. Table 13 shows the percentage of the Forest by recreation 

opportunity spectrum which reflects the motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. 

Miles of open roads would decrease. Roads and motorized trails in inventoried roadless areas would 

be closed. No new summer motorized use would be authorized in inventoried roadless areas. No 

winter motorized use would be authorized in recommended wilderness and inventoried roadless 

areas. The Twin Peaks area on Togwotee Pass would be closed to over-the-snow motorized 

recreation.

Table 13. Alternative C percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes

ROS class Percentage of the Forest

Rural 0.05

Roaded natural 5

Semi-primitive motorized 8

Semi-primitive non-motorized 5

Primitive 82

MA 1

86%

MA 2

<1%

MA 3

1%

MA 4

4% MA 5

9%

MA 8

<1%

Alternative C Management Area Categories
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

37

Special areas and designations

In addition to maintaining the five existing designated wilderness areas, this alternative would 

recommend adding the following wilderness evaluation areas for wilderness designation, for a total 

addition of 628,800 acres.

Pat O’Hara South Fork Dunoir

Sulphur Creek Carter Mountain West Dunoir

Clarks Fork Franc’s Peak Middle Fork

Sunlight Wood River Warm Spring Creek

Trout Creek Castle Rock Deep Lake

Wapiti Valley North Telephone Draw High Lakes

Rattlesnake East Dunoir High Lakes additional

Wapiti Valley South South Dunoir

Existing special designations would be maintained and three new special interest areas would be 

proposed—Sawtooth Peatbed Geological Area, Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological Area, and 

Kirwin Historical Area. This alternative proposes eight new research natural areas—Beartooth Butte, 

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

Fork. 

In addition to the designated Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone Wild River, the eligibility for 16 eligible 

wild and scenic river segments would be maintained

Vegetation management

Vegetation would be managed to provide wildlife habitat, timber products, forage for grazing, and 

areas of reduced fuels. This alternative addresses insect and disease epidemics and fuels issues.

Timber management activities are evident on lands suitable for timber production (122,100 acres 

suited) which comprise about 9 percent of the forested area. Annual timber sold averages would be 

14,900 hundred cubic feet. Lands available for timber harvest would be much less than alternative B 

(new wilderness areas and inventoried roadless areas would be removed from suitable harvest timber

base).

In management area categories 4, 5, and 8, the hazardous fuels rating would be reduced on 30,000 to 

40,000 acres. 

Treatments to reduce invasive plant species would occur on approximately 1,500 acres.

Wildlife habitat management

Alternative C would update the list of federally protected species and Forest Service sensitive 

species.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

38

This alternative would add five species of local concern and would include four management 

indicator species. Timing stipulations would be applied to all big game winter range. Domestic goats 

would not be allowed on the Shoshone.

This alternative proposes to increase aspen cover type on 2,000 acres using mechanical treatments 

and restore approximately 500 acres of whitebark pine. These treatments are tied to suitable and 

generally accessible acres. Proposed acres of treatments would be less than other action alternatives 

due to wilderness recommendations.

Oil and gas development

Acres available for leasing are the same as alternative A. Big game crucial winter range, inventoried 

roadless, recommended wilderness, and management area 5.4, grizzly bear primary conservation 

area is not suitable for oil and gas surface development Approximately 106,000 acres are suitable for 

surface development. Thirty-two percent of the acres with high potential for oil and gas occurrence 

are suitable for surface development.

Commercial livestock grazing

A total of 216,800 acres are generally suitable for grazing. Commercial livestock grazing would be 

eliminated on elk and bighorn sheep crucial winter ranges that occurs on active allotments. Term 

permitted commercial livestock grazing would be allowed at a level of 31,400 animal unit months 

plus or minus 10 percent in response to resource conditions and uses.

Inventoried roadless areas and 2001 Roadless Rule

No timber harvest and no road construction would be proposed in designated inventoried roadless 

areas. This alternative is consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. 

Alternative D

Alternative D was developed to be responsive to public and conservation group comments regarding 

specific areas of the Forest remaining undeveloped to provide non-motorized opportunities, natural 

processes, minimal recreational facilities, and undeveloped recreational settings. 

This alternative would recommend 194,500 acres for wilderness, 8 new research natural areas, and 3 

special interest areas. 

Figure 6 displays the management area allocations by category. (See map 4.)
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

39

Figure 6. Alternative D management area categories

Relationship to Revision Topics and Need for Change

Recreation uses and opportunities

This alternative emphasizes back country non-motorized opportunities on more acres than alternative 

B, and less than alternative C. Table 14 shows the percentage of the Forest by recreation opportunity 

spectrum, which reflects the motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities.

Twin Peaks area of Togwotee Pass would be closed to over-the-snow motorized recreation. There 

would be no reduction in miles of open roads. No new summer motorized recreation in inventoried 

roadless would be allowed.

Some winter motorized opportunities would exist in inventoried roadless areas. Most areas around 

the Beartooth Plateau and Brooks Lake Lodge would remain open for snowmobiles.

Table 14. Alternative D percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes

ROS class Percentage of the Forest

Rural 0.05

Roaded natural 6

Semi-primitive motorized 9

Semi-primitive non-motorized 21

Primitive 64

MA 1

81%

MA 2

1%

MA 3

4%

MA 4

5%

MA 5

9%

MA 8

<1%

Alternative D Management Area Categories
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

40

Special areas and designations

In addition to maintaining the five existing designated wilderness areas, this alternative would 

recommend adding the following wilderness evaluation areas for wilderness designation, for a total 

addition of 194,500 acres.

Trout Creek East Dunoir

Franc’s Peak South Dunoir

Wood River Dunoir

West Dunoir

Existing special designations would be maintained and three new special interest areas would be 

proposed—Sawtooth Peatbed Geological Area, Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological Area, and 

Kirwin Historical Area. This alternative would propose eight new research natural areas—Beartooth 

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

Roaring Fork. 

In addition to the designated Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone Wild River, the eligibility for 16 eligible 

wild and scenic river segments would be maintained.

Vegetation management

Vegetation would be managed to provide wildlife habitat, timber products, forage for grazing, and 

areas of reduced fuels. This alternative addresses insect and disease epidemics and fuels issues.

Timber management activities are evident on lands suitable for suited timber production (124,400 

acres suited) which comprise about 10 percent of the forested area. Annual timber sold averages 

would be 15,900 hundred cubic feet. Lands available for timber harvest would be less than 

alternative B (recommended wilderness areas and inventoried roadless areas would be removed from 

suitable timber harvest base).

In management area categories 4, 5 and 8, the hazardous fuels rating would be reduced on 30,000 to 

40,000 acres. 

Treatments to reduce invasive plant species would occur on approximately 2,000 acres.

Wildlife habitat management

Alternative D would update the list of federally protected species and Forest Service sensitive 

species.

This alternative would add five species of local concern and include four management indicator 

species. Timing stipulations would be applied to all big game crucial winter range. Domestic goats 

would not be authorized in core bighorn sheep range (same as alternative B).

This alternative proposes increasing aspen cover type on 2,500 acres using mechanical treatments 

and restoring approximately 750 acres of whitebark pine. These treatments are tied to suitable and 

generally accessible acres.

Oil and gas development

Acres available for leasing are the same as alternative A. Inventoried roadless, grizzly bear primary 

conservation area, and recommended wilderness areas are not suitable for surface development
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

41

Approximately 225,400 acres are suitable for surface development. Forty-seven percent of the acres 

with high potential for oil and gas occurrence are suitable for surface development.

Commercial livestock grazing

A total of 375,400 acres are generally suitable for grazing based on management area allocation. 

Term permitted commercial livestock grazing would continue at a level of 55,900 animal unit 

months plus or minus 10 percent in response to resource conditions and uses. 

Inventoried roadless areas and 2001 Roadless Rule

No timber harvest and no road construction would be authorized in designated inventoried roadless 

areas. This alternative is consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. 

Alternative E

Alternative E was developed to be responsive to comments regarding specific uses of the Forest to 

support local communities and provide access for motorized recreation. This alternative emphasizes 

commodity production and motorized use and addresses issues shared by some of the public, local 

industry, and motorized user groups.

Figure 7 displays the management area allocations by category. (See map 5.)

Figure 7. Alternative E management area categories

Relationship to Revision Topics and Need for Change

Recreation uses and opportunities

This alternative provides a mix of motorized and non-motorized use, with a higher proportion of 

motorized to non-motorized acres than alternative B. Table 15 shows the percentage of the Shoshone 

by recreation opportunity spectrum, which reflects the motorized and non-motorized recreation 

MA 1

71%

MA 2

<1%

MA 3

10%

MA 4

5%

MA 5

14%

MA 8

<1%

Alternative E Management Area Categories
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

42

opportunities. Alternative E would propose no reduction in miles of open roads with more area open 

to summer motorized recreation than alternative B.

The Twin Peaks area of Togwotee Pass would remain open to over-the-snow motorized recreation. 

Area open to winter motorized recreation is greater than alternative B.

Table 15. Alternative E percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes 

ROS class Percentage of the Forest

Rural 0.05

Roaded natural 7

Semi-primitive motorized 20

Semi-primitive non-motorized 17

Primitive 56

Special areas and designations

No new wilderness would be recommended. Existing special designations would be maintained, and 

one new special interest area (Kirwin Historical Area), and three new research natural areas—Sheep 

Mesa, Lake Creek, and Arrow Mountain—would be proposed.

In addition to the designated Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone Wild River, the eligibility for 16 eligible 

wild and scenic river segments would be maintained.

Vegetation management

Vegetation would be managed to provide wildlife habitat, timber products, forage for grazing, and 

areas of reduced fuels, and would address insect and disease epidemics and fuels issues.

Timber management activities are evident on lands suitable for timber production (179,700 acres 

suited) which comprise about 14 percent of the forested area. Annual timber sold averages would be 

22,100 hundred cubic feet. Managed timber land is similar to alternative B with some additional 

lands suitable for timber production designated in back country areas. 

In management area categories 4, 5, and 8, the hazardous fuels rating would be reduced on 35,000 to 

45,000 acres. 

Treatments to reduce invasive plant species would occur on approximately 2,000 acres.

Wildlife habitat management

Alternative E would update the list of federally protected species and Forest Service sensitive 

species.

This alternative would add five species of local concern and include four management indicator 

species.

Alternative E is the same as alternative B, except there would be no timing stipulations in MA 5.4. 

Instead of excluding operations, winter timing stipulations would limit the amount of winter range in 

a watershed that can be impacted at any one time. Domestic goats would be allowed Forest-wide.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

43

This alternative would propose increasing aspen cover type on 2,500 acres using mechanical 

treatments and restoring approximately 750 acres of whitebark pine. These treatments are tied to 

suitable and generally accessible acres.

Oil and gas development

Acres available for leasing are the same as alternative A. Alternative E is similar to alternative B, but 

there would be more acres of inventoried roadless suitable for surface development, approximately 

477,500 total. Seventy-four percent of the acres with high potential for oil and gas occurrence are 

suitable for surface development.

Commercial livestock grazing

Under alternative E, utilization restrictions on livestock in big game crucial winter range would be 

removed. A total of 375,400 acres are generally suitable for grazing. Term permitted commercial 

livestock grazing would continue at a level of 58,300 animal unit months plus or minus 10 percent in 

response to resource conditions and uses.

Inventoried roadless areas and 2001 Roadless Rule

This alternative would allocate inventoried roadless areas to management areas 5.1 and 5.4, which 

would allow timber harvest and road construction that is not consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. 

Alternative F

Alternative F was developed to respond to comments regarding specific uses of the Shoshone to 

support local communities and provide increased access for motorized recreation and use. This 

alternative emphasizes commodity production and motorized use while addressing issues shared by 

some of the public, local industry, and motorized user groups 

This alternative demonstrates the highest level of management area category 5 (528,000 acres) that 

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

wilderness, the grizzly bear primary conservation area, etc. 

Figure 8 shows the management area allocations by category (see map 6).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

44

Figure 8. Alternative F management area categories

Relationship to Revision Topics and Need for Change

Recreation uses and opportunities

This alternative emphasizes back country motorized opportunities, with no reduction in miles of 

open roads. This alternative would result in the fewest acres of back country non-motorized areas. 

The Twin Peaks area of Togwotee Pass would be open to over-the-snow motorized recreation.

This alternative would include the most acres open to summer motorized recreation, and eight new 

wheeled motorized trail loop opportunities. This alternative would incorporate the most proposed 

motorized areas in response to public comment (table 16).

Table 16. Alternative F percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes

ROS class Percentage of the Forest

Rural 0.05

Roaded natural 6

Semi-primitive motorized 27

Semi-primitive non-motorized 10

Primitive 56

Special areas and designations

No new wilderness areas would be recommended. Existing special designations would be 

maintained. This alternative would not propose any new special interest area or new research natural 

areas. 

MA 1

67%

MA 2

<1%

MA 3

7%

MA 4

4%

MA 5

22%

MA 8

<1%

Alternative F Management Area Categories
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

45

In addition to the designated Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone Wild River, the eligibility for 16 eligible 

wild and scenic river segments would be maintained.

Vegetation management

Vegetation would be managed to provide wildlife habitat, timber products, forage for grazing, and 

areas of reduced fuels. This alternative would treat the most area for insect and disease epidemics 

and fuels issues.

Timber management activities are evident on lands suitable for timber production (251,200 acres 

suited) which comprise about 20 percent of the forested area. Annual timber sold averages would be 

30,500 hundred cubic feet. Managed timber land would include most of Wind River and Washakie

Ranger Districts and any larger blocks of potentially suitable ground on the Clarks Fork, Greybull, 

and Wapiti Ranger Districts

In management area categories 4, 5, and 8, the hazardous fuels rating would be reduced on 45,000 to 

55,000 acres. 

Treatments to reduce invasive plant species would occur on approximately 3,000 acres. 

Wildlife habitat management

This alternative would update the list of federally protected species and Forest Service sensitive 

species. Lynx and grizzly bear direction on secure habitat and motorized activity is not applied. 

Alternative F would add five species of local concern and include four management indicator 

species. No timing stipulations would apply on big game winter range, and, domestic goats would be 

allowed Forest-wide.

This alternative proposes increasing aspen cover type on 2,500 acres using mechanical treatments 

and restoring approximately 1,250 acres of whitebark pine. These treatments are tied to suitable and 

generally accessible acres.

Oil and gas development

Acres available for leasing are the same as alternative A. This alternative has 708,000 acres suitable 

for surface occupancy for oil and gas development. This alternative has a large number of 

inventoried roadless acres that are suitable for surface development. Eighty-seven percent of the 

acres with high potential for oil and gas occurrence are suitable for surface development.

Commercial livestock grazing

Under alternative F, allowable forage utilization restrictions on big game crucial winter range would 

be removed and any suitable and capable areas outside designated wilderness and outside existing 

allotments would be available for livestock grazing (doesn’t include domestic sheep). A total of 

415,400 acres are generally suitable for grazing. Term permitted commercial livestock grazing would 

increase to a level of 61,500 animal unit months plus or minus 10 percent in response to resource 

conditions and uses.

Inventoried roadless areas and 2001 Roadless Rule

Inventoried roadless areas identified for the 2001 Roadless Rule were included in areas allocated to 

management area 5.1, which allows timber harvest and road construction that is not consistent with 

the 2001 Roadless Rule. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

46

Alternative G − The 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 DEIS. The alternative provides a diversity of forest uses and emphasizes active 

management of suitable timber lands, protects wildlife habitat, maintains a diversity of recreation

opportunities, and maintains the dominant back country character of the Forest. 

Figure 9 displays the management area allocations by category. (See map 79.)

Figure 9. Alternative G management area categories

Alternative G Relationship to Revision Topics and Need for Change

Recreation uses and opportunities

This alternative would maintain existing miles of open roads and motorized trails. Existing 

snowmobile trails are maintained including those that pass through crucial winter range. Existing 

area closures associated with cross-country skiing are maintained. Areas open to winter motorized in

the no-action alternative are closed in this alternative to protect crucial winter range. Areas open to 

summer motorized routes in the no-action alternative are closed to protect wildlife habitat. In 

comparison to the no-action alternative, some areas are opened to summer motorized use to provide 

opportunity for future motorized trail development. Table 17 shows the percentage of the Forest by 

recreation opportunity spectrum which reflects the motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities.

MA 1

69%

MA 2

1%

MA 3

15%

MA 4

5%

MA 5

10%

MA 8

<1%

Alternative G Management Area Categories
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

47

Table 17. Alternative G percentage of the Shoshone by recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes

ROS class Percentage of the Forest

Rural 0.05

Roaded natural 7

Semi-primitive motorized 16

Semi-primitive non-motorized 21

Primitive 56

Special areas and designations

This alternative retains the five existing designated wilderness areas. No new wilderness 

recommendations are proposed. 

Existing special designations would be maintained and three new special interest areas are 

proposed—Sawtooth Peatbed Geological Area, Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological Area, and 

Kirwin Historical Area. 

This alternative would propose eight new research natural areas—Beartooth Butte, Lake Creek, Pat 

O’Hara, Bald Ridge, Grizzly Creek, Sheep Mesa, Arrow Mountain, and Roaring Fork.

In addition to the designated Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone Wild River, the eligibility for 16 eligible 

wild and scenic river segments would be maintained.

Vegetation management

Vegetation would be managed to provide wildlife habitat, timber products, forage for grazing, and 

areas of reduced fuels. This alternative addresses insect and disease epidemics and fuels issues.

Timber management activities are evident on lands suitable for timber production (127,000 acres 

suited) which comprise about 10 percent of the forested area. Annual timber sold averages would be 

16,600 hundred cubic feet. Managed timber land is the same as alternative B. 

In management area categories 4, 5, and 8, the hazardous fuels rating would be reduced on 30,000 to 

40,000 acres.

Treatments to reduce invasive plant species would occur on approximately 2,000 acres.

Wildlife habitat management

Updates list of federally protected species and Forest Service sensitive species.

Adds five species of local concern and includes four management indicator species. Timing 

stipulations would be applied to most big game crucial winter range. Some areas of crucial winter 

range have stipulations waived where current recreation winter use patterns do not impact winter 

range (map 73). Domestic goats would not be allowed in core native bighorn sheep range. 

This alternative proposes increasing aspen cover type on 3,500 acres using mechanical treatments 

and restoring approximately 1,400 acres of whitebark pine. These treatments are tied to suitable and 

generally accessible acres.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

48

Oil and gas development

Acres available for leasing are the same as alternative A. Suitability of lands for surface development 

associated with oil and gas is focused on lands with a high potential for oil and gas development, 

including areas with existing leases. Key wildlife habitat such as the grizzly bear primary 

conservation area and some crucial big game winter range is not suitable for surface development. 

Additional National Forest System lands where adjacent owners (primarily BLM and State Land) 

preclude surface occupancy are also not suitable for surface development. Approximately 

129,100 acres are suitable for surface development. Thirty-eight percent of the acres with high 

potential for oil and gas occurrence are suitable for surface development.

Commercial livestock grazing

A total of 375,400 acres are generally suitable for grazing. Term permitted commercial livestock 

grazing would continue at a level of 55,900 animal unit months plus or minus 10 percent in response 

to resource conditions and uses.

Inventoried roadless areas and 2001 Roadless Rule

Inventoried roadless areas identified for the 2001 Roadless Rule were included in areas allocated to 

Management Areas 3.5A, 3.5B, 3.5C, and 3.5D. Vegetation within inventoried roadless area 

allocated to Management Areas 3.5A, 3.5B, 3.5C, and 3.5D will be actively managed to the extent 

allowed by the 2001 Roadless Rule. This alternative is consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

We considered several alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study during the planning 

process. An infinite number of alternatives could be considered in revising the Shoshone Forest Plan. 

The interdisciplinary team used all past management experience, laws and regulations guiding 

National Forest System management, and public input in designing the alternatives considered in 

detail. Many of the thoughts and ideas suggested by people that were not analyzed in detail were 

used to develop the alternatives that were considered in detail. Following is a discussion of these 

alternatives and the reasons for their elimination.

Alternative with Predetermined Timber Harvest Outputs

One public comment was presented that requested a predetermined level of timber harvest (1 million 

board feet total). This alternative was considered but not analyzed in detail because ecosystem 

management precepts that have guided national forest management philosophy for at least the past 

decade begin with the capabilities of the land to provide for multiple resource benefits, with output 

levels determined at the end by an objective driven process. That is, the Forest interdisciplinary team 

developed alternatives in response to past forest monitoring and implementation, coupled with 

people’s input as to desired conditions. Direction and maps were developed taking into account past 

management, resource capabilities, and people’s input. The maps of alternatives A through G were 

developed to meet a range of potential desired conditions, “constrained” to be within the likely range 

of management decision space. The final outcome of such an alternative development process is the 

outputs, as opposed to the suggestions in the comment, which start with an outcome, and maps a 

forest to achieve that result. 

A harvest level of 1 million board feet total was not considered to be optimal for a balanced multipleuse approach that considered other resource uses. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

49

Reduce or Eliminate Livestock Grazing Alternative/Higher Grazing Fees Alternative

An alternative was proposed to reduce commercial livestock animal unit months (AUMs) to 

predetermined levels or area (e.g., a maximum of 10 percent of the land). An alternative was 

considered that reduced existing levels of livestock grazing because of concerns about riparian 

impacts. This was not considered in detail, as there is not sufficient data at the Forest-wide scale to 

determine what the appropriate level of grazing should be, and any reductions would be considered 

arbitrary at the plan level. Stocking decisions are made at the project, allotment scale.

Alternatives with predetermined permitted AUM levels were considered but not analyzed in detail 

because the specific number of permitted AUMs on the Shoshone is determined in a project-level 

grazing management decision leading to the development of an individual allotment management 

plan. The specific number of permitted AUMs is not a forest plan-level decision. 

Ecosystem management precepts that have guided national forest management philosophy for at 

least the past decade begin with the capabilities of the land to provide for multiple resource benefits, 

with output levels determined at the end by an objective-driven process. Livestock AUMs are an 

outcome of implementation of the objectives, standards and guidelines of the forest plan, and sitespecific planning, along with the intensity and success of permit management. They are an 

implementation outcome, not a target. In addition, a number of factors influencing the number of 

AUMs are beyond the control of the Forest Service, including livestock markets, weather conditions, 

and the ability and desire of permittees to manage for higher levels of use. 

Concerning grazing fees, people proposed that the permittee pay livestock grazing administration 

and monitoring costs. In addition, some people suggested that grazing fees be increased. Both of 

these suggestions are outside the scope of plan revision, as Congress sets grazing fees. Congress 

established the formula used for calculating the grazing fee for western public lands in the 1978 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act, which was continued under an Executive Order issued in 1986. 

Exclude Human Presence and Disturbance in Crucial Big Game Winter Range

A suggestion was received to be more proactive in managing dispersed use impacts by prohibiting all 

human presence in important big game winter range areas.

The Forest provides for multiple use management per the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. 

Eliminating all human presence in critical big game winter range would not be feasible, due in part

to the location of highways, private parcels and access roads. Winter motorized use is proposed for 

different management under the various alternatives as follows: 

Alternative A allows winter motorized use on less than one-third of big game crucial winter range. 

Under alternative B, winter motorized use is allowed on just over 5 percent of big game crucial 

winter range. Under alternative G, winter motorized use is allowed on just under 10 percent of big 

game crucial winter range. Under alternative E, winter motorized use is allowed on just over 

10 percent of big game crucial winter range. Under alternative F, winter motorized use is allowed on 

40 percent of big game crucial winter range.

Alternative D prohibits winter motorized use on all big game crucial winter range.

Alternative C prohibits winter motorized use on all big game winter range, including big game 

crucial winter range. In addition, alternative C eliminates livestock grazing within big game crucial 

winter ranges. Alternative C addresses this suggestion to the extent practical. A separate alternative 

to address this suggestion was eliminated from detailed analysis.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

50

Add Special Interest Areas Alternative

A suggestion was received to add special interest areas such as: National Natural Landmark area.

One proponent proposal was to add a Deep Lake Slide Geological Area as a National Natural 

Landmark or special interest area. Landslides similar to the Deep Lake Slide are well represented 

and interpreted in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Two of the better known areas include the Quake 

Lake Earthquake interpretive center on the Gallatin National Forest, and the Gros Ventre Slide 

Geological Area on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Evaluating the Deep Lake Slide Geological 

Area was considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis because of its location in a management 

area that allows adequate protection to maintain its unique characteristics. 

Undesignate Wilderness Areas, Research Natural Areas, and Special Interest 

Areas Alternative

Suggestions were made to undesignate wilderness areas, research natural areas, and special interest 

areas and open these areas up for active vegetative management.

Only Congress has the authority to make wilderness designation decisions. This alternative was 

considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis as the Forest Service does not have the authority to 

undesignate wilderness areas.

Research natural areas and special interest areas are designated to maintain their unique 

characteristics as per Forest Service Manual 4063. 

Designate the Shoshone Portion of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

Non-motorized

Some comments asked for a motorized closure on sections of the Continental Divide National Scenic 

Trail (CDNST). The existing plans allow motorized uses in winter, summer, or yearlong, depending 

on travel plan direction in that section. While a complete non-motorized route is the national goal, 

existing motorized segments will require site-specific analysis before any changes are made. 

Direction for the trail has been established nationally in the CDNST Comprehensive Management 

Plan and is reflected in the revised Forest Plan. Changes to the CDNST are considered site-specific 

projects and will be addressed in project planning.

Pro-recreation Alternative

Suggestions were made to considered a specific pro-recreation alternative to provide equal program 

delivery by converting roads to off-road use trails and allocating at least 50 percent of the trails to 

motorized use and include the following protections: (1) that roadless areas are free from new road 

building, (2) that projects and management decisions occur that simultaneously protect wildlife 

habitat, waterways, and the back country character of the forest, and (3) that a ban is placed on oil 

and gas development and other forms of large-scale industrialization and commercialization.

Conversion of trails from non-motorized to motorized use is a site-specific travel management 

decision that is not addressed at the forest plan level. What is addressed at the forest plan level is the 

management area allocations which allow motorized use versus those that do not allow motorized 

use. The alternatives being analyzed cover a wide range of motorized versus non-motorized options 

of which one, alternative F, provides for the highest level of motorized use possible within 

parameters, such as designated wilderness, the grizzly bear primary conservation area, etc. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

51

(1) Alternatives B, C, D and G comply with the Roadless Rule and address the concern of no new 

road construction in designated roadless areas.; (2) Individual project proposals are outside the scope 

of the revised Forest Plan analysis. Individual site specific projects will be driven by their identified 

purpose and need, and site specific environmental analyses of the affected management area 

direction.; (3) Banning oil and gas development would be similar to identifying all areas to be 

withdrawn from mineral and oil and gas entry, which is not consistent with existing law and policy, 

such as the General Mining Law of 1872, which allows exploration, development, and production of 

minerals from mining claims on public lands.

This alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis since portions are addressed in 

existing alternatives considered in detail and other portions are outside the scope of the revised 

Forest Plan analysis, or not consistent with existing laws and policy.

Changes to Travel Management

Comments to consider changes to travel management were suggested including no expansion of 4-

wheeler trails, no new roads, and leave all roads and trails open for use.

No expansion of 4-wheeler trails was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis because it is 

covered in alternative C, which would reduce the miles of existing motorized trails by closing 

approximately 11 miles of motorized trails within areas recommended for wilderness in the 

alternative.

An alternative was considered that would not include potential for new roads. We anticipate a 

minimum amount of new roads, from 2 to 4 miles, to be constructed to access areas for management 

under any alternative. This item was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis because very 

few new roads (less than 4 miles) are anticipated over the 2.4 million-acre Forest. 

An alternative was suggested to leave all roads and trails open for use. This alternative was not 

considered in detail as a separate alternative because alternatives B, D, E, and F all identify no 

reduction of open roads and trails. Developing a separate alternative was not considered in detail.

Recommend All Eligible Rivers for Designation

A suggestion was submitted to recommend all eligible rivers for designation as wild and scenic 

rivers. The interdisciplinary team made the eligibility determinations, which are included in the Plan 

as per Forest Service Handbook 1909.12,82.1. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12,8 allows the Forest 

Service to make wild and scenic river suitability determinations, and if suitable, a recommendation 

after plan revision when there is an identified need, which is what we have elected to do. Therefore, 

although an alternative to recommend eligible rivers for designation was considered, it was 

eliminated from detailed analysis because the Forest Service has elected to make to make wild and 

scenic river suitability determinations, and if suitable, a recommendation after plan revision.

No Oil and Gas Surface Occupancy Forest-wide

At least one commenter suggested the Shoshone consider no surface occupancy Forest-wide. This 

would be similar to identifying all areas to be withdrawn from mineral and oil and gas entry, which is 

not consistent with existing law and policy, such as the General Mining Law of 1872, which allows 

exploration, development, and production of minerals from mining claims on public lands. 

Therefore, the alternative was considered but not analyzed in detail. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

52

Manage Priority Watersheds Using Buffers

We received a suggestion regarding priority watershed management using riparian buffers and 

setbacks to protect Yellowstone cutthroat trout and other fish, amphibians, and wildlife habitat. 

The primary factors that contributed to the significant reductions in Yellowstone cutthroat trout

populations range-wide were from past introductions of nonnative fish that compete and/or hybridize 

with native Yellowstone cutthroat trout and alter habitat. Riparian and stream habitat on the 

Shoshone is generally in good to excellent overall condition. Currently, half of the Shoshone 

National Forest is in designated wilderness areas. Most of the remaining conservation populations of 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout are located in wilderness. 

In 2010, about 89 percent of the riparian acres that intercept perennial streams were in proper 

functioning condition, about 9 percent were functioning at risk, and less than 1 percent was nonfunctioning (USDA Forest Service 2010b). Adaptive management techniques will be implemented to 

improve the remaining riparian conditions over the planning period. 

One of the primary land management strategies is to use management techniques that simulate 

natural processes, which includes disturbance. Periodic disturbance is an integral part of the natural 

process on the landscape that is required for long-term sustainability of aquatic ecosystems 

(Kreutzweiser et al. 2012). These land management activities result in acceptable short-term 

disturbances with proper implementation, administration, and compliance of forest plan standards, 

guidelines, Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) and Forest Service 

National Best Management Practice Directives (collectively referred to as: Forest Service Regional 

and National BMP Directives), and other Federal and State land management direction. These shortterm disturbances result in long-term benefits to the riparian ecosystem and the biota that use them, 

including Yellowstone cutthroat trout. 

Creating riparian buffer protection zones and setbacks for all management activities delays 

succession, reduces vegetative diversity and nutrient productivity, and increases the chances for 

large-scale fires substantially outside the natural range of variability (Van de Water and North 2012). 

Researchers felt that the current “hands-off” management approach for riparian habitat management 

under the Northwest Forest Plan will continue on an altered trajectory of ecological processes and 

have undesirable long-term consequences (Messier et al. 2012). 

Other “setbacks” proposed in the revised Forest Plan, such as dispersed camping near streams and 

lakes, oil and gas, or other development activities, are based on various land management directions

and field observations, and incorporate the unique geologies and stream and lake habitat types found 

on the Forest. Riparian pasture fencing and other riparian grazing strategies are used under the 

adaptive management concept. Buffers and setbacks, when used, generally are not a “one size fits 

all” situation on the Shoshone. 

This alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis because most buffers and 

setbacks do not simulate natural processes. Additionally, the buffers and setbacks proposed by the 

commenters generally do not fit the unique geologies and habitat types found on the Shoshone. 

Varying Objectives between Alternatives or Additional Objectives to some 

Alternatives

We received a suggestion to include re-commissioning objectives of 10 miles of trails and 6 miles of 

roads annually to address the scoping and revision topics of recreation uses and opportunities, special 

areas, vegetation management, and socioeconomics.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

53

An alternative that included restoring closed roads was considered, but eliminated from detailed 

analysis. Individual road closures, obliterations, decommissioning, and re-commissioning are 

accomplished through project-level analysis.

Allow Pack Goat Use on the Forest with Best Management Practices

A suggestion was received to consider using best management practices to allow pack goat use on 

the Forest. Pack goat movements may be controllable; however, there is a risk of free-ranging 

bighorn sheep coming into contact with pack goats. This alternative carries a risk of introducing 

Pasteurella spp. through interaction of free-ranging bighorn sheep with pack goats.

Although the risk of disease transmission is low to very low, even one disease transmission event 

could be catastrophic to a core native bighorn sheep herd (USDA Forest Service 2013). Due to the 

potential for disease transmission, this alternative was dismissed from detailed analysis. 

Recommend all Inventoried Roadless Areas and/or Recommend all Wilderness

Evaluation Areas as Recommended Wilderness 

We received suggestions to recommend all Inventoried Roadless Areas and or all areas evaluated for 

wilderness for Wilderness Recommendations. In this analysis, inventoried roadless areas are not the 

base used to evaluate and determine what areas should be recommended for wilderness. The 

wilderness evaluation areas are used for that purpose (appendix C). This approach was used because 

the 1986 Forest Plan as amended allowed activities to occur in inventoried roadless areas that 

changed their roadless characteristics and made some areas no longer suitable for wilderness 

designation. Approximately 4,000,000 acres of the 12,000,000-acre the Greater Yellowstone Area are 

designated wilderness. There are 1,364,000 acres of designated wilderness on the Shoshone, 

representing 55 percent of the total Forest acres. The wilderness evaluation noted the need for 

additional wilderness on the Shoshone is low. Since some of the Inventoried Roadless Areas are not 

suitable for wilderness and the need for additional wilderness on the Shoshone is low, this alternative 

was not considered in detail.

Reduce Timber Production to Wood that is Dead

We received a suggestion to reduce timber production to wood that is dead. Under any alternative 

timber management would continue to emphasize removal of dead wood due to the widespread 

ongoing insect epidemic and mortality. Limiting all timber production to wood that is dead for the 

entire planning period would not be responsive to other vegetative management goals including 

aspen and whitebark pine restoration within lands suitable for timber production. Therefore an 

alternative to limit timber production to removal of dead wood only was not carried through detailed 

analysis.

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the land allocations and effects of implementing each 

alternative. Table 18 provides a comparison of management area allocations by alternative. 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative is included even though it does not use the same management 

areas as those in the revised Forest Plan. Alternative A management areas were cross walked to the 

revised Forest Plan management areas for comparison purposes (see table 10).

Management area acres only provide partial information on what activities can occur on what lands. 

Suitability for activities is based upon management area allocation, Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines, and other underlying direction for any particular acre. The effects analysis in chapter 3 is 

a better source of information for determining the effects of the alternative on any particular activity
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

54

Table 19 summarizes effects by alternative. Information in this table focuses on activities and effects 

related to the revision topics. Activities and effects displayed for the different alternatives are only 

projections for the purposes of comparing alternatives. On-the-ground activities and effects 

associated with implementing forest plan direction would not occur until project-level NEPA analysis 

is completed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

55

Table 18. Comparison of management area allocations (in acres)

MA MA Description Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

1.1 Wilderness 1,358,592 1,358,592 1,358,592 1,358,592 1,358,592 1,358,592 1,358,592

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

1.2 Recommended Wilderness 584,734 165,587

1.2A Recommended High Lakes Wilderness 15,224

1.2B Recommended Dunoir Wilderness 28,879 28,879

1.3 Backcountry Non-Motorized 455,554 358,127 106,890 395,123 327,549 203,587 265,777

1.5A Clarks Fork of Yellowstone Wild River 6,924 6,924 3,350 6,924 6,924 6,924 6,924

1.6A High Lakes Wilderness Study Area 15,224 15,224 15,224 15,224 15,224 15,224

1.6B Dunoir Special Management Unit 28,879 28,879 28,879 28,879 28,179

2.2A Line Creek Research Natural Area 1,278 1,278 186 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278

2.3 Proposed Research Natural Area 1,386 12,127 4,298 15,201 13,831

3.1A Swamp Lake Botanical Area 581 581 581 581 581 581 581

3.1B Proposed Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological Area 1,714 1,714 1,714 1,714

3.1C Proposed Sawtooth Peatbeds Geological Area 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 43,485 185,879

3.3C Back Country Summer Motorized 72,735 4,936 11,500 98,030 4,563 46,596

3.5 Back Country Recreation and 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

3.5D Back Country Restoration Non-motorized 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 Historical Area 481 481 481 481 481 4,603

5.1 Managed Forests and Rangelands 157,215 173,190 72,298 168,423 253,799 528,146 173,190
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

56

Table 18. Comparison of management area allocations (in acres)

MA MA Description Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

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 53,983 79,935 54,978

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

Table 19. Comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Recreation

Effect of 

alternative on 

over-snow 

motorized 

recreation

Continues to 

allow use on 

lands where it 

currently occurs 

including within 

Dunoir SMU 

(1.6B)

Lands available 

for use are 

reduced. Use is 

prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU. 

Use prohibited 

in some crucial 

winter range 

and some back 

country areas.

Lands available for 

use are reduced. 

Use prohibited in all 

inventoried 

roadless areas and 

all big game winter 

range. Existing 

snowmobile trails 

reduced.

Lands available 

for use are 

reduced. Use 

prohibited in all 

inventoried 

roadless areas 

and all big game 

crucial winter 

range.

Lands available 

for use are 

reduced. Use is 

prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU. 

Use prohibited 

in some back 

country areas.

Lands available 

for use are 

reduced. Use is 

prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU. 

Most capable 

areas are open 

to use

Lands available 

for use are 

reduced. Use is 

prohibited in 

DunoirSMU. 

Use prohibited 

in some crucial 

winter range 

and some back 

country areas.

Lands where 

allocation allows 

over the snow 

motorized 

recreation 

(acres)

(% of Forest 

acres)

887,600 

(36%)

480,200 

(20%)

103,000 

(4%)

323,800 

(13%)

526,400 

(22%)

825,200 

(34%)

592,400 

(24%)

Snowmobile 

trails (miles) 276 276 163 276 276 367 276
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

57

Table 19. Comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Effect of 

alternative on 

summer 

motorized 

recreation

Continues to 

allow use on 

lands where it is 

currently 

occurring.

Total lands 

available are 

the same. More 

land available 

outside grizzly 

primary 

conservation 

area

Lands available for 

use are reduced. 

Use prohibited in 

inventoried 

roadless areas and 

recommended 

wilderness. Existing 

roads and 

motorized trails 

reduced.

Lands available 

for use are 

reduced. Use 

prohibited in 

inventoried 

roadless areas 

and 

recommended 

wilderness.

Lands available 

for use are 

increased.

Lands available 

for use are 

increased. Most 

capable areas 

are open to use.

Total lands 

available are 

slightly reduced. 

More land 

available 

outside grizzly 

primary 

conservation 

area

Lands where 

allocation allows 

motorized 

summer 

recreation

(% of Forest 

acres)

570,000 

(23%)

570,200 

(23%)

321,800

(13%)

350,000 

(14%)

655,900 

(27%)

823,300 

(34%)

529,000 

(22%)

Total miles 

motorized trails 32 54 21 39 62 92 54

Total miles 

open roads 909 909 802 909 909 910 909

Effect of 

alternative on 

mechanized use 

(bicycles)

Use is allowed 

outside 

wilderness. Use 

is allowed in 

Dunoir SMU.

Use is allowed 

outside 

wilderness. Use 

is prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU.

Use is allowed 

outside wilderness. 

Use is prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU and 

High Lakes WSA.

Use is allowed 

outside 

wilderness. Use 

is prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU.

Use is allowed 

outside 

wilderness. Use 

is prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU.

Use is allowed 

outside 

wilderness. Use 

is prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU.

Use is allowed 

outside 

wilderness. Use 

is restricted to a 

single trail in

Dunoir SMU.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

58

Table 19. Comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Lands where 

allocation allows 

mechanized use 

(bicycle use) 

(% of Forest 

acres)

1,072,900 

(44%)

1,044,000

(43%)

1,028,800

(42%)

1,044,000

(43%)

1,044,000

(43%)

1,044,000

(43%)

1,044,000

(43%)

Special Areas and Designations

Effect of 

alternative on 

special area 

designations

Existing 

wilderness 

(56% of forest), 

one existing 

RNA, one 

existing SIA

No new 

wilderness, six 

RNAs 

proposed, three 

SIAs proposed

Recommends new 

wilderness (+26% 

of forest), eight 

proposed RNAs, 

three proposed 

SIAs

Recommends 

new wilderness 

(+8% of forest), 

eight proposed 

RNAs, three

proposed SIAs

No new 

wilderness, 

three RNAs 

proposed – all 

within 

wilderness, one 

SIA proposed

No new special 

areas

No new 

wilderness, 

eight RNAs 

proposed –

boundaries 

adjusted to 

exclude existing 

motorized use, 

three SIAs 

proposed –

Sawtooth 

Peatbed 

boundary 

adjusted to 

exclude existing 

motorized use, 

Kirwin 

expanded to 

include 

additional 

features

Acres 

recommended 

wilderness

0 0 628,800 194,500 0 0 0

Number of 

proposed new 

research natural 

areas (acres)

0 6

(63,200)

8

(70,600)

8

(70,600)

3

(35,600) 0 8

(68,600)
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

59

Table 19. Comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Number of 

proposed new 

special interest 

areas (acres)

0 3

(2,840)

3

(2,840)

3

(2,840)

1

(480) 0 3

(6,720)

Effect of 

alternatives on 

wild and scenic 

rivers

One designated 

wild river

Eligibility 

maintained on 

16 eligible river 

segments

Eligibility 

maintained on 16

eligible river 

segments

Eligibility 

maintained on 

16 eligible river 

segments

Eligibility 

maintained on 

16 eligible river 

segments

Eligibility 

maintained on 

16 eligible river 

segments

Eligibility 

maintained on 

16 eligible river 

segments

Vegetation Management

Management 

area acres with 

frequent 

vegetation 

management 

(MAs 3.5-, 4.2, 

4.3, 4.5A, 5.1, 

5.2, 5.4)

377,100 422,800 312,800 345,700 459,300 635,400 424,500

Acres of 

hazardous fuels 

reduction 

management 

activity 

(next 10 years)

36,100 35,800 35,000 35,600 37,400 41,200 35,800

Acres of wildfire 

(next 10 years) 185,200 182,900 184,100 183,700 175,000 161,400 182,800
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

60

Table 19. Comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Effect on timber 

harvest

No change in 

timber 

production 

acres and focus 

of harvest 

activities

Timber 

production 

acres increased 

as result of 

updated 

mapping. Focus 

on acres 

outside 

inventoried 

roadless. Some 

restoration 

harvests in 

inventoried 

roadless. 

Increased 

volume per acre 

of restoration 

harvests 

reduces total 

harvest acres 

slightly

Timber production 

acres increased as 

result of updated 

mapping. Focus on 

acres outside 

inventoried 

roadless. No 

harvest in 

inventoried 

roadless.

Timber 

production 

acres increased 

as result of 

updated 

mapping. Focus 

on acres outside 

inventoried 

roadless. No 

harvest in 

inventoried 

roadless.

Timber 

production 

acres increased 

as result of 

updated 

mapping. 

Allows harvest 

in inventoried 

roadless areas.

Timber 

production 

acres increased 

as result of 

updated 

mapping. 

Allows highest 

level of harvest 

in inventoried 

roadless areas.

Timber 

production 

acres increased 

as result of 

updated 

mapping. Focus 

on acres 

outside 

inventoried 

roadless. Some 

restoration 

harvests in 

inventoried 

roadless. 

Increased 

volume per acre 

of restoration 

harvests 

reduces total 

harvest acres

Landssuitable 

for timber 

production

86,300 127,000 122,100 124,400 179,700 251,200 127,000

Total sale 

program 

quantity (Ccf) 

(annual 

estimate, 

constrained by 

budget)

17,000 16,600 14,900 15,900 22,100 30,500 16,600

Allowable sale 

quantity (ASQ) 

(Mcf) (decadal

estimate)

19,800 22,800 21,900 22,400 32,800 46,600 22,800
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

61

Table 19. Comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Invasive plant 

treatments 

(annual acres)

2,000 2,000 1,500 2,000 2,000 3,000 2,000

Wildlife Habitat Management

Effects on 

grizzly bear and 

its habitat

Secure habitat 

maintained and 

livestock 

managed 

consistent with 

conservation 

strategy, no 

increase in 

grazing 

allotments

Secure habitat 

maintained and 

livestock 

managed 

consistent with 

conservation 

strategy, no 

increase in 

grazing 

allotments

Secure habitat 

increased and 

livestock conflicts 

decreases with 

reduction in 

livestock allotments

Secure habitat 

increased and 

livestock 

managed 

consistent with 

conservation 

strategy, no 

increase in 

grazing 

allotments

Secure habitat 

maintained and 

livestock 

managed 

consistent with 

conservation 

strategy, no 

increase in 

grazing 

allotments, 

conflicts likely 

increase with 

increased 

livestock 

grazing

Secure habitat 

decrease and 

livestock 

conflicts 

increase. 

Management 

not consistent 

with 

conservation

strategy

Secure habitat 

maintained and 

livestock 

managed 

consistent with 

conservation 

strategy, no 

increase in 

grazing 

allotments

Management of 

permitted 

domestic sheep 

and goat and 

recreation pack 

goat use on big 

horn sheep 

habitat

Temporary 

Closure for

pack goats in 

Core Native 

BHS Habitat on 

Clarks Fork, 

Wapiti, Greybull 

and Wind River 

RD will expire.

No Permitted 

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.

No domestic goats 

(including pack 

goats) on entire 

SNF.

LivestockAllotments 

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.

No domestic 

goats (including 

pack goats) in 

Core Native 

BHS Habitat

Livestock 

Allotments 

closed to 

Domestic sheep 

grazing in Core 

Native BHS 

Habitat.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

62

Table 19. Comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Winter 

motorized use 

on big game 

winter range

Allowed on less 

than one third of 

crucial winter 

range

Allowed on just 

over 5% of 

crucial winter 

range

Prohibited on all 

winter range 

including crucial 

winter range.

Prohibited on all 

crucial winter 

range

Allowed on 10% 

of crucial winter 

range

Allowed on 40% 

of crucial winter 

range. No 

winter range 

timing 

restrictions.

Allowed on just 

under 10% of 

crucial winter 

range

Oil and Gas Development

Effect on 

suitability for oil 

and gas surface 

development

Covered by 

existing leasing 

decision. 

Development 

not tied to 

management 

area direction. 

Most of forest 

suitable for 

development.

Reduced 

availability. 

Non-motorized 

management 

areas are not 

suitable for 

development.

Much reduced 

availability. Nonmotorized 

management areas 

are not suitable for 

development. 

Recommended 

wilderness 

unavailable.

Much reduced 

availability. Nonmotorized 

management 

areas are not 

suitable for 

development. 

Recommended 

wilderness 

unavailable.

Reduced 

availability. 

Non-motorized 

management 

areas are not 

suitable for 

development.

Slightly reduced 

availability. 

Small number 

of nonmotorized 

management 

areas are not 

suitable for 

development.

Much reduced 

availability. 

Focus on 

portion of forest 

with high 

potential for oil 

and gas 

occurrence, 

maintaining 

consistency 

with direction on 

adjacent BLM 

ownership, and 

not allowing 

development on 

key crucial 

winter range 

areas.

Percentage of 

acres with high 

potential for oil 

and gas 

occurrence 

(255,000 acres) 

generally 

available with 

surface 

development

91% 71% 32% 47% 74% 87% 38%
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 2

63

Table 19. Comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Commercial livestock grazing

Effects on 

permitted 

livestock 

grazing

Existing 

stocking and 

allotments 

maintained.

No change from 

existing 

stocking and 

allotments

Reduced stocking 

and allotments. No 

grazing on crucial 

winter range

No change from 

existing stocking 

and allotments

Stocking 

increased, no 

constraints 

saving forage 

for big game 

crucial winter 

range. No 

change in 

existing 

allotments.

Stocking 

increased, no 

constraints 

saving forage 

for big game 

crucial winter 

range. 

Additional 

acreage and 

allotment 

added.

No change from 

existing 

stocking and 

allotments

Acres suitable 

for commercial 

livestock 

grazing

375,400 375,400 216,800 375,400 375,400 415,400 375,400

AUMs permitted 55,900 55,900 31,400 55,900 58,300 61,500 55,900

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Consistency 

with Roadless 

Rule

No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

Acres of 

management 

areas allocated 

to inventoried 

roadless areas 

where desired 

conditions are 

not consistent 

with roadless 

rule

87,300 0 0 0 107,400 257,100 0
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

64

Table 19. Comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Economics*

Effect on labor 

income in local 

counties 

associated with 

forest 

management

Existing labor 

income of $38 

million

Very slight 

decrease in 

labor income

An almost eight 

percent decrease in 

labor income

Slight decrease 

in labor income

An almost six 

percent 

increase in 

labor income

An eleven 

percent 

increase in 

labor income

Very slight 

decrease in 

labor income

Livestock 

grazing (avg. 

annual labor 

income 

thousands of 

dollars)

$5,794 $5,794 $3,246 $5,794 $6,953 $7,280 $5,794

Timber harvest 

(avg. annual 

labor income 

thousands of 

dollars)

$2,487 $2,422 $2,178 $2,324 $3,239 $4,463 $2,422

*Recreation and tourism outputs are constant for all alternatives. Levels may increase over current levels based on expected population growth, but there is no available study or 

information from the recreation section to indicate that such growth will create different levels of demand for the different levels of opportunities offered by the different themes of the 

alternatives, so it is assumed use will remain constant. Types of use may change, with one activity substituting for another, but overall use numbers are assumed to be similar.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

65

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

Introduction

The primary purpose of chapter 3 is to present the scientific and analytical basis for comparing 

the alternatives presented in chapter 2.

This chapter describes the biological, physical, and social environments on the Shoshone and the 

surrounding area. These descriptions include such topics as plant and animal life, topography, 

climate, and current socio-economic conditions. The chapter is divided into three major 

environmental element categories: 

• Biological and Physical Elements

• People and Communities

• Infrastructure and Land Uses

Each category is further subdivided. For example, Biological and Physical Elements is 

subdivided into various topics including: water and soil; air; vegetation, and others. For each 

topic, the applicable statutory requirements, and the affected environment and environmental 

consequences are discussed.

Many additional items were screened out of the analysis process. Reasons for eliminating them 

include the following:

• Analysis of the item was not considered important to the integrity of the Forest 

environment.

• Analysis of the item would not disclose direct or indirect effects of the Forest Plan to the 

environment.

• Analysis of the item was not acknowledged or required by law.

Environmental Consequences

This section describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the environment resulting 

from activities. It also describes estimated output levels for the alternatives. If a resource 

management activity has no direct or indirect effect on a particular environmental element under 

any of the alternatives, there is no discussion. Effects are discussed under the individual resource 

headings (e.g., Air Quality, Heritage, Wildlife, etc.) in this chapter. Cumulative effects are also 

summarized in table 20.

Direct environmental effects are those that occur at the same time and place as the initial 

action. An example would be on-site soil compaction from rubber-tired skidders harvesting 

timber. 

Indirect environmental effects are caused by the action, but occur later in time or are spatially 

removed from the action. An example would be downwind effects of a power plant on air 

quality.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

66

Cumulative effects are a combination of the effects of an alternative combined with the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities undertaken by either the Forest 

Service or other parties. In each resource section in this chapter, the cumulative effects 

discussion defines the cumulative effects analysis area for the resource and how each cumulative 

effects analysis is bounded in time. Unless a different time period is defined, reasonably 

foreseeable future actions are considered for the expected life of the revised Forest Plan (10 to 15 

years into the future). Since the revised Forest Plan is a programmatic document, the reasonably 

foreseeable actions considered are also largely programmatic in nature.

The cumulative effects estimated in the FEIS are noted under each section with the variance by 

alternative noted. The cumulative effects boundary analyzed is discussed by section. The effects 

are summarized in table 20. Because of the different resources involved and different effects 

measurements, this is not a quantitative discussion, but a narrative of the revised Forest Plan’s 

cumulative impact upon the environment.

Table 20. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions for the cumulative effects analysis

Project/Action Location Description

Past Activities

Vegetation changes Forest-wide 

The current condition of the forest resulting from past natural 

events and planned activities is described in the affected 

environment for vegetation.

Past harvest volumes for the forest are described in the 

affected environment for timber.

Past wildfire acres are described in the affected environment 

for fire and fuels.

Table 21 displays the vegetation management activity for the 

past 10 years.

Acres of timber stands impacted by bark beetles are 

described in the affected environment section for insects and 

disease.

Impacts of white pine blister rust on white pines are 

described in the affected environment section for insects and 

disease.

Fire suppression Forest-wide 

Fire suppression activities have changed fire regimes and 

condition classes, particularly in some lower elevation 

vegetation types. This is described in the affected 

environment for fire and fuels.

Roads Forest-wide Changes in system roads miles since 1986 are described in 

the affected environment for roads. 

Livestock Grazing Forest-wide Levels of past permitted livestock use are described in the 

affected environment for commercial livestock grazing. 

Non-native species Counties

Acres of invasive plants on the Forest are described in 

affected environment for invasive species.

Areas of aquatic invasive species on or near the forest are 

described in affected environment for invasive species.

Predator 

management north 

western Wyoming 

Forest-wide Presence and expansion of large predators impacts livestock 

operations on the Forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

67

Table 20. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions for the cumulative effects analysis

Project/Action Location Description

Water quality and 

aquatic habitats Forest-wide 

Watershed conditions and assessments of those conditions 

are discussed in the affected environment for soil and water.

The condition of riparian areas and influence of past 

management activities on that condition is described in the 

affected environment for riparian/wetlands.

Recreation Forest-wide Motorized recreation technology has changed and is 

changing use patterns and participation.

Development Adjacent to 

Forest

Subdivisions and individual homes have been developed 

adjacent to the Forest.

Climate change Regionally and 

Nationally See discussion below

Present/Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Vegetation changes Forest-wide

A large number of vegetation treatment projects have been 

planned on the forest and are scheduled to be completed 

over the next 5 to 10 years. Table 21 displays the project 

acres which are currently through NEPA or are in the NEPA 

process. The majority of these projects will be implemented 

during the planning period.

The current bark beetle epidemic will continue. This is 

described in the affected environment for insects and 

disease.

The white pine blister rust will continue. This is described in 

the affected environment for insects and disease.

Wildfires will occur. Projections are described in the affected 

environment for fire and fuels.

County management 

plans Area Counties County plans provide a framework for lands within the 

county (e.g., zoning, community growth, county facilities) 

Bureau of Land 

Management Plans

Adjacent to 

Forest

These plans guide management of BLM lands. The Lander 

RMP was finalized in 2013, and the Big Horn Basin RMP will 

be finalized in 2014. Specific actions on lands adjacent to 

the Shoshone that may have cumulative effects include:

Travel management decisions that restrict use to designated 

routes. 

ACEC designation (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) 

along Forest boundary. 

Identification of areas along the Forest boundary that are not 

open to oil and gas development. 

Wild and scenic rivers recommendations on rivers that enter 

BLM lands from the Forest.

Minerals Forest-wide and 

region

One application for drilling was processed on the Forest. It is 

currently under review by the BLM. If the operation results in 

a discovery of recoverable oil or gas there could be 

additional interest in oil and gas leasing on the Forest.

Many areas off the Forest are active in oil and gas 

development. These activities will impact air and other 

resources on the Forest.

Changing 

demographics of 

populations

Region and 

Nationally

Relevant to recreation. Use by an aging population is likely 

to increase proportionately faster than other demographic 

groups. Will likely lead to increase demand for recreation 

opportunities on the developed end of the recreation 

opportunity spectrum.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

68

Table 20. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions for the cumulative effects analysis

Project/Action Location Description

Yellowstone 

snowmobile use

Greater 

Yellowstone Area

Continued restrictions on snowmobile use in Yellowstone 

National Park could increase demand for snowmobile use on 

the Forest.

Timber harvest on 

adjacent lands 4-county area

Timber harvest on adjacent state, BLM, Wind River 

Reservation, Forest Service, and private lands will likely 

continue in response to the bark beetle epidemic and other 

scheduled timber harvest objectives.

Recreation Forest-wide Motorized recreation technology will change and influence 

use patterns and participation.

Development Adjacent to 

Forest

Subdivisions and individual homes will continue to be 

developed adjacent to the Forest.

Non-native species Counties New infestations of invasive plants will become established 

on the Forest.

Table 21. Acres of vegetation treatments accomplished (2002−2011) and planned (pending 

implementation)

Total 

acreage 

mechanical 

treatment 

and 

burning 

treatment

Mechanical treatments Burning treatments

Commercial 

timber 

harvest

Timber stand 

improvement

Other 

mechanical

Prescribed 

fire

Burning 

of 

activity 

fuel 

piles

Accomplished 

2002−2011 48,898 12,853 7,433 3,059 27,886 12,047

Planning 

complete, 

pending 

implementation

70,977 12,636 794 2,977 57,367 3,091

Climate Change

The mission of the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is to sustain the 

health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of 

present and future generations. Americans rely on their forests and grasslands for a wide range of 

benefits—for provisioning services such as water, wood, and wild foods; for regulating services 

such as erosion, flood, and climate control; and for cultural services such as outdoor recreation, 

spiritual renewal, and aesthetic enjoyment. These services are connected and sustained through 

the integrity of the ecosystems on these lands.

Climate change places those ecosystems at risk. Most of the urgent forest and grassland 

management challenges of the past 20 years, such as wildfires, changing water regimes, and 

expanding forest insect infestations, have been driven, in part, by a changing climate. Future 

impacts are projected to be even more severe. Managing America’s forests and grasslands to 

adapt to changing climates will help ensure that they continue to produce the benefits that 

Americans need while helping to mitigate the effects of a changing climate and to compensate 

for fossil fuel emissions through carbon storage in healthy forests (USDA Forest Service 2010a).
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

69

The following information is excerpted from the publication Climate Change on the Shoshone 

National Forest, Wyoming: A Synthesis of Past Climate, Climate Projections, and Ecosystem 

Implications (Rice et al. 2012).6

Climate is defined as the average weather or, more rigorously, as the statistical description in 

terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities (for example, temperature, precipitation, 

snow, and wind) over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years 

(IPCC 2007a). From the paleo (prehistoric) records, we know that climate is constantly changing 

and that these changes prompt ecosystems to adjust (Whitlock 1993, Lyford et al. 2003). As a 

natural process, this reactive adjustment is the adaptation that species and ecosystems make in

response to environmental changes. Within human systems, adaptation refers to management 

actions and decisions that help ecological, social, and economic systems accommodate the 

challenges imposed or seek opportunities that arise from variations in climate and other 

disturbances (Joyce et al. 2008a).

The effects of climate change on ecosystem structure and function and the benefits humankind 

receives from natural ecosystem resources and processes (ecosystem services) are functions of 

the ecological sensitivity to variations in climate, the degree to which the climate changes, and 

the adaptability of plants and animals (Hassan et al. 2005, Brown et al. 2006, Joyce et al. 2008a). 

While knowledge of regional and local climates and their variations across the landscape is 

important for resource management decisions, even more important may be an understanding of 

the vulnerability and the adaptive capacity of plants, animals, and ecosystems facing a changing 

climate. 

Climate change introduces a significant challenge for land managers and decision makers in the 

western United States, as climate-related changes of ecosystem behavior (e.g., glacier melt, snow 

cover, snowpack, beetle outbreaks, length of growing season, and wildfires) are already being 

documented (Ryan et al. 2008, EPA 2010). The rapid accumulation of scientific information of 

the effects of climate change over the last 20 years has been challenging for resource managers 

to effectively incorporate into on-the-ground management. While much information is available, 

it is difficult to extrapolate research results from other environments to the landscape of interest 

to resource managers. Also, many existing paradigms (e.g., historic range of variation) and tools 

(e.g., planting guidelines) assume long-term climate stability, which may no longer be viable.

The Shoshone’s diverse ecosystems and services they provide may experience changes in 

climate that may or may not be able to adapt. Ecosystem services (benefits we receive from 

ecosystems) that may be vulnerable to climate change include provisioning services such as 

water supply and food production, regulating services such as erosion or flood control and 

carbon storage, cultural services such as recreational benefits, and supporting services such as 

nutrient cycling that maintain conditions for life on Earth (MEA 2005, Smith 2011). In general, 

the overall trend indicates that the majority of ecosystem services values decreases as 

temperature increases (Esposito et al. 2011). 

The Shoshone has undergone and adapted to large changes in climate that have spanned 

thousands of years. Twentieth century warming of 1.8 to 3.6 °F air temperature is expected to 

continue and accelerate in the next century. The expected changes in climate leave many 

questions as to how these ecosystems will adapt. Shoshone ecosystems are dynamic and unique 

components of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem whose higher elevations, cooler 

temperatures, and drier precipitation regime causes ecosystems to function differently than 

 6 References in this section can be found in the Rice et al. (2012) report. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

70

surrounding areas, such as Yellowstone National Park. Microclimate conditions in the high 

elevations of the Shoshone have, and will likely continue to provide, refugia for unique and 

sometimes rare ecologic components. These high elevations and environmental variability will 

likely offer opportunities for climate adaptation for some resources or species, while others may 

be vulnerable to undesirable effects from climate change.

Water resources are particularly vulnerable as warmer temperatures are projected to reduce 

snowpacks, increase evaporation, lengthen summer seasons, and start spring runoff earlier. 

Warmer temperatures are likely to lead to reduced streamflows, which are critical to habitat and 

reservoir storage for agricultural and human uses. However, the potential effects of warmer 

temperatures may be mitigated or exacerbated by future changes in precipitation, which are more 

uncertain. Annual precipitation has recently increased at the scale of the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem, but has decreased at finer scales around the Shoshone. Winter precipitation is 

projected to increase 10 percent in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and may help offset 

evaporative losses from higher temperatures and longer summers, but projected temperatures 

may negate any gains in precipitation. Summer precipitation trends remain uncertain, and future 

reductions (as projected for the Pacific Northwest) would intensify water shortages at a critical 

time. Shoshone glaciers are highly vulnerable to climate change, and are projected to disappear 

early to mid-century, reducing summer flow to glacial-fed streams, increasing sediment and 

stream temperatures. Shoshone landscapes may be more vulnerable to increased fire occurrence, 

magnitude, and severity as warmer temperatures cause drier conditions and longer fire seasons. 

Shoshone habitats and wildlife that are particularly vulnerable to climate change are alpine 

ecosystems, wetlands, and species that are stressed, with lower adaptive ability to higher 

temperatures, or existing at the edge of an environmental tolerance (for example, cold water 

salmonid Yellowstone cutthroat trout, lynx, pika, aspen, and whitebark pine). The genetic 

adaptive capacity of these and other species on the Shoshone remains an area of limited 

information. Grasslands and sagebrush communities on the Shoshone may continue to be 

vulnerable to conifer encroachment in the short term until increased temperatures and moisture 

limitations inhibit conifer establishment, especially at lower elevations. Vegetation hosts of 

insect infestations are likely to remain vulnerable to future outbreaks under warmer 

temperatures. Shoshone terrestrial and aquatic habitats are expected to remain vulnerable to the

spread of some invasive species. Local economic sectors such as agriculture may be vulnerable 

to the effects of reduced water supply. 

Warmer temperatures and longer summers could increase summer tourism but could hinder 

winter tourism activities. Human activities will likely have a large influence on how Shoshone 

ecosystems respond in the future, especially regarding fire (fire suppression), nitrogen cycling 

(increase from oil and gas development), and land use (increasing fragmentation).
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

71

Biological and Physical Elements

Water and Soil

Introduction

Watershed condition is integral to all aspects of resource management and use. Good watershed 

management maintains the productive capacity of soils, protects water quality and quantity, 

sustains native species, provides beneficial uses, and reduces the threat of flood damage to Forest 

Service infrastructure and downstream values.

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws

The Organic Administration Act of 1897 recognized watersheds as systems to be managed 

with care to sustain their hydrologic function and secure favorable conditions of water flow.

The Sustained Yield Forest Management Act of 1944 and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield 

Act of 1960 allow for the production of multiple quality goods and resources at sustained levels 

over time, including maintenance of water supplies. 

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 allows for watershed 

improvement actions that conserve groundwater recharge areas, protect water quality, and work 

toward flood prevention. 

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended, 

requires an assessment of present and potential productivity of the land. This act contains many 

references to suitability and capability of specific land areas, to maintenance of land 

productivity, and the need to protect and, where appropriate, improve the quality of soil and 

water resources. The act specifies that substantial and permanent impairment of productivity 

must be avoided and has far-reaching implications for watershed management on national 

forests.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 requires that rights-of-way for waterrelated special uses must include environmental protection specifications. 

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 prevents watershed condition from being 

irreversibly damaged and protects streams and wetlands from detrimental impacts. Land 

productivity must be preserved. Fish habitat must support a minimum number of reproductive 

individuals and be well distributed to allow interaction between populations.

The Clean Water Act of 1977 is a series of laws that were enacted to restore and maintain the 

chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the Nation’s waters. There are five required 

elements: 

• Comply with Federal, State, and local water quality laws and rules;

• Control nonpoint source water pollution and meet water quality standards through best 

management practices;

• Sustain water quality such that it supports State-designated water uses;
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

72

• Federal agency leadership in controlling nonpoint sources pollution from managed 

lands; and

• Rigorous criteria for controlling discharge of pollutants into the Nation’s waters.

The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 provides states with more resources and 

authority to enact the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977 and establishes standards for drinking 

water systems.

Executive Orders

Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to provide leadership and take action on 

Federal lands to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts 

associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Agencies are required to avoid 

development on floodplains whenever there are reasonable alternatives and evaluate the potential 

effects of any proposed action on floodplains. 

Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies exercising statutory authority and leadership 

over Federal lands to avoid to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts 

associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Where it is practicable, new 

construction in wetlands should be avoided. Federal agencies are required to preserve and 

enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.

Regulation and Policies

Regulations and policies have been passed in support of these laws and require the following:

• Protection of surface resources and productivity from all natural resource management 

activities (36 CFR 219).

• Limitations on land management activities to protect watershed condition. Forest 

Service Manual (FSM) 2500 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2500 state policy and 

direction regarding watershed management.

• Watershed analysis is a part of all planning activities (36 CFR 219, FSM 2500).

Resource Protection Measures 

Management activities are guided by Forest Service Handbook 2509.25, Region 2 Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) and Forest Service National Best Management 

Practice Directives (collectively referred to as: Forest Service Regional and National BMP 

Directives). The management practices are important parts of meeting desired conditions for soil, 

aquatic, and riparian resources. Field reviews of the application of best management practices 

provide information on effectiveness. A summary of the management measures and design 

criteria included in the WCPH is included in Appendix G. 

Activities are also guided by memoranda of understanding with the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality and the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, and by the Final Phase II 

Decree covering the United States’ Non-Indian Claims in the General Adjudication of All Rights 

to Use Water in the Big Horn River System and All Other Sources, State of Wyoming.

Monitoring is a part of project planning and implementation. A key part of monitoring is to 

determine if the mitigations are working and protecting the intended resources. If monitoring 

shows that designated best management practices aren’t adequately protecting the resource, 

supplemental direction is provided.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

73

Methodology

The Watershed Condition Framework is used to evaluate current conditions and identify 

watersheds of concern. This model is used in the analysis of alternative effects (USDA Forest 

Service 2011). Water yield is discussed in general terms. 

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The primary spatial context used for watershed effects analysis is the 6th-level hydrologic unit 

code7 (HUC) boundaries. The Forest boundary is used for soil effects analysis. The timeframe of 

the analysis is 15 years or the life of the revised Forest Plan.

Affected Environment 

Water

The condition of a watershed is defined by the biophysical characteristics and processes that 

affect both the soil and hydrologic functions in a watershed. The condition can range from 

pristine to severely impaired. The term healthy watershed is often synonymous with functioning 

properly, and indicates that the watershed is able to capture, store, and release water, sediment, 

wood, and nutrients within a range of natural variability. They create and sustain habitats that 

support diverse populations (USDA Forest Service 2011). 

The Forest Service Manual (FSM) uses three classes to describe watershed condition and they 

are relative to the potential natural condition (USDA Forest Service 2004a, FSM 2521.1):

Class 1 watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity. Class 2 watersheds 

exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity. Class 3 watersheds exhibit low 

geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity. Geomorphic integrity can be defined in terms of 

slope stability, soil erosion, channel morphology, and other upslope, riparian, and aquatic habitat 

characteristics. Hydrologic integrity relates primarily to flow, sediment, and water-quality 

attributes. Biotic integrity is defined by the characteristics that influence the diversity and 

abundance of aquatic species, terrestrial vegetation, and soil productivity. In each case, integrity 

is evaluated in the context of the natural disturbance regime, geo-climatic setting, and other 

important factors within the context of a watershed (USDA Forest Service 2011).

There are 147 6th-level hydrologic unit code watersheds that are all or partially on the Shoshone, 

and based on the above classification. Most of these (89 percent) are considered Class 1 or 

functioning properly. Of those watersheds functioning properly, typically those in wilderness 

provide the best reference conditions or attributes of healthy watersheds. Eleven percent are 

considered functioning at risk, and concerns relate mostly to historic uses such as heavy grazing 

or roads associated with timber harvest and motorized recreation. Additional background on the 

watersheds classified as functioning at risk is included in appendix G. These watersheds are 

generally on an improving trend due to ongoing management actions. There are no impaired 

watersheds on the Shoshone. There are about 4,150 miles of perennial streams on the Shoshone 

(map 66). Overall, stream conditions on the Shoshone are improving or remaining stable and 

meeting or moving toward desired conditions. 

 7

A hydrologic unit code (HUC) is a geographic area representing all or part of a surface drainage

basin or distinct hydrologic feature. A 6th-level hydrologic unit boundary ranges in size from 10,000 to 

40,000 acres and is named and coded with 12 digits.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

74

Changes in water quantity, timing, and quality are expected to become increasingly important 

issues with the changing patterns of precipitation projected under a changing climate.

Surface Water

Waters originating on the Shoshone National Forest are headwaters to the Upper Missouri River 

basin watershed as subdivided by the Upper Yellowstone, Big Horn, and North Platte river 

basins. The principal rivers on Forest include the Clarks Fork, North Fork of the Shoshone, 

South Fork of the Shoshone, Greybull, Wind, and Popo Agie. 

Streamflow regimes are critical to maintaining stream processes and habitat for aquatic life. 

Managers work to protect streamflow-dependent water uses and improve conditions in perennial 

streams where stream flow regimes have been altered. Streamflow protection may be a condition 

of authorizing occupancy and use of National Forest System (NFS) lands. Cooperation with 

water users and others is necessary to ensure appropriate resource protection while meeting the 

needs of people who have existing water rights. State instream flow programs will be used where 

possible when they meet NFS needs. Channel maintenance flows are established on many of the 

streams on the Shoshone in an effort to maintain the physical characteristics of channel. The 

flows are of sufficient magnitude, duration, frequency, and timing to maintain channel 

morphology, so that the capacity of the channel to convey natural flows is unimpaired over the 

long term (Potyondy 2007). 

Annual runoff is driven by spring snowmelt with peak flows typically occurring in mid-June. 

Winter flows are primarily supported by groundwater and shallow alluvial aquifers. Numerous 

lakes, ponds, and wetland areas occupy upper elevations of the Beartooth Plateau and Wind 

River Range. Active glaciers are located along the Continental Divide in the Wind River 

Mountains. 

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WYDEQ) identifies streams which do not 

meet designated beneficial uses due to water quality impairment. Impaired stream segments are 

described in the Wyoming Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (Integrated 

305(b) and 303(d) Report). Within the Forest boundary, there is currently only one stream 

segment, which has been identified as impaired—the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone. The source 

of the impairment is from past mining activities in the New World Mine area in Montana. 

However, remediation is taking place, and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) have been 

established to address the Wyoming water quality impairments. 

Surface water from the Shoshone is used on and off-Forest, both consumptively and nonconsumptively. Non-consumptive uses include recreation, wildlife, fisheries, channel 

maintenance, and the aesthetic and spiritual quality of the resource. Consumptive uses meet 

Forest Service administrative needs (campgrounds, firefighting, administrative sites), permitted 

activities on the Forest (livestock watering facilities, summer home wells, snowmaking at ski 

areas), and off-Forest activities (irrigation, municipal water supplies) with permitted water 

diversion, transmission, and storage facilities on the Forest.

Groundwater

Groundwater is generally provided by shallow alluvial aquifers along major stream courses. 

Although water-bearing formations can be found on the north side of the Wind River District, 

South Fork of the Shoshone River, and in selected areas of the Clarks Fork District. This is likely 

due to water-bearing structures such as the Madison and the Tensleep formations, which extend 

and surface on the Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

75

With the limited supply and lack of development opportunities, beneficial use of Forest 

groundwater is low. Consumption is limited to livestock-water facilities, spring developments, 

special-use permits, and Forest Service campgrounds and administrative sites with domestic 

wells. Off-Forest, groundwater is used extensively for pump irrigation and drinking water wells. 

Water Developments 

Development and use of Forest water resources can affect water quality and quantity. Water 

developments on the Shoshone can be classified into one of three groups: (1) non-livestock, 

(2) livestock uses where the point of diversion and point/s of use are on the Forest, and (3) offForest permitted uses where the point of diversion is on the Forest but the point/s of use are not. 

Non-livestock uses include wells and conveyance lines for administrative facilities, 

campgrounds, permitted lodges and recreation residences, and other permitted uses on the 

Forest. Livestock or agricultural uses typically relate to small reservoirs, springs, diversions, 

pipelines, storage tanks, and other uses of this nature. There are numerous permitted water 

developments that supply off-Forest uses, but due to the nature of the permitting process have 

not been investigated to the same extent as those on-Forest. Further analysis is needed to 

comprehensively quantify the total amount of water from points of diversion on the Shoshone 

National Forest. 

Development of springs and diversion structures can directly impact areas by altering the natural 

system including hydrologic regime, soil condition, and plant associations. Developed springs 

often lose their unique hydrologic characteristics, and may be transformed to upland habitat in 

extreme situations (Winters et al. 2004). Irrigation water diversions tend to be simple head gate 

designs and open, earthen canals to transmit water. Most of the agricultural water uses divert 

water off the Forest only during the summer months. Municipal water diversions take place yearround and tend to be sophisticated, with multiple diversion structures feeding into larger and 

larger canals and pipelines and typically include use of reservoirs to store water. 

Water Rights

Water is a limited resource on the Shoshone and to lands and communities surrounding the 

Forest. Protection and management of existing water rights and uses are crucial to sustainable 

management of the Shoshone and sustaining local communities. 

Given the increasing demand for water uses and potential climate change effects, it is likely that 

water storage proposals, diversions, and changes to water rights will be proposed by local 

governments and others in the coming years. In response to such proposals, the Forest Service 

will work with local governments and state agencies to help move forward in ways that best 

protect existing water rights, community interests, and public land resources. The resource and 

socioeconomic effects of water storage projects could include issues ranging from Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout, wild and scenic rivers, recreation, water rights, and downstream interests, among 

others. The issues and impacts would be dependent on the proposed project and its location. To 

determine whether water storage is the best use for a particular area, a full environmental 

analysis would be conducted.

Work relative to the filing of water right claims with the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, per 

agreement under the Big Horn adjudication interlocutory decree, has been completed. The 

Shoshone provided detailed surveys of non-livestock-related discrete water uses listed in the 

decree. Livestock-related discrete water uses will be validated over time as staffing and funding 

permit. Final location and volume information on instream flow for quantification points for 

channel maintenance flows were provided as well.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

76

As such, all non-livestock water uses on the Shoshone associated with the decree have been 

documented in both electronic and paper formats (coordinated with the Wyoming State 

Engineer’s Office). These adjudicated water uses, points of diversion and use, and transmission 

lines in between (if appropriate) are digitally mapped. The same will be completed for livestock 

uses as funding and work force allow.

Adjudicated water rights not necessary for the management of reserved or acquired NFS land 

will be transferred, exchanged, used for augmentation purposes, or disposed of.

Water Quantity

Water quantity is an issue that has been raised by the public and local governments who would 

like to see water yields from the Shoshone increase. In the current forest plan, there is direction 

to manage vegetation to increase water yield. Based on experience from the first round of forest 

planning, and updated research, Region 2 no longer emphasizes water yield increases through 

specific management in forest plan revisions. 

The rationale for this approach is based upon the most current information. Two recent research 

studies focused on the North Platte River basin shed new light on this subject:

• Troendle, C.A., J.M. Nankervis, and L.S. Porth. 2003. The impact of Forest Service 

activities on the stream flow regime in the Platte River. Report submitted to U.S. Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region, May 2003. 50 pp.

The major factor that affects water yield from national forests is the precipitation from 

year to year. Natural changes in forests due to growth, mortality, fire, and insects have a 

substantial effect on long-term trends in water yield. Forest management has a much 

smaller effect.

Trees use water by intercepting rain and snow and by pumping moisture from the soil. As 

trees grow to maturity, they use more water until the forest fully occupies the site. Forest 

disturbance like timber harvest, fire, or insect attack reduces this water use and 

increases water yield.

In the snow zone, increased water yield due to forest disturbance occurs only in May and 

June. The largest increases occur in the wettest years. The smallest increases occur in 

the driest years.

Patch cuts or partial cuts increase water yield. Increases in small watersheds are highest 

when 40% or more of the basal area is cut. Even these maximum increases cannot be 

detected very far downstream as they are “swallowed up” by natural flow variations.

After the initial increase following forest disturbance, water yield gradually declines to 

its original range. It can take from 70 to over 100 years for this recovery to be complete.

Forest management can achieve real increases in water yield. The amount of increase 

from any management program that is fiscally, environmentally, and socially feasible 

will be modest, will not be detectable at the national forest boundary, and will be 

dwarfed by natural forest processes like growth, mortality, fire, and insects. 

The best way to achieve optimum long-term water yield is to sustain healthy forests and 

watersheds. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

77

The primary influence on water yield in large basins is precipitation, which is variable in the 

short term, but relatively constant in the long term. Although cutting trees increases water yield 

from forested watersheds, similar changes to water yield occur from other natural disturbances 

such as wildfire or insect and disease outbreaks that reduce the density of vegetation cover in a 

watershed. As real as these increases are, they are such a small increment of total water yield that 

they can rarely be measured in larger watersheds. Any increases are constant over the 

hydrograph. This means droughts will remain droughts and floods will be augmented. In most 

water-short areas, reservoirs are operated to maximize storage and are, thus, unable to capture 

and store the significant yield increases associated with high runoff (flood) years. Annual climate 

variations are much more important. Healthy forests and watershed conditions result in the best 

optimum long-term water yield, water quality, magnitude and timing of flows, and healthy 

aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. 

There is mounting evidence the Earth is experiencing a warming trend. This trend or change in 

climate may affect the weather and stream systems across the Shoshone. If realized, effects could 

include altered precipitation patterns and changes to the quantity, quality, and timing of 

snowmelt and river flows from the Forest. Total annual streamflow volume could decrease and 

the annual snowmelt period could begin weeks earlier in the season. There could also be 

increased summer thunderstorm activity with more flooding due to greater rainfall amounts at 

higher intensities. Five anticipated impacts that may directly threaten water quality include rising 

stream temperatures, an increase in extreme water-related events, reductions in available 

drinking water, water boundary movement, and the displacement of aquatic communities as 

water temperatures change.

There is a growing demand for water within and downstream of the Shoshone. Municipalities, 

agriculture, industry, and recreation demands continue to grow. Water availability may decrease 

from climate change and is likely to decrease as a result of increasing development. Water users 

within and downstream of the Shoshone could be affected (USDA Forest Service 2011b).

Municipal Watersheds

A legal requirement listed under 36 CFR 251.9 states that “The Forest Service shall manage 

National Forest watersheds that supply municipal water under multiple use prescriptions in 

Forest Plans.” While all water that originates on the Shoshone could be used for municipal 

supply at some point downstream, only public water supply intakes within 15 miles of the Forest 

are considered per the Safe Drinking Water Act. Watershed protection is provided for municipal 

supply watersheds through FSH 2509.25. Additional direction is provided under 36 CFR 

251.9(a) which states that in order for a municipal water supply to receive additional protection 

measures, a “municipality must apply to the Forest Service for consideration of these needs.”

There are four inventoried municipal watersheds on the Shoshone National Forest (table 22 and 

map 65).

Table 22. Watersheds serving municipal water systems

Watershed name Community served Ranger district

North Fork Shoshone River Cody, WY Wapiti

South Fork Shoshone River Cody, WY Wapiti

Wood River Meeteetse, WY Greybull

Middle Popo Agie River Lander, WY Lander
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

78

The municipality of Cody receives water from the Shoshone Municipal Pipeline, which is linked 

to Buffalo Bill Reservoir. It is managed by the Shoshone Municipal Water Joint Powers Board 

(SMWJPB). The reservoir is fed by the North Fork and South Fork Shoshone River drainages, so 

they are considered municipal supply watersheds. Additionally, Cody is not the only recipient of 

water from the reservoir and Pipeline. SMWJPB infrastructure beyond the 15 miles also serves 

the communities of Powell, Lovell, Byron, Deaver, Frannie, and the Northwest Rural Water 

District, which provides drinking water to rural homes in the vicinity of the above listed 

communities. 

Meeteetse collects and diverts water from seepage from the base of the Lower Sunshine 

Reservoir dam. The reservoir is fed by major diversions from the Wood and Greybull River, and 

watershed area above the reservoir, i.e., the Sunshine Creek watershed, which includes Upper 

Sunshine Reservoir.

Lander utilizes water from the Middle Popo Agie River and the Sawmill Creek drainage, a major 

tributary to the Middle Popo Agie River. 

There are no other public water supply diversions within 15 miles of the Shoshone National 

Forest, so communities like Riverton, Fort Washakie, and Hudson are not included in this report. 

Dubois is not included either because it uses groundwater from four quaternary aquifer wells 

near the town.

Watershed models

The science of wildland watershed management has evolved considerably since the 1986 Forest 

Plan as amended was developed. The evolution of the science and the results of plan monitoring 

are reflected in annual monitoring reports and certain amendments to the plan, specifically the 

oil and gas leasing (USDA Forest Service 1996) and allowable sale quantity (USDA Forest 

Service 1994) amendments. Other methodologies for determining watershed condition include 

the Inland West Water Initiative, and the most recent Watershed Condition Framework. 

Forest Plan Related

The oil and gas leasing and allowable sale quantity (for timber harvest) efforts incorporated a 

first-generation watershed cumulative effects analysis screening process using best available 

information at that time. Model assumptions and weaknesses were identified as part of the 

process. Modeling results were presented in tabular form because spatial presentation 

opportunities were limited. The results identified watersheds of concern where impacts reached a 

level of disturbance at which watershed condition and stream health were degraded beyond their 

abilities to recover in the short term. These identifications led to monitoring and inventory of 

watershed condition across the Shoshone and to implementation of watershed improvement 

projects in targeted areas. 

Watershed Condition Framework

The Watershed Condition Framework is the latest model implemented nationally within the 

Forest Service in 2011. The framework is a comprehensive national approach for classifying 

watershed condition. This is an interdisciplinary process that ranks watersheds according to three 

watershed condition classes directly related to the degree or level of watershed functionality or 

integrity, and therefore, the above mentioned watershed condition classes: Class 1, 2, and 3

which equate to Functioning Properly (Good), Functioning at Risk (Fair), and Impaired Function 

(Poor). Ranking is based on four categories that represent terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic 

ecosystem processes or mechanisms by which management actions can affect the condition of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

79

watersheds and associated resources. From this, priority watersheds are selected for restoration 

(USDA Forest Service 2011). This framework has been implemented across the Greater 

Yellowstone Area, including those units that are not Forest Service, in an effort to consistently 

manage at the ecosystem level. Data from this analysis can be accessed at 

http://WWW.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/.

On the Shoshone, 16 watersheds (11 percent) are considered class 2, functioning at risk (see 

table 23), and the remaining 131 watersheds were functioning properly (USDA Forest Service 

2011). The reasons for functioning at risk include water quality, sediment loading, algal blooms, 

water diversions, aquatic biota, riparian and rangeland vegetation condition, roads and trails, 

wildfire, invasive plants, and forest health issues (see Appendix H for additional background). 

There are no impaired watersheds on the Shoshone.

Table 23. Shoshone watersheds functioning at risk

Watershed 

code Watershedname

Total 

watershed 

area (acres)

Watershed 

area on Forest 

(acres)

100700060504 Upper Pat O’Hara Creek 25,070 12,040

100800010107 Wind RiverCrooked Creek 14,800 5,580

100800010108 West Fork Long Creek 14,700 11,400

100800010112 Lower Warm Spring Creek 15,500 13,900

100800010202 Middle Horse Creek-Wind River 20,100 19,800

100800010203 Lower Horse Creek 13,300 2,200

100800010204 Little Horse Creek 11,500 3,280

100800010205 Tappan Creek 12,000 2,140

100800030109 Willow Creek-Little Popo Agie River 18,900 2,570

100800030202 Middle North Popo Agie River 27,400 12,900

100800030203 Sand Creek-Popo Agie River 15,700 14,500

100800030207 Lower Middle Popo Agie River 21,500 6,780

100800030208 Roaring Fork Creek 18,600 17,100

100800010105 Wind River Lava Creek 10,800 10,000

100700060106 Clarks Fork Yellowstone River – Squaw Creek 22,730 21,800

100800010104 Brooks Lake Creek 23,200 23,200

Restoration of the 16 watersheds at risk to improve watershed conditions will be a result of 

combinations of better recreation management, improved road and trail systems, practicing good 

grazing guidelines, active fire management, invasive plant control efforts, road 

decommissioning, timber management, and implementing appropriate watershed best 

management practices. Analysis of changing watershed condition classes is part of the Forest 

Monitoring Plan.

Soil

Soil is a fundamental component of the environment. It is the growing medium for most plants. 

Soil absorbs and stores water, releasing it slowly over time. It supplies nutrients for vegetation, 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

80

which in turn supplies habitat for wildlife and other resources. All renewable resources of the 

Shoshone are dependent upon soil. Soil is considered a nonrenewable resource because of the 

time required for its formation.

Conceptually, the quality or health of a soil can be viewed as “its capacity to function.” More 

explicitly, the Soil Science Society of America defines soil quality as, “The capacity of a specific 

kind of soil to function, within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant and 

animal productivity, maintain or enhance soil quality, everyone must recognize that the soil 

resource affects the health, functioning, and total productivity of all ecosystems.”

The Shoshone staff recognizes the importance of soils information as an integral part of land 

management planning and began soil resource inventory efforts in the 1980s. In 2007, a soil 

resource inventory, also known as a soil survey, was correlated by the National Resources 

Conservation Service for the entire Forest. Soil data are utilized so management activities may 

be blended with the ecological capabilities and potentials of the land. Soils information is both 

used and analyzed at the project and forest planning level. When projects are proposed, more 

site-specific soil analysis occurs, and mitigation is based on the potential, capability, and 

limitation of the soils at the site.

Soil Productivity

The primary goal of soil management is to maintain or enhance long-term site productivity. Soil 

productivity varies widely due to varying characteristics such as soil depth, available waterholding capacity, nutrient status, and site characteristics, including elevation, slope, and aspect. 

The most productive soils are found in valley bottoms, toe slopes, and benches. The concept of 

productivity includes both the ability to grow vegetation as well as the maintenance of slope 

stability. Soil productivity is the principal area of concern on the Shoshone, because it can be 

affected by management activities. The effects of management practices will influence the future 

of soil productivity. The demand for many forest resources, which are dependent on soil 

productivity, is expected in the future. 

Five categories of soil disturbance have been found to affect soil productivity. They include: 

erosion (including mass movement), soil compaction (including rutting and displacement), 

fertility (nutrient removal), soil heating, and re-vegetation (tree regeneration) potential.

Riparian/Wetlands

Riparian areas are places where water-dependent vegetation lives and grows on the banks of 

stream, lakes, and rivers and includes the water courses themselves. Wetlands, such as swamps, 

bogs, marshes, and wet meadows, are areas that are frequently saturated or inundated by surface 

water or groundwater, which is sufficient to support a variety of characteristic plant or animal 

communities. Wetland plant and animal communities typically require saturated or seasonally 

saturated soils to survive. Most riparian areas are obvious because of their unique vegetation. In 

drier parts of the Shoshone, ribbons of dense vegetation flank streams and rivers, in distinct 

contrast to the surrounding uplands and valley bottoms. For the purposes of this discussion, 

riparian ecosystems, wetlands, lakeside zones, springs, and floodplains will be referred to 

collectively as riparian ecosystems or areas. 

There is substantial variability in the size and vegetative complexity of riparian areas on the 

Shoshone. Ecological drivers such as geology, climate, precipitation, glaciation, and stream 

gradient all influence the type, complexity, quantity, and distribution of these ecosystems. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

81

Riparian ecosystems cover a very small portion of the Shoshone; but their ecological 

significance far exceeds their limited physical area (map 67). These ecosystems are an important 

component of the overall landscape and represent some of the most dynamic and ecologically 

rich areas across the landscape. Riparian ecosystems are highly responsive to both natural and 

human-caused disturbances. 

Although riparian areas occupy only a small part of the Shoshone, they are a critical source of 

diversity within ecosystems. Healthy riparian areas, with an abundance of trees, shrubs and other 

native vegetation, slow flood waters and reduce the likelihood of downstream flooding. Riparian 

areas help improve water quality by filtering runoff, sediment, and nutrients from flood flows 

and adjacent upland slopes. Healthy riparian areas act like sponges; they absorb water readily 

during periods of excess precipitation. Water slowed by riparian areas enters the groundwater 

where it is released at a later time. Riparian areas produce stream cover and shade, which helps 

keep water temperatures at desired levels for fish and water-dependent animals adapted to these 

environments. Fish also depend on healthy riparian and stream for stable channels and habitat, 

sustained water supplies, clean water, food, and cover. Other benefits include food, cover, and 

nesting habitat for a variety of wildlife and migration corridors to other habitats. Riparian areas 

are also attractive and inviting to humans because of the aesthetic and recreational attributes they 

provide.

Maintaining the natural hydrologic regime is important for maintaining the integrity of riparian 

plant communities. Streamside riparian ecosystems are tied to the hydrologic, sediment, and 

disturbance regime of flowing waters and many riparian plant species reproduce only after flood 

disturbances. Changes in sediment load in stream channels may lead to down-cutting or lateral 

erosion, altering floodplains and water table relationships. Non-streamside riparian areas occur 

in sites with seasonally or permanently high water tables, as well as on the margins of ponds and 

lakes. Wetlands can be easily dewatered, which can allow for a conversion to upland plant 

community types and/or facilitate exotic plant invasion. 

Factors that can lead to a decrease in riparian area and function are: improper commercial and or 

recreational livestock grazing, timber harvest, road development, under-sized stream crossings, 

water diversions, and disturbances associated with excessive recreational use. Improper past 

livestock grazing has been a primary factor leading to some of the degraded riparian areas on the 

Shoshone. Improper livestock grazing can lead to bank damage from trampling; wide, shallow 

stream channels; riparian plant community conversions; and excessive sedimentation beyond 

natural levels. On forested landscapes, some past silviculture practices, road building, and fire 

suppression practices have contributed to altered riparian conditions by changing flow regimes 

and altering channel morphology. When disturbances to the riparian area are significant, they 

may modify the interaction between the floodplain, water table, and the stream channel. Adverse 

long-term impacts to the riparian area can lead to a decrease in the function and associated 

habitats provided by a healthy riparian area. 

Long-term benefits to riparian habitat and the biota that use them occur when land management 

activities help create a diversity of habitats, a mix of vegetative seral stages and prevent largescale, catastrophic fires outside the natural range of variability. 

The conditions of riparian areas along with other attributes can be used as an indicator of 

ecosystem quality. To determine riparian condition, we used an integrated approach including a 

cross section of Forest and District resource specialists that were familiar with on the ground 

riparian conditions in 1999. This included fish and wildlife biologists, range conservationists, 

hydrologists, engineers, and recreation specialists. Available information included detailed 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

82

surveys, monitoring information and/or most recent ocular observations. Using a mapping 

exercise, specialists used this information to determine riparian condition for individual riparian 

polygons that were greater than about 160 feet wide and intercepted perennial streams on NFS 

lands. The Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) methodology guidelines (USDI BLM 1998) 

were used to determine riparian condition. At that time, most riparian habitat was in proper 

functioning condition with a few localized areas functioning at risk or not functioning. The 

functioning at risk and non-functioning condition ratings were primarily due to past commercial 

livestock management and inadequate road design or location. Since 1999, riparian and stream 

habitat conditions on the Shoshone have further improved or remained stable. This was primarily 

due to improved commercial livestock grazing practices, better dispersal of recreational livestock 

at dispersed campsites, improved road drainage, correcting fish passage barriers at road 

crossings, and implementing various stream habitat enhancement projects. Since 1999, the range 

allotments addressed in those environmental assessments were reevaluated for riparian condition 

and updated. As a result, the most current riparian condition ratings from 2010 are included in 

table 24 (USDA Forest Service 2010b). About 89 percent of the riparian acres were in proper 

functioning condition, about 9 percent were functioning at risk, and less than 1 percent was nonfunctioning.

Table 24. Shoshone National Forest riparian condition (2010)

Riparian condition Acres Percentage of total acres

Proper functioning condition (Good) 61,127 89

Functioning at risk (Fair) 6,221 9

Non-functioning (Poor) 192 <1

Unknown (Not sampled recently) 1,145 2

TOTAL 68,685 100

The bark beetle epidemic is having some effect on water yield because of decreased transpiration 

and interception. To estimate the impacts of this effect, a comparative analysis was run using 

FVS-WRENSS post processor and the timber yield tables developed for the timber analysis 

(Havis 2012). 

Climate Change 

Predicted effects of climate change on watershed processes on the Shoshone National Forest are 

described in detail by Rice et al. (2012). Potential for climate change to affect soil and water 

resources include: decreased water quantity; changes in timing of flows; potential reduction of 

water quality; loss or reduction in size of glaciers; loss or reduction in wetlands; increasing 

numbers of invasive species; and increasing effects on watershed from wildfire. Combinations of 

all the above may have the potential to change watershed condition classes.

Desired Condition

Watersheds are characterized as having high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative 

to natural potential. Vegetation and ground cover maintain good hydrologic function. Soils are 

maintained or improved to productive conditions. Productive soils and sustainable ecosystems 

are maintained when soil impacts, such as erosion, displacement, compaction, burning, and 

nutrient drains, are managed by best management practices.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

83

Watersheds support favorable conditions of water flow to support multiple uses, biological 

resources, and a range of flows that transport sediment and maintain natural channel dimensions. 

Base flows support riparian vegetation and in stream needs.

Streams are in dynamic equilibrium with their water and sediment supplies. Stream systems 

retain their ability to transport sediment, they neither aggrade nor degrade, and the floodplain is 

accessible to flood waters when stream flows are above bankfull level.

Periodic floods are the primary disturbance factor shaping stream channel structure and riparian 

vegetation patterns. Flood timing and duration follow expected patterns based on amount of 

precipitation, season, aspect, elevation, and upland vegetation condition. High flows exceed 

bankfull discharge for a short number of days at least every two years and provide for flooddependent vegetation and channel maintenance. Floodplains dissipate floods and sustain water 

tables and the natural timing and variability of water levels in riparian, wetland, and meadow 

habitats. 

Environmental Consequences

This section presents an overview of the alternatives’ general effects on the soil and water 

resources. The focus of the discussion is on soils because soil productivity is the primary direct 

and indirect element that affects water quality, through the five elements erosion, heating, 

fertility, compaction, and revegetation. Other impacts to water quality from chemicals and other 

pollution are generally not addressed, because they are minor and are not expected to vary by 

alternative. Water quantity is not discussed here. Water quantity is discussed in the affected 

environment and any changes are projected to be similar for all alternatives. When projects are 

proposed, more site-specific analysis occurs, and mitigation is based on the potential, capability, 

and limitations of the site.

Most effects from management activities are limited by the proper application of Forest Service 

Regional and National BMP directives.

Soil Erosion and resulting productivity declines due to erosion caused by management activities 

is one of the primary concerns of the soil program. Timber harvesting, site preparation, fuels 

treatment, and road and trail construction remove or rearrange organic matter, which may change 

erosion rates. Surface erosion rates depend on such factors as soil erodibility, steepness of slope, 

slope length, and amount of bare ground. Erosion rates may be calculated at project levels, but 

not at the forest scale. The 1986 Forest Plan as amended states “Soil losses shall not exceed 

tolerance levels as determined by SRI interpretations and monitoring.” Since the 1986 Forest 

Plan as amended, the Forest Service erosion modeling changed from the universal soil loss 

equation model to using the Rocky Mountain Research Station’s water erosion prediction project 

models. The National Resources Conservation Service still uses tolerance levels for erosion, but 

use is focused on agricultural lands. Water erosion prediction project models have more direct 

application to erosion estimates relating to forest management activities. This modeling has been 

used on Shoshone projects involving land disturbance for the last eight years. Water erosion 

prediction project model runs and qualitative monitoring show that management-induced upland 

erosion is not a significant factor. This is primarily due to application of best management 

practices. The greatest sediment movement is from road systems and even this is relatively 

minor. The major cause of sediment entry into stream systems on the Shoshone is from naturally 

occurring debris flow processes that dominate in the Absaroka volcanic substrates. This natural 

process eclipses erosion resulting from disturbance caused by management activities. Excessive 

sediment can have adverse effects on water quality and fish habitat.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

84

Mass movements include slumping, slope failure, debris flow, and earthflow. Various types of 

slope instability, or potential of mass movement dictate management practices and mitigation 

measures which are appropriate for the site. Slopes on the Shoshone that are generally greater 

than 40 percent strongly influence both soil loss and mass movement processes. 

Most Shoshone soils are stable, thus no special measures are needed. Lands with moderately 

stable soils require more work in layout and design of roads and increased road construction 

cost. Generally, areas with unstable soils should be avoided because the risk of resource damage 

is higher than the benefit of wood fiber production. Vegetation plays a major role in the complex 

interactions of slope stability, as well as erosion. It acts to intercept and store significant amounts 

of precipitation, thereby buffering the effects of storm events. The roots of vegetation physically 

bind soil particles together; the strength of roots adds strength to the soil; and the roots may grow 

to bedrock, forming an effective anchor system. Once precipitation enters the soil, it becomes 

available for the vegetation to remove it through evapotranspiration, which decreases the amount 

of destabilizing groundwater.

Soil Compaction can significantly reduce long-term soil productivity; therefore it is important to 

prevent unnecessary compaction. Compaction often occurs as a result of management activities, 

thus it is important to stay within acceptable standards to minimize the overall effect. The Soil 

Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18 R2) defines detrimental compaction as a greater than 15 

percent increase in the average undisturbed soil bulk density. It is believed that an increase of 15 

percent or more would represent a significant loss in soil productivity.

Some soils are more easily compacted than others, and most soils are more easily compacted by 

the use of ground skidding equipment or equipment used to pile the residue after timber harvest. 

Each trip across the same location with a piece of machinery or a log or logs will cause some 

compaction. The effects are cumulative, with each succeeding trip increasing the compaction. 

Because it reduces soil productivity in terms of the amount of timber and forage that land can 

produce, compaction is not desirable for the Forest in general.

Soil Fertility includes site-retention of soil organic matter and/or coarse woody material. 

Organic matter content and related nutrient availability is an important component of soil 

productivity. Soil organic matter affects both water- and nutrient-holding capacity and reduces 

the erosion hazard. Organic matter holds many times its weight in water and has a high cation 

exchange capacity that increases the soil’s ability to retain nutrients for plants. As soil organic 

matter (grasses, leaves, needles, and twigs) decomposes, it releases nutrients, in soils. Nutrient 

losses are of concern because if nutrient levels are allowed to decline, the productivity of the site 

is reduced. These losses most often occur as a result of erosion of the surface horizon, 

volatilization by fire, grazing, or timber harvesting. 

Coarse or large woody material (greater than 3-inch diameter) in forested systems supports the 

life cycle of symbiotic soil fungi (ecto-mycorrhizae), which attach to conifer roots, and greatly 

increase the tree’s ability to take up nutrients and water. Duff and litter on the soil’s surface also 

act as mulch and reduce soil erosion due to rainfall impact. Fine root mats in the surface soil 

bind the soil together, reducing down-slope soil creep and washing. Some forest soils have 

accumulated very little organic matter and are considered sensitive to any organic matter 

removal by management. These soils generally occur in higher elevations where the colder 

climate and short growing season do not generate a large amount of annual vegetative growth. 

Soil Heating is caused by severe fires that occur when humus and large fuels are dry and large 

fuels are consumed near the ground. Soil heating can alter soil physics, consume organic matter, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

85

and remove much of the site's nutrients. Wildfire, prescribed fire, and burning of slash piles can 

all have some level of detrimental effect on the soil resource. Where fire is used to perpetuate an 

ecosystem, it is done in a way that accomplishes resource objectives without unnecessarily 

risking or jeopardizing the site’s ability to sustain native plant communities and their 

corresponding soils. In the last 10 years, cheatgrass invasion on burn sites has decreased soil 

productivity by out-competing native vegetation. This is particularly a problem in low 

precipitation areas where Wyoming big sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, and black sagebrush 

occur.

Tree Regeneration may be impeded on marginal sites due to seedling mortality, plant 

competition, and other factors. Harvested lands must be restocked within 5 years after final 

harvest. Seedling mortality refers to the probability of the death of naturally occurring or planted 

tree seedlings, as influenced by kinds of soil or topographic conditions. Seedling mortality is 

caused mainly by too much water (soil wetness) or too little water (soil droughtiness). Most 

Shoshone mechanical treatment units meet the 5-year regeneration standards. This analysis is 

done on a project by project level and by tree regeneration monitoring. Units with aspen 

treatment successfully regenerate if browsing pressure is limited. Observations and regeneration 

surveys within past timber sales and aspen regeneration projects on Forest lands show adequate 

natural regeneration.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Timber Harvesting: Timber harvesting affects the soil and water resources in 

many ways. Project design criteria are developed to limit impacts. Activities such as skidding, 

decking, site preparation, and machine piling of slash results in various degrees of soil 

displacement, soil compaction, and disturbance to vegetative ground cover. Within a cutting unit, 

regardless of silvicultural prescription, skid trails can lead to erosion and gullying if not properly 

located, constructed, and mitigated. 

When individual projects are planned, site-specific soil characteristics are taken into 

consideration. Some soil characteristics will restrict where timber harvesting can be done. Soil 

characteristics may also require specialized harvesting methods. Where soils are highly erosive 

or unstable, care must be taken to keep soils in place. Slash should be lopped and scattered on 

some soil types to maintain nutrients and organic material.

Timber harvest can affect the soil productivity through heavy equipment compaction to the soil 

and through the removal of nutrients in the form of tree boles, limbs, and branches. The effects 

of equipment operation can result in varying degrees of disturbance or removal of the existing 

vegetation, litter, and humus from the surface of the soil. Heavy equipment operation on forested 

sites can result in detrimental puddling, compaction, erosion, and displacement. In addition to 

these direct effects, damaged soil can lead to increased runoff from the lower infiltration rates, 

sedimentation, lower permeability, and reduced site productivity. Increased timber harvesting 

due to insects and disease has resulted in larger than normal burn piles. Restoration of these areas 

of severely burned soils will improve long-term soil productivity.

The amount of soil erosion occurring within a timber sale depends on the amount of bare soil, 

slope steepness, slope length, inherent erodibility, and rainfall intensity. Slash and logging debris 

that remains after a timber sale reduces erosion because it protects the soil from raindrop impact 

and presents physical barriers to soil movement. If logging activities expose too much soil, then 

erosion becomes excessive and site productivity is reduced or impaired. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

86

Road building activities associated with timber management can impact the soil and water 

resources. Road construction and reconstruction require that the soil be excavated, cut through, 

and reshaped by heavy equipment. When the vegetation is removed and bare soil is exposed, 

chances increase for erosion to take place. In some cases, road reconstruction may be beneficial, 

particularly if it corrects drainage problems. In many cases, road reconstruction removes 

vegetation and reshapes the road surface. For these reasons, road reconstruction is considered a 

detrimental short-term effect to soil and water resources even though there may be long-term 

beneficial effects.

In considering the various alternatives, alternatives F and E are expected to have the greatest 

potential amount of disturbance from mechanical activities, and alternatives C and D the least. 

Alternatives A, B, and G would be between the extremes and be fairly similar to their effects on 

soil and water resources. There are little or no negative effects to soil and water resources from 

timber harvesting if design criteria from the watershed conservation practices are followed for 

any of the alternatives. 

Effects from Roads and Trails Management: Since vegetation is removed from trails and 

compaction occurs, either during construction or by use, trails increase the potential for erosion. 

Where trails descend or ascend steep slopes, gullying may occur. Proper trail reconstruction, 

proper cross-drainage, barriers, and interpretive signing can mitigate effects. Some indirect 

adverse impacts can result from trail construction. For example, as access increases, so does offtrail hiking and biking on previously undisturbed areas. This can increase soil erosion, gullying, 

and compaction. Interpretive signing and barriers are examples of mitigation that can help reduce 

the amounts of off-trail use.

Roads have the potential to affect watersheds through several direct and indirect pathways and to 

modify natural drainage patterns which often lead to accelerated erosion of road surfaces and 

associated cut and fill slopes. This can lead to increased sediment delivery to streams. Roads can 

affect stream channels directly if they are located on active floodplains or directly adjacent to 

stream channels. For example, a road located adjacent to a stream can be a chronic source of 

sediment. If the road changes the morphological characteristics of the stream, this can set forth a 

chain reaction of channel adjustments that can result in accelerated bed and bank erosion, which 

produces excessive sediment. 

Roads can result in changes in channel morphology, especially at road crossing locations. Poorly 

placed roads can encroach on stream channel and floodplain areas. Native and gravel-surfaced 

roads are a common source of sediment to streams on NFS lands. Excessive sediment loading 

may lead to changes in channel morphology because of pool filling, widening of the channel, 

and making the channel shallower. These types of changes in channel morphology are reflected 

in changes in width to depth ratios, number of pools, pool depth, bank angle, and amount of 

undercut bank. Roads can permanently affect wetlands by interrupting natural flow paths and 

reducing vegetation. 

Roads result in a form of semi-permanent vegetation removal. Roads in riparian areas create a 

loss of riparian vegetation which can influence the amount of solar radiation and water 

temperature regimes and amount of wood available for recruitment into the stream ecosystem. 

These changes can ultimately lead to shifts in dissolved oxygen and pH. In addition, removal of 

riparian vegetation can increase nitrate levels which can increase the biological activity in water. 

Greater temperature fluctuations (diurnal and seasonal) can also occur when riparian vegetation 

is removed or decreased. The addition of nutrients in the stream ecosystem and reduced wood 

recruitment can affect the physical processes. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

87

Unauthorized user-created routes exist on the Shoshone, and are generally concentrated around 

areas of high use, resulting from the recreating public. These routes are not part of the Forest 

road system and have not been designed or authorized for motorized use. Decommissioning 

unauthorized routes will have a beneficial effect on long-term soil productivity. All alternatives 

propose the same emphasis on the decommissioning unauthorized routes. Subsequently, there is 

no difference among alternatives regarding road decommissioning.

In considering the various alternatives, alternatives F and E are expected to have the greatest 

potential amount of disturbance from road and trail mechanical activities, and alternatives C and 

D the least. Alternatives A, B, and G would be between the extremes and be fairly similar to their 

effects. There are little or no negative effects to soil and water resources from road activities if 

design criteria from the Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives are followed for 

any of the alternatives.

Effects from Disturbance Processes (fires/fuels management): Use of wildland fire for 

multiple objectives and prescribed fire can affect flow regimes by reducing evapotranspiration, 

interception, and snow accumulation patterns, and by increasing soil moisture and surface runoff. 

In the short term, 2 to 3 years, prescribed fire can reduce vegetation upstream and around 

wetlands. This can cause delivery of sediment and nutrients from burned areas, as well as 

recruitment of woody material. Project design criteria are developed for prescribed burns to limit 

impacts. Prescribed fire can also reduce the evapotranspiration demands and make more water 

available for wetlands. Over the long term, greater than 2 to 3 years, prescribed fire is expected 

to improve riparian condition, if applied to meet site-specific riparian management objectives.

Riparian vegetation removal influences channel morphology through increased potential 

sediment delivery to waterbodies, reduced large wood recruitment, and subsequent changes in 

pool depth and complexity. Fire along streambanks and shorelines can result in variable amounts 

and distribution of ground exposure. Moderate to light severity fires generally have little 

influence on riparian vegetation and ground litter removal, and subsequent surface erosion. 

Severe fires may remove virtually all riparian vegetation and ground cover, and result in soil 

erosion and sedimentation to nearby waterbodies and loss of important transitional habitats for 

aquatic species such as amphibians and insects. Loss of riparian vegetation can influence the 

amount of solar radiation reaching a waterbody and increase water temperatures. Greater 

temperature fluctuations (diurnal and seasonal) can also occur when riparian vegetation is 

removed or decreased. 

Long-term fire suppression causes forest successional processes to continue, which can increase 

evapotranspiration and interception, potentially resulting in less water available for wetlands. In 

many cases, lack of fire can lead to the encroachment of woody species (primarily shrubs) into 

peatland habitats, which could lead to competitive exclusion of herbaceous species. Suppression 

of natural fire regimes causes fuel loads to accumulate. When wildfire does occur, the intensity 

and severity are often higher than they would be with more natural levels of fuel. This can result 

in higher rates of fuel consumption and availability of ash and nutrients that can be delivered to 

aquatic environments. Suppression of natural fire regimes results in forests that have more trees 

and associated leaf area. This results in higher evapotranspiration and interception levels, which 

leaves decreased amounts of water available for surface and sub-surface flow. In addition, fire 

suppression can allow fuels to accumulate above natural levels, which can cause wildfires to 

burn more severely. This process can change infiltration characteristics of the soil and change 

hydrologic characteristics. Fire suppression activities, such as retardant use and drafting water 

from streams, can also affect riparian and aquatic resources.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

88

In considering the various alternatives, all are similar with relative little difference. Alternatives 

F and E are expected to have more prescribed and wildfire management activities, and 

alternatives C and D potentially the least. Alternatives A, B, and G would be between the 

extremes and be fairly similar to their effects on soil and water resources. There are little or no 

negative effects to soil and water resources from disturbance processes if design criteria from the 

Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives are followed for any of the alternatives.

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game : Livestock and big game grazing can cause 

trailing and soil displacement along streambanks, collapse of undercut banks, an increase in bank 

angle, loss of bank cover, and stream widening along the entire stream reach, as well as 

deteriorated water quality. Over long periods of time, excessive grazing pressure can lead to the 

entire channel becoming down-cut to the point that a gully forms and a new channel is formed at 

the bottom of the gully. This type and extent of down-cutting results in an entire channel type 

change. Trampling and hoof chiseling along streambanks can increase ground exposure, surface 

erosion, and sedimentation, and lower the water table. Concentrated waste can cause 

eutrophication of lakes and ponds. Grazing directly in wetlands or immediately adjacent to them 

can cause soil compaction, hummocking, and loss of vegetation. This ultimately inhibits subsurface water flow. 

Cattle use of alpine vegetation may have detrimental effects to soil productivity due to hoof 

action on thin surface horizons. This is particularly true in sensitive alpine wetland 

environments.

Under a properly managed grazing system, livestock are well distributed, grasses are grazed to a 

preferred use, and trailing is minimized, leaving adequate vegetation for soil protection through 

surface cover. Proper utilization levels need to account for both livestock and big game needs. If 

grazing systems are not properly managed, riparian areas may be heavily grazed and 

streambanks become raw and erosive. If too much forage utilization occurs, upland soils may 

become compacted and the loss of vegetation can result in increased erosion. Erosion takes place 

on livestock trails to watering sites or favored crossings, such as over roads, bridges, and 

streams. In some areas, overgrazing has resulted in soil compaction. Excess trailing can also 

result in rilling, which reduces ecosystem integrity.

In considering the alternatives, alternatives F and E are expected to have the greatest amount of 

livestock use, and alternatives A, B, C, D, and G the least, and are all similar to their effects on 

soil and water resources. There are little or no negative effects to soil and water resources from 

livestock grazing if design criteria from the Forest Service Regional and National BMP 

Directives are followed for any of the alternatives.

Effects from Recreation: Overuse of campsites can cause soil compaction and deterioration of 

the vegetation. Both the compaction and vegetation deterioration can lead to increased surfacewater runoff and gully formation. This situation presently occurs in some developed recreation 

sites or at frequently used, dispersed recreation sites, such as campsites near streams. These 

effects are expected to be similar under all alternatives. Effects can be mitigated by surface 

treatments, such as applying gravel or paving heavily used footpaths or by closing areas to 

dispersed camping. Mitigation would be applied under all alternatives.

Off-road motorized recreation has the potential for heavy impacts to the soil and water resources. 

When use is heavy or concentrated along corridors, ground cover tends to be damaged without 

the opportunity to recover. Soils are compacted and, in some instances, the topsoil layer is lost. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

89

Heavy use on unstable soils or steep slopes has caused soil erosion, permanent loss of ground 

cover, and gully formation.

Dispersed motorized recreation can damage soil and water resources. In general, the impacts 

occur when users do not comply with existing regulations; for example, off-road vehicle use 

occurring off designated travelways. Incorporating the Forest Service Regional and National 

BMP Directives will further mitigate effects.

In considering the alternatives, alternatives C and D are expected to have the least amount of 

potential impacts from motorized recreation and alternatives E and F, the most potential impacts. 

Alternatives A, B, and G would be between the extremes and be fairly similar to their effects on 

soil and water resources. There are little or no negative effects to soil and water resources from 

recreation activities if design criteria from the Forest Service Regional and National BMP 

Directives are followed for any of the alternatives.

Effects from Invasive Species: Maintaining an effective invasive plant and aquatic invasive 

species early detection and rapid response program leads to less use of chemicals, which may 

potentially affect water and long-term soil productivity.

Restoration by herbicide treatment and replanting of native species on cheatgrass-dominated 

areas that are a result of vegetative management activity will lead to positive changes in 

long-term soil productivity.

In considering the alternatives, alternatives F and E are expected to have the greatest amount of 

ground disturbance activities which lead to potential noxious weed spread, and alternatives C 

and D, the least. Alternatives A, B, and G would be between the extremes and be fairly similar to 

their effects soil and water resources. There are little or no negative effects to soil and water 

resources from invasive plant management if design criteria from the Forest Service Regional 

and National BMP Directives are followed for any of the alternatives. 

Effects from Mineral and Energy Development: Mining directly adjacent to wetlands, or 

within streams or floodplains that are connected to wetlands, can reduce water availability/flow, 

increase sedimentation, and/or pollution. Mining of the stream channel causes direct increases of 

sediment. As equipment dredges stream channels, water flow immediately transports material 

downstream. In addition, placer mining can cause bank erosion from equipment use and loss of 

riparian vegetation. Loss of riparian vegetation through mining activities can influence the 

amount of solar radiation and water temperature regimes. These changes can ultimately lead to 

shifts in dissolved oxygen and pH. In addition, removal of riparian vegetation can increase 

nitrate levels, which can increase the biological production in water.

In considering the various alternatives, reasonably foreseeable mineral and energy development 

activities are minor and similar across alternatives. Consequently, effects to soil and water 

resources are the same across alternatives. There are little or no negative effects to soil and water 

resources from mineral and energy development if design criteria from the Forest Service 

Regional and National BMP Directives are followed for any of the alternatives.

Effects from Oil and Gas Development: Road development and site disturbance have the 

potential to affect long-term soil productivity and increase the potential to add sediment to 

streams.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

90

In considering the various alternatives, reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development activities 

are minor and similar across alternatives. Consequently, effects to soil and water resources are 

the same across alternatives. There are little or no negative effects to soil and water resources 

from oil and gas development if design criteria from the Forest Service Regional and National 

BMP Directives are followed for any of the alternatives.

Effects from Riparian and Wetland Management: Restoration of willow habitat by burning or 

mechanical treatments has short-term soil effects, but is beneficial in the long term to soil and

water resources. In considering the various alternatives, reasonably foreseeable vegetative 

management activity in riparian and wetland habitat are similar across alternatives. 

Consequently, effects to soil and water resources are the same across alternatives. There are little 

or no negative effects to soil and water resources from riparian and wetland management if 

design criteria from the Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives are followed for 

any of the alternatives.

Effects from Wildlife Habitat Management: Prescribed fire on wildlife winter ranges may 

result in conversion to cheatgrass-dominated systems. This potential change in vegetation type 

would result in a loss of site soil productivity. In considering the various alternatives, reasonably 

foreseeable wildlife management activity in bighorn sheep habitat are similar across alternatives. 

Consequently, effects to soil and water resources are the same across alternatives. There are little 

or no negative effects to soil and water resources from wildlife habitat management if design 

criteria from the Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives are followed for any of 

the alternatives.

Summary of Effects to Resource

In considering the various alternatives to water, soil, and riparian area effects, alternatives F and 

E are expected to have the greatest amount of land disturbance, and alternatives C and D, the 

least. Alternatives A, B, and G would be between the extremes and be fairly similar to their 

effects on water, soil and riparian resources. Overall, there would be little or no negative effects 

to soil and water resources from forest management activities if design criteria from the Forest 

Service Regional and National BMP Directives are followed for any of the alternatives.

Cumulative Effects 

Water, soil, and riparian resources are greatly influenced by all activities occurring within the 

Forest boundaries and can be a good indicator of large-scale cumulative effects. Nearly all 

vegetative and land management activities have the potential to affect these resources. Land 

management activities that disturb the soil surface have the greatest potential for, and risk, of 

adverse effects. Risk increases with proximity or connectivity to the stream network and riparian 

habitats. Mitigation of the cumulative effects to soil and water resources is controlled through 

management direction provided for in the revised Plan and also through the use of best 

management practices and other Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives at the 

project level. These practices would minimize the risk for ground-disturbing activities to have 

far-reaching impacts to soil and water resources by controlling the timing and location of these 

activities. Management activities on the Shoshone that may cumulatively affect watershed 

condition are: roads, timber management, wildlife habitat improvement, prescribed and wild fire, 

motorized recreation, commercial and recreational livestock grazing, and mineral (including oil 

and gas) development. 

The bark beetle mortality effects on transpiration can be seen in the increase in water yield from 

4 inches per year prior to the epidemic to 4.3 inches per year in year 5. The increase to a high of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

91

4.4 inches per year in year 10 reflects the combined effects of tree mortality and the reduction in 

interception by the live canopy. After year 10, water yield starts to decline with stand growth and 

regeneration. At the end of the 100-year simulation, the difference in water yield between the 

base and the bark beetle simulation is only 0.1 inch per year. Over the Shoshone National Forest 

lands, a 0.1-inch per year difference amounts to about 10,000 acre-feet per year of water yield. 

The largest difference in water yield of about 66,000 acre-feet per year occurs in year 10. The 

comparative analysis illustrates that the effects from the bark beetle epidemic would be masked 

by the annual fluctuations that occur in precipitation. The comparative analysis does not provide 

an indication of actual changes in water yield, but is useful for assessing the relative magnitude 

of any changes.

The presence and handling of beetle-killed trees has the potential to impact public water supplies 

if it leads to organic loading of area waterbodies that are sources of drinking water. Organic 

matter interacts with disinfectants used in the drinking water treatment process to form 

disinfection byproducts, which are a human health concern. Organic loading may also decrease 

oxygen levels, leading to the release of metals such as arsenic, manganese, and iron from 

sediments (Mikkelson et al. 2012). Rhoades et al. (2013) also show the potential for increases in 

nitrate concentrations in streams influenced by beetle-killed forests. The increased acreage in 

management area 5.1 direction in alternatives B and G compared to current conditions 

(alternative A) is not a significant change.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

92

Air Quality

Introduction

This section discloses the affected environment and environmental consequences to air quality 

that would result from implementing different programmatic level management strategies for the 

Shoshone National Forest. In general, air quality is good over the Forest, but increasing 

development may impact air quality in the region. The discussion below details laws and 

regulations related to air quality, the current status of air resources in the forest, and potential 

impacts to air quality that may result from activities on as well as outside of the Forest. The 

primary goal of air quality management is to protect air quality within, and outside of, the 

planning area. 

Air quality is measured by the concentration of substances that are harmful to human health, and 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms. These also include substances that can reduce visibility (such 

as fine particulates) as well as particles that contribute to acid deposition. Criteria pollutants of 

concern are: sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (this includes NO and NO2 and is abbreviated 

as NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), ozone (O3), and particulate matter. Particulate matter 

includes suspended particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) and particles less than 

2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). Of these criteria pollutants, Pb and CO are generally not a 

concern for the forest. Other pollutants of concern include mercury (Hg) and hazardous air 

pollutants. 

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws

In 1970, the U.S. Congress passed the Clean Air Act, which was later amended in 1977 and 

1990. The purpose of the act is to protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air resources so 

as to promote public health and welfare. It requires cooperation among Federal departments and 

agencies having functions relating to the prevention and control of air pollution. Though the 

Clean Air Act provides the legal and regulatory framework for protecting National Forest lands, 

it is up to Federal land managers to determine exactly how the lands are to be managed. This act 

requires that the Forest Service comply with all Federal, state, or local air control regulations.

The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set standards for air 

pollutants to protect the public health and welfare. The standards, known as National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (table 25), limit the amount of these pollutants that can be present in the 

atmosphere anywhere in the United States. The EPA has set standards for six “criteria” air 

pollutants—ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

lead (Pb), and carbon monoxide (CO). There are standards for two categories of particulate 

matter—one for suspended particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) and one for 

fine particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). Primary standards are designed to 

protect public health, while secondary standards are designed to protect public welfare. The 

standards are shown in the table below. Units of measure for the standards are parts per million 

(ppm) by volume, parts per billion (ppb) by volume, and micrograms per cubic meter of air 

(μg/m3

). 

Ozone is not emitted to the atmosphere directly; it is formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile 

organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight. In general, ozone concentrations in the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

93

lower atmosphere are highest during warmer months and lower in the cooler months. Ozone in 

the lower atmosphere is harmful to human health and vegetation.

Table 25. National ambient air quality standards

Pollutant

[final rule cite]

Primary/ 

secondary

Averaging 

time Level Form

Carbon 

Monoxide

[76 FR 54294, 

Aug 31, 2011] 

primary

8-hour 9 ppm

Not to be exceeded more than once per 

1 year -hour 35 ppm

Lead

[73 FR 66964, 

Nov 12, 2008] 

primary and 

secondary

Rolling 3 

month 

average

0.15 μg/m3

(1) Not to be exceeded

Nitrogen Dioxide

[75 FR 6474, 

Feb 9, 2010]

[61 FR 52852, 

Oct 8, 1996]

primary 1-hour 100 ppb 98th percentile, averaged over 3 

years

primary and

secondary Annual 53 ppb (2) Annual Mean

Ozone

[73 FR 16436, 

Mar 27, 2008]

primary and 

secondary 8-hour 0.075 ppm (3)

Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-

hr concentration, averaged over 3 years

Particle 

Pollution

[71 FR 

61144, 

Oct 17, 

2006]

PM2.5

primary and 

secondary

Annual 15 μg/m3 annual mean, averaged over 3 years

24-hour 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

PM10

primary and

secondary 24-hour 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years

Sulfur Dioxide

[75 FR 35520, 

Jun 22, 2010]

[38 FR 25678, 

Sept 14, 1973]

primary 1-hour 75 ppb (4) 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years

secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per 

year

(1) Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 

one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978, 

the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

(2) The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose of 

clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard.

(3) Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

concentration, averaged over 3 years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, EPA revoked the 1-

hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have 

continued obligations under that standard (“anti-backsliding”). The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected 

number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 

1.

(4) Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked in that same rulemaking. 

However, these standards remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except in 

areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation 

plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standard are approved.

The Clean Air Act declared as one of its purposes to preserve, protect, and enhance the air 

quality in national parks, wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other 

areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, or historic value. It established 

mandatory Federal “Class I” areas consisting of wilderness areas over 5,000 acres in size and 

national parks over 6,000 acres in size that were in existence in 1977. These areas receive special 

protection under the Clean Air Act. All other parks and wilderness areas are designated as Class 

II areas. The act also established as a national goal “prevention of any future, and the remedying 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

94

of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.” The act gives Federal land managers the affirmative 

responsibility to protect the air quality-related values of Class I areas, including visibility.

The basic authority to protect national forest lands was delegated to the Forest Service by the 

Organic Act of 1897. Unlike the national parks, which were created primarily to preserve natural 

beauty and unique outdoor recreation opportunities, the founders of early national forests 

envisioned them as working forests with multiple objectives. The Organic Administration Act of 

1897, under which most national forests were established, states: “No national forest shall be 

established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of 

securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for 

the use and necessities of citizens of the United States....”

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131) established a system of public land preserves. The 

Code of Federal Regulations developed to implement it (36 CFR 293) provide the Forest Service 

the responsibility to manage wilderness areas to preserve and protect the wilderness character, 

and restore as necessary the natural wilderness condition. The Wilderness Act and implementing 

regulations do not specifically address air pollution impacts; however, they do specify what 

should be protected (“the earth and its community of life”) and the degree of protection 

(“preserve its natural condition”).

Regulation and Policies

The overriding objective of the Forest Service management program is to ensure that the national 

forests are managed in an ecologically sustainable manner. The national forests were originally 

envisioned as working forests with multiple objectives: to improve and protect the forest, to 

secure favorable watershed conditions, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use 

of citizens of the United States. Forest management objectives have since expanded and evolved 

to include ecological restoration and protection, research and product development, fire hazard 

reduction, and the maintenance of healthy forests.

The role of the Forest Service in air quality management is to coordinate national forest activities 

with state and Federal air quality control efforts. This is done by properly managing and/or 

mitigating the sources of air pollution created by Forest Service activities, such as prescribed 

fire, the construction and use of roads, and the operation of various facilities.

The Forest Service establishes pollution impact monitoring efforts in wilderness areas to 

understand the condition of resources of concern, such as tundra or sensitive lakes. The Forest 

Service is dedicated to its stewardship role under the Organic Act and to its responsibility under 

the Clean Air Act to protect and enhance air quality related values in designated Class I 

Wilderness Areas.

The Forest Service policy for air resource management in wilderness is set forth in the Forest 

Service Manual (http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm). Section 2300 – Recreation, Wilderness, 

and Related Resource Management – established general criteria for wilderness management 

under authority of the Clean Air Act. The objectives set forth in Section 2320.2 include direction 

to “Gather information and carry out research in a manner compatible with preserving the 

wilderness environment to increase understanding of wilderness ecology, wilderness uses, 

management opportunities, and visitor behavior.” More specific policies are outlined in Section 

2323.6, Management of Air Resources:
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

95

• Protect air quality and related values, including visibility, on wilderness land designated 

Class I by the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977.

• Protect air quality in wilderness areas not qualifying as class I under the same objectives 

as those for other NFS lands.

• Define air quality-related values and initiate action to protect those values.

• For each air quality related value, select sensitive indicators, monitor, and establish the 

acceptable level of protection needed to prevent adverse impacts.

• Determine the potential impacts of proposed facilities in coordination with state air 

quality management agencies. Make appropriate recommendations in the permitting 

process following established Prevention of Significant Deterioration application review 

procedures for major emission sources. Requests to air quality management agencies for 

consideration of Class II values in the permit process are appropriate.

• Manage smoke from management-ignited prescribed fires occurring in or adjacent to 

class I wilderness areas in a manner that causes the least impact on air quality related 

values.

Forest Service Manual Section 2580 – Air Resource Management – provides further direction:

• Cooperate with air regulatory authorities to prevent significant adverse effects of air 

pollutants and atmospheric deposition on forest and rangeland resources.

• Integrate air resource management objectives into all resource planning and management 

activities.

• Protect current condition of air quality related values within Class I areas.

• Monitor the effects of air pollution and atmospheric deposition on forest resources.

Methodology

The analysis of air quality effects considers activities that may potentially be authorized under 

different alternatives. Alternatives with a greater potential for activities that emit air pollutants 

are considered more likely to result in air pollution. As there are no specific projects or activities 

authorized at this time, potential air pollutant emissions cannot be quantified. Alternatives will 

therefore be compared in terms of their relative potential for emissions.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

Air quality is affected by emissions of air pollutants and meteorology. Air pollutants can travel 

very long distances (hundreds or even thousands of miles) under favorable meteorological 

conditions. In general, however, emissions that occur on a local or regional scale are likely to 

have the greatest impact on an area’s air quality. For the purposes of this discussion, the area of 

interest for air quality encompasses central and northwestern Wyoming and portions of southern 

Montana. This area is predominantly rural and sparsely populated, but is undergoing increasing 

industrial development, particularly for oil and gas extraction, that has the potential to affect air 

quality conditions on the Shoshone. The expected lifetime of this plan is 15 years.

Affected Environment

Air Resources 

Air quality on the Shoshone is generally good, but Forest resources and air quality related values 

are affected by air pollutants. The Shoshone’s distance from large urban areas helps to limit the 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

96

amount of nearby emissions, but some types of development in the region are increasing, 

particularly oil and gas extraction. Air pollutants can also reach the Shoshone after travelling 

long distances.

Sources of air pollutants include: industrial facilities such as power plants, oil and gas extraction 

facilities, waste incinerators, and manufacturing facilities; windblown dust from fields and 

unpaved roads; mobile sources such as cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, trains, farm and 

construction equipment, and off road vehicles; mining activities; household chemicals such as 

sprays, paints, paint thinners, and various solvents; agricultural sources such as fertilizers and 

waste holding ponds; and smoke from naturally occurring and prescribed wild fire. Sources may 

be classified as stationary, area (sources that are spread across an area), or mobile. The types of 

air pollutants emitted include volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

particulate matter, carbon monoxide, mercury, and hazardous air pollutants. Ozone, a criteria 

pollutant of concern, is not emitted directly but is formed from the combination of nitrogen 

oxides and volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight.

The area around the Shoshone National Forest contains no large urban areas. The Shoshone lies 

in or near Fremont, Hot Springs, Park, Teton, Sublette, and Washakie counties in Wyoming; 

these counties have a combined population of approximately 113,000 people 

(http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/56000.html). Combined area, stationary, and mobile 

emissions sources for these counties as well as neighboring counties in Montana for the year 

2005 (the most recent year with complete emissions inventory data) are shown in table 26

(Western Regional Air Partnership, http://www.wrapedms.org/).

Table 26. Total point, area, and mobile source emissions for counties near the Shoshone National 

Forest for 2005 (tons)

State County

Volatile 

organic 

compounds

Nitrogen 

oxides

Sulfur 

dioxide 

(SO2)

Particulate 

matter 

(PM10)

Particulate 

matter 

(PM2.5)

Carbon 

monoxide

Montana

Carbon 1,160 729 70 5,930 982 6,766

Park 1,370 1,070 107 5,587 882 8,379

Stillwater 6,038 950 206 7,161 2,593 28,045

Sweet 

Grass 1,441 692 82 2,741 709 7,592

Wyoming

Big Horn 2,150 1,289 289 26,262 3,281 12,165

Fremont 4,099 2,338 510 41,679 5,104 23,689

Hot Springs 631 337 59 4,148 537 2,513

Park 3,589 1,611 467 26,071 3,382 17,642

Sublette 1,468 711 107 12,165 1,501 7,876

Teton 2,889 1,109 399 17,463 2,253 14,311

Washakie 748 679 220 7,159 882 3,493

Source: WRAP 2005 inventory, http://www.wrapedms.org/reports.aspx.

Areas that meet Federal ambient air quality standards are classified as being in attainment, while 

areas not meeting standards are classified as being in nonattainment. There are several 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

97

nonattainment areas in Montana, but none are located in Carbon, Park, Stillwater, or Sweet Grass 

counties (http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html#Montana). The closest 

nonattainment area in Montana is located near Laurel, approximately 52 miles northeast of the 

Shoshone. The Laurel area is listed as nonattainment for SO2. There is currently one 

nonattainment area in Wyoming for the city of Sheridan for PM10. Sheridan is approximately 

113 miles to the east of the Shoshone. 

On April 30, 2012, the EPA finalized its ozone nonattainment designations with respect to the 

2008 ozone standard 

(http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/designations/2008standards/final/region8f.htm). 

The EPA designated the Upper Green River Basin in Wyoming as a marginal nonattainment area 

for ozone. This nonattainment area includes all of Sublette County, and portions of Lincoln and 

Sweetwater counties. The eastern boundary of the nonattainment area runs along the Continental 

Divide at the western edge of the southern portion of the Shoshone (State of Wyoming Technical 

Support Document I For Recommended 8-Hour Ozone Designation for the Upper Green River 

Basin, Wyoming, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division, 

March 26, 2009).

The revised Forest Plan only identifies the types of activities that may be authorized in different 

areas of the Forest, and thus does not specifically authorize any new development at this time. 

The Forest is aware that any new development activity that might be authorized within the Upper 

Green River ozone nonattainment area will need to be evaluated to determine if there is a need 

for a conformity analysis. A general conformity analysis is required for Federal actions occurring 

within nonattainment areas to ensure they conform with the state’s plan to meet ambient air 

quality standards. A general conformity analysis is required unless the action affects cars and 

buses, causes only a small amount of emissions (below de minimis levels), is presumed to 

conform, or is otherwise exempt. If an action is not exempt and has the potential to emit ozone 

precursors (nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds) in excess of de minimis thresholds, 

the Forest will conduct a general conformity analysis as required by 40 CFR 93. Any conformity 

analysis will be completed in consultation with the State of Wyoming, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, and other interested parties. 

The Forest has identified those areas that overlap the Upper Green River Basin nonattainment 

area (see figure 10). Only two areas of the Forest are located within the boundaries of the 

nonattainment area. These areas include parts of management areas 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.3A, and 5.1, 

and cover a total of approximately 9,700 acres. Of these, 8,848 acres are designated as 

wilderness (management area 1.1) and not available for development. The remaining 829 areas 

fall within management areas 1.2, 1.3, 3.3A, and 5.1 (see table 27). 

Table 27. Management area acres by alternative within ozone nonattainment area

MA Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

1.1 8,848 8,848 8,848 8,848 8,848 8,848 8,848

1.2 829

1.3 829 623

3.3A 829 206 829 829

5.1 829

Total 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

98

There is limited potential for activities to occur within the 829 acres of the nonattainment area 

that fall outside of designated wilderness. Oil and gas development is allowed under alternatives 

A, B, E, F and G, but none is currently projected. Winter motorized use is allowed under 

alternatives A, B, E, F, and G. New summer motorized trails are allowed on some or all of these 

areas under alternatives B, D, E, F, and G. Prescribed fire is permitted under all alternatives. 

Incidental timber harvest (for purposes of habitat improvement and fuels treatment) is permitted 

under all alternatives; timber harvest for the production of forest products is projected only under 

alternative F. Based upon this analysis, the potential for development projects in areas of the 

Forest within the Upper Green River Basin ozone nonattainment area appears to be quite low.

Figure 10. Areas that overlap the Upper Green River Basin nonattainment area
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

99

The Upper Green River Basin is an area of active oil and gas development. High ozone values 

occur in this area primarily during the months of January through March, and are associated with 

very light low-level winds, sunshine, and snow cover, in conjunction with a strong low-level 

surface-based temperature inversion (EPA 2012). A temperature inversion occurs when warmer 

air lies above a layer of colder air, preventing the air in the lower layers from rising. This is 

different from most areas of the country that experience elevated ozone values, where high ozone 

concentrations normally occur during warmer months. Analysis by the Wyoming Air Quality 

Division indicates that elevated ozone at the monitor near Boulder, Wyoming, is primarily due to 

local emissions from oil and gas development activities, including drilling, production, storage, 

transport and treatment of oil and natural gas (EPA 2012). Additional oil and gas development is 

occurring to the south of the Shoshone, although no elevated ozone levels have yet been reported 

in that region. Some oil and gas development is also occurring to the east of the Shoshone, in the 

vicinity of the Wind RiverReservation, primarily in older oil and gas fields. Levels of oil and gas 

development to the east of the Shoshone are lower than in the Upper Green River Basin. 

As shown in table 25, the ozone standard is written in terms of the 3-year average of the annual 

4th-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone average. This means that for each year, the highest 

8-hour ozone average is computed for each day and the 4th-highest such average for each year is 

selected. The 3-year average of these values is then computed and compared to the ambient air 

quality standard. If that value is higher than 0.075 parts per million (ppm), then there is a 

violation of an ozone standard. Each individual daily maximum 8-hour ozone average over 

0.075 ppm is termed an exceedance. Since a violation of the standard only occurs when the 

annual 4th-highest daily maximum 8-hour values are averaged over three years and found to be 

over 0.075 ppm, an individual exceedance does not necessarily indicate a violation of the 

standard. 

Table 28 shows available data from ozone monitors near the Shoshone for the period 2009 

through 2011 (only years with 75 percent data completeness were used). As can be seen from the 

table, several monitors reported exceedances of the ozone standard during this 3-year period. The 

highest values were reported at the Boulder monitor. The Pinedale Clean Air Status and Trends 

Network (CASTNET) monitor, which is closer to the Shoshone than the Boulder monitor, did 

not violate the standard, but did record exceedances in 2011. However, EPA has indicated a 

desire to re-evaluate the ozone standard in 2013, and may lower it to somewhere in the range of 

0.060 to 0.070 ppm. If this were to occur, then it is possible that ozone concentrations measured 

by the Pinedale CASTNET monitor could exceed the new standard. The closest monitor to the 

Shoshone is located at South Pass, just south of the Forest’s southern border. This monitor did 

not report exceedances of the ozone standard during the period 2009 through 2011. As high 

ozone values normally occur in the Upper Green River Basin during periods when cold air is 

trapped near the surface of the basin at lower elevations, and the southern portion of the 

Shoshone lies on the east side of the Continental Divide, it is not presently anticipated that high 

winter ozone concentrations will affect the Shoshone.

Wyoming maintains a network of monitors for other criteria pollutants, as well as ozone. Table 

29 shows monitored values of criteria air pollutants for counties near the Shoshone for the period 

2009 through 2011. Not every county in the area has monitoring, and counties that do have 

monitors do not necessarily have monitoring for all criteria pollutants. While these monitors 

cannot provide information regarding air quality within the forest boundaries, they do provide 

insight into regional air quality conditions. The only violation of ambient air quality standards 

indicated on the table is a violation of the ozone standard for Sublette County (recorded at the 

Boulder monitor).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

100

As mentioned earlier, Federal land managers have an affirmative responsibility under the Clean 

Air Act to protect air quality related values on the lands they manage. An air quality related value 

is defined as a resource that may be adversely affected by a change in air quality. The land 

managers determine the specific resources for their areas, which may include visibility or a 

specific scenic, cultural, physical, biological, ecological, or recreational resource identified for a 

particular area. “These values include visibility and those scenic, cultural, biological, and 

recreation resources of an area that are affected by air quality” (43 Fed. Reg. 15016).

Table 28. Ozone monitoring results near the Shoshone National Forest, 2009−2011

County Monitoring 

location Year

Highest daily 

maximum 8-

hour ozone 

concentration 

(ppm)

Fourth highest 

daily maximum 

8-hour ozone 

concentration 

(ppm)

Number of 

exceedances*

Fremont

Pavillion 2011 0.075 0.061 0

South Pass 

2009 0.067 0.065 0

2010 0.074 0.068 0

2011 0.075 0.067 0

Spring Creek 

2009 0.061 0.059 0

2010 0.069 0.061 0

2011 0.072 0.066 0

Sublette

Wyoming 

Range 2011 0.083 0.072 3

Boulder 

2009 0.070 0.066 0

2010 0.072 0.067 0

2011 0.123 0.103 8

Daniel South 

2009 0.067 0.062 0

2010 0.073 0.062 0

2011 0.084 0.075 3

Pinedale 

Gaseous 

2010 0.074 0.062 0

2011 0.089 0.076 4

Pinedale 

CASTNET**

2009 0.066 0.062 0

2010 0.073 0.065 0

2011 0.077 0.070 3

Big Piney 2011 0.072 0.064 0

Juel Spring 

2010 0.073 0.064 0

2011 0.094 0.076 4

Teton Yellowstone 

National Park

2009 0.067 0.062 0

2010 0.067 0.065 0

2011 0.067 0.066 0

* An exceedance occurs when a daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration greater than the level of the standard (0.075 

ppm or 75 ppb) is recorded. An exceedance does not necessarily indicate a violation of the standard.

** CASTNET stands for Clean Air Status and Trends Network (http://epa.gov/castnet/javaweb/index.html).

(Source: http://java.epa.gov/castnet/downloadprogress.do, http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html)
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

101

Table 29. Criteria pollutant monitoring in Wyoming counties near the Shoshone

County Year

CO 

2nd 

max 1-

hr 

(ppm)

CO 

2nd 

max 

8-hr 

(ppm)

NO2 98th 

percentile 

1-hr

(ppb)

Ozone 

2nd max 

1-hr 

(ppm)

Ozone 

4th max 

8-hr 

(ppm)

SO2 99th 

percentile 

1-hr (ppb)

SO2

2nd 

max 

24-hr 

(ppb)

PM2.5 98th 

percentile 

24-hr 

(μg/m3

)

PM2.5

weighted 

mean 

24-hr 

(μg/m3

)

PM10 2nd 

max

24-hr 

(μg/m3

)

PM10

mean 

24-hr

(μg/m3

)

Fremont

2009 6 0.07 0.065 4 1 35 8.3 47 18

2010 7 0.07 0.068 32 9.3 56 20

2011 12 0.08 0.067 30 7.8 74 16

Park

2009 10 4.3 26 11

2010 11 4.5 27 12

2011 12 4.4 35 12

Sublette

2009 46 0.08 0.066 17 5.5 35 9

2010 39 0.08 0.067 18 6 40 9

2011 49 0.15 0.103* 21 5.7 53 9

Teton

2009 1.8 0.8 0.07 0.062 13 4.7 44 16

2010 1.9 0.5 0.07 0.065 9 4.3 45 13

2011 0.7 0.4 0.07 0.066 12 4.6 39 12

Source: http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_con.html.

*An exceedance occurs when a daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration greater than the level of the standard (0.075 ppm or 75 ppb) is recorded. An exceedance does not 

necessarily indicate a violation of the standard.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

102

The Shoshone includes three Class I wilderness areas (the Washakie, Fitzpatrick, and North 

Absaroka Wildernesses) and two Class II wilderness areas (the Absaroka-Beartooth and Popo 

Agie Wildernesses). Air quality related values identified for these areas include surface waters 

and visibility (http://www.fs.fed.us/air/wy.htm). The sensitive receptor for surface waters is acidneutralizing capacity, which is a measure of a waterbody’s ability to neutralize added acid. Lakes 

and streams become acidic when the water itself and the surrounding soil cannot buffer 

deposited acidic compounds enough to neutralize them. In areas where buffering capacity is low, 

acid rain releases aluminum from soils into lakes and streams; aluminum is highly toxic to many 

species of aquatic organisms. Atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur can be deposited to the surface 

through precipitation and dry settling processes and lead to acidification of surface waterbodies. 

Acidification of surface waters can negatively affect aquatic organisms such as zooplankton, 

algae, diatoms, invertebrates, amphibians, and fish. Lakes with acid neutralizing capacity of 

100 meq or less are considered to be sensitive to additional inputs of acidic compounds. The 

Forest has set limits of acceptable change at no more than a 10 percent change for surface waters 

with a base acid-neutralizing capacity of greater than 25 μeq/l, and no more than 1 μeq/l for 

those surface waters with a base acid neutralizing capacity of less than 25 μeq/l. 

Nitrogen can cause other ecosystem impacts by fertilizing both soils and water. These excess 

inputs of nitrogen can disrupt the natural flora and fauna by allowing certain species that would 

not naturally occur in abundance to out compete those that thrive in pristine nitrogen-limited 

systems. The end result is an unnatural shift in species composition for sensitive species, which 

may have a subsequent impact on other components of the ecosystem.

Monitoring of precipitation chemistry, snowpack chemistry, and lake water chemistry occurs on 

the Shoshone to provide data needed to protect the Forest’s air quality related values. Two lakes 

on the Shoshone, Ross Lake in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness and Lower Saddlebag Lake in the 

Popo Agie Wilderness, have been continuously monitored for a sufficient length of time to 

permit trend analysis of lake chemistry parameters. A recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) examined trends in lake chemistry at selected wildernesses along the Rocky Mountains 

in Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming (Mast and Ingersoll 2011). Trends over the period 1993 

to 2009 showed a statistically significant (p is less than 0.01) increase in acid neutralizing 

capacity at Lower Saddleback Lake, and no trend at Ross Lake. Trends at both lakes showed 

small but statistically significant increasing trends in pH. 

The chemistry of wet precipitation (rain and snow) is monitored by the National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program, an interagency organization that maintains a network of samplers located 

across the country. There are two National Atmospheric Deposition Program monitors located on 

or adjacent to the Shoshone, at South Pass City and Sinks Canyon, in the southern portion of the 

Forest. The USGS examined trends in monthly precipitation-weighted mean concentrations at 

these locations (Mast and Ingersoll 2011). The analysis indicated increasing trends (p is less than 

0.01) in ammonium concentrations in wet precipitation at both monitors over the period 1988 

through 2008. Sulfate concentrations showed a statistically significant decrease (p is less than 

0.01) at Sinks Canyon and South Pass City (p is less than 0.05). No trends in nitrate 

concentration were observed at either location.

The USGS also collects yearly snowpack samples from a network of sites located near the 

Continental Divide. Snowpack samples are usually collected in spring, when the snowpack 

reaches its maximum depth. Snowpack sampling is beneficial because these sites are located at 

higher elevations than most National Atmospheric Deposition Program sites, and therefore, 

generally receive higher annual precipitation. In addition, the snowpack collects dry as well as 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

103

wet deposition over the course of the winter season. Dry deposition is estimated to contribute as 

much as 25 percent of total annual sulfur and nitrogen deposition (Mast and Ingersoll 2011). The 

USGS examined snowpack data from 48 different sites located in Colorado, Wyoming, and 

Montana during the period 1993 through 2008 and calculated trends in chemical composition 

both for individual sites and sub-regional groupings of sites. Two snowpack sites are located on 

the Shoshone National Forest, at Togwotee Pass and South Pass. Analysis of trends in snowpack 

chemistry at these two locations revealed no statistically significant trends in ammonium, nitrate, 

or sulfate at either location. However, regional trends including data from 24 different sites 

located in the central Rocky Mountains suggested that sulfate concentrations in the snowpack 

decreased across the region over the period, while concentrations of ammonium increased.

To meet the goal set by Congress in the Clean Air Act of remedying existing manmade visibility 

impairment in mandatory Federal Class I areas, the EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule in 

1999. This rule requires states to develop plans to reduce manmade pollution in Class I areas. 

Visibility impairment is caused by small particles suspended in the atmosphere that scatter or 

absorb light as it travels toward an observer. Visibility impairment affects not only how far one 

can see, but how well one can distinguish features of the landscape such as form, color, and 

texture. The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program 

has been established to monitor visibility conditions at Class I areas and provide information on 

the causes of visibility impairment. This network of monitors includes 110 particulate samplers 

located near Class I areas that provide estimates of visibility for using in tracking progress 

toward meeting the national visibility goal.

There are three Class I areas on the Shoshone. The North Absaroka IMPROVE monitor, located 

on the Forest, is used to track visibility progress for the North Absaroka and Washakie Class I 

wilderness areas. The Bridger site, located just west of the Shoshone on the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest, is used to track visibility for the Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area. Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, visibility is tracked on the clearest and haziest days. The clearest days are 

defined as the clearest 20 percent of days in each year, and the haziest days are defined as the 

haziest 20 percent of days in each year. The mean of the haziest 20 percent and clearest 

20 percent from the North Absaroka and Bridger IMPROVE monitoring sites are plotted in 

figure 11 through figure 14. Visibility impairment is measured in terms of a haze index called the 

deciview (dv). The deciview value increases as visibility impairment increases. The plots also 

show the estimated mean annual deciview that would be expected to occur at both locations 

during clear and hazy days under natural conditions (i.e., in the absence of manmade pollution). 

It can be seen from the plots that visibility conditions are worse than estimated natural 

conditions, particularly on the haziest days. Trends of the annual mean deciview on clear days 

for the Bridger monitor show a statistically significant (p is less than 0.05) decrease over the 

period 1988 through 2010, indicating improving visibility. No trend was observed on the haziest 

days. The available period of record for the North Absaroka monitor is 2002 through 2008; no 

statistically significant trends were observed on either the clearest or haziest days.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

104

Figure 11. Annual deciview on clearest days, Bridger IMPROVE monitor

Figure 12. Annual deciview on haziest days, Bridger IMPROVE monitor
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

105

Figure 13. Annual deciview on clearest days, North Absaroka IMPROVE monitor

Figure 14. Annual deciview on haziest days, North Absaroka IMPROVE monitor
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

106

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of greenhouse gas emissions 

(including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, and several trace gasses) 

on global climate. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these 

greenhouse gas emissions cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing 

the amount of heat energy radiated by the Earth back into space. Although greenhouse levels 

have varied for millennia (along with corresponding variations in climatic conditions), recent 

industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused CO2 concentrations to 

increase dramatically, and are likely to contribute to overall climatic changes. Increasing CO2

concentrations also lead to preferential fertilization and growth of specific plant species.

The assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is in its formative phase. It is 

not yet possible to know with confidence the net impact to climate. Observed climatic changes

may be caused by greenhouse gas emissions, or they may reflect natural fluctuations. However, 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) recently concluded that “warming 

of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “most of the observed increase in globally 

average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in 

anthropogenic [manmade] greenhouse gas concentrations.” Global mean surface temperatures 

have increased nearly 1.0 °C (1.8 °F) from 1890 to 2006 (Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 

2007). However, observations and predictive models indicate that average temperature changes 

are likely to be greater in the Northern Hemisphere. Figure 15 demonstrates that northern 

latitudes (above 24° N) have exhibited temperature increases of nearly 1.2 °C (2.1 °F) since 

1900, with nearly a 1.0 °C (1.8 °F) increase since 1970 alone. Without additional meteorological 

monitoring systems, it is difficult to determine the spatial and temporal variability and change of 

climatic conditions, but increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the 

rate of climate change.

In 2001, the IPCC indicated that by the year 2100, global average surface temperatures would 

increase 1.4 to 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.4 °F) above 1990 levels (IPCC 2001). The National Academy of 

Sciences (2008) has confirmed these findings, but also indicated that there are uncertainties 

regarding how climate change may affect different regions. Computer model predictions indicate 

that increases in temperature will not be equally distributed, but are likely to be accentuated at 

higher latitudes. Warming during the winter months is expected to be higher than during the 

summer.

The lack of scientific tools to predict climate change on regional or local scales limits the ability 

to quantify potential future impacts. Potential impacts on air quality due to climate change are 

likely to be varied. For example, if global climate change should result in a warmer and drier 

climate in western Wyoming, increased particulate matter air impacts could occur because of 

increased windblown dust from drier and less stable soils. Cool season plant species’ ranges are 

predicted to move north and to higher elevations, and extinction of native vegetation may be 

accelerated; these changes in vegetation may further affect air quality.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

107

Source: Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2007)

Figure 15. Annual mean temperature change for northern latitudes (24 to 90° N)

Monitoring

The affected environment discussion for air quality presented results of monitoring occurring on 

the Shoshone, as well as some monitoring results from nearby areas outside the planning area. A 

summary of air quality-related monitoring is included in the monitoring table (table 29). The 

Shoshone maintains a wilderness air quality monitoring plan (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

Monitoring of visibility, lake chemistry data, ozone, and wet precipitation is expected to 

continue. Air quality monitoring activities include:

• weekly monitoring of the South Pass National Atmospheric Deposition Program site;

• thrice-yearly monitoring of Ross and Saddlebag Lakes, which are part of a national longterm lake monitoring program;

• support to State of Wyoming monitoring of the North Absaroka IMPROVE visibility 

monitoring site; and

• support to State of Wyoming monitoring of air quality in the South Pass area of the 

Washakie Ranger District.

In addition, Shoshone National Forest staff will continue to monitor regional air quality 

conditions and participate in other air quality management activities. These activities include:

• coordination with other Shoshone programs, such as fire, to ensure protection of air 

quality and air quality related values; 

• intra- and interagency coordination, particularly with the Bridger-Teton National Forest 

and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division;

• participation in the Greater Yellowstone Area Clean Air Partnership and the Greater 

Yellowstone-Teton Clean Cities Coalition; and
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

108

• reviews of air quality permit applications and industrial mining and energy development 

environmental documents being prepared by other agencies.

Desired Condition

Forest air quality complies with national and State Ambient Air Quality Standards and State Air 

Quality Management Plans and does not trend toward thresholds for noncompliance. Air quality 

(including visibility) in wilderness areas is protected as prescribed by the Clean Air Act and the 

Wilderness Act, which give the Forest Service the affirmative responsibility to maintain or 

enhance air quality related values in these areas (including visibility).

Environmental Consequences

This programmatic planning decision does not authorize any activities or actions. Any future 

activities or actions will undergo the appropriate level of additional NEPA review and might 

require additional analysis for air quality impacts. The types of activities that could occur under 

the alternatives considered and the types of emissions associated with these activities are listed 

below. 

In general, activities that could potentially occur on the Shoshone under the various alternatives 

that would have the potential to emit air pollutants include motorized travel, construction 

(primarily road construction), timber harvesting, oil and gas development, and fires (both 

prescribed and wild fire). Emissions from activities could include criteria pollutants, hazardous 

air pollutants, mercury, and carbon dioxide. Although carbon dioxide is not a regulated pollutant, 

it is an important greenhouse gas. In addition, areas of exposed soil resulting from disturbance or 

unpaved roads have the potential to emit windblown dust.

Direct and Indirect Effects

For each of the resource areas described below, the environmental consequences for air resources 

are compared by alternative, based on key indicators of disturbance for each type of activity. In 

general, alternatives that propose greater levels of disturbance activities for various resource uses 

are more likely to result in emissions of air pollutants. Potential impacts from various activities 

that could occur under the different alternatives and the relative likelihood of the different 

alternatives to impact air quality are discussed below by activity type. Please note, however, that 

comparisons among the different types of activities cannot be made. For example, it is not 

possible to discern the relative potential for air pollution emissions between recreation and oil 

and gas development from this discussion.

Effects from Timber Harvesting: Timber harvest could potentially result in limited road 

construction activities and surface disturbance, with the associated emissions described below. 

Any additional road construction due to timber harvesting is expected to be minimal under any 

alternative. In addition, gas- and diesel-powered equipment used to cut and remove trees would 

result in emissions typically found in gas and diesel exhaust, including sulfur dioxide, 

particulates, volatile organic compounds, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxides.

Acres available for timber harvesting are expected to be greatest under alternative F, followed by 

alternatives E, A, B and G, D, and C in decreasing order. It is expected that impacts to air quality 

due to timber harvesting would also be greatest under alternative F, followed by alternatives E, 

A, B and G, D, and C. Air quality impacts due to timber harvesting are not expected to be large 

under any alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

109

Effects from Roads and Trails Management: In general, road construction would result in 

emissions of fine particles (dust) from the disturbance to the ground surface and processing of 

road construction materials such as crushed rock, sand, and gravel, as well as volatile organic 

compounds, soot, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulates, carbon dioxide, and carbon 

monoxide from vehicle and construction equipment engines. Construction of paved roads could 

lead to additional emissions of volatile organic compounds from the processing and application 

of asphalt to the road surface. Once construction is complete, vehicles travelling along the roads 

would emit, through their exhaust systems, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, particulates, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Post-construction travel by vehicles 

along unpaved roads would result in additional emissions of fine particles from the surface of the 

roads. There would also be some emissions of particulates from unpaved roads resulting from 

windblown dust even in the absence of vehicles. 

The primary uses of the transportation network include recreation, administrative use, and 

administrative/land use activities (including timber harvesting, grazing, and fuels and fire 

management). The amount of dust generated would be largely dependent upon the season of use, 

the amount of traffic, rainfall patterns, and materials selected for road construction. Dust issues 

would tend to be greatest where conditions are typically dry, and/or where roads are constructed 

from fine-grained materials and do not have a paved or gravel surface. 

Recreational use of the transportation system can occur at varying levels of intensity throughout 

the drier summer and fall months, when dust can be problematic. Recreational use can occur on 

any open road. Dust abatement measures are not applied on most system roads due to budget 

priorities. Dust generated from recreational activities may vary from low to high in the long 

term. Impacts would likely not be mitigated, except on roads with the greatest traffic and/or 

safety issues. 

Road use associated with mineral development, oil and gas development, timber harvesting, and, 

in some instances, fire and fuels management may require dust-abatement measures. 

Implementation of dust-abatement measures would reduce or eliminate impacts to air quality 

from dust.

Miles of roads available for travel are expected to be essentially the same for alternatives A, B, 

D, E, F, and G and thus, impacts to air quality due to construction and travel on roads would be 

similar under these alternatives. There would be fewer miles of roads under alternative C, 

resulting in slightly lower impacts to air quality under this alternative.

Similar types of emissions would be expected for travel along motorized trails. Available miles 

of motorized trails are expected to be greatest under alternative F, followed by alternatives E, B 

and G, D, A, and C. Impacts to air quality due to travel along motorized trails are similarly 

expected to be highest under alternative F, followed by alternatives E, B and G, D, A, and C in 

descending order. 

Effects from Fires/Fuels Management: Prescribed fires and slash burning would result in 

emissions typically associated with wood combustion, particularly volatile organic compounds, 

nitrogen oxides, soot, particulates, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Fires could also emit 

hazardous air pollutants, such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and aldehydes (such as 

formaldehyde). Since prescribed fires and slash burning are conducted under controlled 

conditions, are usually less intense than wildfires, and are generally much smaller in size than 

wildfires, it can be reasonably expected that the emissions resulting from these fires would be 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

110

considerably lower than those from uncontrolled wildfires that could occur if fuel loads were left 

in place.

Prescribed fire has the potential to produce smoke that may impact the public. Receptors such as 

nursing homes, hospitals, and other populations that are sensitive to temporary air pollution 

would be important considerations for smoke management. The impacts of smoke on the highly 

valued scenic vistas within the planning area would also be a concern. Smoke would be managed 

in conjunction with the State of Wyoming (through burning permits) and would address local 

concerns, visibility, and safety.

Periodic prescribed burns are a necessary tool designed to prevent heavy fuel accumulation—

accumulations that may send larger amounts of smoke into the air should an uncontrolled 

wildfire occur. Wildfires and prescribed burns within the planning area may produce temporary, 

but major, amounts of particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, organic compounds, and 

hydrocarbons. These pollutants may be a threat to human health and may reduce visibility.

Although producing smoke is an unavoidable part of prescribed burns, strategies to limit smoke 

would be an important part of every burn plan. For each burning project within the planning 

area, a burn prescription would be written. The burn would be conducted in a manner that 

minimized emissions as well as smoke-related impacts to visibility and human health. The burn 

prescription would show the measures that would be used to mitigate the adverse impacts of 

smoke, and would carefully consider smoke-sensitive individuals or populations. Permits for 

prescribed burns are required by the State of Wyoming. High smoke risk burns may require a 

public comment period. 

Although prescribed burns would increase short-term air pollution emissions, these burns may 

help to decrease the very large emissions from catastrophic wildfires by reducing fuel loading 

over the long term. Smoke-related impacts from prescribed burns may range from minor to 

moderate, depending upon proximity to smoke-sensitive individuals or population centers. 

Impacts may also be short-term, lasting from a few hours to a week.

Smoke impacts from wildfire to sensitive individuals, population centers, and/or to visibility 

would be highly dependent upon the location of the fire and the burning conditions. Smoke 

management for wildfires would include daily assessment of fire behavior and smoke. Public 

notice, education, and public input, as well as the input from the State, regarding smoke is one of 

many factors considered in fire management decisions. 

Fuel treatments could potentially result in limited road construction activities and surface 

disturbance, with the associated emissions described above. In addition, gas- and diesel-powered 

equipment used to cut and remove trees would result in emissions typically found in diesel 

exhaust, including sulfur dioxide, particulates, volatile organic compounds, carbon dioxide, and 

nitrogen oxides. Similarly, mechanical treatment activities would produce small amounts of air 

pollution from equipment and machinery exhaust. Pollutants include PM10, PM2.5, nitrogen 

oxides, sulfur oxides (from diesel fuel-fired engines), volatile organic compounds, carbon 

monoxide, and carbon dioxide.

In general, alternatives that provide greater access and development will provide more 

opportunities for hazardous fuel reduction, and therefore, may result in higher emissions due to 

prescribed fire. Projected acres of hazardous fuels reduction over the next 10 years do not vary 

greatly by alternative. Alternative F provides the greatest opportunity for hazardous fuels 

reduction, following by alternatives E, A, B and G, D, and C. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

111

Conversely, alternatives that provide greater opportunity for hazardous fuels reduction may be 

less likely to result in wildfires, and thus, may be reasonably expected to have lower emissions 

due to those fires. Projected acres of wildfire over the next 10 years are greatest under alternative 

A, followed by alternatives C, D, B and G, E, and F. Differences in projected wildfire acres are 

not large on a percentage basis, particularly among alternatives A through D and G. 

Effects from Recreation: Impacts to air quality from recreation result primarily from motorized 

use. Recreational use of the transportation system can occur at varying levels of intensity 

throughout the drier summer and fall months, when dust can be problematic. Recreational use 

can occur on any open road or motorized trail. Dust abatement measures are not applied on most 

system roads due to budget priorities, and would not occur on any non-system road. Dust 

generated from recreation activities may vary from low to high in the long term. Impacts would 

likely not be mitigated, except on roads with the greatest traffic and/or safety issues. Exhaust 

from vehicles travelling on roads and motorized trails for recreational purposes will result in 

emissions normally found in gasoline and diesel engine exhaust, including nitrogen oxides, 

volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and small 

amounts of hazardous air pollutants. Motorized winter travel (e.g., travel by snowmobile) would 

also result in emissions of these pollutants, but would not likely result in dust emissions.

In general, alternatives that provide greater opportunities for motorized recreational travel may 

be reasonably expected to result in higher emissions of air pollutants. Acres permitting summer 

motorized recreation are greatest under alternative F, followed by alternatives E, B, A, G, D, and 

C in descending order. Alternative A has the greatest number of acres of winter motorized access, 

followed by alternatives F, G, E, B, D, and C. 

Effects from Oil and Gas Development: Oil and gas extraction activities would result in

emissions associated with drilling, production, processing, storage, and transport of oil and gas 

products. These emissions would include nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon dioxide, 

carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and possibly sulfur dioxide. The sources of these 

emissions could include drilling equipment, venting and flaring of gas, storage tanks, pipe 

fittings and valves, pumps, dehydrators, compression engines, and diesel engines found in heavy 

equipment and vehicles used to transport of people, equipment, and oil and gas products. 

Particulate matter in the form of fugitive dust could also be emitted as a result of vehicle 

movement and ground-disturbing activities. In terms of fluid-minerals development, wellhead 

engines, compressor stations, gas plants, and refineries are primary sources of these pollutants. 

Emissions are also associated with fluid-minerals exploration and production activities 

(including drilling, flaring, and transportation).

Oil and gas well development would likely require infrastructure, new road construction, 

increased traffic on existing unpaved roads, and the construction of new compressor stations, 

pipelines, and well pads. Dust (particulate matter) would be the primary pollutant associated 

with road construction and road traffic. Impacts related to dust would be dependent upon the 

amount of road traffic, as well as on weather conditions. Air quality impacts related to dust 

would tend to be periodic; however, they would be chronic unless dust-abatement measures were 

applied to the road surface and the roads were properly maintained. If dust-abatement measures 

were not used, fugitive dust pollution may be chronic and short-term during active construction 

and drilling periods, and, at a reduced level, long-term as service trucks access well sites.

This programmatic-level planning decision does not authorize any leasing or ground-disturbing 

activities. Before any actual development could occur, additional project-specific NEPA analyses 

would be performed, and the applicable air quality regulatory agencies would review specific 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

112

preconstruction permit applications (which examine potential project-wide air quality impacts). 

As part of these permits (depending upon source size), the air quality regulatory agencies may 

require additional air quality impacts analyses or mitigation measures. Thus, before development 

occurs, additional site-specific air quality analyses, based on actual facility engineering data, 

would be performed to ensure the protection of air quality. Air quality impacts may occur during 

construction (due to surface disturbance by earth-moving equipment, vehicle traffic fugitive dust, 

well testing, and drilling rig and vehicle engine exhaust) and production (including natural gas 

separation and dehydration heaters, and small well-head engine exhaust). 

The greatest area available for surface development associated with oil and gas extraction occurs 

under alternative A, followed by alternatives F, E, B, D, C and G in descending order. Oil and 

gas development potential is expected to be low to very low under all alternatives.

Effects from Activity-generated Emissions: For any of the activities listed above that may 

occur on the Shoshone, there would be accompanying emissions of carbon dioxide. Carbon 

dioxide is generated by combustion processes, including fire and the use of internal combustion 

engines. Carbon dioxide is not a criteria pollutant or threat to human health, but it is a 

greenhouse gas. The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations caused by human 

activity is believed to be linked to observed changes in global climate (Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change 2007). In addition, any of the above activities that would emit either nitrogen 

oxides or volatile organic compounds has the potential to affect ozone concentrations in the 

atmosphere, depending upon the time of year and meteorological conditions. This could occur 

because, as noted above, ozone is not emitted directly but is formed in the atmosphere when 

nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds exist in the presence of sunlight. Ozone 

concentrations could be affected not only in the vicinity of potential activities, but also some 

distance away, as nitrogen oxides or volatile organic compounds could be transported by winds 

to areas where conditions are more favorable for ozone production. Ozone production is 

normally more likely during warmer months than in cooler ones, and is dependent upon a 

number of weather-related factors such as wind speed, wind direction, relative humidity, and 

cloud cover. However, relatively high concentrations of ozone have been observed during winter 

months near some areas of dense oil and gas field development, including the Upper Green River 

Basin in Wyoming. This area is located west of the southern section of the Shoshone. Wintertime 

ozone formation is undergoing study by State and Federal agencies to better understand its 

causes and to better predict and mitigate future events. 

Finally, any of the activities listed above that have the potential to emit nitrogen oxides or sulfur 

dioxide could possibly impact PM2.5 concentrations through secondary particulate formation. 

Secondary pollutants are not emitted directly, but are formed in the atmosphere when nitrogen 

oxides or sulfur dioxide react with ammonium to form ammonium nitrate or ammonium sulfate 

particles.

Summary of Effects to Air Quality

With respect to air quality, there would not be significant differences among the alternatives. The 

desired condition is to maintain and/or improve air quality conditions within the planning area 

(including in the Class I airsheds). Strategies and design criteria implemented under any of the 

alternatives would reduce the amount of air pollution emissions generated from activities such as 

oil and gas development. Cumulatively, permitted and currently leased fluid-minerals 

development near the planning area, combined with large sources of air pollution close to, but 

outside of the planning area, may result in overall air quality degradation.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

113

Cumulative Effects 

This cumulative effects analysis considered the effects from past, ongoing, and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities that could cumulatively affect air quality when combined with 

effects described for each alternative. If any of the listed activities are authorized, through future 

decisions and accompanying NEPA analysis, under any of the alternatives, the emissions from 

those activities would contribute to the levels of pollutants already present in the atmosphere 

from other sources. The relative contribution of emissions from potential activities to the air 

pollution already occurring from other sources is expected to be small. The primary activities 

that would have ongoing or future effects on air quality include smoke from prescribed burning 

and residential wood-burning stoves, dust emissions arising from activities such as from driving 

unpaved forest roads, increases in greenhouse gases from numerous sources that are changing 

regional climate patterns, emissions from nearby power plants and other industrial facilities, oil 

and gas development emissions, and increases in other emissions caused by increasing 

population trends. 

Fire

Wildland fires would continue to occur within and outside the planning area and would have the 

greatest potential to produce smoke and associated pollutants that would affect public health and 

safety, scenic quality, and adjacent Class I areas. Smoke from wildland fires could affect 

sensitive smoke receptors such as nursing homes, hospitals, schools, and smoke-sensitive 

residents in communities just outside the planning area. Smoke from prescribed burning on NFS 

lands would not likely accumulate in large amounts in smoke-sensitive areas, and fires are 

managed to minimize impacts to the extent that the health and safety of the general public would 

not be affected. Prescribed burning, in conjunction with thinning treatments, would reduce 

hazardous fuel loads, and thus, reduce the potential for very large smoke emissions from highintensity wildland fires. 

Overall, there would be few if any noticeable cumulative air quality effects from prescribed 

burning, because the emissions would not typically occur on the same days within the same 

airspace. Smoke from residential wood burning could potentially combine with smoke from 

prescribed burns, although State and Federal agencies avoid burning during air inversions where 

wood-burning smoke has accumulated in a given airshed and conditions are not favorable to 

dispersing the smoke. 

Dust

Dust would be a very minor contributor to potential cumulative effects for air quality, because 

the magnitude of dust emissions that would occur in the same place at the same time would be 

quite small and of short duration. Dust emissions do not typically travel long distances in 

comparison to smoke emissions. The use of system roads may contribute additional dust 

emissions that could potentially combine with dust generated from activities in other areas. 

Power Plant Emissions 

Although no coal-fired power plants exist in the planning area, there are several power plants 

that exist or are planned for construction within atmospheric transport distance of the Shoshone. 

Coal-burning power plants are major, long-term sources of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

mercury, particulates, greenhouse gases, and other pollutants that affect air quality related values, 

such as visibility, water quality, and high-elevation flora and fauna ecosystems. The Forest 

Service is an active participant in the permitting process for large emission sources, including 

power plant projects. Using this process, mitigation measures to prevent air quality impacts 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

114

would be implemented where indicated by site-specific analysis. Activities that may occur in the 

planning area would generally be small, localized, and of short duration. Therefore, these 

activities would not substantially interact with power plant emissions, nor would they likely add 

to cumulative effects.

Oil and Gas-related Emissions

New wells are occurring on Federal, State, and private lands in and around the planning area, 

particularly to the south of the Shoshone and in the Green River Basin area of Wyoming. The 

cumulative effects of existing emission sources are evaluated through air quality modeling for 

specific oil and gas projects, but would be similar for all alternatives. Cumulatively, oil and gas 

development and other large sources of air pollution could potentially degrade air quality. 

Mitigation measures and project design criteria for Forest Service-authorized projects would 

continue to minimize adverse air pollution emissions generated from authorized activities. 

Overall, the additional amount of oil- and-gas-related pollutants associated with any alternative 

would be relatively very small compared to other cumulative sources of pollution such as 

existing oil and gas emissions, and therefore, would not likely add significantly to cumulative 

effects. 

Methane emissions that would be released during natural gas operations would contribute to 

greenhouse gases that add to climate change trends (U.S. Climate Change Science Program 

2011, EPA 1999). The eventual combustion of natural gas will contribute greenhouse gases to the 

atmosphere primarily in the form of carbon dioxide. 

Emission Increases from Population Growth

Air quality protection issues continue to challenge management of national forests and protected 

airsheds. This is especially true in areas where large new resort towns are constructed within a 

few miles of a Class I area. Wood- and coal-heating emissions, road dust, vehicle emissions, and 

other mobile and stationary sources are all common pollution sources that potentially affect air 

quality. Regional development is not affected by any of the alternatives and does not vary by 

alternative. 

Summary of Cumulative Effects

With respect to effects on air quality, there is no substantial difference among the alternatives. 

None of the alternatives is likely to have a measurable adverse impact on air quality, compared 

to current conditions and trends, as previously described under direct and indirect effects. Air 

quality in the Class I areas and airsheds is expected to remain in compliance with all State and 

Federal Clean Air Act standards. Other sources of emissions and air quality pollution sources 

described in this cumulative effects section would be the dominant air quality issues in and 

around the Shoshone. Forest planning alternatives would not make any noticeable contribution to 

the overall regional haze situation or air quality trends in Wyoming; however, any air pollution 

emissions occurring on NFS lands would add, even if negligibly, to cumulative levels of 

pollution from all sources.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

115

Vegetation

Introduction

The ecosystems and vegetation of the Shoshone National Forest are dynamic. The processes of 

succession and disturbance patterns have produced the current vegetative conditions. These 

natural processes, both part of and necessary for ecosystem function, will continue to produce 

changes in the future. Therefore, the following descriptions of current vegetation represent only 

one point in time. Some of the changes will be generally predictable, others less so. Accordingly, 

any description of future vegetation will be a prediction subject to uncertainty. The level of 

uncertainty depends on the degree to which natural processes are allowed to operate. Natural 

disturbance events such as fire, windstorms, landslides, and insect and disease outbreaks are 

generally difficult to predict. On the other hand, changes associated with succession and humancaused disturbance such as logging and prescribed burning are fairly predictable. Although the 

Shoshone will experience natural disturbance events, the degree to which they occur will 

influence the ability to predict future vegetative conditions.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Laws

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973: Requires Federal agencies to conserve threatened 

and endangered species.

The Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974: Provides for 

maintenance of land productivity and the need to protect and improve the soil and water 

resources.

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974: Authorizes the Secretary to cooperate with other Federal 

and state agencies and individuals in carrying out measures to eradicate, suppress, control or 

prevent the spread of noxious weeds.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976: “It is the policy of the congress that 

all forested lands in the NFS shall be maintained in appropriate forest cover with species of trees, 

degree of stocking, rate of growth, and conditions of stand designed to secure the maximum 

benefits of multiple use sustained yields. Plans developed shall provide for the diversity of plant 

and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order 

to meet the overall multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objective.”

Executive Orders 

Executive Order 13112: Directs Federal agencies whose actions may affect the status of 

invasive species to (1) prevent the introduction of invasive species, (2) detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost effective and environmentally sound 

manner, as appropriations allow.

Regulation and Policies

Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) 36.217 Requesting Review of National Forest Plans and 

Project Planning

Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) 36.219 Planning
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

116

Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) 36.221 Timber Management Planning

Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) 36.222 Range Management

Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) 36.241 Fish and Wildlife

Policy direction from the Forest Service Directives System in Forest Service Manuals (FSM) 

2400 Timber Sale Management, 2200 Range Management, and 2600 Wildlife Management, and 

in Forest Service Handbooks (FSH) are listed here but not limited to:

• R-2 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide

• Timber Resource Planning Handbook

• Timber Management Information System Handbook

• Timber Sale Administration Handbook

• Silviculture Practices Handbook

• Timber Sale Preparation Handbook

• R-2 2409.26 Silvicultural Practice Handbook

Resource Protection Measures 

There are numerous Forest-wide and management area prescription standards and guidelines that 

apply to vegetation. All alternatives provide for satisfactory regeneration of logged areas, for 

treatment of activity-related fuels, management of insects and diseases, and various wildland fire 

management strategies.

Methodology 

We assessed vegetation composition and structure using two primary sources of data: a spatial 

map source and an inventory source. 

The spatial map source used in analyzing vegetation was the R2 Veg corporate database. This 

mapping project provides a geospatial database of vegetation and land covers. These datasets 

provide basic information on existing vegetation in a common format using standard terms, 

definitions, and measurements. The vegetation unit layer is consistent throughout the Rocky 

Mountain Region and is compatible with Forest Service National systems. This data set was 

initially completed in 2004, and is periodically updated to incorporate changes that are 

constantly occurring to vegetation.

The inventory source used in analysis was data from the National Forest Inventory and Analysis 

(FIA), a program that provides a congressionally mandated, statistically based, continuous 

inventory of the forest resources of the United States. Since 1930, the FIA program has been 

administered through the Research and Development branch of the Forest Service, which makes 

it administratively independent from the NFS. 

The FIA program collects, analyzes, and reports information on the status and trends of 

America’s forests (i.e., how much forest exists, where it exists, who owns it, and how it is 

changing), providing data related to the changing conditions of trees and other forest vegetation. 

The FIA program combines this information with related data on insects, diseases, and other 

types of forest damages and stressors to assess the health and potential future risks to forests. The 

FIA program also projects these trends through the next 50 years and displays how various 

management scenarios would affect forest vegetation through time.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

117

The FIA data used for forest planning were collected from 1998 to 1999. The FIA data were used 

to quantify species and size class at the forest scales, and to develop growth and yield tables for 

the vegetation modeling.

The broad vegetative management approach that is being used in the draft forest plan is one of 

providing ecological components, patterns, and processes at multiple scales on the landscape, 

and thereby, providing the full spectrum of habitats and conditions needed for all of the 

biological organisms associated with the various ecosystems. This general strategy is often called 

the “coarse-filter” approach to ecosystem management.

To understand the various ecosystems on the Shoshone and sustain the biodiversity within them, 

it is necessary to have some reference for understanding the natural diversity of the relevant 

ecosystems, and what processes sustain this productivity and diversity. Historic range of 

variability concepts were developed in part to better understand how disturbance, vegetation, and 

other ecosystem components interact, and in turn, how interaction affects biophysical 

characteristics such as plants, animals, fish, and soil and water resources. Historical perspectives 

increase our understanding of the dynamic nature of landscapes and provide a frame of reference 

for assessing current patterns and processes.

The historic range of variability analysis focuses on forest composition, structure, landscape 

pattern, and processes (disturbance and succession). Not only was the historic range of 

variability considered in revising forest plan direction, but the potential impacts that climate 

change might have on the future range of variability was contemplated. In summary, this 

approach is designed to provide insights into how ecosystems have changed, as well as how they 

may change in the future. The knowledge gained from this approach can then be used to 

“inform” management decisions regarding how climate change may affect future landscape 

conditions (Keane et al. 2008). Given these insights, climate change adaptive strategies such as 

fostering “resistance” and “resiliency” in the forest ecosystems can be considered.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

The affected area for direct and indirect effects to vegetation is the lands administered by the 

Shoshone. This area represents the NFS lands where changes may occur to vegetation as a result 

of management activities or natural events.

The affected area for cumulative effects to terrestrial vegetation includes the lands administered 

by the Shoshone, as well as the lands of other ownership both within and adjacent to the 

Shoshone boundaries.

The timeframe addressed is the 15 years for the anticipated life of the revised Forest Plan.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information 

Shoshone personnel do not believe the current inventory accurately portrays the age class 

distribution for aspen. Given the small number of aspen acres on the Shoshone, we do not think 

the inventory has provided an adequate sample. The inventory indicates that stands are young 

with few stands over 80 years of age. Field observations and photo typing indicate the opposite 

condition is the norm, with more stands in older age classes and fewer in the youngest age 

classes.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

118

Affected Environment 

Selected ecosystem characteristics of the Shoshone are important to ecosystem diversity, have 

been influenced by past management or disturbances, and may be influenced by future 

management or disturbances. 

The key ecosystem characteristics of cover types, age class distribution, patch size and edge, 

snag size and density, and coarse woody debris were evaluated. We selected these characteristics 

for their importance to the ecosystem and our ability to monitor or track them. In addition, we 

evaluated riparian and rare communities8 because of their contributions to ecosystem diversity.

We describe current conditions and trends for each ecosystem characteristic. In addition, 

characteristics are compared to the historic range of variation. This comparison provides 

additional information on vegetation characteristics and an understanding of past conditions and 

trends. Rare and unique characteristics that are susceptible to loss or change are also highlighted.

The majority of the information on historic variability in this report is based on Historic 

Variability for the Upland Vegetation of the Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming (Meyer et al. 

2006). 

Historic range of variability

The reference period for the Shoshone’s historic range of variability is the period from 1600 to 

1860 (Meyer et al. 2006). This period is defined as the spatial and temporal period when the 

influences of European Americans were minimal and some form of scientific information could 

be obtained. 

It should be noted that historic range of variability analyses are based on professional judgment, 

which is based on relatively limited data. Historic range of variability analyses are not a step 

toward restoring ecosystems to a pristine state, but a tool to establish a base for assessing future 

management options. 

For the purposes of forest plan revision, we’re using the historic range of variability as a point of 

comparison and not to establish desired conditions. As changing climate impacts vegetation 

distribution and patterns, historic range of variability as portrayed in this discussion is not 

suitable as the primary guide for desired conditions. The historic range of variability will be one 

consideration in developing desired conditions, but will not be the main factor considered. In 

developing desired conditions, we will consider public input, cost of restoration, sustainability of 

current conditions, changed circumstances, and potential impacts of climate change. 

Climate change

The potential effects of a changing climate are likely to influence vegetation conditions in the 

future. Under a changing climate (increasing temperatures; changes in rainfall intensity; and 

greater occurrence of extreme events, such as drought, flooding, etc.), efforts to achieve a 

particular desired forest structure, composition, and function based on an understanding of 

ecosystem dynamics as captured in historical references or baselines may no longer be 

appropriate. Ecosystem composition, structure, and function will change as species respond to 

these changes in climate. Thus, as climate change interacts with other stressors to alter 

ecosystems, it will be important to focus as much on maintaining and enhancing ecosystem 

processes as on achieving a particular composition (Joyce et al. 2008).

 8 Rare communities include fens, peatbeds, and springs.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

119

Plant species distributions have been changing for thousands of years and likely will continue to 

change in the future. The pollen record shows that the relative abundance and distribution of 

lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir at both the stand and landscape scales have 

shifted due to climate changes (Fall 1997, Whitlock 1993).

Carbon sequestration

Forests are an important part of the global carbon (C) cycle as they help slow the rising of 

atmospheric CO2 concentration by storing C in forest biomass and soils, as well as in some forest 

products. Carbon fluxes between the atmosphere and forests are complex and vary spatially and 

temporally. The Shoshone stores and sequesters about 9.5 percent of the total Rocky Mountain 

Region carbon and CO2. Some evidence suggests that climate, changing disturbance regimes, 

and land use may cause C stocks in the Shoshone area to shift from regional C sinks to C 

sources. Fire and bark beetle outbreaks disturbance plays a large role in regional C balances. 

Carbon storage potential may also be further reduced by more frequent fires, thereby influencing 

the fire regime, and by decreasing forested area with development. How the complex 

interactions between climate, fire, and insect outbreaks will affect the C cycle on the Shoshone is 

challenging to quantify with any certainty because the science is beginning to develop in this 

area).

Rangeland

Rangeland utilization, condition, and trend-monitoring data are collected by agency personnel, 

contractors, and permittees. The Cooperative Permittee Monitoring program was established in 

1998, with assistance from the University of Wyoming and the Wyoming Agricultural Extension 

Service. Currently, 28 permittees collect some level of monitoring data on 33 allotments. 

Vegetation utilization and resource impacts from both commercial and recreational livestock and 

wildlife are measured by various methods, including those in the Wyoming Rangeland 

Monitoring Guide (Wyoming Rangeland Service Team 2008), Rangeland Analysis Management 

Training Guide (USDA Forest Service 1996), and the Sampling Vegetation Attributes 

Interagency Technical Reference (Cooperative Extension Service et al. 1996). A combination of 

methods is used as appropriate to monitor resource condition and trend and annual use by 

commercial and recreational livestock and wildlife. The most common grazing management 

systems on the Shoshone are multiple pasture deferred rotation or rest rotation. Under this 

system, grazing is delayed, not used at all, or rested following grazing to allow plant 

development, reproduction, recovery, and establishment of new plants.

Analysis of the data, reports, and photographs indicates that the overwhelming majority of 

rangeland conditions are generally meeting condition objectives or improving (see figure 16). 

Where plant composition was determined, the data displayed a static or positive trend toward the 

desired condition (see figure 17). Rangeland that was currently in desired condition showed the 

least change and those changes were attributed to natural succession. Across the Shoshone, with 

a few exceptions, range vegetation conditions are either at or moving toward the desired 

conditions as outlined in the forest plan and/or the associated allotment management plan.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

120

Figure 16. Rangeland vegetation condition class on the Shoshone National Forest

Figure 17. Rangeland vegetation condition trend on the Shoshone National Forest

Cover types

Unless referenced otherwise, much of the overview on cover types is based upon information 

from Forest Habitat Types of Eastern Idaho-Western Wyoming (USDA Forest Service 1983a), 

Grassland and Shrubland Habitat Types of the Shoshone National Forest (USDA Forest Service 

1980), and Riparian and Wetland Plant Community Types of the Shoshone National Forest 

(USDA Forest Service 2001).

Forested vegetation varies widely across the Shoshone due to variations in elevation, aspect, 

climatic factors, and past disturbances (see table 30). The uppermost elevation zone is 

characterized by alpine tundra and the general absence of trees. The next lower elevation zone is 

the subalpine zone, dominated in most places by Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and whitebark 

pine. Below the subalpine zone lies the montane zone, characterized by Douglas-fir. Other 

species that occur in the subalpine and montane zones include lodgepole pine, limber pine, and 

aspen. Generally, the zones are at higher altitudes in the southern part of the Shoshone than in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

121

the northern, and they extend downward on east-facing and north-facing slopes in narrow ravines 

and valleys subject to cold air drainage. 

Grasslands, sometimes mixed with sagebrush, regularly occur in forest openings. In areas where 

environmental factors do not support tree reproduction, grasslands and shrublands persist. In the 

foothill zone below the montane zone, grass and shrubs dominate. In the montane and subalpine 

zones, grass and shrubs persist in areas where site conditions limit moisture, such as well-drained 

landforms, southern or western exposures, thin or poorly developed soils, and high windswept 

sites. In the severe environment of the alpine zone, grass and shrubs dominate. Grass and shrubs 

also dominate sites that are waterlogged throughout the growing season and are consequently 

poorly aerated for tree growth. Fires or landslides open up the forest in some areas, allowing 

early successional herbaceous and shrubby stages to flourish for a time. Sometimes grazing 

pressure on bunchgrasses allows shrubs to become more common (USDA Forest Service 1980).

In portions of the subalpine and montane zones, lodgepole pine and aspen are common early 

seral9 species following fire disturbance. Fire also affects the acres that are dominated by grasses 

and shrubs.

Table 30. Acres of cover types on the Shoshone National Forest

Cover type 2011 percentage* 2011 acreage

Alpine 12.2 297,700

Grasslands 18.8 459,000

Willow 0.6 14,000

Sagebrush 1.6 38,800

Aspen 1.0 23,300

Douglas-fir 14.2 345,300

Spruce/fir 12.7 309,400

Lodgepole pine 15.7 382,900

Whitebark pine 7.8 190,600

Limber pine 1.4 35,300

* Percentages do not add to 100 percent, because 13.9 percent of the Shoshone is non-vegetated, rock, and ice, and 

water are not included.

Alpine

High-elevation plateaus throughout the Shoshone support large areas of alpine vegetation, except 

in the Washakie Ranger District area, where minimal soil development occurs on the glacially 

scoured high-elevation areas. The largest contiguous alpine grassland on the Shoshone is on the 

Beartooth Plateau. Alpine areas are high biodiversity areas with short growing season and rugged 

or rocky topography that host shrubs, grass, and forb species. Over 400 of the worldwide 8,000 

to 10,000 species of alpine flora occur on the Beartooth Plateau that extends into the northern 

Shoshone (Rice et al. 2012). 

Under current climate change scenarios, alpine areas are expected to undergo the greatest 

amount of warming and are sensitive to climate change. Potential impacts are declining alpine 

habitat and in some cases their extirpation (Rice et al. 2012).

 9 Seral refers to the gradual supplanting of one community of plants by another, the sequence of 

communities being termed a sere and each stage seral (successional).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

122

Grasslands

Grasslands dominated by Idaho fescue occur throughout the Shoshone. In montane forest areas, 

grasslands are found on smaller, treeless areas on south- and west-facing slopes and ridgetops. 

Larger Idaho fescue grasslands occur, such as those on Bald Ridge and on Trout Peak and 

Monument Hill. On the Washakie Ranger District, Idaho fescue grassland types occur as patches 

on thin sandy soils in forested areas.

Bluebunch wheatgrass dominates the lowest elevations along the eastern margins of the 

Shoshone. In the South Fork of the Shoshone River drainage, bluebunch wheatgrass dominates 

arid bunchgrass rangelands found below treeline on soils developed mainly from slump-landslip 

landforms. This area is the largest arid low-elevation bunchgrass habitat on the Shoshone and is 

more typical of the Big Horn Basin than the montane vegetation found on the rest of the 

Shoshone. Another large, dry grassland dominated by wheatgrass is Riddle Flats in Sunlight 

Basin.

On the Wind River Ranger District, large expanses of nearly continuous grassland develop on the 

thin, well-drained soils on the limestone flanks of the Wind River Mountains. These grasslands 

extend from low elevations up to the alpine, interrupted by forests in narrow, discontinuous 

communities. Whiskey Mountain is an example of such an area. Idaho fescue/tufted hairgrass 

mix, another major grassland type, is found on the gently rolling glacial tills around the Union 

Pass summit. 

Climate change scenarios indicate that grassland cover type will be favored, resulting in 

increases in this cover type as it expands upward in elevation (Rice et al. 2012).

Sagebrush

Diverse soils, geology, and climatic conditions cause varying distributions of sagebrush habitat 

types across the Shoshone. 

Mountain big sagebrush dominates the montane shrublands throughout the Absaroka Mountains. 

These communities are scattered on alluvial deposits 10 or deeper soils on south- and west-facing 

slopes throughout the Absaroka Mountains. A high-elevation phase of this habitat type occurs on 

the south- and west-facing slopes just below the high plateau surfaces of Carter Mountain, 

Phelps Mountain, and the upper Greybull River. On the Clarks Fork Ranger District, mountain 

sagebrush forms part of an extensive forest/shrubland/grassland habitat type mosaic occurring on 

granite substrates on the lower portions of the Beartooth Plateau.

Arid low-elevation sagebrush occurs on the eastern margin of the north half of the Shoshone. 

The most extensive of these shrublands is found in the valleys of the North Fork and South Fork 

of the Shoshone River. Calcareous soils11 generally support dwarf sagebrush types dominated by

black sagebrush, while non-calcareous alluvial soils support big sagebrush.

On the Wind River Ranger District outside the Absaroka Mountains, younger sediments and nonvolcanic substrates support two shrublands with limited ranges. Shallow rocky soils on exposed 

sites in the East Fork – Button Draw areas support low sagebrush habitat types. These provide 

important big game winter range because they remain snow-free much of the winter. A 

contrasting set of conditions supports low sagebrush on shale substrates of the lower Horse 

Creek and Long Creek areas. Soils under these have a fine-textured layer that interrupts 

 10 Alluvial deposits are clay, silt, sand, and gravel left by flowing streams, typically producing fertile soil. 11 Calcareous soils contain calcium carbonate.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

123

drainage, causing saturation for part of the growing season. These soils are subject to 

degradation from trampling when they are wet. This habitat type occurs as small patches within a 

mosaic of shrubland and scattered forest habitat types.

Sagebrush and related types on the Washakie Ranger District are quite different from the 

remainder of the Shoshone because of the occurrence of shrub species more common to Utah 

and the Great Basin area. These species form mixed shrub communities occupying basins and 

lower slopes on sedimentary formations flanking the southern Wind River Mountains. These 

communities are dominated by mountain big sagebrush and one or more other shrubs including 

bitterbrush and mountain snowberry. Mid and upper slope portions, and steep south and west 

exposures, support dwarf sagebrush habitat dominated by threetip sagebrush. The southwestern 

corner of the Washakie Ranger District contains xeric12 shrublands dominated by big sagebrush 

subspecies, which are similar to the less productive shrublands of the Absaroka Mountains.

Climate change scenarios indicate the range for sagebrush may shift, with expansion upward in 

elevation and contraction at lower elevations (Rice et al. 2012).

Willow

The Shoshone has a great diversity of willow species and communities. Willow communities are 

associated with a number of wetland and riparian conditions including along stream channels, on 

floodplains, near seeps, and on lake and pond flats and other depressions with high water tables. 

Willows occur at elevations ranging from 5,900 to 10,680 feet. Willow communities can range 

from small isolated stands to large expanses on riparian valley bottoms that are hundreds of feet 

wide. 

Climate change scenarios indicate that the impacts to willows are related to the impacts on 

wetland communities. Increased potential for wetland desiccation resulting from increasing 

temperatures and changes in moisture regimes could result in a loss of willow habitat (Rice et al. 

2012).

Aspen

Aspen occurs on a variety of sites within the Shoshone, becoming increasingly prevalent on the 

south end. Aspen is most common on relatively moist sites characterized by fine-textured soils 

(Reed 1971). Its successional role varies from a purely seral species to persistently seral. These 

stands frequently occupy concave slopes of low hills and even occur in big sagebrush zones on 

volcanic talus and boulder fields. When growing within or adjacent to conifer, aspen stands tend 

to be seral. Here, aspen occupies sites where disturbances have removed the conifers. Conifers 

will commonly reclaim these sites over time. 

Aspen reproduction typically is asexual, with new shoots being produced from root sprouts 

(suckering) (Barnes 1966, USDA Forest Service 1991). This, combined with the persistence of 

aspen in the understory of some mature forests, explains why aspen tends to develop where it 

occurred previously. Sexual reproduction is quite rare, though seedlings do occur when severe 

disturbances such as fire are followed by extended moist conditions required for seedling 

establishment (USDA Forest Service 1985). For example, aspen seedlings were abundant in 

some areas after the 1988 fires in nearby Yellowstone National Park (Romme et al. 1995). 

Because of reproductive requirements, sexual reproduction of aspen is thought to be episodic 

(Romme et al. 1997). There is considerable genetic diversity between clones, with some clones 

 12 Xeric sites or habitats are characterized by dry conditions.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

124

better adapted for higher elevations and some responding differently to weather conditions than 

others (Meyer et al. 2006).

Climate change scenarios indicate the range for aspen may shift, with expansion upward in 

elevation and contraction at lower elevations (Rice et al. 2012).

Douglas-fir

Douglas-fir types are the major low-elevation forested type that occurs on the Shoshone, ranging 

from 6,500 to 9,500 feet in elevation. With the climate regimes found on the Shoshone, 

Douglas-fir thrives on soils derived from limestone or basic extrusive volcanics (andesites, 

basalt) and is less common on soils derived from granitic rocks (USDA Forest Service 1983a). 

Consequently, in the Wind River and Absaroka Mountains, Douglas-fir is absent in some areas 

where it might be expected based on climate alone. Since 2000, almost all the Douglas-fir cover 

type has been affected by Douglas-fir beetle to some degree.

Climate change scenarios indicate the range for Douglas-fir may shift, with expansion upward in 

elevation and contraction at lower elevations (Rice et al. 2012).

Spruce/fir

Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir habitat types on the Shoshone are complex with a large 

number of understory and substrate variations. Engelmann spruce occurs as a climax codominant 

or dominant on the wettest habitat types where it is more successful than subalpine fir. It is also 

more prevalent on the eastern flanks of the Shoshone’s mountain ranges than it is on the western 

flanks farther west in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Types reflect this where Engelmann 

spruce, rather than subalpine fir, is associated with whitebark pine at cold, dry, high-elevation 

sites. Engelmann spruce types have a slightly wider elevation range, from 6,200 to 10,300 feet, 

while subalpine fir types range from 6,500 to 9,800 feet. Soil substrates strongly influence the 

occurrence of Engelmann spruce and the seral species with which it is associated. Succession to 

Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir occurs on any soil type at higher elevations or on steep 

slopes. In some areas with more calcareous soils, the spruce is especially abundant. Spruce

beetle activity is widespread on the Shoshone. 

Under climate change scenarios, warming temperatures may result in a shift in spruce/fir cover 

type to higher elevations. This will result in an overall decrease in habitat as there is less acreage 

at higher elevations (Rice et al. 2012).

Lodgepole pine

Lodgepole pine occurs on a broad range of ecological conditions from the colder Douglas-fir 

sites to all but the wettest spruce/fir sites. Lodgepole pine is a major seral species that is often the 

first tree to reforest a severely disturbed site. In these situations, other conifers often replace 

lodgepole pine within one generation. Lodgepole pine is most persistent on gentle terrain. On 

lower slopes, benches, and broad valleys with large fluctuations in temperature, lodgepole pine 

can remain dominant. It can also remain dominant on gentle slopes and benches near treeline. In

these situations, the stand may contain small amounts of whitebark or limber pine. Lodgepole 

pine is more widespread and is common on the acidic, coarse soils derived from granitic rocks 

and some sandstones. 

Lodgepole pine is well adapted to disturbances because it often bears cones that remain closed 

for many years, thereby storing thousands of seeds. Known as serotinous cones, they open 

primarily when exposed to higher than normal temperatures, such as during fire or when the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

125

cones are near the soil surface. Notably, not all lodgepole pine produce serotinous cones and the 

proportion of closed and open cone trees is highly variable. Serotinous lodgepole pine are not 

common on the Shoshone, but observations suggest that serotinous cones are more common in 

the northern part of the Shoshone than in the southern (about 60 to 70 percent and 10 percent, 

respectively) (USDA Forest Service 1983a). Since 2000, there has been a continual upward trend 

in the number of acres affected by mountain pine beetle. 

Climate change scenarios indicate the range for lodgepole pine may shift, with expansion 

upward in elevation and contraction at lower elevations (Rice et al. 2012).

Whitebark pine

Whitebark pine habitat types occur at the upper treeline on exposed ridges—sites too severe for 

spruce or fir. Whitebark pine is deformed or stunted by wind, cold, and drought on the most 

exposed sites. Stands range from 7,600 and 10,500 feet in elevation. At lower elevations, it 

merges with habitat types for subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, or lodgepole pine. Whitebark 

pine is most competitive on acidic, igneous-derived soils near or at treeline. The distribution of 

whitebark pine is strongly affected by the Clark’s nutcracker, a bird that commonly distributes 

and caches the large seeds of this species into wind-swept openings where snow cover is 

relatively low. Since 2000, there has been a continual upward trend in the number of acres 

affected by mountain pine beetle and white pine blister rust. The combination of beetles, blister 

rust, and wildfire has resulted in an overall decline in this cover type.

Climate change scenarios indicate that the range for whitebark pine (a high-elevation species) 

will shift upward in elevation and, in some areas, may be extirpated (Rice et al. 2012).

Limber pine

Limber pine habitat types occur on some of the driest sites capable of supporting trees. They 

extend from lower to upper treeline on calcareous soils, most commonly ranging between 

7,000 and 9,200 feet in elevation. Limber pine occurs on all aspects, but is most extensive on 

southeastern and southwestern exposures. It is frequently found between drier non-forest types 

and more moist Douglas-fir, spruce, and fir sites. In contrast to whitebark pine, limber pine 

predominates on calcareous soils. The Clark’s nutcracker also distributes the seeds of limber 

pine. Since 2000, there has been a continual upward trend in the number of acres affected by 

mountain pine beetle.

With increases in temperatures and changes in moisture regimes associated with climate change 

scenarios, the range of limber pine is likely to change with the possibility of an overall expansion 

as the acres of driest sites expand.

Other hardwood types 

Various cottonwood tree species are associated with low-elevation riparian systems on the 

Shoshone. These habitat types occur on river floodplains, alluvial gravel bars, and stream 

terraces at elevations between 5,900 and 6,200 feet. Generally, the distribution of cottonwood 

species on the Shoshone is along the lower-elevation river systems (North Fork of the Shoshone 

River, South Fork of the Shoshone River, Greybull River, Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, 

Wind River, etc.). 

Mountain alder is also associated with riparian systems. Mountain alder occurs up to 6,600 feet 

in elevation (Fralish and Franklin 2002). Both cottonwood species and mountain alder types 

occur on stream terraces and gravel bars. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

126

These other cover types amount to only a few thousand acres on the Shoshone.

Climate change impacts to hardwood species will be similar to those for willows where hotter 

and drier conditions will result in the loss of some habitat.

Comparison of current cover type distribution to historic distribution

The proportion of different vegetation cover types can give additional insights into landscape 

changes through time. Just as Romme (1982) found for Yellowstone National Park, all major 

land cover types present in modern times on the Shoshone were also present during the historic 

range of variability period. 

Within the historic range of variability, some evidence suggests the lodgepole pine forest type on 

the Shoshone has become less abundant in the last century, while the spruce/fir types have 

increased because of the maturing of the forest after heavy forest fires produced abundant 

lodgepole pine in the late 1800s. Fire suppression reinforces this trend; increases in wildfire and 

insect epidemics have reversed this trend in the last 10 years. Overall, variability in cover types 

due to climatic change is probably greater than variability due to minor changes caused by 

management (Meyer et al. 2006).

During the historic range of variability period, the low-elevation lands of the Shoshone probably 

contained grasslands, shrublands, savannas, and relatively open forests as well as small tracts of 

more closed forest. When forested stands are averaged with the savanna or woodlands, and 

projected through time during the historic range of variability period, tree and sapling density on 

low-elevation lands probably ranged from moderately low to moderate. With the frequently open 

tree canopy, the density of grasses, forbs, and shrubs would have ranged from moderately high to 

high. 

Because of forest encroachment into meadows and shrublands, and natural reforestation 

following fire and timber harvest, the proportion of the Shoshone in forested vegetation may 

have been increasing since the late 1800s (Meyer et al. 2006). The percentage of the Shoshone 

that was forested in the early 1980s was reported to be only 40 percent (USDA Forest Service 

1983), and currently it is just above 50 percent. Much of this spatial variability is due to 

distribution patterns, including topography and geology, but fire suppression can narrow this 

range. Due to the variability of local climatic conditions over the past 500 years, the present ratio 

of forest to non-forest land is most likely still within the historic range on high-elevation lands. 

Spatial distribution may now be different from historic range at low elevations, where trees have 

invaded grasslands, or have become denser; the amount of land area in grasslands has probably 

been reduced. Hansen’s bioregional assessment (2006) reported similar conclusions, finding that 

increases in conifer cover were most rapid in lower-elevation Douglas-fir and limber pine zones. 

Meyer et al. (2006) noted this effect could be somewhat less than expected on low-elevation 

forests because tree distribution may be controlled more by soils and topography than the 

periodicity of fires.

Presently, there is no evidence that limber pine and whitebark pine distribution has changed from 

the historic range. Although the spreading of white pine blister rust in conjunction with insect 

impacts and wildfires may be reducing distribution.

It is difficult to say whether the proportion of the Shoshone in aspen has declined below the 

historic range, as aspen has declined on some national forests (USDA Forest Service 2001a). On 

the Bighorn National Forest, aspen was not extensive in the 1930s or in the 1990s. Yet on the 

Targhee National Forest in Idaho, where it is more abundant, aspen stand size and number have 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

127

declined substantially since 1920, apparently due to fire exclusion (Gallant et al. 2003, 

Parmenter et al. 2003). On the nearby Bridger-Teton National Forest, a photographic analysis of 

change between 1878−93 and 1968−72 also shows a decline in aspen (USDA Forest Service 

1980). It is possible that aspen has declined beyond the historic range on the Shoshone as well. 

On the other hand, aspen may not have been as extensive on the drier Shoshone as on the 

national forests to the west (Meyer et al. 2006). Shoshone personnel believe that based on 

geology, the Washakie Ranger District and southern Wind River Mountains may be more similar 

to the forests to the west, while the rest of the Shoshone may be more similar to the situation on 

the Bighorn National Forest. Though aspen has probably decreased throughout the Shoshone, the 

greatest potential decreases have been on the southern edge of the Shoshone. Comparison of 

aerial photos from different periods supports this conclusion. Shoshone personnel believe aspen 

distribution is either at the lower end or just below the historic range of variation. Meyer et al. 

(2006) reported the number of land cover types has probably not changed beyond the historic 

range. Additionally, the proportions of different cover types are naturally dynamic and are 

probably within the historic range.

The current condition of cottonwood varies by river flow regimes, especially spring or peak 

runoff across the Shoshone. Generally, these systems are in relatively good shape across the 

Shoshone, but there are localized areas of regeneration concerns. Domestic grazing and 

ungulates may impact some areas of cottonwood regeneration. 

The grassland cover type may also be declining relative to sagebrush on the Shoshone. On the 

Bighorn National Forest, grasslands declined by 15 percent and sagebrush increased by 4 percent 

between 1931 and 1996, which may have been due to fire suppression. However, given the 

variability in proportion of other cover types over time, sagebrush cover may not be above its 

historic range on either the Bighorn or Shoshone National Forests. Prescribed burning may be 

reducing the rate of sagebrush invasion into grassland. During the last 10 years, increasing 

numbers of wildfires have caused an increase in grassland acres.

Vegetation structure components

Age class distribution

Some species of wildlife have preferences for specific vegetation age classes. The two forested 

age classes that are most often identified with specific wildlife species are the oldest and 

youngest age classes. A range of age classes of shrub species such as sagebrush is also important 

for maintaining the habitats preferred by some wildlife. 

The vegetation mosaic of Rocky Mountain landscapes is known to vary greatly through time, 

primarily because of large-scale fires and other natural disturbances.

In Yellowstone National Park, Romme and Knight (1981) found the amount of land area in 

forests of early, middle, and late successional stages varied temporally and it was unlikely the 

subalpine forests of Yellowstone as a whole are in a shifting mosaic. In the mid to late 1700s, 

young forests dominated more land area; in the mid-1900s, older forests were more common in 

the same area (Romme and Knight 1981). Old-growth forests (greater than 200 to 300 years old) 

are important ecologically because they provide considerable large wood on the ground, a 

relatively large number of snags, and habitat that seems to be required for some species of plants 

and animals. Much of the diversity within old-growth forest is associated with detrital and 

heterotrophic food webs (e.g., metabolism based upon respiration rather than upon 

photosynthesis) (Kaufmann et al. 1992).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

128

A similar shifting mosaic must have occurred during the reference period at high elevations on 

the Shoshone. Meyer et al. (2006) quantitatively evaluated the proportion of the forested lands at 

high elevations in different age classes on the Shoshone and compared the age class distribution 

to Yellowstone. Using FIA data, most successional stages fell within or close to variables in 

Yellowstone. Overall, the Shoshone appears to have low numbers of stands with trees averaging 

more than 300 years old. Given the low levels of timber harvest, this cannot be attributed to 

timber harvesting. When the oldest stage (age class) was defined as greater than 200 years old, 

all stages were within the historic ranges of variability at the scale of the entire Shoshone. 

In low-elevation forests, historic photo documentation indicates many stands of Douglas-fir were 

very open (Houston 1973). Overall, low-elevation tree density in many Rocky Mountain areas 

has increased greatly since the beginning of successful fire suppression. A comparison of historic 

and modern photographs of a pine savanna in north central Wyoming that was grazed in the past 

(but not currently) shows an increase in tree density (Meyer et al. 2006). 

No specific information for age class distribution exists for aspen on the Shoshone. Information 

from Colorado and southern Wyoming suggests most aspen is even-aged. Some areas in 

Colorado exhibit two age classes and several age class stands are very rare (less than 4 percent) 

(Shepperd 2001). Shoshone personnel do not believe the current inventory accurately portrays 

the age class distribution for aspen. Given the small number of acres on the Shoshone, we do not 

think the inventory has provided an adequate sample. The inventory indicates that stands are 

young with few stands over 80 years of age. Field observations and photo typing indicate the 

opposite condition is the norm, with more stands in older age classes and fewer in the youngest 

age classes.

The vegetation mosaic of Rocky Mountain landscapes is known to vary greatly through time, 

primarily because of large-scale fires and other natural disturbances. It is believed the highelevation forest has increased in age since the early to mid-1700s. The Shoshone appears to have 

had low numbers of stands with trees averaging more than 300 years old. Overall, for the 

Shoshone, Meyer et al. (2006) concluded the proportions in different successional stages in highelevation environments of the Shoshone are within the historic range of variability.

On low-elevation forests, an effect of timber harvesting and fire suppression has been to reduce 

the natural variability in stand structure and age distribution caused by historic disturbances. The 

increased tree and sapling density resulting from fire suppression prevents most trees from 

reaching large sizes and reduces the stand average. The average age structure of unharvested 

low-elevation stands is probably outside the historic range of variability due to fire suppression. 

The result is an older age class distribution. 

A very small percentage (1 percent) of Douglas-fir has been harvested; timber harvest has 

probably not yet reduced the percentage of the low-elevation lands in older age class outside the 

historic range of variability. Old-growth forests certainly could be lost in the future if suitable 

lands are harvested.

Most of these differences are minor compared to the large shift in age class distribution that is 

occurring because of the widespread insect epidemics affecting all conifer species on the 

Shoshone. Over 70 percent of the conifer stands on the Shoshone have been impacted to date. 

Though impacts are variable, the overall trend is a shift from older forests to younger forests.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

129

Table 31. Current Forest-wide age class diversity by cover type for the Shoshone (Menlove 2008) 

(percentage of cover type acres*)

Age class distribution 

(percentage of age class)

Forest cover type Younger Middle Older

Aspen -** - -

Douglas-fir 6 78 16

Spruce/fir 6 64 30

Lodgepole pine 15 63 22

Whitebark pine 3 74 23

Limber pine 3 69 28

* Percentages reflect Forest-wide numbers and may vary across the Forest.

** Data on current aspen age classes are inconclusive.

Patch size and edge

Edges are created by different events. For example, edges occur between areas of different burn 

intensities; human-created edges, such as around clearcuts and roads, are usually more abrupt. 

The effects of such edges on plants and animals that require interior forest conditions or security 

cover can be detrimental. Roads and clearcuts can reduce the core area of patches (interior area 

of patch with edge depth of 50 meters, or 164 feet), increase edge and edge convolution, reduce 

patch size, and increase patch diversity (Tinker et al. 1998). 

Patch size is defined as the amount of continuous forest, uninterrupted by streams, lakes, or other 

openings. Historically, these forests existed as contiguous tracts of forests in a variety of seral 

stages broken by differing landscape patterns (rivers, exposed rock, etc.). 

There is no standard patch size for whitebark pine due to its pioneering nature from Clark’s 

nutcracker and species establishment in high elevations and harsh elements. Genetic diversity 

varies in some stands. Some stands consist of all genetic cohorts13 or siblings and some stands 

were not genetically related (Tomback et al. 2001).

Fires generally produce many small patches and a few large patches within the high-elevation 

forest structure. Forests within the historic range of variability would exhibit contiguous, evenaged cohorts that would have developed after fires. Edges are created between areas of different 

burn intensities. In Yellowstone National Park, Tinker et al. (2003) found the average forested 

patch size was 320 to 380 hectares (790 to 940 acres).

Low-elevation lands during the reference period probably were composed of distinct and 

separate clumps of relatively even-aged stands of Douglas-fir (but with some variation in ages 

within the clumps), in which new cohorts of tree establishment were linked to climatic 

oscillations (Kerr 1988, Savage 1991). Most Douglas-fir stands in dry soil regimes were open 

and park-like due to frequent fires. Moist soil regimes produced more contiguous stands of 

Douglas-fir with a greater variety of age classes.

The patch size of aspen stands on the Shoshone has probably declined due to fire suppression 

and commercial livestock and wild ungulate grazing. Overall, patch size on the Shoshone is 

probably smaller than on the adjacent Bridger-Teton National Forest because of differences in 

 13 A cohort is a group of individuals having something in common.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

130

soil, topography, and climate. The Bridger-Teton National Forest, situated on the west side of the 

Rocky Mountains, receives more precipitation and has deeper soils. 

Patch and edge variables are outside their respective historic ranges of variability in areas where 

clearcuts and roads are common, though such areas comprise a small portion of the Shoshone. 

Generally, edge and patch variables are within the historic ranges of variability at a broad scale. 

The few watersheds with heavy cutting, mostly on the Wind River Ranger District, have more 

homogeneous patch sizes than during the reference period. 

Generally, aspen has not been harvested on the Shoshone, so most characteristics of edge and 

patch size alterations are not affected by timber management. Fire suppression has probably 

aided in succession of conifers into aspen stands, decreasing aspen patch size. Some roads have 

bisected aspen stands and impacted their edge characteristics. Overall, the effects of fire 

suppression and roads have probably not altered patch size or edge characteristics outside the 

historic range of variability at a broad scale.

Snag size and density

The importance of dead trees as a component of wildlife habitat is widely accepted. Dead trees 

provide key nesting and foraging habitat for cavity nesters and are the primary source of 

recruitment of down large woody debris.

Snags are created through insect and disease outbreaks, fire, wind events, and natural mortality. 

Aspen has a natural propensity for insect and disease infestations, leading to natural snag 

retention in most aspen stands. Snag density in aspen stands is very important to many cavitynesting birds. In Colorado, nearly 38 percent of all cavity-nesting birds use aspen stands. Early 

photographs of unburned or untreated areas typically show an abundance of snags. 

Data for snag size and density on unharvested stands were gathered by Harris (1999) in southern 

Montana. Harris’s work includes most of the cover types on the Shoshone. Table 32 shows these 

numbers for cover types that occur on the Shoshone. In the absence of other data, these data for 

unharvested stands provide a baseline for natural snag levels.

Table 32. Diameter of snags per acre in untreated stands (Harris 1999)

Cover type Number of 

sample sites

9 to 14.9 

inches

15 to 20.9 

inches

21 to 26.9 

inches

Greater than 

27 inches

Total snags 

per acre

Spruce/fir 280 16.06 3.79 0.92 0.32 21.09

Douglas-fir 420 6.78 1.62 0.46 0.10 8.96

Lodgepole pine 230 11.13 0.85 0.17 0.03 12.18

Dry subalpine* 30 27.62 2.78 0.98 0.06 31.44

Hardwood** 16 5.33 0.00 0.00 0.05 5.38

* Dry subalpine consists of whitebark pine and limber pine types.

**Hardwood types consist of aspen, cottonwood, and birch.

Table 33 displays snag densities for the Shoshone in 1998. For all species except whitebark and 

limber pine, total snag numbers on the Shoshone are comparable to those found by Harris. Given 

the small percentage of the Shoshone impacted by timber harvesting, it is reasonable to assume 

these snag levels are comparable to natural levels. The densities for whitebark pine and limber 

pine are lower than those found by Harris. Given the similarity for all other cover types to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

131

Harris’s findings and the lack of any activities that would reduce snag levels only for whitebark 

pine and limber pine, we assume the data represent comparably natural snag numbers for these 

species on the Shoshone that are lower than those found by Harris in southern Montana. Another 

difference between the Harris numbers and the Shoshone data is that there are generally fewer

snags over 15 inches. Again, given the general lack of activities on the Shoshone that could 

cause the loss of larger snags only, it is reasonable to assume that, given climate and moisture 

regimes, tree sizes are generally smaller on the Shoshone than in the Harris study. 

Table 33. Diameter of snags per acre on the Shoshone (USDA Forest Service 1998 (FIA data))

Cover type 9 to 14.9 inches 15 to 20.9 inches Greater than 21 

inches

Total snags per 

acre

Spruce/fir 24.43 4.21 0.43 29.07

Douglas-fir 8.07 1.08 0.23 9.38

Lodgepole pine 15.02 0.50 0.27 15.79

Whitebark pine 9.77 0.68 0.83 11.28

Limber pine 6.83 2.27 0 9.10

Aspen 5.70 1.96 0 7.66

As discussed in Meyer et al. (2006), snag density is often highest in recently burned forests and 

in old-growth forests (Tinker 1999, Mehl 1992). Fire suppression and timber harvest are the two 

activities most likely to affect these conditions. Given the general inaccessibility of the 

Shoshone, fire suppression has had less of an effect than in other areas in the West. In the higherelevation forests, only 5 to 10 percent has been impacted by fire suppression (Meyer et al. 2006). 

At lower elevations, most of the Shoshone has been impacted, given the easier accessibility. Fire 

regime condition class assessments indicate that 24 percent of the Forest has missed at least one 

fire event. 

Studies show that areas subjected to timber harvest (less than 4 percent of the forested land on 

the Shoshone) have fewer snags than unharvested areas (Harris 1999, Meyer et al. 2006). 

In the high-elevation forest, limited harvesting and fire suppression have not shifted snag 

densities outside the historic range of variability at the broad scale (Meyer et al. 2006). 

Considering that most low-elevation forests on the Shoshone have not been harvested, but have 

been influenced by fire suppression, the larger effect of management on snags and coarse woody 

debris at lower elevations may be less frequent fire occurrence. Fire tends to create snags, but 

insect and disease epidemics can do the same. In the absence of fire (or harvesting), pathogens 

may become more abundant. Meyer et al. (2006) determined that the number of dead trees 

(snags) due to fire suppression is not yet unusually high or low, so low-elevation snag size and 

density is within the historic range of variability. At a smaller scale, the effects of timber harvest 

(including firewood gathering) may have reduced snag densities outside the range of historic 

variability in the portion of some watersheds. Very little aspen has been harvested—less than 

1 percent—on the Shoshone. Snag density and size are thought to be within the historic ranges of 

variability for aspen forests. 

The current insect outbreak has greatly increased snag density across the Shoshone. This 

increase is not reflected in the FIA data gathered in 1998. Recent reports confirm the level of 

bark beetle-caused mortality is increasing across the Rocky Mountains, including the Shoshone. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

132

Over the past 10 years, widespread bark beetle epidemics have occurred on the Shoshone. All 

major bark beetles have been in epidemic status on at least parts of the Shoshone during this 

time. Under current conditions, snag levels at the broad scale are within or above the range of 

historic variability. 

Coarse woody debris

Adequate snag densities maintained at the broad scale will maintain adequate coarse woody 

debris. We use snag density as a surrogate for coarse woody debris, i.e., snag densities within the 

historic range of variability will eventually become coarse woody debris within the historic 

range of variability. 

Coarse woody debris (or logs) plays a key role in soil stability, nutrient cycling, moisture 

retention, and fish and wildlife habitat. Coarse woody debris that falls across hill slopes acts as a 

barrier and traps soil to prevent sedimentation from reaching streams and rivers. In turn, plants 

take root and act to further stabilize this new soil.

The consequences of deviations from the historic range of variability for coarse woody debris are 

still poorly understood, but both standing and downed tree boles14 provide important habitat for 

some species of fungi and a variety of insects, all of which can be important sources of food for 

vertebrates. Coarse woody debris is also known to be important for diversifying stream channels 

and structures, and the organic compounds derived from decomposing wood undoubtedly 

influence the underlying soils. 

Natural disturbances do not remove bolewood from the forest floor. Even an intensive fire leaves 

most of the wood in the form of snags, and most of that becomes coarse woody debris within 

two decades (Lotan et al. 1985). A reburn can occur, but still considerable coarse woody debris 

remains on the forest floor (Tinker and Knight 2000). After a century or more, the downed wood 

becomes incorporated into the surface soils. Some studies of the diversity of snags and coarse 

woody debris in low-elevation forests of the Black Hills indicate that different disturbances 

create different sizes of snags and coarse woody debris. For example, the stems of beetle-killed 

trees tend to break, leaving a relatively short snag, while trees killed by root rot are commonly 

uprooted. 

Harvesting at the stand level is fundamentally different from any kind of natural disturbance and 

produces a forest that is outside the historic range of variability for coarse woody debris and 

probably the ecosystem processes associated with structural features dependent on big pieces of 

wood. Periodic surface fires could consume downed and decaying wood on the forest floor. With 

less frequent fires, this wood could persist for a longer time, and if coarse woody debris inputs 

remain constant, then coarse woody debris may increase. 

Such changes are probably not large enough to shift coarse woody debris densities outside the 

historic range of variability for the Shoshone. This conclusion is further supported by the 

information on snags that indicates they are within the historic range of variability. At smaller 

scales, there is a possibility that harvesting could reduce coarse woody debris below the historic 

range of variability in some watersheds.

The current insect outbreak, which has greatly increased the density of standing snags, will also 

result in an increase of coarse woody debris as those snags fall.

 14 A bole is the main trunk or stem of a tree.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

133

Unique and limited habitats

Fens

Although fens occupy only a minor portion of the Shoshone, they perform important 

hydrological and water quality functions. Many aquatic biota benefit from the water cleansing 

action of fens in headwaters of streams. Fens also often possess unique biotic assemblages of 

plants and animals. 

Fens occur frequently throughout the Rocky Mountains from Colorado north into Canada. Fens 

are confined to specific environments defined by groundwater discharge, soil chemistry, and peat 

accumulation of at least 40 centimeters (16 inches) (Soil Survey Staff 1999). This system 

includes extreme rich fens and iron fens, both being quite rare. Fens form at low points or near 

slopes where groundwater intercepts the soil surface. Groundwater inflows maintain a fairly 

constant water level year-round, with water at or near the surface most of the time. Constant high 

water levels lead to accumulations of organic material. In addition to peat accumulation and 

perennially saturated soils, the extreme rich and iron fens have distinct soil and water chemistry 

with high levels of one or more minerals such as calcium, magnesium, or iron. These fens 

usually occur as a mosaic of several plant associations dominated by sedge, bulrush, and a 

variety of mosses. The surrounding landscape may be ringed with other wetland systems, e.g., 

riparian shrublands, or a variety of upland systems from grasslands to forests (Heidel 2003, 

2008).

No detailed information is available on the historic range of variability of fens sites on the 

Shoshone. 

One of the large complexes of fens is the Swamp Lake Botanical Area, a special interest area that 

is afforded special protection. Several other fen complexes on the Shoshone are within potential 

research natural areas or special interest areas. Most fens are not heavily grazed and timber 

harvesting does not occur on these sites due to following Forest Service Regional and National 

BMP Directives. There has been encroachment by conifers in some of these areas, but this is 

probably not outside the historic range of variability.

Although there is no definitive scientific information on the status of fens, we believe the fens 

are generally within their historic ranges of variability. 

Increased potential for wetland desiccation resulting from increasing temperatures and changes 

in moisture regimes resulting from climate change could result in a loss of fen habitat over the 

long term.

Riparian communities

Diverse riparian communities occur on the Shoshone from alpine areas to lower montane areas 

(Walford 2001). Some are dominated by trees and shrubs, while others are dominated by 

grass/forb communities. All are influenced by natural hydrologic regimes, including flooding 

and changes in water tables. 

The historic range of variability for high-elevation shrubland riparian communities would 

include a mosaic of multiple communities that are shrub- and herb-dominated and include 

above-treeline, willow-dominated, snowmelt-fed basins that feed into streams. The historic range 

of variability for high-elevation forested riparian communities contains the conifer and aspen 

woodlands that line montane streams. These communities are tolerant of periodic flooding and 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

134

high water tables. Snowmelt moisture in this system may create shallow water tables or seeps for 

a portion of the growing season. Generally, these systems would fluctuate periodically with large 

events such as fire and flooding. Fire return events would occur depending on the adjacent forest 

types. If we extrapolate some of the information from spruce/fir fire return intervals, the return 

interval would be approximately 170 to 300 years. Meyer et al. (2006) suggest fire intervals 

adjacent to riparian, lowland, and wetland areas would be as high as 700 years or more.

At the turn of the 20th century, in some watersheds of the Shoshone, tie hacking probably altered 

some watershed conditions at higher elevations. Overgrazing during the same period likely 

decreased the abundance of some willow and aspen communities and favored succession to 

conifers within riparian areas. This was probably more of an issue at lower elevations where 

there is greater access by livestock. Interdisciplinary team review of aerial photos (1937 to 1997) 

indicated current impacts to some riparian areas from livestock grazing. 

Fire return intervals are generally within the historic range at high elevations, so we assume fire 

return intervals associated with riparian corridors at high elevations would also be within historic 

fire return intervals. Water is diverted in some areas of the Shoshone, which may change the 

distribution of water downstream, although this is very limited. 

In conclusion, some riparian communities within the Shoshone are outside their historic ranges 

of variability due to tie hacking, grazing, and water diversions. The area affected by these past 

practices is variable across the Shoshone. 

Climate change scenarios indicate that wetland and riparian areas will have increased potential 

for wetland desiccation resulting from increasing temperatures and changes in moisture regimes 

(Rice et al. 2012). These changes could result in an overall loss of habitat.

Desired Condition

The desired condition for vegetation is presented in the revised Forest Plan. Tables 1 and 3 from 

the revised Forest Plan are reproduced here (table 34 and table 35) and display the desired cover 

type distribution and age class diversity for all alternatives.

Table 34. Desired cover types on the Shoshone

Cover type Desired percentage Desired acreage

Alpine 12 297,300

Grasslands 14 to 19 341,300 to 463,200

Willow 0.6 to 0.75 14,600 to 18,300

Sagebrush 1.5 to 3 36,500 to 73,100

Aspen 2 to 3 48,700 to 73,100

Douglas-fir 13 to 16 317,000 to 390,100

Spruce/fir 12 to 17 292,600 to 414,500

Lodgepole pine 11 to 16 268,200 to 390,100

Whitebark pine 9 to 11 219,400 to 268,200

Limber pine 1.5 to 3 36,600 to 73,100
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

135

Table 35. Desired age class diversity by cover type for the Shoshone (percentage of cover type 

acres*

Desired age class distribution

Management area categories 1, 2, 3

(percentage of age class)

Desired age class distribution

Management area categories 4, 5, 8

(percentage of age class)

Forest cover type Younger** Middle Older*** Younger Middle Older

Aspen 5 to 20 50 to 75 20 to 30 15 to 20 65 to 80 5 to 15

Douglas-fir 5 to 10 65 to 80 15 to 25 10 to 15 70 to 85 5 to 15

Spruce/fir 5 to 10 60 to 75 20 to 30 10 to 15 70 to 85 5 to 15

Lodgepole pine 5 to 15 60 to 80 15 to 25 10 to 20 65 to 85 5 to 15

Whitebark pine 5 to 15 60 to 80 15 to 25 10 to 15 70 to 85 5 to 15

Limber pine 5 to 15 60 to 80 15 to 25 10 to 15 70 to 85 5 to 15

* Percentages reflect Forest-wide numbers and may vary across the Shoshone.

** Less than 20 years old for all forest cover types.

***More than 80 years old for aspen cover type, more than150 years old for lodgepole pine cover type, and more than 

200 years old for all other forest cover types.

Environmental Consequences 

Climatic and biological processes will continue to be the dominant influence on the composition 

of the Shoshone. Occurrences of the major cover types are relatively constant over historic 

timeframes. Current abundance and distribution of major cover types and vegetation composition 

are generally similar to the common patterns over historic periods (Meyer et al. 2006). 

Composition changes following disturbances can last for varying amounts of time depending 

upon the severity of the disturbance. For example, severe wildfire disturbances, insects and 

disease, or blowdown in spruce/fir ecosystems can change composition for hundreds of years 

following the disturbance, though eventually a spruce/fir stand will be reestablished. Other types 

of disturbances create composition changes that last only for a few years. 

Timber harvesting and/or prescribed fire can emulate natural disturbances in that they change or 

remove the dominant vegetation and provide for the growth or establishment of other vegetation. 

Overall, there are few long-term changes to composition as regeneration occurs and matches preexisting composition. Timber harvest can directly alter the structure of forested overtypes, either 

in density, size class, or canopy cover. Several harvest methods are available to achieve 

silvicultural objectives, producing different effects. Uneven-aged systems maintain a forested 

canopy. Even-aged systems such as shelterwood retain some of the canopy longer. Clearcut 

harvests create an immediate change to a seedling age class. Final harvests conducted for timber 

production objectives on suited timber lands are designed with an assurance of regeneration 

within 5 years. This successful regeneration maintains cover types and initiates the flow of 

successional stages over time. 

Different management scenarios emphasize or allow retaining forest structural elements within 

regenerated stands. Timber harvest type affects patch size differently; clearcutting has the most 

dramatic effect on patch size. Forest direction limits the size of clearcut units to 40 acres or less 

without regional forester approval, which can perpetuate the trend toward smaller patch sizes. 

For some cover types (e.g., lodgepole pine), this creates a pattern which is likely different from 

the patterns associated with natural disturbance events. All conditions are still present, but on the 

average in comparison to other areas, stands are younger, patch size is less variable with more 

mid-size patches (10 to 100 acres), and the amount of dead and down material is lower. Areas 

where vegetation management activities are more frequent have the lowest snag densities, with 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

136

minimum densities of two to three snags per acre greater than 9 inches in diameter. Occurrence 

of large woody debris generally mirrors the occurrence of snags, with the greatest densities in 

those areas where natural processes dominate.

The largest effect to composition would be from natural disturbances including fire, insects, 

disease, and blowdown. These disturbances would affect all vegetation types by restarting seral 

progression. In non-forested vegetation types, many plant species are adapted to fire occurrence 

and would thrive from the effects of fire. Other species would need time to reestablish. There are 

minor amounts of tree injury due to harvesting practices that allow the spread of some diseases 

among trees; however, this amount is negligible at the Forest-wide scale due to the few acres 

harvested each year. Wildfires and insects are both influenced by stand structure and drought. 

Since many of the existing forest stands are mature, there is potential for large-scale events over 

large areas of the forest during extreme climatic conditions. Because of subalpine forest’s 

wildfire character (generally wind-driven during dry periods which results in distant spotting), it 

is projected that large wildfires will continue to occur under all alternatives in this cover type. 

Patch sizes created with prescribed fire are likely smaller than those created by natural processes. 

Patches created by prescribed fire would often be designed to emulate natural patch size shape 

and connectivity; however, patch size would still be constrained by standards and guidelines for 

other resources such as riparian areas, recreation, and scenic resources. Blowdown is a random 

event, though typically mature stands are more affected than young stands of trees. Blowdown 

has the potential to occur within the next several decades, though would likely be at a scale of 

hundreds to a few thousand acres. The effects of wind can be greater where trees are already 

affected by root diseases. After wind events, spruce beetle epidemics can spread out from the 

blowdown. Wind events can also be followed by large-scale fire events that can create extensive 

areas of severely burned soil and vegetation from the loading of large fuels. On the average, in 

unmanaged areas as compared to managed areas, stands are older, patch size is variable with 

many small patches (less than 10 acres) interspersed among large patches (greater than100 acres) 

that dominate the area, and the amount of dead and down material is greater. Snags occur within 

all tree cover types and commonly occur in patches. Densities are highest in areas where natural 

disturbance processes dominate. In these areas, snag densities range from five snags per acre 

greater than 9 inches in diameter for aspen cover type to 21 snags per acre greater than 9 inches 

for spruce/fir cover type. 

Grazing effects on composition depend on a number of factors, including the amount of grazing, 

timing, seral stage of the area, and other environmental parameters. Most changes to composition 

on the Shoshone, including the expansion of Kentucky bluegrass in riparian areas, noxious 

weeds, and other effects associated with livestock grazing have occurred from higher stocking 

rates of livestock in the past. Grazing retards the growth of herbaceous and woody cover if done 

in excess, and thereby slows progression of seral stages following disturbances. If there are 

impacts from livestock grazing, they generally are most evident in wetland and riparian areas 

and, to a lesser extent, in meadows and aspen sites.

Rangelands

Direct and Indirect Effects

For each of the resource areas described below, the environmental consequences for vegetation 

resources are compared by alternative, based on key indicators of disturbance for each type of 

activity. In general, alternatives that propose greater levels of disturbance activities for various 

resource uses increase the potential for impacts to the vegetation resource.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

137

Effects from Timber Harvesting: There is little to no effect to existing rangeland vegetation 

from timber harvest. However, as timber is harvested, it may open areas in the canopy so that an 

increase in forage occurs in the understory, or it may create new acreages of transitory (e.g., 

short-term) rangeland vegetation in small harvest units. This transitory rangeland remains in this 

state until the forested stands once again close in or the young trees become dense enough that 

rangeland vegetation no longer occupies the site. In a dynamic forest, with some tree stands 

closing in while others are opening up, there is no net change in rangeland vegetation acres, 

except through large-scale natural disturbance events. Alternatives E and F would have the 

greatest potential for effects due to timber harvesting activities, while alternatives A through D 

and G are nearly equal in disturbance potential. 

Effects from Roads and Trails Management: Effects are similar to those for recreation 

(described below) except they occur on a greater number of acres (roads versus trails). Past road 

construction has contributed to a reduction of acres of native meadows and shrublands; roads 

constructed in and along valley bottoms have reduced and/or altered riparian vegetation and 

sometimes changed stream channel location and function. Roads have the potential to create a 

large impact on the health and sustainability of stream/riparian/wetland systems. Effects can 

include lowered water tables, altered morphology, changed sediment regimes, and removal of 

canopy cover and other vegetation. Other uses may subsequently contribute to these effects. 

Currently, unauthorized off-road vehicle travel has had a great effect in moving rangeland 

vegetation to an earlier seral condition; this use is unplanned and can be widespread, with 

erosion and riparian degradation resulting. Roads in the uplands tend to fragment rangeland 

vegetative stands, to alter hydrologic relationships by intercepting overland and sub-surface 

flow, and are potentially a significant contributor of seed and seed bed for invasion of noxious 

weeds and other non-native vegetative species. Alternatives E and F present the largest potential 

area available to summer-motorized travel impacts. Alternatives C and D have the smallest 

potential area. Alternatives A, B, and G have potential areas between the other alternatives.

Effects from Disturbance Processes (fires/fuels management and insect/disease mortality): 

On rangelands, fire tends to alter the successional pathway, at least temporarily, and generally 

sets back succession to an earlier seral stage. It also tends to alter the structure of the vegetative 

communities. Wildfire, and more specifically, high-intensity wildfire, will often be a greater 

disturbance (more often moves succession to an early seral stage and reduces or eliminates taller 

structure in sagebrush or other shrub communities) than will prescribed fire because 

planned/managed fires are often designed specifically to avoid drastic alterations on the 

landscape. Fire is a natural factor in maintaining the natural diversity of vegetation across 

rangelands. It retards or prevents conifer or shrub encroachment in meadows and parks, 

regenerates aspen stands, and is responsible for maintaining a mosaic of vegetation necessary for 

wildlife habitat diversity. In general, the greater the use of prescribed fire, the greater the number 

of acres on which vegetative succession will be moved to an earlier seral stage and on which tall 

structure will be reduced. 

The use of prescribed fire for fuels treatment and vegetative management is greatest in 

alternative F and the least in alternative C; however, differences among alternatives are not great.

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game: Livestock, big game animals, and other 

wildlife that graze and browse the herbaceous and shrub cover on rangelands can be considered 

disturbance agents. These animals also create a disturbance through hoof action, which affects 

vegetation and soils in riparian and upland sites. Their effect depends on a number of factors 

including intensity, timing, and frequency of grazing; kind of herbivore; soil moisture and 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

138

condition; and existing seral condition of the vegetation. Use by ungulates, when properly 

managed by vegetative type and within habitat capacities, tends to provide for a mix of seral 

stages across broad landscapes. High intensity of use, repeated use during times of rapid plant 

growth, frequent use of individual plants or plant communities, or longer periods of use tend to 

result in more vegetation developing into early to mid-plant succession, while lighter, shorter, or 

less frequent use tends to result in a higher percentage of mid and late seral vegetation. The 

analysis of acres suitable for livestock grazing indicates that the average stocking level is 

moderate as compared to other forests in the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region (see 

appendix B for details regarding modeling). Reductions of grazing use over the last several 

decades coupled with increases in management intensity and improved knowledge regarding 

habitat requirements and plant ecology have likely resulted in increases in herbaceous production 

and trends toward desired conditions. 

Big game populations are less manageable or predictable than domestic livestock, but their 

effects on managing for desired conditions are similar to those of domestic livestock. Elk tend to 

impact meadows and more open grassland types, while deer impact shrublands, grasslands, and 

riparian areas, and moose impact riparian/wetland habitats. High numbers of big game species 

will result in maintenance of rangeland vegetation in an early or mid seral condition. Lower 

numbers allow more acres to move toward a later successional stage. In addition, seasonal use 

(such as big game moving up the mountain very early following green-up each year) impacts 

plants when they are most vulnerable, sets back succession, and can damage wet soils. Grazing

impacts by permitted livestock and wild ungulates is not expected to differ significantly among 

alternatives.

Alternatives E and F, which maximize commercial livestock grazing opportunities, have the 

highest potential to impact rangelands. Alternatives A through D and G have similar and 

somewhat lower levels of disturbance. 

Effects from Recreation: Recreational use generally has little effect upon rangeland vegetation 

except in the case of repeated or continual uses such as grazing of pack and saddle livestock, 

camping, fishing, and hiking, or illegal off-road vehicle use. Repeated use by recreational horse 

or off-road vehicle use in popular areas can alter plant and soil characteristics over time. Such 

uses tend to return succession to an early seral stage, even to bare soil on trail systems and in 

very popular dispersed camping sites and along popular fishing areas, generally the number of 

acres impacted is a very small percentage of the total rangeland acres across the Forest. Off-road 

vehicle activities that create bare or disturbed soil provide conditions for invasive species 

establishment and spread, including on roads and roadsides, trails, and trailheads, parking lots, 

developed and dispersed camping sites, popular fishing locations, and heavy-use areas around 

summer homes and lodges. Off-road vehicle travel has high potential to introduce and spread 

noxious weeds, and in turn move rangeland vegetation away from desired conditions. 

Alternatives that emphasize summer recreational opportunities, especially motorized recreation 

may have a slightly greater effect on rangeland vegetation. 

Effects from Noxious and Invasive Species: Infestations can become established when any 

type of ground-disturbing activity results in exposure of the soil to a seed source. These 

infestations result in the degradation of the rangeland plant community with a resulting decrease 

in native plant composition and productivity. An increase in bare ground, less effective use of 

precipitation, and increased erosion often occur. Any activity, natural or man-made (i.e., flood, 

fire, vehicle traffic, livestock or wildlife use, timber activities, etc.) may result in an increased 

potential for occurrences of invasive species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

139

Effects from Mineral and Energy Development: Effects are similar to those for roads (see 

above). The amount of rangeland vegetation that could move to an earlier seral stage is 

dependent upon the amount of exploration and resultant production. Production sites often create 

areas of disturbed soil, providing areas for noxious weed infestations. Restoration of these areas 

following production will involve monitoring and treatment of noxious weeds, along with reestablishment of native species.

Effects from Oil and Gas Development: Same as mineral and energy development.

Effects from Wildlife Habitat Management: Effects are similar to those for prescribed fire (see 

above).

Effects from Land Use Authorizations: Effects are similar to those for mineral and energy 

development (see above).

Wilderness and RNA Allocation: There would be no direct impacts from wilderness or research 

natural area allocation; however, the activities these designations restrict or exclude (i.e., timber 

harvest, prescribed fire, motorized vehicle use) would no longer have the potential to impact 

rangelands.

Cover types

Direct and indirect effects

Most cover types are minimally affected by the alternatives. Alpine, grasslands, Douglas-fir, 

spruce/fir, and lodgepole pine will continue to fluctuate within the desired condition ranges 

presented in table 34. The acreage directly impacted by the alternatives is such a small 

percentage of these cover types that any changes resulting from activities will not noticeably 

impact cover type acreage in comparison to changes resulting from disturbance processes. 

For sagebrush, willow, aspen, whitebark pine, and limber pine cover types, the alternatives have 

some impact on the extent of the cover types. All alternatives have some level of restoration 

and/or protection objectives for these cover types that will result in changes in cover type 

acreages. 

Sagebrush is protected in all alternatives to maintain habitat conditions for sage grouse. Both 

prescribed fire and wildfire would be managed to limit the impacts to sagebrush. This protection 

is more effective in alternatives where greater access provides the opportunity for quicker and 

more effective fire suppression activities. The action alternatives also provide more direction on 

protecting sagebrush, though given other Wyoming State direction for sage grouse of which the 

Shoshone is party to; there is probably little actual difference from what would happen under 

alternative A. The relative difference among alternatives is small, but would generally be ordered 

as A, C, D, B, G, E, and F, where C has the least acres of sagebrush and F has the most. 

Alternatives B and G have the same effect.

Willow restoration is emphasized in all action alternatives and would result in an increase of 

willow cover type. There would be little difference among any of the alternatives because 

restoration activities are limited mostly by habitat suitable for restoration. Alternatives which 

treat more overall acres of vegetation may have a slightly higher increase due to increased 

activity and opportunity for mutual benefits from related activities. Alternative A has less 

emphasis on willow restoration, and as a result, will probably have less of a change in willow 

cover type acres.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

140

Aspen restoration is emphasized in all alternatives and would result in an increase of the aspen 

cover type. All the action alternatives have an objective for increasing aspen acres using 

mechanical treatments ranging from 2,000 acres in alternative C to 3,500 acres in alternative G. 

Though alternative A does not have an objective for aspen, it does include direction emphasizing 

aspen and it is projected to result in an increase similar to the action alternatives. The alternatives 

that have higher acres of active management and roaded areas would have increased mechanical 

treatments for aspen, but they would also result in less wildfire, which would limit aspen 

expansion resulting from wildfire. In addition, with aspen being a non-commercial species, there 

are tradeoffs of managing for aspen in suitable timberlands where there is an emphasis on 

producing commercial timber. This is in contrast to other timberlands where aspen caries a 

greater emphasis. Because of these factors working against each other, the differences among 

alternatives are rather small. It is expected that alternative C would generally have fewer acres of 

aspen because of the much higher reduction in acres available for mechanical treatment. 

Whitebark pine restoration is emphasized in all alternatives. All the action alternatives have an 

objective for restoring whitebark pine acres ranging from 500 acres in alternative C to 

1,400 acres in alternative G. The objective in alternatives B, D, and E is 750 acres. In alternative 

F the objective is 1,250 acres. Some restoration activity may take place in wilderness, but the 

associated costs would limit the overall acres of whitebark restoration occurring in wilderness. 

Alternative A does not have an objective for whitebark; however; it does include direction for 

restoring whitebark and it is projected to result in an increase similar to alternatives B, D, and E. 

Alternative F has a larger objective because a larger amount of whitebark cover type would be 

within suitable timber lands. This increase would be partially tempered by the fact that the 

commercial opportunity provided by whitebark pine is limited and commercial timber would be 

emphasized on those lands. The objective for alternative G was set higher to indicate an even 

greater emphasis on whitebark pine restoration. The opportunity for restoration of whitebark pine 

will be limited in the short term until a suitable supply of whitebark seedlings that are resistant to 

blister rust is available for planting.

Limber pine restoration is also emphasized in the action alternatives and would have trends 

similar to whitebark pine, though activity levels would be much smaller because most efforts 

would be directed toward whitebark pine restoration.

Effects from Timber Harvesting: The effects of timber harvest on the extent of the cover types 

for lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and spruce/fir are small. The acres mechanically treated in these 

cover types are a small percentage of the overall acres. In addition, the standard silvicultural 

practice of regenerating stands back to the appropriate cover type would result in little change of 

total cover type acres over time.

For cover types, aspen, willow, whitebark pine, and limber pine timber harvesting has a greater 

effect. More timber harvesting is normally connected to the opportunity for more restoration 

activities. Restoration activities alone can sometimes be expensive, and the ability to conduct 

them in conjunction with timber harvest activities that produce commercial products can help 

offset some of the costs. This would result in the alternatives with more treatment likely having 

more restoration activity and greater increases in acreages of these cover types.

Effects from Fire and Fuels: Fire, both prescribed fire and wildfire, can influence the acres of a 

number of different cover types. Grassland acres can be maintained and increased by fire activity 

that kills encroaching conifers, which can, over time, change grassland to timberland. 

Alternatives with more fire and more wildfire would have a greater effect.
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

141

Fire can affect sagebrush both positively and negatively. Positive effects include diversifying 

sagebrush stand structure, killing conifer encroachment, and renewing growth. Widespread fire, 

particularly of high intensity, can set sagebrush habitat back to grassland, and in some cases, can 

lead to the proliferation of invasive species such as cheatgrass that can permanently covert the 

stand from sagebrush to grassland. All alternatives have direction to minimize, where possible, 

fire that could lead to cheatgrass expansion. This negative impact would be greatest in those 

alternatives with the greatest amount of wildfire. Prescribed fire can be conducted in areas to 

avoid the negative impacts and emphasize the positive impacts.

Fire generally has a positive effect on aspen cover type, by renewing stand conditions, killing 

encroaching pine, and setting stands back to an earlier seral stage where aspen can colonize a 

site. Wildfire usually has a greater impact than prescribed fire because the fire intensity required 

to regenerate aspen is more difficult to achieve in a prescribed fire. Alternatives with more fire, 

particularly wildfire, will result in a greater increase in aspen cover type.

The mix of Douglas-fir, spruce/fir, and lodgepole cover types on the Forest is influenced by fire, 

particularly wildfire. Fire can set stands back to an earlier seral stage where lodgepole dominates 

because it is the first conifer species to recolonize a site. This is particularly true for spruce/fir 

stands, which commonly change to lodgepole pine after an intense fire. Over time, the lodgepole 

pine is replaced by spruce/fir. Alternatives with more wildfire would have a higher percentage of 

lodgepole pine over time than alternatives with less wildfire. 

Fire generally has positive effects on whitebark pine. On some sites, fire reduces competition 

from other shade-tolerant conifer species that can gradually replace whitebark pine over time. 

Prescribed fire is a common tool for restoration activities and is useful for establishing 

conditions that are suitable for regenerating whitebark pine.

Fire can limit the extent of the limber pine cover type. Limber pine encroachment into grassland 

and sagebrush habitats can be reversed where fire kills the limber pine.

Effects from Insects and Disease: The bark beetle epidemics are having substantial effects on 

conifer species on the Shoshone. In most cases, the insect impacts to conifer cover types are 

generally not changing cover types. In areas most severely hit, where most of the standing trees 

are killed, there is some shifting of cover types. Some spruce stands may revert to an earlier seral 

stage of lodgepole pine. Loss of complete stands of whitebark pine or limber pine could result in 

an increase of grassland cover types. In some stands, substantial reductions of conifer canopy 

could allow for earlier seral stages of aspen to expand. These effects are generally the same 

across all alternatives. Due to the small amount of suitable timberlands, there is not enough 

active management on the forest to change the overall trend. Alternative F does have a large 

amount of managed land that could influence the trend, but it is unlikely that budget levels 

would be adequate to allow enough treatment to reverse any ongoing trends.

White pine blister rust is having an impact on whitebark pine and limber pine. This disease is 

impacting large areas of whitebark and limber pine and, in conjunction with bark beetle 

epidemics, is killing large numbers of trees. This combined impact is accelerating the reduction 

of whitebark pine and limber pine cover types in some areas. Restoration activities are being 

developed to address this trend in all alternatives, but it will be many years until the scope and 

effectiveness is to a point that the trend can be reversed.

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game: The alternatives will result in few changes, if 

any, to cover type composition. Following forest plan standards and guidelines would result in 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

142

the maintenance of cover types by limiting grazing to sustainable levels. Though Forest-wide 

grazing levels differ in some alternatives, stocking levels are consistent so that grazing would 

occur at sustainable levels.

Effects from Invasive Species: Invasive species affect cover types by replacing native plants 

and cover types. The impacts are mostly to grassland and sagebrush cover types, and the invasive 

species most often involved is cheatgrass. All the alternatives include direction to limit the 

impacts management activities would have on the expansion of invasive species. All action 

alternatives include objectives for treatment of invasive species. The impacts would be similar 

across all alternatives.

Vegetation structure components

Direct and indirect effects

Age class distribution, patch size, snags, and coarse woody debris are all influenced similarly by 

the alternatives. Under all alternatives, there will be very little change from current conditions as 

a result of timber harvest activities at the Forest-wide scale. At this scale, the majority of the 

forest will be influenced by natural disturbances resulting in older stands, with snags, and coarse 

woody debris. At the individual stand and watershed level there would be differences in the 

alternatives. Alternatives that include more active management will have more stands and 

watersheds that include younger age classes, smaller patch sizes, fewer snags, and less coarse 

woody material. Table 36 displays the acreage by alternative of lands where management 

activities are more frequent versus lands where natural processes dominate.

Alternatives A, B, D, E, and G are very similar in the effects. Alternatives C and F show greater 

differences in the acres available for active management and would show a greater difference 

from the other alternatives.

Table 36. Management areas with frequent management activity

Management 

area Description Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

3.5

Back country 

recreation and 

restoration

66,427 65,122

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 Potential Kirwin 

SIA 481 481 481 481 481 4,603

5.1 Managed forests 

and rangelands 157,215 173,190 72,298 168,423 253,799 528,146 173,190

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 53,983 79,935 54,978

Total 377,114 422,836 312,833 345,670 459,280 635,397 424,541
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

143

Effects from Timber Harvesting: Timber harvesting impacts all the vegetation structure 

components. Timber harvesting generally results in younger age class distributions, smaller 

patch sizes, fewer snags, and less coarse woody debris. The alternatives with more treatment 

would have the greater effects. 

Effects from Fire and Fuels: Fire impacts vegetation structure, with the greatest effects 

resulting from wildfire. Fire generally results in a younger age class distribution, particularly for 

more intense fires that kill the mature vegetation. Fire kills trees, resulting in increased snag 

densities. Fires also consume coarse woody debris, though only in the case of the more intense 

fires. Effects are greatest in the alternatives with more fire. 

Active fire suppression favors the opposite of these impacts. All alternatives encourage the 

natural occurrence of fire and advocate for less fire suppression of all fires. Despite this, in 

general, those alternatives with more management lands would have less fire, because fire 

suppression is used to protect the investments made in managed timber stands.

Effects from Insects and Disease: Insects have similar effects to the vegetation structure that 

the other disturbance agents have. They result in younger age classes, patch stands, and increased 

snags and coarse woody debris. Like fire, those effects tend to be less in areas that are actively 

managed and are less susceptible to large insect epidemics.

Unique and limited habitats

Fens are addressed here. See Aquatic, Riparian, and Fisheries Resources for discussion of 

riparian and wetlands effects.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives provide a high level of protection for 

fens as well as other riparian habitats. Those protections are in effect for alternatives A through 

G. The best management practices are designed to protect fens and the riparian habitats from the 

potential impacts from management activities. These potential effects include management 

actions that alter hydrologic regimes; alterations to plant communities through vegetation 

manipulation; management activities that affect water quality and sedimentation, such as road 

construction, reconstruction and maintenance; livestock grazing; invasive plants; and 

recreational use including off-road use. 

The highest potential negative effect to fens is from landscape-scale wildfires. Large wildfires 

have the potential to affect either the hydrologic regime or nutrient inputs into these habitats. 

This risk would be slightly higher in alternatives A, B, C, D and G, which have higher projected 

acreages of wildfire than alternatives E and F.

Management area direction for the Swamp Lake and Sawtooth Peatbeds special interest areas 

includes plan direction to suppress fire that could impact the fen habitats in these areas. 

Alternatives E and F do not contain this specific direction for the Sawtooth Peatbeds.

Effects from Fire and Fuels: Wild and prescribed fires can pose risks to fen habitats, 

particularly when the fires are intense. For prescribed fires, design criteria are used to protect 

unique habitats. Suppression activities associated with wildfire can protect those habitats. Fire 

and fuel activities that reduce fuel loadings on lands adjacent to fen habitats can reduce fire 

intensities and the risk associated with burning fen habitats.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

144

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game: Fen habitats are resilient, but can be altered 

by over grazing if stocking levels are exceeded. Trampling and introduction of invasive species 

such as Canada thistle are concerns in some fens containing rare plants. The Sawtooth Peatbeds 

potential special interest area is particularly susceptible to trampling. Management area direction 

for the Sawtooth Peatbeds special interest area includes plan direction to not authorize 

commercial livestock grazing within the area. Alternatives E and F do not contain this direction 

for the Sawtooth Peatbeds.

Effects from Invasive Species: Fens are susceptible to noxious weed invasion. The vectors for 

potential spread are many and may be linked to increased disturbance from management 

activities and recreational use. All alternatives contain plan direction to limit and control the 

establishment and spread of noxious weeds. The risk of spread is highest in the alternatives with 

the most management and motorized activity. Alternative F would have the highest risk and 

alternative C would have the lowest risk. The remaining alternatives would be clustered between 

those two. 

Effects from Recreation: Fens can be affected by concentrated areas of recreational activities. 

Fen habitats are not generally desirable for most recreational activities. Management area 

direction for the fen associated with the Swamp Lake Special Interest Area provides direction for 

managing recreational use at that site to protect fen habitat. That direction is in place for all 

alternatives. The risk to fen habitats from concentrated recreational activity is low and the same 

for all alternatives. 

Snow compaction by heavy snowmobile use may have negative effects on fen habitat. 

Snowmobile use is prohibited in the Swamp Lake Special Interest Area in all alternatives. No 

other fen habitats show evidence that snowmobile use is impacting fen habitat.

Summary of Effects to Resource 

All alternatives impact vegetation resources to some degree. The greatest impacts from 

management activities are associated with timber harvest, mechanical fuel treatments, and 

prescribed fire, which is highest in alternative F and lowest in alternative C. Though these 

activities do affect vegetation, projections for all alternatives indicate that they will impact less 

than 2 percent of the Shoshone in the decade following plan implementation. The impact would 

range from 35,000 acres in alternative C to 41,200 acres in alternative F. This is in comparison to 

wildfire that could impact over 7 percent of the Shoshone, ranging from 185,200 acres in 

alternative A to 161,400 acres in alternative F, which is consistent with the 183,000 acres burned 

by wildfire in the last 10 years. On a Forest-wide scale, the vegetation changes associated with 

the various alternatives will have little impact.

Most cover types are minimally affected by the alternatives. Alpine, grasslands, Douglas-fir, 

spruce/fir, and lodgepole pine will continue to fluctuate within the desired condition ranges 

presented in table 34. For sagebrush, willow, aspen, whitebark pine, and limber pine cover types, 

all alternatives have some level of restoration and or protection objectives that would result in 

changes in cover type acreages. 

Age class distribution, patch size, snags, and coarse woody debris are all influenced similarly by 

the alternatives. Under all alternatives, there will be very little change from current conditions at 

the Forest-wide scale. At the stand and watershed level, alternatives that include more active 

management will have greater area that includes younger age classes, smaller patch sizes, fewer 

snags, and less coarse woody material. Alternatives A, B, D, E, and G are very similar in the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

145

effects. Alternatives C and F show greater differences in the acres available for active 

management and will show a greater difference from the other alternatives.

The Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives provide a high level of protection for 

fens as well as other wetland and riparian habitat. Those protections are in effect for alternatives 

A through G. The highest potential negative effect to fens is from landscape-scale wildfires. This 

risk is slightly higher in alternatives A, B, C, D, and G that have higher projected acreages of 

wildfire than alternatives E and F.

Cumulative Effects 

The analysis area for cumulative effects to biodiversity composition would include the Shoshone 

and the land immediately adjacent to it within approximately 3 miles. Cumulative effects include 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable (planning period) projects, as mentioned in the 

summary of activities table (table 20). The time period into the future considered would be the 

planning period (10 to 15 years). From this table, refer to the past and present activities of 

vegetation management for the most significant effects to ecosystem composition. 

The effects that past activities have had on all of the components of forest vegetation (e.g., cover 

type, age class, patch size, snags, and coarse woody debris) were discussed in the Affected 

Environment section and are reflected in the current condition of the forest vegetation. 

Therefore, other than activities within the last 10 years, past activities are not carried forward 

into the following cumulative effects analysis. Present and foreseeable future activities that could 

affect forest vegetation are summarized below: 

• National Fire Plan, Healthy Forest Initiative, and Healthy Forest Restoration Act: Since 

they were developed, these national and regional level plans, initiatives, and acts (these are 

called “other plans” for the rest of this discussion) have influenced the vegetation and fuel 

management programs on the Shoshone. Therefore, they have had some effects on forest 

vegetation and it is anticipated that they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. In 

general, these other plans have resulted in more hazardous fuel vegetation treatments in the 

vicinity of wildland-urban interface areas and fewer vegetation treatments in areas located 

away from communities. In addition, the types of fuel treatments that are being done in 

response to these other plans are often more expensive and are likely to lead to fewer acres 

being treated within a given budget level. These effects fall within the range of effects 

displayed in the alternatives.

• Conservation Efforts for Whitebark Pine: As discussed in the Affected Environment 

section, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently determined that this tree 

species warranted listing as a threatened or endangered species, but that it was precluded due 

to higher priority species. The species is now designated as a Federal Candidate species and 

it is now on the Sensitive Species list. The forests in the Greater Yellowstone Area (including 

the Shoshone), are implementing various restoration efforts for this species and these 

activities will likely continue or intensify (contingent upon funding). If the tree species is 

eventually listed as a Federal threatened or endangered species, there could be effects to the 

vegetation and fire management programs on the Shoshone. All action alternatives contain 

forest plan components that stress the desire to increase the abundance and resiliency of this 

species to disturbances and stressors. If listed, there could be additional emphasis placed on 

restoration actions. 

• Climate Change: Of all of the ongoing and foreseeable future actions that have the potential 

to affect forest vegetation on the Shoshone, climate change is likely the most important 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

146

factor. The effects of climate change will likely combine with some of the effects that result 

from implementing the alternatives, to produce cumulative effects. 

The potential effects (and uncertainties) that climate change may have on forest vegetation 

on the Shoshone are summarized in Climate Change on the Shoshone National Forest, 

Wyoming (USDA Forest Service 2012). In general, given the existing condition of the forest 

vegetation on the Shoshone, the potential effects of climate change can be summarized as: 

○ Potential decline or extirpation of alpine habitat

○ Potential for higher-elevation refugia for dynamic and novel combinations of 

plant species

○ Potential reduction in or loss of the whitebark pine habitat type

○ Potential loss of low-elevation habitat associated with aspen

○ Potential reduction or loss of low-elevation habitat associated with Douglas-fir 

and lodgepole pine, but increase in higher-elevation associated habitat

○ Potential increased grassland expansion upward in elevation

○ Potential reduction or loss of wetlands (riparian)

At the Forest-wide scale, the alternatives analyzed in this draft EIS would generally 

combine with the potential effects from climate change noted above. For all alternatives, 

some effects from climate change may be delayed by active management (restoration, 

planting) while some effects may accelerate change (prescribed fire). There is no 

alternative where management activity would reverse the overall trend that climate 

change will have on the vegetation cover types and structure on the Shoshone.

Climate change predictions for the Shoshone generally forecast warmer temperatures, 

slightly wetter winters, slightly drier summers. If those predictions are correct, the effect 

of dense forests on the soil water balance could be compounded. In general, the soil 

water balance (especially in the summer droughty period) determines which tree species 

can ultimately survive on a specific site. Early seral tree species have the unique ability 

to establish on bare soil surfaces where high surface temperatures exclude other species. 

One adaptation of these seral species is the deep rooting characteristic that allows the 

tree to find an adequate water supply and avoid extensive competition with shallow and 

fibrous rooted grasses and forbs. As the shade from these species limits shade-intolerant 

grasses and forbs, shade-tolerant tree species can become established in the understory. 

These species usually have shallower rooting characteristics that allow them to gather 

water from near the soil surface. The overall rooting structure on the site becomes much 

more competitive for water resources as succession progresses. As the density of the 

stand and the amount of leaf area increase, water transpiration increases, which, in turn, 

can deplete the water stored in the soil throughout the summer. The additional forest 

canopy interception of rain and snow, which directly evaporates back into the 

atmosphere (snow sublimation), further compounds this effect and reduces soil water 

recharge. The end result is a water-stressed forest, that not only becomes more 

susceptible to insects and disease, but also more prone to supporting severe wildfires, 

because live fuel moisture is relatively low. 

Whether it is invasive species (e.g., white pine blister rust), drought, uncharacteristic 

wildfires, elevated native insects and disease levels, unusually high forest densities, or 

some other agent or combination of agents that serves to stress trees and forest 

ecosystems, recent research suggests that climate change will likely exacerbate those 
Final Environmental Impact Statement − Chapter 3

147

stressors and “stress complexes” will continue to manifest themselves (Littell et al. 2010, 

McKenzie et al. 2009). 

• Carbon sequestration: From available science, the amount and timing of future 

temperatures increases, expected changes in precipitation regimes, and future fire and insect 

disturbance regimes suggest the regional C balance could shift to a carbon source. Mitigation 

options can help reduce climate change impacts on carbon by maximizing forest capacity to 

store C, decreasing C loss potential from disturbance, or utilizing biomass for energy, but 

these options need to weigh tradeoffs and risks and must ultimately be coupled with 

adaptation strategies (Rice et al. 2012).

• Activities that could increase carbon sequestration include: (1) maintaining or increasing 

forested area; (2) decreasing wildfire and insect disturbance by increasing forest resilience; 

and (3) in some situations, increasing the use of forest biomass. All alternatives include 

elements of all these activities and would help increase and/or maintain C stocks. Alternative 

F, which manages more ground, has the greatest potential to increase carbon sequestration, 

while alternative C, which manages the least, has the lowest potential. These differences are 

small in comparison to the C stocks on the Forest. Though the alternatives do have an effect 

on C stocks, which is not discernible at the regional level and is masked by the changes that 

are occurring at a regional scale.

• Human Population Increases and/or Shifts toward Wildland-urban Interface: For the 

last several decades, there has been more human development around the edges of lands 

administered by the Shoshone. This trend is expected to continue in the future and is likely 

to have effects on the forest vegetation that are similar to those discussed above under the 

item titled National Fire Plan, Healthy Forest Initiative and Healthy Forest Restoration Act. 

In addition, with a greater number of people living and recreating in these wildland-urban 

interface areas, there is a greater probability of more human-caused wildfire ignitions that 

could affect the forest vegetation. 

• Increased Regulation and Concern over Smoke Emissions: The ability to implement the 

vegetation treatments that would occur as a result of the alternatives is highly dependent 

upon prescribed burning (both associated with timber harvesting and without it) as well as 

using wildfires for resource benefits. Therefore, to the extent that air quality regulations may 

become more stringent in regard to the quantity and timing of smoke emissions, there could 

be substantial effects in limiting vegetation treatments using prescribed burning. 

• Timber Product Manufacturing Infrastructure and Economics: The ability of the 

Shoshone to positively affect the forest vegetation is partially dependent upon the ability to 

sell forest products to manufacturing companies and to use the harvesting processes, 

including residual slash disposal activities. If the forest products industry continues to 

decline in areas surrounding the Shoshone to the degree that it is more difficult to sell forest 

products, or if “stumpage prices” decrease significantly, it would affect how many acres 

could be treated. While some treatments could be accomplished by using prescribed burn 

only treatments, it is generally too risky in the wildland-urban interface and too expensive 

elsewhere.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

148

Species Diversity

Terrestrial Wildlife

Introduction

This section discloses the potential influences of the revised Plan and alternatives to terrestrial 

wildlife threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species; sensitive species; management 

indicator species (MIS); and species of local concern. These species serve several roles in forest 

planning, one of which is serving as surrogates for other species and their habitat in general. 

Riparian areas provide the most important habitat attribute for many wildlife species. There are a 

variety of aquatic and riparian ecosystems on the Forest, including streams, rivers, ponds, 

reservoirs, wetlands, and riparian areas. These ecosystems support complex communities of 

vertebrate and invertebrate aquatic animals and an assortment of riparian and aquatic plants. 

Threatened and endangered species are also addressed in the biological assessment; Forest 

Service sensitive species are also addressed in the biological evaluation; effects on these species 

are summarized in this chapter. Effects to management indicator species and species of local 

concern are disclosed in this chapter, with additional information contained in the species 

viability assessments (on file in the administrative record). 

Legal and Administrative Framework

The Forest Service has a legal requirement to maintain or improve habitat conditions for 

threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. 

Species covered under the Endangered Species Act are those listed by the USFWS. Sensitive 

species are developed and protected under the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Program. 

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Policy is to add candidate species to the Regional 

Forester’s sensitive species list. Therefore, candidate species are analyzed under sensitive 

species. The Forest Service is required to identify and mitigate potential effects to these species 

from Federal land-disturbing actions.

Laws

These acts, along with other land use laws, executive orders, and policies guide management of 

wildlife, aquatics, riparian, fisheries, and botanical resources on NFS lands. Other laws pertinent 

to wildlife, aquatics, riparian, fisheries, and botanical management of NFS lands can be found in 

Forest Service Manual (2600).

These acts, along with other land use laws, executive orders, and policies guide management of 

wildlife, aquatics, riparian, fisheries, and botanical resources on NFS lands.

Organic Administration Act of 1897 recognized watersheds as systems to be managed with 

care to sustain their hydrologic function and secure favorable conditions of water flow.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 established a comprehensive Federal regulatory system 

governing the conservation, management and taking of migratory birds.

Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 as amended provided broad authority for investigations, 

demonstrations, and control of mammalian predators, rodents, and birds.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

149

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 as amended provides Federal protection for the 

bald eagle as a symbol of our national heritage. This act was amended (1962) to extend like 

protection to the golden eagle.

Sikes Act of 1960 establishes that Forest Service policies recognize that state agencies and 

Indian tribes are responsible for the management of animals and assign national forests a role in 

cooperatively managing wildlife habitat.

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 16 U.S.C. §528 established that national forests are 

to be managed for fish and wildlife among other purposes.

Wilderness Act of 1964 provides direction for fish management including fish stocking in 

wilderness. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended requires the Forest Service to 

address fish and wildlife concerns during the environmental analysis.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended creates an affirmative obligation “that all 

Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species of 

fish, wildlife, and plants.” The act also requires Federal agencies to ensure that any authorized 

action funded or carried out by them does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species 

or modify critical habitat.

Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974: Provides for 

maintenance of land productivity and the need to protect and improve the soil and water 

resources. Requires an assessment of present and potential productivity of the land. This act 

contains many references to suitability and capability of specific land areas, to maintenance of 

land productivity, and the need to protect and, where appropriate, improve the quality of soil and 

water resources. The act specifies that substantial and permanent impairment of productivity 

must be avoided and has far-reaching implications for watershed management on national 

forests.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 directs that monies received as 

fees for grazing livestock be put in a special fund to be spent solely for “range betterment,” 

including fish and wildlife habitat enhancement. Second, it permits the Secretary to exchange 

public lands for private lands and it requires the Secretary to consider the fish and wildlife 

aspects of the proposed exchange. Finally, it authorizes the Secretary on lands under their 

jurisdiction “where, and establish periods when, no hunting or fishing will be permitted for 

reasons of public safety, administration or compliance with provisions of applicable law.”

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976: “It is the policy of the Congress that all 

forested lands in the NFS shall be maintained in appropriate forest cover with species of trees, 

degree of stocking, rate of growth and conditions of stand designed to secure the maximum 

benefits of multiple use sustained yield. Plans developed shall provide for the diversity of plant 

and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order 

to meet the overall multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objective.” Land 

productivity must be preserved. NFMA prevents watershed condition from being irreversibly 

damaged and protects streams and wetlands from detrimental impacts. Fish habitat must support 

a minimum number of reproductive individuals and be well distributed to allow interaction 

between populations.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

150

Executive Orders

Executive Order 12443 directs the appropriate Federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and 

enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.

Executive Order 13186 directs Federal agencies to promote the conservation of migratory bird 

populations and that any actions that have, or likely to have, a measurable negative effect on 

migratory bird populations, will be analyzed 

Regulation, Policies and Regional Direction

Regulations, policies, and regional direction have been passed in support of these laws and 

require the following:

• FLPMA 43 U.S.C. §1701 requires that public lands are to be “managed in a manner...that 

will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals.” 

• The 1982 NFMA planning regulations provide direction for managing fish and wildlife 

habitat to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate 

species within the planning area. Viable populations are defined as those with the estimated 

numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure their continued existence and 

that they are well-distributed. To ensure maintenance of viable populations, habitat must be 

provided to support at least a minimum number of reproductive individuals, and it must be 

distributed so that individual sub-populations can interact (36 CFR §219.19).

• 36 CFR 219.19 additionally directs the Forest Service to estimate the effects of changes to 

wildlife habitat; consult with biologists from other agencies; consider access and dispersal 

problems of hunting, fishing, and other uses; evaluate the effects of pest and fire 

management; and select management indicator species to be monitored (36 CFR 219(a)(1)).

• Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2600 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2609 state policy 

and direction regarding wildlife, fish and sensitive plant program management.

• Protection of surface resources and productivity from all natural resource management 

activities (36 CFR 219).

• The Forest Service Manual 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 Forest Service Manual directs the Forest Service to prepare biological evaluations for 

projects, as part of the NEPA, 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).

• FSM 2631.3. This manual outlines regional policy on the management of fens. Fen habitat 

accounts for 13 of the current 26 Region 2 sensitive plants on the Shoshone.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

151

• Region 2 Species Conservation Assessments for Yellowstone cutthroat trout, mountain 

suckers, and lake chubs. Describes current status and management direction for these 

sensitive fish species.

Other Agreements and Management Direction

National Interagency Memorandum of Agreement (dated August 30, 2000) clarified Federal 

departments’ obligations to the Endangered Species Act, which states our shared mission to 

“enhance conservation of imperiled species while delivering appropriate goods and services 

provided by the lands and resources.”

Memorandum of Understanding Detailing Agency Agreement to Implement the Final 

Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area (2003) provides the 

guidance for coordinated management and monitoring within and outside the primary 

conservation area for the grizzly bear.

Policies and guidelines for fish and wildlife management in National Forest and Bureau of Land 

Management Wilderness, 2006. Provides guidance to State fish and wildlife agencies, Forest 

Service, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) personnel for the management of fish and 

wildlife populations in wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC 

1131-1136).

Memorandum of Understanding (Supplement No. 1500-2007-1, August 1, 2007) between the 

Rocky Mountain Region and Intermountain Region of the Forest Service and the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Commission, through the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). This 

memorandum of understanding outlines the agencies’ respective responsibilities in the 

management of fish and wildlife populations and their habitat. The Shoshone and the WGFD 

work in partnership to address habitat and population management issues for wildlife.

Memorandum of Understanding between the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and the 

USDA Forest Service on fish and wildlife habitat management within National Forest 

Wilderness in Wyoming, 2010. This memorandum of understanding serves as a framework for 

enhanced cooperation between Wyoming Game and Fish and the Forest Service Regions 2 and 4 

in the management of fish, wildlife, and habitat on Forest Service-administered wilderness areas 

in Wyoming. 

Following the listing of the lynx as a threatened species in March 2000 (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2000), the Forest Service signed a Lynx Conservation Agreement with the USFWS in 

2001, to consider the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruggerio et al. 

2000) during project analysis and the Forest Service agreed to not proceed with projects that 

would be “likely to adversely affect” lynx until forest plans were amended. The conservation 

agreement was amended in 2006 to define occupied habitat and list the national forests that were 

occupied. The conservation agreement was extended until all relevant forest plans were revised 

to include guidance necessary to conserve lynx. In response, the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction (NRLMD) EIS Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in March 2007. 

The management direction in the NRLMD was based upon science and recommendations in the 

“Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States (Ruggerio et al. 2000), the LCAS, and 

other publications. The purpose of the NRLMD was to incorporate management direction into 

land and management plans that conserves and promotes the recovery of lynx in the Northern 

Rockies Ecosystem. The direction applies to NFS lands presently occupied by lynx, (Shoshone 

included). Plans and projects that incorporate the standards and guidelines in the NRLMD are 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

152

generally not expected to have adverse effects on lynx, and implementation of these measures 

across the range of the lynx is expected to lead to conservation of the species.

Resource Protection Measures 

Region 2 of the Forest Service has developed a White-nose Syndrome Response Plan Cave and 

Mine Closure 2011−2012 in an attempt to slow the westward spread of white-nose syndrome and 

reduce the effects on regional bat populations. Forests use this plan during project planning 

efforts.

Terrestrial wildlife species on the Shoshone are very diverse in their habitat use and needs. 

Numerous standards and guidelines, primarily Forest-wide, are included in all of the proposed 

alternatives to ensure that quality habitat for wildlife is maintained or enhanced.

Prescriptions that provide specific direction to protect or manage habitat are provided in the 

Forest-wide direction section in the revised Plan, while further direction is provided for special 

emphasis habitats in management areas (MA). MA 5.4 for example, provides management 

direction to benefit big game species habitat. 

Forest-wide direction for other resource management activities would accommodate many of the 

habitat requirements for most species. Timber management direction directs adequate 

regeneration in harvested areas, and adequate snag and coarse woody debris amounts. Vegetation

guidelines direct retention of older forest habitat. Direction for other resource disciplines would 

benefit some wildlife species, including direction for livestock grazing, caves, riparian resources, 

fire, and invasive species management. The most significant changes for wildlife in this revision 

include increased protection for aspen, sagebrush whitebark pine, sensitive species, and elk 

secure habitat.

Direction for all alternatives identify many activities designed to improve the overall conditions 

on the Shoshone. These activities include restoring terrestrial habitat through such activities as 

prescribed burning or harvesting to regenerate aspen and enhance sagebrush, and the treatment 

of invasive species. Resource inventory and monitoring would also be included. 

Threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species have special management requirements 

for all Forest Service management activities. The Endangered Species Act section 7 guidelines 

and recovery objectives have been followed where potential habitat of suspected threatened 

species may occur on the Shoshone. 

Methodology 

A review of best available science is the most practical method along with utilizing appropriate 

existing monitoring that has occurred for species habitat similar to that on the Shoshone. In 

addition, the use of species conservation assessments developed in the region and species 

viability assessments prepared for the Forest were considered in this analysis. 

For this integrated analysis, we incorporated historical habitat and population information, 

current survey and monitoring data, and relevant research, reports, and publications. We used 

this information to determine current stream and riparian habitat conditions, potential effects 

from future land management activities and their effects on the terrestrial wildlife and aquatic 

biota that use these habitats. 

A review of information regarding the distribution of habitats on the Shoshone, observations of 

species on the Forest, known areas of occupancy, and fieldwork over the past several years has 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

153

been incorporated. Sources of information include Forest Service records and files, the Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database, WGFD and other Federal wildlife agency information, and 

published research. A list of threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species was obtained 

from the USFWS (2012) and sensitive species are from the Rocky Mountain Region 2 Regional 

Forester sensitive species, updated May 25, 2011. Management indicator species selected for the 

revised Plan were analyzed along with species of local concern. 

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The spatial context will vary by species. For most, it would be the Shoshone boundary. For 

some, it would be as large as the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The timeframe for the effects 

analysis would be for the life of the plan (15 years).

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

There is very limited information available for the Yellowstone checker spot due to its limited 

distribution. 

Emphasis Species

We identified emphasis species to facilitate analysis and monitoring of effects to wildlife. They 

include threatened, endangered, Forest Service sensitive, management indicator species, and 

species of local concern. Threatened, endangered and Forest Service sensitive species are 

categories that represent species whose populations either are in peril or could be in peril, and 

therefore, demand increased management attention. Management indicator species, on the other 

hand, serve several functions in forest planning as documented in the Management Indicator 

Species Selection Process document in the administrative record. Species of local concern for the 

most part, were selected due to their social values, primarily hunting or other commercial values. 

The Emphasis Species appendix 3 of the revised Plan describes the selection process for these 

species. A single species assessment was prepared for threatened and endangered species and is 

fully documented in the biological assessment and the biological evaluation assesses impacts to 

sensitive species. The effects analyses describe the condition and effects to habitat, in general, on 

the Forest for purposes of assessing viability for wildlife. The main approach for species viability 

is to ensure that ecosystem components and processes remain functioning, and then verifying 

needed habitat components persist for rare species and species representative of others due to 

similar habitats. Individual species viability assessments were prepared and are part of the 

project record.

This section is organized as follows:

• Endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species

• Sensitive species

• Management indicator species

• Species of local concern

Threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species

Threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species that occur, or could occur, in the 

planning area are displayed in table 35. The grizzly bear and Canada lynx are currently listed as 

threatened species. The North American wolverine is a proposed for Federal listing species and 

the Greater sage-grouse, is a candidate species. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region policy is 

to add candidate species to the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list. The candidate species 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

154

are analyzed in the appropriate biological evaluation and discussed under sensitive species. 

Currently, there are no endangered or proposed species on the Shoshone.

Table 35. Threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species and their habitats on the 

Shoshone

Species Status Global/state 

ranking

Habitat

Mammal species

Canada lynx

(Lynx canadensis)

Threatened G5/S1 Mature forest and dense young 

conifers

Canada lynx Critical Habitat Designated Boreal forest landscapes in Fremont, 

Park, Sublette and Teton Counties

Grizzly bear

(Ursus arctos horribilis)

Threatened G4/S1 Montane forests

North American wolverine

(Gulo gulo luscus)

Proposed G4/S2 Subalpine to alpine

Bird species

Greater sage-grouse

(centrocercus urophasianus)

Candidate G4/S4 Sagebrush communities

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)

The environmental baseline for this analysis includes the existing grizzly bear habitat conditions 

and conflict situation within the planning area, relationship to the threats to the species and 

grizzly bear management direction in the existing land and resource management plan for the 

Shoshone and best available science. With the relisting of the grizzly bear, updates to the 1993 

Recovery Plan and the Conservation Strategy are determined the ‘best available science’ in 

regard to grizzly bear management.

The environmental baseline also includes the existing wolverine, Canada lynx and Canada lynx 

Critical Habitat within the planning area, relationship to existing threats to these species and the 

management direction in the revised Plan and the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

(USDA Forest Service 2007).

Canada lynx

Affected Environment 

Canada lynx have a circumboreal distribution. In North America, lynx range across most of 

Canada and Alaska following the boreal forest south to Colorado, Minnesota, and Maine. In 

Wyoming, lynx occur in the western mountains on the Bridger-Teton and Shoshone National 

Forests, and Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks (WGFD 2010a).

No trend data are available that is specific to the Shoshone or Wyoming. Lynx occur at very low 

densities within the region. During recent surveys in the winter of 2008 to 2009, one potential 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

155

track was found on the Shoshone near the Beartooth Plateau (Holmes and Berg 2009). Tracks 

were found on multiple occasions adjacent to the Shoshone in the Togwottee Pass area on the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest. During the winter of 2004 to 2005, one confirmed track was 

detected on the Shoshone in the Warm Springs Creek watershed (Berg et al. 2005). The WGFD 

(2010) suggest that released lynx from Colorado are the only lynx left in Wyoming and that 

native Wyoming populations are nearly extirpated. 

On the Shoshone, spruce/fir habitat is relatively abundant. There are about 316,000 acres of 

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

6 percent in the seedling/sapling stage (under 20 years old) (USDA Forest Service 2012b). About 

20 percent (58,800 acres) of the lodgepole pine on the Forest is in the seedling/sapling stage 

(under 20 years old). This dense young lodgepole pine may provide habitat for snowshoe hares, 

the primary prey for lynx. Additional habitat likely exists in Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine 

stands that are succeeding to spruce/fir. 

Fire suppression has likely increased the amount of spruce/fir on the Shoshone, but also has 

increased the risk for large catastrophic wildfires. 

Recently, habitat and extensive winter snow survey work for this species was conducted on the 

Shoshone in partnership with the WGFD. The areas with the most potential habitat occur in the 

Dubois/Togwotee Pass area (Wind River Ranger District) with more limited potential on parts of 

the Washakie Ranger District and in the Beartooth Mountains (Wapiti Ranger District). Tracks of 

two different lynx were confirmed in the Dubois/Togwotee Pass area in the winter of 2006 to 

2007 and tracks of a single lynx in the Washakie Ranger District area were located. In the winter 

of 2008 to 2009, a possible lynx track was located in the Beartooth Mountains, just across the 

Wyoming/Montana state line, but immediately adjacent to the Shoshone.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife in their monitoring of telemetry-collared lynx from Colorado, 

provided data to the Shoshone, showing that in 2007, six different lynx left Colorado and made 

their way north as far as southern Montana; including passing through and even staying on the 

Shoshone. Areas of focused use on the Shoshone were the Togwotee Pass, Brooks Lake and 

Long Creek areas, all on the southern part of the Forest (Jake Ivan 2013, personal 

communications).

Canada Lynx Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is designated for the conservation of the primary constituent element essential to 

the conservation of the lynx and necessary to support lynx life history functions. The primary 

constituent element comprises the essential features of the boreal forest types that provide, for 

example, prey, reproduction, and denning habitat, and snow conditions that give lynx their 

competitive advantage. Critical habitat provides habitat connectivity for travel within home 

ranges, and exploratory movements and dispersal within critical habitat units.

The Greater Yellowstone Area15 includes approximately 9,500 square miles of Canada lynx 

critical habitat designated by the USFWS. Canada lynx critical habitat is designated in portions 

of Gallatin, Park, Sweetgrass, Stillwater, and Carbon Counties in Montana; and Park, Teton, 

Fremont, Sublette, and Lincoln Counties in Wyoming (74 FR 8616). Approximately 

648,840 acres of Canada lynx critical habitat is designated on the Shoshone. 

 15 Yellowstone National Park and surrounding lands in southwestern Montana and northwestern Wyoming.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

156

The USFWS outlined the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of 

the Canada lynx and that may require special management considerations and protection. They 

considered the physical and biological features to be the primary constituent elements laid out in 

the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species. The primary 

constituent element for lynx critical habitat is:

Boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing successional forest stages and 

containing : (a) a presence of snowshoe hares and their preferred habitat conditions, 

which include dense understories of young trees, shrubs or overhanging boughs that 

protrude above the snow, and mature multistoried stands with conifer boughs touching 

the snow surface; (b) winter snows that are generally deep and fluffy for extended 

periods of time; (c) sites for denning that have abundant coarse woody debris, such as 

downed trees and root wads; and (d) matrix habitat (e.g., hardwood forest, dry forest, 

non-forest, or other habitat types that do not support snowshoe hares) that occurs 

between patches of boreal forest in close juxtaposition ( at the scale of a lynx home 

range) such that lynx are likely to travel through such habitat while accessing patches of 

boreal forest within a home range (Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 36, pp 8638).

Adverse modification of critical habitat is defined as “a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed 

species.” The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with 

implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain 

functional (or retain the current ability for the primary constituent elements to be functionally 

established) to serve the intended conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical and biological features to an 

extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for lynx. Generally the 

conservation role of lynx critical habitat is to support viable core area populations. Therefore, an 

analysis for adverse modification must be applied at a survival and recovery scale.

Canada Lynx Habitat on the Shoshone

The Shoshone has mapped lynx habitat following criteria in the Lynx Conservation Assessment 

and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000), into lynx analysis units (LAUs) on a majority of the 

Forest (see map 7). The entire Forest is considered occupied habitat. The best opportunities for 

snowshoe hares and lynx are on north slopes with mixed conifers, including a strong subalpine 

fir component. Subalpine fir retains live and dead branches close to the ground for an extended 

period of time.

Lynx inhabit mountainous regions at elevations ranging from 2,356 to 2,869 meters (7,730 to 

9,410 feet) and on slopes of 8 to 12 percent (WGFD 2010a). They usually occur within extensive 

stands of dense boreal forest. Older forests and dense young conifer stands provide good quality 

foraging habitat. About 597,000 acres have been mapped as lynx habitat within lynx analysis 

units on the Shoshone (table 36). Mapped lynx habitat occurs on the northern two-thirds of the 

Shoshone from Union Pass to Montana. The southern third of the Shoshone contains marginal 

habitat because of its patchiness and dry forest types.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

157

Table 36. Canada Lynx habitat and critical habitat acres by lynx analysis unit 

Lynx Analysis 

Unit (LAU) LAU acres Lynx Habitat acres Critical Habitat? Critical Habitat Acres

13 89,557.94 41,452.07 Yes 66,327.16

12 140,364.15 74,824.85 Yes 115,607.97

11 77,505.05 29,261.36 Yes 48,629.51

10 113,604.75 24,823.18 No

9 135,188.91 44,561.01 Yes 115,054.24

20 168,453.93 66,182.04 No

8 125,172.79 32,239.64 No

19 199,722.46 31,992.11 No

7 170,207.85 43,795.53 No

6 113,610.7 37,831.17 Yes 92,939.85

5 65,113.18 21,278.69 No

4 120,860.06 41,074.36 No

3 109,876.68 57,145.58 Yes 109,910.12

2 104,998.91 49,914.12 Yes 100,372.4

1 9,249.29 723.66 No

Total 1,743,486.7 597,099.37 648,841.25

The primary risk factors from forest management are timber harvest, winter recreation, and fire 

suppression. Natural risk factors include epidemic insect outbreaks. Habitat for lynx and their 

primary prey (snowshoe hare) is relatively abundant on the Forest, but has a patchy distribution. 

Continuing to manage for diverse habitats including mature spruce/fir and young densely 

regenerated coniferous forest is important. Continue to manage winter recreation (groomed overthe-snow trails) in lynx habitat at or below current levels would be important. Groomed trails 

may allow access by lynx competitors (i.e., bobcat and coyote) into lynx habitat.

Lynx are adapted to deep powder snow conditions. Climate change has the potential to reduce 

Canada lynx populations and habitat on the Shoshone. Lynx have low adaptability potential and 

narrow environmental tolerance, which make them susceptible to climate change (Rice et al. 

2012).

Canada Lynx Critical Habitat on the Shoshone National Forest

The USFWS designated critical habitat for lynx on February 25, 2009. Five lynx critical habitat 

units were selected in the United States that provide adequate habitat elements for lynx. The 

Yellowstone area is Unit #5 and is slightly over 6 million acres. For the Shoshone National 

Forest, the majority of the Forest (and all mapped lynx habitat) is included in critical habitat with 

the exception of the Washakie Ranger District (Lander). About 648,840 acres of critical habitat 

are designated as lynx critical habitat on the Shoshone. 

Note, not all critical habitat is mapped as lynx habitat, thus the difference in table 36. The acre 

differences are due to matrix habitat, which makes up a portion of the primary constituent 

element for lynx (boreal forest landscapes) (Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 36, p 8638). Unit 5 

also includes Yellowstone National Park and surrounding lands in southwestern Montana and 

northwestern Wyoming.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

158

Activities that may affect critical habitat include but are not limited to: (1) Actions that would 

reduce or remove understory vegetation within boreal forest stands on a scale proportionate to 

the large landscape used by lynx. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, forest 

stand thinning, timber harvest, and fuels treatment of forest stands. These activities could 

significantly reduce the quality of snowshoe hare habitat such that the landscape’s ability to 

produce adequate densities of snowshoe hares to support persistent lynx populations is at least 

temporarily diminished. (2) Actions that would cause permanent loss or conversion of the boreal 

forest on a scale proportionate to the large landscape used by lynx. Such activities could include, 

but are not limited to, recreational area developments; certain types of mining activities and 

associated developments; and road building. Such activities could eliminate and fragment lynx 

and snowshoe hare habitat. (3) Actions that would increase traffic volume and speed on roads 

that divide lynx critical habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 

transportation projects to upgrade roads or development of new tourist destination. These 

activities could reduce connectivity within the boreal forest landscape for lynx, and could result 

in increased mortality of lynx within the critical habitat units, because lynx are highly mobile 

and frequently cross roads during dispersal, exploratory movements, or travel within their home 

ranges (Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 36, pp. 8644-8645).

In matrix habitat, activities that change vegetation structure or condition would not be considered 

an adverse effect to lynx critical habitat unless those activities would create a barrier or impede 

lynx movement between patches of foraging habitat and between foraging and denning habitat 

within a potential home range, or if they would adversely affect adjacent foraging habitat or 

denning habitat. For example, a precommercial thinning or fuels reduction project in matrix 

habitat would not adversely affect lynx critical habitat. However, a new highway passing through 

matrix habitat that would impede lynx movement may be an adverse effect to lynx critical 

habitat (Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 36, p. 8645).

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Forest-wide direction: The direction in the NRLMD applies to NFS lands 

presently occupied by lynx (Shoshone National Forest included). Plans and projects that 

incorporate the standards and guidelines in the NRLMD are generally not expected to adversely 

affect the lynx, and implementation of these measures across the range of the lynx is expected to 

lead to conservation of the species.

Effects analyses at the national forest planning scale were completed in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) NRLMD (March 2007). A review of the potential effects of alternatives 

A through F was completed for this analysis to look for consistency between this proposal and 

the NRLMD. Two resource areas are not consistent with the NRLMD and their effects are 

discussed below.

Alternative A. This alternative incorporates the NRLMD as it amended forest plans in March 

2007, and has no additional effects than those disclosed in the FEIS, NRLMD. This alternative is 

not expected to adversely affect Canada lynx or Canada lynx critical habitat. The amount of 

existing snowmobile trails remains at 276 miles.

Alternatives B through E and G. These alternatives incorporate the NRLMD as it amended 

forest plans in March 2007 with the addition of including 2,130 acres of precommercial thinning 

in lynx habitat for the next 10 to 15 years. The amount of snowmobile trails remains the same as 

in alternative A, at 276 miles except for alternative C, which decreases the amount of trails to 

163 miles.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

159

The effects of these precommercial thinning acres were analyzed in the FEIS, NRLMD under 

alternative D, but were not brought forward under the selected alternative (Alternative F, 

Scenario 2). We were unable to find documentation of why these acres were dropped from the 

selected alternative in the FEIS, NRLMD, nor why the Shoshone did not receive any acres of 

precommerical thinning in lynx habitat. The effects of these acres have not changed since the 

analysis in the FEIS, NRLMD, and are summarized below:

• Precommercial thinning reduces stem densities to increase the growth of the remaining trees. 

Precommercial thinning generally occurs when forests are 10 to 30 years old, about the time 

young regenerating forests are beginning to provide winter snowshoe hare habitat.

• Precommerical thinning may reduce stem densities and cover to the point that the young 

trees have little to no value for snowshoes (Ruggiero et al. 2000a). Researchers found 

precommercial thinning decreased snowshoe hare abundance, compared to unthinned stands 

(control plots) and areas where 80 percent of the stand was thinned, but 20 percent was 

unthinned (Griffin and Mills 2007).

• Declines in the number of snowshoe hares in the second winter after treatment occurred. In 

addition, estimated survival rates decreased as individuals spent proportionately more time 

in open young and open mature forests (Griffin and Mills 2007).

Alternative F. This alternative incorporates a majority of the NRLMD as it amended forest 

plans in March 2007, with the addition of including 2,130 acres of precommercial thinning in 

lynx habitat for the next 10 to 15 years. In addition, this alternative eliminates any direction for 

winter motorized activity restrictions in lynx habitat by eliminating Objective HU 01, Guideline 

HU G11, and Guideline HU G12 from the NRLMD Record of Decision (2007) and increases the 

amount of snowmobile trails by 91 miles more than alternative A, to 367 miles.

The effects of adding 2,130 precommerical thinning acres is the same as alternatives B through E 

discussed above. 

Objective HU 01, Guideline HU G11, and Guideline HU G12 all deal with snow compacting 

activities and designated over-the-snow routes. In the FEIS, NRLMD (page 175) the main issue 

addressed with regard to snow compaction was whether this activity would allow competing 

carnivores—primarily coyotes, but also mountain lions and bobcats—winter access along 

compacted routes into lynx habitat, where they hunt. Based on the effects analysis in the FEIS, 

NRLMD, it was determined that there was still no conclusive evidence that, if competition exists 

between lynx and other predators, it exerts a population-level threat on lynx.

Winter recreation such as snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, dog-sledding, and snowshoeing 

compacts snow throughout the winter in some places, potentially increasing the access other 

predators have into lynx habitat (Halfpenny et al. 1999). These activities are increasing in lynx 

habitat. 

About 276 miles of designated snowmobile and cross-country trails exist in the planning area. 

All are in lynx habitat. These activities compact the snow and may provide access for competing 

predators to areas with deep snow. This alternative proposes to increase the amount of 

snowmobile trails to 367 miles. However, grooming winter trails is likely to remain at current 

levels for the next 3 to 5 years because the amount of money available for grooming is not likely 

to increase substantially.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

160

Mining or energy development may change or eliminate lynx habitat, and can promote winter 

access. Access roads may be plowed during winter, improving access for competing predators 

into lynx habitat. These activities are likely to be localized because there is no information 

indicating that mining or energy development poses a threat to lynx populations as a whole 

(USDA Forest Service 2007). There are no proposed mining or energy developments in any of 

the alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

All the alternatives incorporate management direction—to varying degrees—that would reduce 

or eliminate adverse effects from management actions in the planning area. The alternatives 

incorporate management direction to address programmatic direction for certain activities. For 

example, national policy and Congressional intent has established that reducing fuels within the 

wildland-urban interface, as well as other areas, is an important focus on NFS lands. Because of 

this focus, the effects from these programs (e.g., National Fire Plan) on lynx have been 

evaluated, including their potential cumulative effects. Activities on corporate and small private 

lands could still adversely affect lynx; however, the management direction requires consideration 

of activities on private land when evaluating the effects of projects on the forest.

Determination of Effects and Rationale for the Determination

Under alternatives A through E and alternative G, management activities such as winter 

recreation and vegetation management in habitat occupied by lynx have been identified as a risk 

factor that will likely affect individual lynx. Management activities are guided by the habitat 

standards that limit changes to lynx habitat. Canada lynx exist on the Shoshone in very low 

densities. As a result of the effects analysis, it is the conclusion and determination that these 

alternatives, “may affect, likely to adversely affect” individual Canada lynx. As a result of this 

determination formal consultation would be required. Under alternative F, snow compaction 

activities on trails would increase by 33 percent as a result of increased miles of snowmobile 

trails. Vegetation management activities in habitat occupied by lynx are guided by the habitat 

standards that limit changes to lynx habitat. Canada lynx exist on the Shoshone in very low 

densities. As a result of the effects analysis, it is the conclusion and determination that this action 

(alternative F), “may affect, likely to adversely affect” individual Canada lynx. As a result of 

this determination formal consultation would be required

Adverse modification of critical habitat is defined as “a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed 

species.” Based on the information above, alternatives A through E and G will not impact a 

measurable amount of critical habitat in Unit #5 (Greater Yellowstone Area). There would be 

insignificant affects to the function of the critical habitat unit and the primary constituent 

elements for lynx for example prey, reproduction and denning habitat, and snow conditions that 

give lynx competitive advantage. This is because there is little to no change to the function of the 

Greater Yellowstone Area critical habitat unit and the primary constituent elements. Therefore, 

alternatives A through E and alternative G “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” 

Canada lynx critical habitat. 

Based on the information above, alternative F has the potential to impact a measurable amount of 

critical habitat on the Shoshone and in Unit #5 (Greater Yellowstone Area). There would be 

insignificant affects to the function of the critical habitat unit and the primary constituent 

elements for lynx except for a decrease in snow conditions that give lynx competitive advantage. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

161

This is because alternative F proposes to increase the miles of snowmobile trails by 33 percent. 

Therefore, alternative F “may affect, likely to adversely affect” Canada lynx critical habitat. 

Grizzly bear

Affected Environment 

The grizzly bear population in the Yellowstone geographic area is hereafter referred to 

synonymously as the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Greater Yellowstone Area, or Yellowstone 

Grizzly Bear Ecosystem. The Yellowstone grizzly population is identified as a threatened 

population under the Endangered Species Act (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010a). 

Home range sizes of grizzly bears vary in relation to food availability, weather conditions, and 

interactions with other bears. In addition, individual bears may extend their range seasonally or 

from one year to the next (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993) and the home ranges of adult 

grizzly bears frequently overlap. The home ranges of adult male grizzlies are generally two to 

four times larger than that of females, averaging in approximately 884 square kilometers 

(341 square miles) for females and 3,757 square kilometers (1,450 square miles) for males 

(Blanchard and Knight 1991). The home ranges of grizzly females appear to be smaller while 

they are with cubs, but ranges expand when the young are yearlings to meet increased foraging 

demands. 

Grizzly bears disperse as subadults and their pattern of dispersal is not well documented. 

Dispersing young males apparently leave their mother’s home ranges and their dispersal may be 

mediated by avoiding home ranges of established adults. Young females may establish a home 

range soon after family breakup, often within the vicinity of their mothers’ home ranges. Grizzly 

bear mothers may tolerate female offspring and may shift their home ranges to accommodate 

them (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). 

Food Habits: Bears feed on animal matter or vegetable matter that is highly digestible and high 

in starch, sugars, protein, and stored fat. Grizzly bears must consume foods rich in protein or 

carbohydrates in excess of maintenance requirements to survive denning and post-denning 

periods. Other plant materials are eaten as the plants emerge, when crude protein levels are 

highest. Grizzly bears are opportunistic feeders and will prey or scavenge on almost any 

available food including ground squirrels, ungulates, carrion, and garbage. In areas where animal 

matter is less available, roots, bulbs, tubers, fungi, and tree cambium may be important in 

meeting nutrient requirements. High-quality foods such as berries, nuts, and fish are important in 

some areas.

The search for food has a primary influence on grizzly bear movements. Upon emergence from 

the den, they seek lower elevations, drainage bottoms, avalanche chutes, and ungulate winter 

ranges where their food requirements can be met. Throughout late spring and early summer, they 

follow plant maturity back to higher elevations. In late summer and fall, there is a transition to 

fruit and nut sources, as well as other plant materials. This is a generalized pattern, however, and 

it should be kept in mind that bears are individuals trying to survive and will go where they can 

best meet their food requirements. 

Specific to the Greater Yellowstone Area, four seasonal foods have been identified as being 

important to the grizzly bear population. Ungulates (primarily elk and bison, but also deer and 

moose) are especially important during spring after emergence from dens and through the 

calving/fawning seasons (Cole 1972, Gunther and Renkin 1990, Mattson et al. 1991, Mattson 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

162

and Knight 1992, Green et al. 1997, Mattson 1997). Recent research has demonstrated that 

grizzly bears seek hunter-killed carcasses and gut-piles (Haroldson et al. 2004). Grizzly bears in 

the Greater Yellowstone Area have the highest percentage of meat consumption in their diet of 

any inland grizzly bear population (Hilderbrand et al. 1999). Meat is considered to be any form 

of animal including ungulates (i.e., deer, elk, moose, bison), fish, army cutworm moths, other 

insects, and small mammals (i.e., ground squirrels, mice, voles). Approximately 30 to 70 percent 

of the Yellowstone grizzly bear diet is some form of meat.

Whitebark pine seeds are the most important fall food of Yellowstone grizzly bears, and the 

availability of nuts influences annual feeding strategies and movement patterns (Kendall 1983, 

Blanchard 1990, Mattson et al. 1992a and 1992b, Mattson and Reinhart 1997, Mattson 1997). 

Army cutworm moths are a preferred source of nutrition for many grizzly bears in the 

Yellowstone ecosystem and represent a high-quality food that is available during the summer 

(Mattson et al. 1991, French et al. 1994). Grizzly bears feed on spawning cutthroat trout along 

the tributaries of Yellowstone Lake during the spawning season from May 1 to July 15 (Mattson 

and Reinhart 1995).

Army cutworm moth sites were first recognized as an important food source for grizzly bears in 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem during the mid-1980s. Early observations indicated that 

moths, and subsequently bears, showed specific site fidelity. These sites are generally high alpine 

areas dominated by talus and scree adjacent to areas with abundant alpine flowers. Such areas 

are referred to as “insect aggregation sites.” Since 1986, insect aggregation sites have been 

monitored during aerial observations in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Knowledge of these 

sites has increased as in 1986 there were 4 confirmed moth sites in the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem, and in 2010, there were 38 (Bjornlie 2011). Only a few insect aggregation sites have 

been investigated by ground reconnaissance and the boundaries of sites are not clearly known. In 

addition, it is likely that the size and location of insect aggregation sites fluctuate from year to 

year with moth abundance and variance in environmental factors such as snow cover (Bjornlie 

2011).

Denning Chronology and Habitat: Grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Area can den from 

the end of September to the last week in April or early May, with entrance and emergence dates 

being affected by the gender and reproductive status of the bears (Judd et al. 1986, Haroldson et 

al. 2002). Denning periods differed among classes and averaged 171 days for females that 

emerged from dens with cubs, 151 days for other females, and 131 days for males. Known 

pregnant females tended to den at higher elevations and, following emergence, remained at 

higher elevations until late May. Females with cubs remained relatively close (less than 

3 kilometers) to den sites until the last two weeks in May. 

Denning habitat has been described as follows (Judd et al. 1986, Haroldson et al. 2002):

• Den sites are associated with moderate tree cover (26 to 75 percent canopy cover).

• Den sites are usually on 30- to 60-degree slopes. 

• Den sites occurred on all aspects, although northerly exposures were most common. 

• Grizzly bears usually dig new dens, but occasionally used natural cavities or a den from a 

previous year.

• Mean elevation at den sites for females with cubs that emerged from dens was 8,845 feet. 

Mean elevation for other females was 8,467 feet, and for males was 8,444 feet. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

163

Grizzly Bear/Human Interactions and Conflicts: A primary factor in providing for the 

conservation of grizzly bears is managing grizzly bear/human interactions. A majority of grizzly 

bear mortality is attributable to grizzly bear/human conflicts with a common outcome of bear 

removal by interagency bear managers or killing by humans for other reasons. In addition to 

mortality concerns, providing secure habitat (areas free of motorized access) is important to 

enable bears to fully use their food sources, denning sites, and other living needs. Human 

presence can limit bear use of habitat, create tolerance among some bears that allows for 

interaction at great risk to the bears, or attract bears to unnatural or unsecured food sources 

increasing the risk of habituation to unnatural foods and human conflict.

Grizzly bear/human conflicts are defined as incidents, in which grizzly bears injure people, 

damage property, kill or injure livestock, damage beehives, obtain anthropogenic (unnatural) 

foods, or damage or obtain garden and orchard fruits and vegetables. All conflicts reported to 

State and Federal agencies are entered into State databases and complied annually by 

Yellowstone National Park and then reported in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

Annual Report. Grizzly bear/human encounters that did not result in human injury or property 

damage are also recorded, but categorized as confrontations rather than conflicts.

There were 229 grizzly bear/human conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in 2011. 

This was down from 2010, which recorded the most conflicts (295) reported since recordkeeping 

began in 1992. These incidents included bears obtaining anthropogenic foods (37 percent), 

killing livestock (38 percent), damaging property (10 percent), obtaining vegetables and fruits 

from gardens and orchards (9 percent), and injuring people (6 percent). Of the 229 reported 

conflicts, 74 percent occurred outside of the recovery zone or PCA. Over half of the conflicts (54 

percent) occurred on private land. The remaining (46 percent) conflicts occurred on public land 

with 41 percent on National Forest System lands and 3 percent on National Park Service lands. 

Grizzly bear habitat under different ownership exhibited different types of bear-human conflicts 

in 2011. On private property, bears damaging property and obtaining anthropogenic foods 

(garbage, grain, bird seed, dog food, garden vegetables, apples) were most common (76 percent); 

on National Forest System lands, livestock depredations were most common (62 percent) and on 

National Park Service lands, 8 total conflicts occurred involving property damage and 

anthropogenic foods (Gunther et al. 2012). 

The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) constructed a conflict distribution map in 

2011. This map identified 4 geographic areas where most grizzly bear-human conflicts occurred 

in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem over the last 3 years. These four areas contained more 

than half (57 percent) of the conflicts that occurred between 2009 and 2011. 

The areas are:

• Green River area (154 conflicts);

• North and South Forks of the Shoshone River (125 conflicts); 

• Clarks Fork area (56 conflicts); and 

• Gardiner Basin (50 conflicts). 

The North and South Forks of the Shoshone River, the Clarks Fork area, and portions of the 

Green River area are areas within the Shoshone National Forest (the planning area). The 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team recommends that these areas receive consideration when 

allocating funding for grizzly bear conservation (Gunther et al. 2012).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

164

Historically, numbers of grizzly bear-human conflicts and management actions tend to decrease 

during years with good white bark pine cone production. Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

research clearly shows that bears tend to eat more meat when whitebark pine seeds are not 

available and that there is an increase in hunter-grizzly bear conflicts and mortalities in poor seed 

years. However, extensive areas of beetle-killed whitebark pine may reduce cone abundance and 

availability locally and may dampen or modify this trend (IGBST 2010). According to the 2011 

Whitebark Pine Cone Production Report (IGBST 2012), whitebark pine surveys showed good 

cone production. The mean cones per tree was 19.8, which is above the average mean cones per 

tree of 17.4. 

The long-term pattern of a good cone crop in alternating or every third year has been evident 

since the mid-1990s (Haroldson and Podruzny 2012).

Grizzly Bear Mortalities within the Greater Yellowstone Area: From 1973 to 2012 there have 

been approximately 696 grizzly bear deaths in the GYA (IGBST Final Reports 2000-2012, 

USGS 2012 Known and Probable Grizzly Bear Mortalities Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem). It’s 

important to note the 2012 data are preliminary and limited information is available for 

mortalities still under investigation. Of these 696 deaths, there were 555 human-caused grizzly 

bear deaths (80percent of the total) and 141 natural and unknown-cause grizzly bear deaths 

(20 percent of the total). From 1973 through 1996, grizzly bear deaths occurred outside of the 

Primary Conservation Area (Recovery Zone) in only five years. Starting in 1997, grizzly bear 

deaths have occurred each year outside the Primary Conservation Area.

Table 37 lists the known and probable grizzly bear mortalities on NFS lands within the Greater 

Yellowstone Area have been human-caused. The majority of these mortalities are in the category 

of hunting related self-defense, with the remaining a combination of food habituated bears or 

bears responsible for property damage, livestock related, hunting related mistaken identity, and 

others.

Table 37. Grizzly bear human-caused mortalities on all national forest system lands within the 

Greater Yellowstone Area 2003−2010 (IGBST 2003−2011)

Type of Mortality Percentage Number

Self Defense Hunting Related 42% 60

Livestock 10% 14

Handling/Accident 2% 3

Mistaken Identity Hunter Related 7% 10

Food Habituated or Property Damage 17% 24

Malicious Killing 3% 4

Human-Caused unknown 14% 20

Roadkill 4% 5

Defense of Life 1% 2

Total: 142

Of these grizzly bear human-caused mortalities on the National Forests in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area (142), approximately 45 percent (64) have occurred on the Shoshone. The 

majority of the human-caused mortalities on the Shoshone have occurred from hunting related 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

165

incidents (self-defense and mistaken identity) or management removal for food habituated or 

property damage conflicts (table 38).

To reduce grizzly bear deaths on NFS lands, the Forest Service has established food storage 

regulations, provided bear resistant containers for garbage and food storage, provided 

information and education materials and programs, established special grizzly bear requirements 

in contracts and permits, and issued access restrictions and regulations.

Table 38. Grizzly bear human-caused mortalities on the Shoshone National Forest 2003−2011 

(IGBST 2003−2011)

Type of Mortality Percent Number

Self Defense Hunting Related 45% 29

Livestock 6% 4

Handling/Accident 2% 1

Mistaken Identity Hunter Related 9% 6

Food Habituated or Property Damage 13% 8

Malicious Killing 3% 2

Human-Caused unknown 14% 9

Roadkill 3% 2

Defense of Life 5% 3

Total: 59

Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access and Secure Habitat Interactions: The management of human 

use levels through access route management is one of the most powerful tools available to 

balance the needs of grizzly bears with the needs and activities of humans. It has been 

documented in several research projects, completed and ongoing, that unregulated human access 

and development within grizzly bear habitat can contribute to increased bear mortality and affect 

bear use of existing habitat (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) 1998, Interagency 

Conservation Strategy Team 2007). 

Historically, management of motorized use has been primarily accomplished through restriction 

of certain types of motorized use on established access routes, i.e. management of open 

motorized route densities. Recent research has shown that secure habitat (areas that are free of 

motorized traffic, also referred to as core areas) is an important component of grizzly bear 

habitat (IGBC 1998). 

By managing motorized access, the following grizzly bear management objectives can be met 

(IGBC 1998): 

• Minimize human interaction and potential grizzly bear mortality 

• Minimize displacement from important habitats 

• Minimize habituation to humans 

• Provide relatively secure habitat where energy requirements can be met

Historically grizzly bear populations survived where frequencies of contact with humans were 

very low. Populations of grizzly bears persisted in those areas where large expanses of relatively 

secure habitat were retained and where human-induced mortality was low. In the Yellowstone 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

166

area, this is primarily associated with national parks, wilderness areas, and large blocks of public 

lands (IGBST 1998). Habitat security requires minimizing mortality risk and displacement from 

human activities in a sufficient amount of habitat to allow the population to benefit from this 

secure habitat and respond with increasing numbers and distribution. Habitat security allows a 

population to increase in numbers and distribution as lowered mortality results in more 

reproduction and cub recruitment into the adult population. This results in an increasing 

population. As the population increases, it begins to expand in range and distribution. Both of 

these responses to habitat security are currently ongoing in the Yellowstone population as the

population is increasing at 3 to 4 percent per year (Boyce et al. 2001) and increasing in 

distribution (Schwartz et al. 2002).

Secure habitat must also provide the basic seasonal habitat requirements for grizzly bears and 

should be representative of seasonal habitats available to bears in the entire analysis area (IGBC 

1998). The Cumulative Effects Model was used to evaluate the relative habitat value of the 

existing secure habitat inside the primary conservation area (Interagency Conservation Strategy 

Team (ICST) 2007). 

Grizzly Bear/Developed Site Interactions: The effects of human activity associated with 

developments on grizzly bear habitat use have been reported by Mattson et al. (1987), and 

include the following: 

• Grizzly bear use was lower in areas near human developments 

• Foraging behavior was disrupted 

• Dominant bears tended to displace subordinate bears into areas with more human 

development 

• Adult females and subadult males residing closer to developments were more likely to be 

involved in management actions (such as being trapped and relocated) 

The Shoshone instituted a food storage order in 2004 on all NFS lands except for the Washakie

Ranger District. This food storage order was implemented to reduce grizzly bear/human conflicts 

associated with developed sites as well as dispersed sites. Mattson and Knight (1991) analyzed 

grizzly bear mortality data by three 8-year periods (1962 to 1969, 1975 to 1982, and 1983 to 

1990) and by association with different levels of human access, including major developments, 

primary roads, secondary roads, and back country areas. They reported that unit area mortality 

rates associated with all levels of access decreased over the three time periods. Renkin and 

Gunther (1996) evaluated bear mortalities in relation to developed sites over a 10-year period 

(1987 to 1996) and found that bear mortalities in relation to developed areas declined during that 

period. Even though grizzly bear/human conflicts still occur throughout the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem (and the Shoshone), these studies show that efforts to reduce those conflicts have 

been successful. 

Grizzly Bear/Livestock Interactions: Knight and Judd (1983) reported the following 

information about bears that kill livestock:

• All radio-collared grizzly bears that came in close contact with sheep, killed sheep.

• Most grizzly bears that encountered cattle did not make kills.

• All known cattle killers were adult bears, while sheep killers included both adults and 

subadults. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

167

They concluded that sheep grazing in occupied grizzly range is a serious problem, since bears 

kill sheep more readily and because the sheep are closely tended by herders that are protective of 

their flocks. 

Anderson et al. (1997) reported the following information from a study on grizzly bear/cattle 

interactions on two cattle allotments in northwest Wyoming:

• From a minimum of 24 grizzly bears that were known to use two cattle allotments during a 

3-year period, seven bears (possibly eight) preyed on cattle. 

• Thirty percent of 194 cattle mortalities documented during the three years were the result of 

bear predation, 65 percent were not bear-related, and 5 percent were classified as unknown.

• Predatory grizzly bears selected calves (51 of 58, or 88 percent) over adult and yearling 

cattle.

• All sex/age groups of grizzly bears, except subadult male, were associated with cattle 

depredations. However, three adult males were responsible for 84 percent of the documented 

losses where individual depredators could be identified.

• Cattle depredations were limited to a relatively short period (three to eight weeks) during 

two of the three grazing seasons, and five of the eight bears suspected of killing cattle did 

not appear to kill more than one calf each.

• Translocating grizzly bears is a viable option for reducing losses, since roaming bears may 

not return before that depredation period ends. Translocation could prevent the occasional 

depredator, which appears to be common among grizzlies, from being unnecessarily 

removed from the population.

• Removing cattle carcasses from allotments also appeared to reduce bear densities, but it 

could not be determined whether this would reduce depredations. 

• Since adult males are responsible for the majority of cattle depredations, selective removal 

may also be a possible management option, particularly when habitual adult males are 

involved and translocation, aversion tactics, or carcass removal efforts are ineffective. 

In summary, most, if not all, grizzly bears that come in contact with domestic sheep prey on 

sheep and conflicts are inevitable. Within the planning area from 2003 to 2012, none of the three 

remaining sheep allotments have had documented grizzly bear conflicts; however, the allotments 

are not considered occupied by grizzly bears. Not all grizzly bears that come in contact with 

cattle make kills. However, within the planning area, 22 of the 58 cattle allotments (38 percent) 

have had documented grizzly bear conflicts (2003 through 2012) (table 39).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

168

Table 39. Documented grizzly bear/livestock conflicts Shoshone National Forest (2003 to 2012) 

(WGFD 2003-2012)

Allotment Name Allotment 

Within PCA

No. of Grizzly Bear 

Depredation Conflicts 

since 2003

No. of Grizzly Bear 

Management Actions 

and Result of Action 

(lethal, non-lethal)

Bald Ridge X 3 1 non-lethal

Basin X 5 1 non-lethal 

Bench X 14

Ghost Creek X 4

Crandall and Reef Creek X 4

Beartooth/Face of the Mountain 12 1 non-lethal

Little Rock 3 1 non-lethal

Table Mountain X 14

Dick Creek 1

Sage Creek 2 1 non-lethal

Piney 4

Belknap 3 1 non-lethal

Rock Creek/Hardpan X 9

Dunior X 9 1 non-lethal

Fish Lake 3

Ramshorn/Parque Ck/Horse Ck X 15 1 non-lethal

Union Pass 10 1 non-lethal

Warm Springs 10 1 lethal, 2 non-lethal

Wiggins Fork 17 2 non-lethal

Wind River X 22 3 lethal, 2 non-lethal

Bear Creek 2

Salt Creek 6

Status of the Grizzly Bear on the Shoshone National Forest: At minimum, grizzly bears need 

food, seasonal foraging habitat, denning habitat and security in an area of sufficient size for 

survival. The precise mixture of these diverse elements, however, is impossible to specify. The 

difficulty lies in the fact that grizzly bears are long-lived opportunistic omnivores whose needs 

for foods and space vary depending on a multitude of environmental and behavioral factors and 

on variation in the experience and knowledge of each individual bear. According to the 

Interagency Conservation Strategy Team (ICST 2007), the key to establishing habitat criteria that 

will maintain a healthy population is to look at the habitat factors in the past that produced a 

grizzly bear population in the Yellowstone area that is increasing in numbers and expanding in 

range. These habitat factors were used to establish the habitat criteria for the future that must be 

maintained if a healthy population continues to be preserved and are detailed in the Conservation 

Strategy. Since there is no quantitative way to estimate precisely the number of animals required 

for a viable population of any species, the best way to ensure a healthy population of grizzly 

bears is to monitor both population and habitat parameters closely and respond when necessary 

with adaptive management addressing the problems of the population in a dynamic way (ICST 

2007). The Conservation Strategy is designed to accomplish this and all the forests in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area are signed partners. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

169

The Yellowstone grizzly bear population was removed from the threatened species list in April 

2007, after the population exceeded recovery goals for several years. Grizzlies became relisted 

as a federally threatened species in September of 2009, after a successful legal challenge to the 

delisting process. Grizzlies are still expanding in number and distribution throughout the 

ecosystem including on the Shoshone. The Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in 

the Greater Yellowstone Area was released in 2003 in preparation for delisting, and finalized in 

2007. Although it is not Forest Service policy at this time, it does represent best available science 

for grizzly bear conservation, and therefore, is considered to be the standard used for grizzly bear 

management. The State and Federal implementation plans within the strategy provide a 

framework for managing the primary conservation area (synonymously, the recovery zone) and 

adjacent areas of suitable grizzly bear habitat The primary conservation area is the area 

considered the adequate seasonal habitat needed to support the recovered Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population for the foreseeable future and allow bears to continue to expand outside the 

primary conservation area (see map 8). A recovered grizzly bear population is one having high 

probability of existence into the foreseeable future (greater than 100 years) and for which the 

five factors in Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act have been successfully addressed. 

The primary conservation area was designed specifically with these five factors in mind. 

A major change to the 1993 Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 in the Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Plan was updated with the 2007 Demographic Recovery Criteria because the 1993 version was 

no longer considered the best technique to assess recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

populations. The end result was revised methods for calculating population size, estimating the 

known to unknown mortality ratio, and estimating sustainable mortality levels for the 

Yellowstone grizzly population based on best available science (ICST 2007). The allowable 

mortality limits for each bear class are calculated annually based on total population estimates of 

each bear class for the current year. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team calculates both 

the total population size and the mortality limits within an area designated by the Conservation 

Strategy that overlaps and extends beyond suitable habitat (the project area is within the 

Conservation Strategy area).

For independent females, a 9 percent limit was considered sustainable because simulations have 

shown that this level of adult female mortality rate allows a stable to increasing population 

95 percent of the time (Harris et al. 2006). For independent males, a 15 percent limit was 

considered sustainable, because it approximates the level of male mortality in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area from 1983 to 2001, a period when the mean growth rate of the population was 

estimated at 4 to 7 percent per year. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team will reevaluate 

mortality limits every 8 to 10 years or as new scientific information becomes available or at the 

request of the Coordinating Committee.

Forest Plan Direction for Grizzly Bear Habitat Management

The 1986 Forest Plan included a goal to “maintain or improve habitat for threatened and 

endangered species including participation in recovery efforts for listed species.” In 1991, an 

amendment to the plan established the primacy of the Grizzly Bear Guidelines over all other plan 

direction. This amendment incorporated the guidelines, in total, by reference. In addition, the 

plan provides specific direction for minimizing impacts to grizzly bears from timber harvest, 

wilderness, oil and gas leasing, and motorized access activities.

The grizzly bear is a management indicator species and served as the basis for formulating the 

habitat diversity standards in the revised Plan. Monitoring is required for known human-caused 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

170

grizzly bear mortalities, compliance with the 1986 Guidelines, and grizzly bear habitat 

effectiveness.

Grizzly Bear Habitat/Distribution on the Shoshone National Forest

Approximately 59 percent (5,383 square miles) of the primary conservation area is NFS lands, 

consisting of six national forests. The Shoshone has approximately 1,233,000 acres or 36 percent 

of the primary conservation area that occurs on NFS lands (table 36). 

The grizzly bear is a management indicator species (recovery species) identified in the 

1986 Forest Plan. Grizzly bear/human conflict minimization is a high priority management 

consideration throughout the Forest within all areas occupied by grizzlies. As stated above, based 

on population monitoring, sightings of females with young have increased within the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem as well as on the Shoshone in recent years. Grizzly bears have also 

increased from relatively uncommon to common in most northern areas of the Forest in the past 

two decades, in conjunction with a steady trend of increasing bear density east and south of 

Yellowstone National Park. Grizzly bears now frequent most parts of the Clarks Fork, Greybull, 

and Wapiti Ranger Districts, and areas of the Wind River Ranger District north of Dubois. 

Sightings south of Dubois are increasing.

The grizzly bear is known to occur on all five ranger districts on the Shoshone. In 2011 a single 

male grizzly bear was trapped west of Lander, Wyoming, and relocated to the Bridger-Teton

National Forest. This bear most likely used habitat on the southern end of the Shoshone 

(Washakie Ranger District). Sightings and radio locations of grizzlies have increased outside the 

primary conservation area and numbers of bears have been increasing. Grizzly use is occurring 

at various levels on roughly 2 million acres on the Forest. Documented use has occurred in many 

areas east and south of the primary conservation area both on and off-Forest. Grizzlies have been 

documented south of Union Pass on the Bridger-Teton/ Shoshone National Forest boundary. The 

most extensive use by grizzlies outside the primary conservation area occurs in habitats to the 

south near Dubois, and the southeast near Meeteetse.

Very little is known about the insect aggregation sites on the Shoshone. Some sites are known 

more to the public than others because of word of mouth and because of their sightability and 

access from nearby roads. Other sites are miles into the back country, where the occasional hiker 

or horseman might stumble on the site during its use.

However, one study in the Absaroka Mountains on the north half of the Shoshone, summarized 

site information for 18 suspected and confirmed moth sites from data collected during aerial

observations from 1981 to 1989. Six of the sites were then visited from 1987 to 1989. All 

18 sites were located in glacial cirques on scree slopes immediately below steeper headwalls or 

cliffs. Elevations at the 18 sites ranged from 3,024 to 3,680 meters (9,072 to 11,040 feet) and 

slopes were 13 to 60 degrees. Sites were located on all aspects, with a majority of the sites being 

on north, west, and south aspects. Scree slopes used for feeding by bears were essentially devoid 

of vegetation; even lichen cover on rocks was sparse (Mattson et al. 1991b).

The study goes on to suggest that insect aggregation sites on the Shoshone are important to 

grizzly bears. Army cutworm moths are predictably a high-quality food; during July and August 

coinciding with the onset of spring hyperphagia (probably during late July) when grizzly bears 

accumulate the body fat necessary for surviving winter hibernation (Mattson et al. 1991b).

In 2001, a preliminary survey was undertaken in the Wind River Range on the Shoshone to 

identify any moth sites in the southern part of the forest. Of the 19 sites surveyed, 14 contained 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

171

moths (Ratner 2001). This survey was expanded in 2003, and included 20 sites surveyed. Of 

these sites, 17 had moths with 15of the 17 having “very high” to “high” densities (Ratner 2003). 

While none of these sites had documented grizzly bear use, the potential exists as the bear 

population expands to the south. The number of confirmed moth sites on the Shoshone is 

unknown at this time. The 1986 Forest Plan and its amendments do not contain any direction for 

managing insect aggregation sites on the Forest.

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game: Grizzly bear occurrence is variable across the 

commercial livestock grazing allotments on the Shoshone. Grizzly bear densities are generally 

high in the area from the Montana border to areas north of Dubois, with densities being lower 

east of the Greybull River drainage. Bear use continues to expand immediately south of Dubois. 

The following categories summarize grizzly bear occurrence and grizzly bear/livestock conflict 

potential within livestock grazing allotments on the Shoshone: 

Grazing Allotments within or having a portion in the primary conservation area. Eighteen 

allotments are within (in whole or part of) the primary conservation area boundary (map 9). 

Grizzly bear occurrence and use in and adjacent to these allotments is common. Depredation, 

other conflicts, and control actions have occurred in these areas. These allotments have the 

highest potential for grizzly bear/livestock conflicts.

Grazing allotments occupied by grizzly bears outside of the primary conservation area. Twentynine allotments are occupied by grizzly bears outside of the primary conservation area boundary. 

Grizzly use in these allotments is variable, but is anticipated to increase as most are in historical 

habitat. Depredation, other conflicts, and control actions have occurred in these areas. These 

allotments have a high to moderate potential for grizzly bear/livestock conflicts.

Grazing allotments outside of the PCA and not occupied by grizzly bears. Thirteen allotments are 

unoccupied by grizzly bears. Grizzly bear occurrence on these 13 allotments in the Wind River 

Mountains near Lander is limited to an occasional sighting. Suitable grizzly bear habitat likely 

exists throughout these allotments, as evidenced by the common presence of black bears and 

historical records. These areas are likely to be occupied by grizzly in the future due to natural 

expansion; the potential for future cattle depredation exists.

Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation on the Shoshone National Forest

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

available science and applies to NFS lands in the six greater Yellowstone Area national forests 

that include the Shoshone. The Conservation Strategy was developed to be the document guiding 

management and monitoring of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population and its habitat upon 

recovery and delisting. Even though delisting has not occurred, this document is still used to 

advance the grizzly bear’s recovery. The Conservation Strategy identified five key areas for land 

managers to focus on (Conservation Strategy, pp 5-11). These include:

• Population Standards and Monitoring

• Habitat Standards and Monitoring

• Management and Monitoring of Grizzly Bear/Human Conflicts

• Information and Education, and 

• Implementation and Evaluation

The proposed action and alternatives have the potential to directly impact three of the five keys 

areas. These three focus areas (Habitat Standards and Monitoring, Management and Monitoring 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

172

of Grizzly Bear/Human Conflicts and Information and Education) and appropriate planning area 

related standards will be the only ones brought forward for further discussion.

Habitat Standards and Monitoring Focus Area

Habitat standards include:

• Maintenance of secure habitat at 1998 levels in each bear management unit subunit (see map 

10) through management of motorized access route building and density, with short-term 

deviations allowed under specific conditions. Secure habitat is defined as more than 500 

meters from an open or gated motorized access route or reoccurring helicopter flight line and 

must be greater than or equal to 10 acres in size. The proposed action and alternatives could 

impact this standard, and thus, it will be discussed further.

• The number of commercial livestock allotments and number of permitted sheep will not 

exceed 1998 levels inside the primary conservation area. Existing sheep allotments will be 

phased out as the opportunity arises with willing permittees. The proposed action and 

alternatives could impact this standard, thus, it will be discussed further.

• Management of developed sites at 1998 levels within each bear management unit subunit 

with some exceptions for administrative and maintenance needs. The proposed action and 

alternatives could impact this standard, thus, it will be discussed further.

Habitat criteria that will be monitored and reported include:

• Monitoring open and total road motorized access route density in each bear management unit 

subunit inside the primary conservation area.

• Monitoring four major food items throughout the Yellowstone area: winter ungulate 

carcasses, cutthroat trout spawning numbers, bear use of army cutworm moth sites, and 

whitebark pine cone production. The incidence of white pine blister rust in sampled areas 

will also be monitored.

• Monitoring of habitat effectiveness in the primary conservation area using the databases 

from the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Cumulative Effects Model.

• Monitoring the number of elk hunters inside the primary conservation area.

• Monitoring the number of grizzly bear mortalities throughout the Yellowstone area on 

private lands and development of a protocol to monitor private land status and condition.

• Land managers will ensure that habitat connectivity is addressed throughout the Yellowstone 

area as part of any new road construction or reconstruction.

Management and Monitoring of Grizzly Bear/Human Conflicts Focus Area

The management of grizzly bear/human conflicts inside and outside of the primary conservation 

area is based upon the existing laws and authorities of the State wildlife agencies, the Federal 

regulatory agency and Federal land management agencies. Management of nuisance bears 

usually falls into one or more of the following categories:

• Removing or securing the attractant,

• Deterring the bear from the site through the use of aversive conditioning techniques,

• Capturing and relocating the nuisance bear,

• Removing the bear from the wild, including lethal control, or
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

173

• The focus and intent of nuisance grizzly bear management inside and outside the primary 

conservation area will be predicated on strategies and actions to prevent grizzly bear/human 

conflicts.

Information and Education Focus Area

The purposes of the information and education aspects of this cooperative effort are to support 

the development, implementation, and dissemination of a coordinated information and education 

program. This program should be understandable and useful for the people who visit, live, work, 

and recreate in bear habitat to minimize grizzly bear/human conflicts and to provide for the 

safety of people while building support for viable bear populations. 

Implementation of Habitat Standards and Monitoring Focus Area

The number of commercial livestock allotments in the primary conservation area on the 

Shoshone in 1998 was 24 (Appendix F, Conservation Strategy). The current number of 

commercial livestock allotments in the primary conservation area is 18, due only to 

combinations of allotments into a single managed allotment. In 1998 the permitted number of 

sheep (animal months) in the primary conservation area was 5,390. The current number of 

permitted sheep animal months is 0. This is as a result of the remaining two sheep allotments 

being vacated in 2003. The action alternatives propose changes to this standard; therefore, this 

will be analyzed further. 

The Shoshone staff is responsible for certain elements of four of the six monitoring 

requirements. These include:

• Monitoring open and total road motorized access route density in each bear management unit 

subunit inside the primary conservation area. The Shoshone submitted this information to the 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) for 2010 on February 22, 2011 (IGBST 

2011). 

• Monitoring four major food items throughout the Yellowstone area: winter ungulate 

carcasses, cutthroat trout spawning numbers, bear use of army cutworm moth sites, and 

whitebark pine cone production. The incidence of white pine blister rust in sampled areas 

will also be monitored. The Shoshone annually monitors established whitebark pine cone 

production transects and these data are used to prepare the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study 

Team annual report. 

• Monitoring of habitat effectiveness in the primary conservation area using the databases 

from the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Cumulative Effects Model. The Shoshone submitted this 

information to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team for 2010 on February 22, 2011 

(IGBST 2011).

• Land managers will ensure that habitat connectivity is addressed throughout the Yellowstone 

area as part of any new road construction or reconstruction. No new road construction or 

reconstruction needed this issue addressed in 2010.

The Shoshone is in compliance with these monitoring elements. Monitoring open and total road 

motorized access route density in each bear management unit monitoring element could be 

affected by the proposed action or alternatives.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

174

Implementation of the Management and Monitoring of Grizzly Bear/Human Conflicts 

Focus Area

The following is a brief summary of the actions that the Shoshone National Forest has required 

within the planning area to maintain or improve grizzly bear habitat and reduce grizzly 

bear/human conflicts.

Food storage orders/regulations Food storage Order 04-00-104 (USDA 2004): 

All food and refuse must be acceptably stored or acceptably possessed during daytime 

hours. 

All food and refuse must be acceptably stored during nighttime hours, unless it is being 

prepared for eating, being eaten, being transported, or being prepared for acceptable 

storage. 

Any harvested animal carcass must be acceptably stored, unless the carcass is being field 

dressed, transported, being prepared for eating, or being prepared for acceptable storage. 

Camping or sleeping areas must be established at least 0.5 mile from a known animal 

carcass or at least 100 yards from an acceptably stored animal carcass. 

Bear-resistant facilities/sanitation 

The Shoshone and WGFD have provided bear-resistant facilities (i.e., bear-resistant food boxes, 

food tubes, garbage containers, meat hanging poles, panniers, etc.) at campgrounds, trailheads, 

dispersed campsites, and to permittees in the project area. 

Information, Education, and Patrolling

The Shoshone annually hires a bear education specialist to coordinate and lead the bear 

awareness programs. Substantial information and education materials (pamphlets, brochures, 

signs, videos, etc.) and programs have been provided to the public at all Forest Service offices. 

Signs and brochures are available at campgrounds, trailheads, dispersed recreation sites, picnic 

areas, etc. Forests contributed financing for producing the information and education film 

“Living in Grizzly Country.” The forests have cooperated with State wildlife management 

agencies and other cooperating institutions and individuals in giving “Living in Bear Country 

Workshops,” which include bear identification, safe camping, hiking, hunting, and working 

procedures to use in bear country, and the proper use of bear-deterrent pepper spray. Back 

country rangers and other back country patrols have been used to inform and educate the public 

on food storage orders, and to check on compliance with these orders. Field patrols have been 

used during hunting seasons to reduce hunter-caused conflicts and grizzly bear mortalities, 

specifically within the project area. 

Special grizzly bear requirements in permits

All special use permits and livestock grazing permits issued on the Shoshone contain clauses 

requiring protection of the grizzly bear and its habitat, and proper food storage and sanitation 

both inside and outside of the primary conservation area boundary.

Grizzly Bear Population

Following the direction in the Conservation Strategy; the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

annually monitors unduplicated females with cubs of the year within the Greater Yellowstone 

Area; calculates a total population estimate for the entire Greater Yellowstone Area based on an 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

175

estimate of females with cubs of the year, monitors the distribution of females with all young in 

each bear management unit within the primary conservation area, and monitors all sources of 

mortality. The new analysis protocol for estimating total population and sustainable mortality 

limits were developed by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team and was appended to the 

Conservation Strategy. 

Current information indicates the Greater Yellowstone Area population of grizzly bears is 

growing at approximately 3 to 4 percent annually. While there is some debate related to the 

actual level of population increase since the bear was listed in 1975, all of the current 

information (i.e., number of unduplicated females, distribution of reproducing females, 

distribution of bears, informal sightings by agency personnel, and areas where nuisance bears are 

being managed) indicates this population has increased in both numbers of bears and the 

geographic area they occupy (ICST 2003). The distribution of the grizzly bear population on the 

Shoshone in 2011 has not really changed in the last 8 years. All 13 of the grazing allotments 

unoccupied in the 2003 are still considered unoccupied in 2011. 

Secure Habitat on the Shoshone National Forest 

Maintaining or improving secure habitat at or above the 1998 levels in each bear management 

subunit inside and outside the primary conservation area is required under the Conservation 

Strategy as an objective. Secure habitat as defined in the Conservation Strategy is any 

contiguous area greater than 10 acres in size occurring more than 500 meters away from an open 

or gated motorized access route or recurring helicopter flight line. Lakes larger than 1 square 

mile in spatial extent are excluded from the secure analysis. No motorized access objectives are 

identified for areas outside the primary conservation area in the conservation strategy. Annual 

reporting of changes in secure habitat is required for areas inside the primary conservation area

and in alternating years for areas outside of the primary conservation area.

On the Shoshone, 2012 changes in secure habitat were last reported in February 2013, for areas 

both inside and outside the primary conservation area. Since the 2012 monitoring report has not 

been finalized at this time, we utilized the 2011 monitoring report. In 2011, there had been no net 

decline in secure habitat in any of the bear management subunits in the primary conservation 

area, including the Shoshone (IGBST 2012). Existing secure habitat on the Shoshone is 

displayed in table 40 (see also map 11).

Secure habitat had increased by 0.1 percent or more in 15 subunits from that identified in the 

1998 baseline. The Shoshone increased secure habitat in 5 of its 10 bear management subunits 

(Crandall/Sunlight 1 and 3, Shoshone 1 and 3, and South Absaroka 3) (IGBST 2012). The 

Shoshone is in compliance with the secure habitat objective.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

176

Table 40. 1998 baseline and 2011 for secure habitat for bear management unit (BMU) subunit on the 

Shoshone

BMU Subunit 

Name % Secure Habitat Square Miles Secure Habitat

1998 2010 % Change 1998/2010

Crandall/Sunlight 1 81.1 81.4 0.3 105.2/105.6

Crandall/Sunlight 2 82.3 82.3 0.0 260.3/260.3

Crandall/Sunlight 3 80.4 80.7 0.3 178.3/178.9

Shoshone 1 98.5 98.5 0.1 120.3/120.4

Shoshone 2 98.8 98.8 0.0 130.9/130.9

Shoshone 3 97.0 97.7 0.8 136.5/137.6

Shoshone 4 94.9 94.9 0.0 179.1/179.1

South Absaroka 1 99.2 99.2 0.0 161.9/161.9

South Absaroka 2 99.9 99.9 0.0 190.3/190.3

South Absaroka 3 96.8 96.8 0.0 337.1/337.2

Changes in secure habitat in areas identified by State grizzly bear management plans as 

biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy are reported every 

2 years on national forests outside the primary conservation area. Since 2008, when secure 

habitat outside the primary conservation area was last reported, small gains in grizzly bear secure 

habitat were achieved in 7 out of 43 bear analysis units, with one bear analysis unit (Warm 

Springs-Shoshone National Forest) reporting a slight decrease. Two of the seven bear analysis 

units on the Shoshone (Carter and Wood River) saw a slight increase (IGBST 2011).

Alternatives (except alternative G) to the revised Forest Plan may impact road densities within 

the planning area, thus, they could have an effect on secure habitat. The preferred alternative will 

not impact road densities within the planning area. 

Grizzly Bear Conflicts on the Shoshone National Forest 

There were 64 grizzly bear/livestock conflicts from 1986 to 2002, and no documented bear 

mortalities had occurred (USDA Forest Service 2003). Conflicts with livestock have increased in 

recent years, primarily outside of the primary conservation area. 

From 2003 to 2012 there have been 336 reported grizzly bear conflicts on the Shoshone (table 

40). A majority of these conflicts were from livestock injuries/depredations, followed by food 

habituated, property damage, and human injury conflict. As a result of the 336 grizzly bear 

conflicts, 64 bears were killed or removed from the Shoshone (table 38).

Table 41. Grizzly bear conflicts on the Shoshone National Forest 2003 to 2012 (IGBST 2003−2012, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 2012)

Type of Conflict Percent Number

Livestock 59% 196

Food Habituated 21% 69

Property Damage 15% 46

Human Injury 5% 25

Total: 336
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

177

Grizzly bear conflicts with livestock have generally been managed according to the Grizzly Bear 

Guidelines and/or Conservation Strategy, which include protocols for nuisance bear 

management. Table 41 displays documented livestock conflicts for presently active allotments on 

the Shoshone since 2003. All of these allotments are grazed by cattle, as domestic sheep are no 

longer permitted in occupied habitat. A management action, as shown in table 42 is an action that 

results in a bear being killed (lethal action), trapped and relocated, or aversive-conditioned (nonlethal action). A management action also includes any action that attempts to take a bear, such as 

attempting to trap a bear.

Table 42. Documented grizzly bear/livestock conflicts Shoshone National Forest (2003 to 2012) 

(WGFD 2003−2012)

Allotment Name

Allotment 

Within Primary 

Conservation 

Area

No. of Grizzly Bear 

Depredation Conflicts 

since 2003

No. of Grizzly Bear 

Management Actions 

and Result of Action 

(lethal, non-lethal)

Bald Ridge X 3 1 non-lethal

Basin X 5 1 non-lethal 

Bench X 14

Ghost Creek X 4

Crandall and Reef Creek X 4

Beartooth/Face of the Mountain 12 1 non-lethal

Little Rock 3 1 non-lethal

Table Mountain X 14

Dick Creek 1

Sage Creek 2 1 non-lethal

Piney 4

Belknap 3 1 non-lethal

Rock Creek/Hardpan X 9

Dunior X 9 1 non-lethal

Fish Lake 3

Ramshorn/Parque Ck/Horse Ck X 15 1 non-lethal

Union Pass 10 1 non-lethal

Warm Springs 10 1 lethal, 2 non-lethal

Wiggins Fork 17 2 non-lethal

Wind River X 22 3 lethal, 2 non-lethal

Bear Creek 2

Salt Creek 6

As can be seen from table 42, there have been four documented grizzly bear mortalities due to 

cattle grazing on the Shoshone from 2003 to 2012. Incidental take was exceeded when the 

second bear mortality occurred in 2010. Consultation was reinitiated in 2011, and a new take 

statement was received in 2012. There are several allotments where conflicts are concentrated—

Bench, Beartooth/Face of the Mountain, Table Mountain, Rock Creek/Hardpan, Dunior, 

Ramshorn/Parque Ck/Horse Ck, Wiggins Fork and Wind River. This is an increase in conflict 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

178

allotments since 2003, when only three of these allotments (Rock Creek/Hardpan, Dunior and 

Ramshorn/Parque Ck/Horse Ck) were identified in the 2003 biological assessment.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Motorized Access: Research has shown that secure habitat (areas that are free of 

motorized access) is an important component of grizzly bear habitat (Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee 1998). Secure habitat is defined as areas more than 10 acres in size and more than 

500 meters from an open or gated motorized access route or recurring helicopter flight lines. 

Alternatives A through E and G provide secure habitat for the grizzly bear both inside and 

outside the primary conservation area and they all provide the most secure habitat with no 

allowance for management activities that would decrease the secure habitat. These alternatives 

would be consistent with the Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area 2007. Alternative F proposes eliminating the security requirement for grizzly 

bears. Alternative F would have the greatest effect on this species, would be inconsistent with 

how secure habitat is managed in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and would be inconsistent 

with the Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area 2007. 

Existing secure habitat in alternatives A through E and G is at 93 percent (table 43), while secure 

habitat in alternative F would be reduced to 0 percent. Alternatives A through E and G would 

allow varying amounts of management activities within portions of the existing secure habitat 

that could temporarily or permanently decrease the amount of secure habitat. Under alternative F, 

management activities would not be restricted for grizzly bears with regard to secure habitat 

management. 

Within the Primary Conservation Area on the Shoshone National Forest

There are 1,800 square miles of secure habitat on Shoshone NFS lands within the primary 

conservation area (table 43). The maximum allowable temporary change to secure habitat for a 

project cannot exceed 1percent of the area of the largest subunit within the bear management unit 

(Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area 2007) 

All alternatives, except alternative F, maintain or increase the amount of long-term secure 

habitat, but allow changes in the secure habitat according to the 1 percent rule. Under 

alternatives A through E and alternative G, any secure habitat affected by the 1 percent rule 

would be restored after project completion. Under alternative F, secure habitat direction would 

be eliminated.

Alternative A (the 1986 Plan, as amended) has a standard for no net increase in roads. The 

activity levels associated with Plan objectives are relatively low. In practice, secure habitat is 

being maintained or increased under this alternative. The amount of secure habitat has increased 

in Shoshone bear management units subunits 3 and 4 due to road closures in the North Fork 

Shoshone River corridor. The amount of secure habitat has stayed the same in all other bear 

management unit subunits. Currently, 93 percent of the NFS land within the primary 

conservation area is secure habitat (table 43).

In alternative A, the standard for no net increase in roads would result in stable amounts of 

secure habitat. The location of secure habitat could change over time when roads are constructed 

in some areas and closed in other areas to meet the standard of no net increase.

For alternatives B through E and alternative G, the existing secure habitat (1,137,000 acres, 93 

percent of the NFS land within the primary conservation area) would be maintained, with the 

allowance of the 1 percent rule to accomplish various management objectives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

179

For alternative F, there would be no standard for secure habitat within the primary conservation 

area. This alternative would not be in compliance with the Conservation Strategy and would 

have negative influences on the grizzly bear due to the potential loss of secure habitat for the 

species. 

Effects from Winter Motorized Use: Within the Shoshone, there are over 567,000 acres of 

grizzly bear denning habitat within the primary conservation area (Podruzny et al. 2002) 

(table 43).

Table 43. Grizzly bear denning habitat in thousands of acres, closed to snow machine use within 

the primary conservation area 

Acres of denning habitat Acres (%) closed to snow machine use 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

731 80% 80% 96% 90% 80% 70% 80%

Within the primary conservation area, approximately 80 percent of the grizzly bear denning 

habitat would be closed to snow machine use in alternatives A, B, E and G (table 43). 

Alternatives C and D would increase the amount of denning habitat closed to snow machine use 

to 96 percent and 90 percent, respectively. Alternative F would decrease the amount of closed 

habitat to 70 percent. It also projects an additional 90 miles of snowmobile trails. Alternative F 

has the potential to have the greatest impact on denning habitat for grizzly bear. 

Therefore, in alternatives A through E and alternative G, potential impacts to grizzly bears from 

snow machine use would be expected to be low, while effects from alternative F could be 

moderate.

Effects from developed sites: Developed sites in grizzly bear habitat increase the potential for 

conflict with humans primarily due to the potential availability of human foods. Developments 

also reduce the effectiveness of the natural habitat near these sites. Dominant bears sometimes 

displace subordinate bears into less desirable habitat, resulting in increased conflicts compared to 

bears using habitats farther away from developed sites. The larger the developed site and the 

more people using the site, the greater the potential for conflicts and reduction in the 

effectiveness of the adjacent habitat for bears (Mattson et al.1987 in grizzly bear amendment).

Inside the Primary Conservation Area on the Shoshone 

Developed sites on the Shoshone National Forest inside the primary conservation area are 

displayed in table 44 as depicted in the Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area 2007. Forest Service food storage regulations minimize the potential for 

grizzly bear/ human conflicts independent of the alternatives. Minerals development under the 

1872 General Mining Law would be permitted and mitigated as possible.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

180

Table 44. The 1998 baseline for numbers of developed sites on the Shoshone within each bear 

management unit

Subunit

Permitted Summer 

home complex

Developed 

campgrounds

Trailheads

Major Developed 

Sites and lodges

Administrative or 

maintenance sites

Other developed 

sites

Plans of operations 

for mineral activities

Crandall/Sunlight #1 0 2 5 1 1 5 0

Crandall/Sunlight #2 0 5 4 1 2 5 1

Crandall/Sunlight #3 0 2 3 0 1 2 0

Shoshone #1 1 2 0 0 0 6 0

Shoshone #2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

Shoshone #3 2 0 1 1 0 0 0

Shoshone #4 3 3 3 6 0 8 0

South Absaroka #1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

South Absaroka #2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

South Absaroka #3 1 3 4 1 1 4 0

Total 7 17 21 11 7 30 1

Alternatives A through G. Recreational use and associated demand for developed sites is 

expected to increase. Increases in capacity and the number of developed sites would not be 

allowed unless it were determined that there were no impacts to grizzly bears or the impacts 

could be mitigated effectively within the same bear management unit subunit. Conflicts at 

developed sites would likely remain at current levels or decrease, and the acreage of impacted 

habitat would decrease or remain at 1998 levels. 

Consultation with the USFWS would be required under all alternatives for projects that may 

affect the grizzly bear. Should the grizzly bear be delisted, a biological evaluation would be 

required under all alternatives for projects that may affect the grizzly bear as a regional sensitive 

species. The number and capacity of developed sites would likely increase outside the primary 

conservation area under all alternatives. Grizzly bear/human conflicts would increase outside the 

primary conservation area as bears expand their range even with the existing level of developed 

sites. An increase in number and capacity of developed sites would further increase the potential 

for conflicts and displacement.

Effects from Commercial Livestock Grazing: The number of commercial livestock allotments 

in the primary conservation area on the Shoshone in 1998 was 24 (ICST 2007). The current 

number of commercial livestock allotments in the primary conservation area is 18, due only to 

combinations of allotments into a single managed allotment. In 1998, the permitted number of 

sheep (animal months) in the primary conservation area was 5,390. The current number of 

permitted sheep animal months is 0. This is as a result of the remaining two sheep allotments 

being vacated in 2003. Grizzly bear/livestock conflict data are displayed in table 39. 

Alternatives A, B, D, and G. The number of commercial livestock allotments would remain 

unchanged under these alternatives and would be consistent with this standard in the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

181

Conservation Strategy. Sheep AUMs would remain below 1998 levels inside the primary 

conservation area. Conflicts with grizzly bears and domestic sheep have been eliminated. No 

new allotments would be created in the primary conservation area and numbers of cattle would 

likely remain close to, or below, 1998 levels in existing allotments. Conflicts with cattle would 

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

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

would likely be minor. Under these alternatives, cattle allotments with recurring conflicts that 

could not be resolved through modification of grazing practices would be retired as opportunities 

arise with willing permittees. As allotments with recurring conflicts are retired, grizzly bear 

conflicts would decrease.

The past level of conflicts and grizzly bear mortalities has not precluded achieving recovery of 

the grizzly bear and, in addition, sheep conflicts have been eliminated.

Alternative C. No new allotments would be created in the primary conservation area. Under 

alternative C, permitted AUMs decrease by 45 percent and would be below 1998 levels in 

existing allotments. Under this alternative, cattle allotments with recurring conflicts, that could 

not be resolved through modification of grazing practices, would be retired as opportunities arise 

with willing permittees. As allotments with recurring conflicts are retired, grizzly bear conflicts 

would decrease. Similar to alternative A, the past level of conflicts and grizzly bear mortalities 

has not precluded achieving recovery of the grizzly bear and, in addition, sheep conflicts have 

been eliminated.

Alternative E. The number of cattle AUMs would increase under this alternative by 20 percent 

above alternative A. This would be accomplished within the existing number of allotments. 

Portions of these allotments lie with the primary conservation area. This alternative would be 

consistent with the 1998 baseline standard as the number of allotments is not increased and no 

increase in sheep AUMs. Due to the increase of livestock use, this alternative would result in 

increased conflicts with grizzly bears. 

Recovery of the grizzly bear would be set back by alternative E, as the number of conflicts and 

results of the conflicts would have increased negative impact on the species.

Alternative F. The number of commercial livestock allotments and cattle AUMs would increase 

under this alternative. Seven allotments that are currently vacant would be made available for 

livestock grazing and increase AUMs by approximately 25 percent over alternative A. Portions 

of these allotments lie within the primary conservation area. This alternative would not be 

consistent with the 1998 baseline standard in the Conservation Strategy and would result in 

increased conflicts with grizzly bears. 

Recovery of the grizzly bear would be set back by alternative F, as the species would no longer 

be managed consistently in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Outside the Primary Conservation Area on the Shoshone National Forest

Outside the primary conservation area, there are currently 39 active cattle allotments and two 

active sheep allotments (USDA Forest Service 2011, this is the Grazing BA Table 2 and 3). 

During the years 2003 through 2011, there were 12 cattle allotments and no sheep allotments (30 

percent of the active allotments) with documented grizzly bear conflicts. 

Alternatives A, B, C, D, E, and G. The existing active sheep allotments would be maintained. 

There have been no grizzly bear conflicts on the existing active sheep allotments. Grizzly bear 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

182

conflicts are expected on the 12 cattle allotments outside the primary conservation area with 

previous conflicts, and are anticipated on some but not all of the other cattle allotments if the 

grizzly bear population expands into these areas. Both cattle and sheep conflicts would be

handled under State nuisance grizzly bear guidelines. These nuisance grizzly bear guidelines 

allow a variety of management actions, depending on site-specific conditions and situations. 

Conflicts would likely increase under all five alternatives outside the primary conservation area 

as bears continue to expand their range. Consultation with the USFWS would be required under 

all alternatives, until the grizzly bear is delisted.

Alternative F. The number of active commercial allotments would be increased and the numbers 

of cattle would be increased under this alternative. Grizzly bear conflicts would occur on the new 

allotments and conflicts are also expected on the 12 cattle allotments outside the primary 

conservation area with previous conflicts, and are anticipated on some but not all of the other 

cattle allotments if the grizzly bear population expands into these areas. Livestock conflicts 

would be handled under State nuisance grizzly bear guidelines. These nuisance grizzly bear 

guidelines allow a variety of management actions, depending on site-specific conditions and 

situations. Conflicts would likely increase under all five alternatives outside the primary 

conservation area as bears continue to expand their range. Consultation with the USFWS would 

be required under all alternatives until the grizzly bear is delisted.

Effects from Forest-wide Direction: Effects are common to all alternatives. All alternatives 

provide some level of protection to grizzly bear habitat; the quantity and quality of available 

habitat are only two of the factors that influence total population numbers. Controlling 

human-caused mortality has been key to increases in bear numbers over the last 25 years. 

Human-caused mortality, coupled with the amount of effective habitat, would be the ultimate 

limiting factors for the grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone Area.

Coordinated management of nuisance bears, food storage orders, information and education 

efforts, and the availability of Forest Service facilities to store food unavailable to bears would 

minimize conflicts and grizzly bear mortalities under all alternatives.

Grizzly bear/human conflicts and human-caused mortalities would likely increase with increased 

contact between bears and humans on the six national forests. Many of the grizzly bear/human 

conflicts occur on private lands in the Greater Yellowstone Area, where the Forest Service has no 

authority to require food storage.

Recreational use of NFS lands is expected to increase over the next decade as the human 

population in the counties in the Greater Yellowstone Area continues to grow.

Weather conditions play a key role in the yearly availability of foods for bears, which in turn 

affects female fecundity (fertility) and cub survival (Schwartz et al. 2005). In poor food years, 

bears often seek non-traditional foods and end up in conflicts with humans, increasing the risk of 

mortality. Regardless of the amount of habitat protection, weather conditions would still 

influence the basic productivity of the land and the foods available to bears, and ultimately, the 

carrying capacity of the landscape for grizzly bears.

Future minerals development could impact grizzly bears, but would be minimized by mitigation 

efforts.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

183

Cumulative Effects 

Livestock grazing is an identified potential threat to grizzly bear conservation that contributes to 

cumulative adverse effects, due primarily to control actions when grizzly bear/livestock conflicts 

occur. Most grizzly bears that persistently kill livestock are eventually euthanized or otherwise 

removed from the population (Reinhart et al. 2001). Although many conflicts in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area were associated with livestock depredations, most were resolved without bear 

mortalities (IGBST 2000). This is very similar on the Shoshone where from 2003 to 2012, there 

were 168grizzly bear/livestock conflicts that resulted in 4 bear mortalities. As grizzly bear 

populations expand outside the primary conservation area, the proportion of livestock 

depredations occurring outside the primary conservation area have increased, especially since 

there are more livestock grazing operations outside the PCA than inside. With the existence of 

the nuisance bear policy in effect outside the primary conservation area in Wyoming, it is likely 

that more grizzly bears would be killed when livestock depredations occur. 

In addition to the grazing activities that may influence grizzly bears and their habitat on the 

Shoshone, other private or State-permitted activities are reasonably certain to occur within the 

immediate influence zone that would result in cumulative effects to the grizzly bear. The 

activities that are likely to occur on private and State land within close proximity to the 

Shoshone are presented below. The primary State-permitted activity that will occur on public and 

private land is regulated wildlife hunting/trapping and fishing seasons. This activity will likely 

remain the same or increase slightly, and thus, the potential for grizzly bear\human conflicts will 

likely increase, particularly as the grizzly bear increases in numbers and distribution. Of the 

64 human-caused grizzly bear mortalities on the Shoshone from 2003 to 2012, 54 percent were 

hunting related. This percentage is a 17 percent increase since 2003. One of the greatest causes 

of grizzly bear mortalities in recent years is self-defense in fall by big game hunters. Black bear 

hunting using bear baiting techniques will continue and possibly increase on State and private 

lands near the Shoshone. This is another potential source for grizzly bear/human conflict and 

human-caused grizzly bear mortality. All alternatives are not expected to have any influence on 

or be affected by this non-Forest Service permitted or regulated activities.

Additional activities likely to occur in the immediate influence zone include actions on private 

inholdings and private lands adjacent to the Shoshone. Livestock grazing on public lands is a 

long tradition of western culture and the use of public lands has been a key component of viable 

ranching operations. Working ranches are an important part of the landscape as they provide 

large expanses of habitat essential to the conservation of grizzly bears. The importance of 

working landscapes should not be minimized as they are not only vital to the grizzly bear, but 

many wide-ranging species. Should there be a loss of our working landscapes; the fragmentation 

of wildlife habitat would have long-term adverse impacts to grizzly bears. Examples include 

construction of homes and development of residential subdivisions. This can reduce or fragment 

available bear habitat and reduce its effectiveness because of human disturbance. In these human 

activity areas, bears can become human-habituated and food-conditioned, which will lead to 

increases in grizzly bear/human conflicts, particularly as bears increase in numbers and 

distribution.

Private and State lands that currently have livestock grazing occurring will likely continue to 

have livestock grazing, and these actions can have similar effects that have and can occur 

relative to livestock grazing on the Shoshone. Loss of, displacement from, or decrease in value 

of available habitat can occur from increased development on private lands related to oil and gas 

exploration, and development and recreational developments. With these increases in 

developments on the periphery of the Shoshone, there will be increases in recreational activities 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

184

on both private and public lands, which can lead to increases in grizzly bear/human conflicts and 

cumulative effects.

Determination of Effects and Rationale for the Determination

Under alternatives A through E and alternative G, management activities such as livestock 

grazing, recreation, and vegetation management inside the primary conservation area and in 

areas occupied by grizzly bears have been identified as a risk factor that will likely affect 

individual bears and may affect grizzly bear populations. Management activities are guided by 

the habitat standards that limit changes to grazing allotments, developed sites and secure habitat. 

It is likely that only a small number of grizzly bears will be affected by grazing activities and the 

potential adverse effects can be minimized through adherence to the terms and conditions. 

Grizzly bear populations have expanded and are expected to continue to expand throughout the 

Shoshone. Given the high potential for grizzly bear/human and grizzly bear/livestock 

interactions to continue and the resulting control actions, it is the conclusion and determination 

that this action (alternatives A through E and G), “may affect, likely to adversely affect” 

individual grizzly bears. As a result of this determination formal consultation would be required. 

Alternative F would remove any secure habitat requirements for grizzly bears and increase the 

number of commercial grazing allotments. There is an expected increase in bear/livestock 

conflicts. Developed sites are guided by the habitat standards that limit changes to the number of 

sites. Expansion of the grizzly bear population in the primary conservation area would not occur. 

Given the high potential for grizzly bear/human and grizzly bear/livestock interactions to 

continue and the resulting control actions, it is the conclusion and determination that this action 

(alternative F), “may affect, likely to adversely affect” individual grizzly bears. As a result of 

this determination, formal consultation would be required.

North American wolverine 

Affected Environment

Wolverines (Gulo gulo) have a circumboreal distribution. In North America, they occupy much 

of Alaska and northern Canada, and follow the Rocky Mountains south to northwestern 

Wyoming (Beauvais and Johnson 2004). Northwestern Wyoming, including the Shoshone, is 

thought to support the southernmost population of wolverines in North America. Historical 

populations, distribution, or abundance are unknown on the Forest.

Due to low population densities, no trend data are available for the Shoshone or the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. Over an 18-year period (1992 to 2009) only three observations of 

breeding wolverines were made in Wyoming (Inman et al. 2009). As of the winter of 2008 to 

2009, the Wildlife Conservation Society had five radio-collared wolverines that had home ranges 

within northwestern Wyoming (Inman et al. 2009), one of which dispersed to Colorado. 

Wolverines were also recently documented in the Thorofare region of the Washakie Wilderness 

(Shoshone National Forest) and Teton Wilderness (Bridger-Teton National Forest), but no 

wolverines were detected in the North Absaroka Wilderness (Shoshone National Forest), which 

contains prime habitat for wolverines (Murphy et al. 2011).

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Wolverine habitat typically consists of remote, undisturbed, and mountainous regions. Habitat 

consists of mature boreal forest, alpine tundra, and rock. Home ranges are large from 40 to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

185

200 square kilometers (24.9 to 124.3 square miles) (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). These areas 

typically contain herds of large ungulates. 

Due to the wide use of habitats, there is no limiting habitat association (topography or vegetation 

type) for wolverines. It is assumed that pockets of mature forest with an abundance of coarse 

woody debris is beneficial, along with open areas supporting big game foraging, coupled with 

boulder fields for denning. The Shoshone contains abundant potential habitat for wolverines, 

especially in wilderness (Wildlife Conservation Society 2010, Beauvais and Johnson 2004).

Snow cover that persists through the spring denning period appears vital to reproduction, and 

Copeland et al. (2010) showed that nearly 100 percent of documented dens (n=562) documented 

through worldwide research studies (primarily Fennoscandia and North America) occurred at 

sites with persistent snow cover. Overall, the denning period for wolverines, regardless of 

worldwide location is estimated to be between approximately mid-February to mid-May.

If wilderness areas represent optimal wolverine habitat, then the Shoshone contains about 

1,365,154 acres of potential habitat. One large area of potential wolverine habitat that is not in 

wilderness is the Beartooth Plateau. Winter motorized recreational use of this area is high.

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). Also, due to fire suppression, the spruce/fir forest type has likely 

increased on the Forest. 

Risk Factors

The primary risk factors from forest management are winter recreational activities, infrastructure 

development and transportation corridors. Predicted effects of climate change on the distribution 

of late spring snowpack is expected to reduce the overall acreage of wolverine habitat. 

Habitat and Population Management Considerations

Fur trapping has historically been a large source of mortality. Wolverines in Wyoming are 

currently classified as a nongame mammal with full protection from take, including fur harvest. 

Trapping wolverines is still allowed in Montana. Given wolverine’s large home ranges, it’s 

possible that some wolverines in Northwestern Wyoming are at risk of being trapped in Montana 

at some point. 

Winter recreation, especially snowmobiling, is a primary source of disturbance for denning 

wolverines (Beauvais and Johnson 2004, Inman et al. 2009, Olliff and Kaeding 1999). 

Regulating snowmobile use in important denning areas and deterring wilderness trespassing by 

snowmobiles are important.

Land-use conversion due to development and roads is an important risk factor. This is most 

evident on lands adjacent to the Shoshone. Some of these areas may serve as linkage areas 

between suitable habitats.

Climate change could also impact wolverines (Rice et al. 2012, Inman et al. 2009). Wolverines 

are adapted to cold temperatures and snow. Changes in climate may result in increased 

competition for food and less successful den site selection (Inman et al. 2009). 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

186

Conservation Measures

Although abundant habitat exists in wilderness areas, high value wolverine habitat outside of 

wilderness may be at risk, therefore, there is some viability concern on the Shoshone. 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:

1. In general, implementation of the NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007) would benefit 

wolverines as well. Especially, Standards and Guidelines related to vegetation 

management and winter recreation.

2. If important denning habitat is identified outside of wilderness (i.e., Beartooth Plateau) 

snowmobiling in these areas may need to be restricted.

3. Actively patrol for snowmobiles that are trespassing in wilderness.

Monitoring Considerations

Monitoring the intensity and snowmobile use in the Beartooth Plateau area could be important, 

especially if the wolverine is listed in the future. If listed, it could greatly restrict snowmobile use 

in this area.

The Shoshone will continue to collaborate with other agencies and organizations to monitor 

wolverines in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Roads, Motorized and Non-motorized Recreation, and Ski Area Development: 

Plan direction that could potentially influence the wolverine involves road construction/ 

reconstruction, motorized and non-motorized recreation, and ski area development. Differences 

in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in table 45.

Table 45. Activities and outputs that could Influence the North American wolverine by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Motorized RecreationWinter(Acres available) 887,600 479,800 103,000 323,700 525,200 825,200 510,500

Motorized RecreationWinter(Acres not available) 1,550,000 1,958,000 2,331,000 2,114,000 1,913,000 1,613,000 1,845,600

Motorized RecreationSummer (Acres available) 570,600 570,800 322,400 350,600 656,500 823,900 529,000

Motorized RecreationSummer (Acres not available) 1,867,000 1,867,020 2,116,000 2,087,000 1,782,000 1,614,000 1,909,000

Ski Area Development

Or Expansion 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150

Wilderness Acres 1,365,000 1,365,000 1,968,000 1,559,000 1,365,000 1,365,000 1,365,000

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in table 45, the no-action alternative offers the most acres, approximately 

887,600 acres, for over-the-snow motorized travel. Although this alternative did not recognize 

Sleeping Giant Ski Area, nonetheless the effects of the ski area under alternative A are the same 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

187

as the action alternatives (B through G). No expansion of the ski area boundary is proposed in 

any of the alternatives, which is important to the conservation and future habitat options for the 

wolverine. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G 

As displayed in table 45, the action alternatives differ in the amount of solitude and undeveloped 

terrain potentially available for the wolverine. Of the action alternatives, alternative F offers the 

largest amount of acres available to winter motorized recreation. Alternatives C and D offer the 

least amount of acres available for motorized travel. Alternatives C and D, therefore, offer the 

highest probability of maintaining habitat options for species such as the wolverine that depend 

on solitude, little human disturbance, and undeveloped terrain. Alternatives B and E and 

alternative G offer a balance between the three other action alternatives, but also they provide 

more undisturbed habitat and less potential disturbances than no action. 

In regard to undeveloped habitat, alternatives B through G are the same as alternative A where

no expansion of the ski area boundary is proposed.

Cumulative Effects 

A considerable amount of wilderness and unfragmented habitat remains in the Shoshone. 

Recreational use on the Forest has increased to a point that previously undisturbed areas are now 

supporting various types of extreme sports and other recreational pursuits. These activities have 

the potential to reduce the amount of solitude habitat available for species such as the wolverine.

In Wyoming, wolverines are a species of greatest conservation need and trapping of wolverines 

is illegal. Fur trapping has historically been a large source of mortality. Trapping wolverines is 

still allowed in Montana. Given the wolverine’s large home ranges, it’s possible that some 

wolverines in northwestern Wyoming are at risk to trapping in Montana at some point.

Increasing global temperatures may degrade habitat quality and quantity in the conterminous 

United States during the 21st century, triggering reductions in the size of wolverine habitat 

patches and their connectivity (Schwartz et al. 2009, Copeland et al. 2010). Because of its high 

average elevation and location, in the continent’s interior, the Yellowstone ecosystem (includes 

the Shoshone) has some of the largest and most contiguous patches of wolverine habitat in the 

conterminous United States (Brock et al. 2007, Copeland 2010). Thus, the ecosystem is likely to 

play an increasingly important role in the population dynamics and persistence of wolverine 

populations as the regional-scale coverage of spring snow declines.

Determination of Effects and Rationale for Determination – North American 

Wolverine

Alternatives A through G are “not likely to jeopardize continued existence” of the species. 

Because of this determination, no conferencing with the USFWS is needed.” The rationale for 

this determination follows: 

• The Shoshone and its connectivity with the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem provide an 

abundance of suitable habitat for the wolverine. 

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

2007) would benefit wolverines, especially standards and guidelines related to vegetation 

management and winter recreation.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

188

• Alternatives A, B, E, F, and G provide for motorized recreational activities that may further 

impact the species. 

• Alternatives C, D, and G decrease the amount of potential disturbance beyond baseline 

conditions, and do not allow for further ski area expansion or development.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

189

Sensitive Species Considered

Sensitive species that occur, or could occur, in the planning area are displayed in table 46.

Table 46. Rocky Mountain Region sensitive species on the Shoshone National Forest (as of March 

2012)

Common name(s) Global/state ranking16 Habitat

Mammal species

American marten

Martes Americana G5/S3 Late successional conifer (Subalpine spruce/fir 

forests, alpine tundra, montane) forests

Gray wolf

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

ungulates, Ungulate winter range

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)

Hoary bat

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

North American wolverine

Gulo gulo G4/S2 Rare; Boreal spruce/fir forests and tundra. 

Subalpine coniferous forest

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

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)

 16 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, receives 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)
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

190

Table 46. Rocky Mountain Region sensitive species on the Shoshone National Forest (as of March 

2012)

Common name(s) Global/state ranking16 Habitat

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

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

191

Forest mammals

American marten

Affected Environment

Marten (Martes Americana) 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. Historical populations, distribution, or abundance are unknown on the 

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 tracks 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 (USDA Forest Service 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. 

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 were impacted by spruce budworm 

and 57,362 acres by spruce beetle (USDA Forest Service 2012a). In addition, the Western balsam 

bark beetle has impacted subalpine fir. From 2000 to 2009, about 117,299 acres were impacted. 

In 2010, about 39,811 acres were impacted by Western balsam bark beetle. These outbreaks may 

reduce 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 (USDA Forest Service 2012a).

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.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

192

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 disease, 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 course 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 course 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

To provide management for the species to maintain or improve its potential distribution on the 

Shoshone, 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 course woody debris of adequate size 

and density within regeneration harvest units. 

2. In general, implementation of the NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 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.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Timber Management and Road Construction and Use: The primary activity 

that could potentially influence primary habitat for this species is timber harvest and associated 

activities such as road construction/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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

193

influence the marten if large-scale burns reduce suitable habitat components. Differences in 

projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in table 47. 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 47. Activities and outputs that could Influence the American marten and hoary bat by 

alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Suitable Timber base acres 86,300 127,000 122,100 124,500 179,700 251,200 127,000

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Mechanical and Mechanical 

w/Prescribed Fire (Total)

15,500 15,600 14,500 15,100 17,900 21,700 15,600

Douglas-fir 2,920 2,940 2,340 2,630 3,180 4,250 2,940

Spruce/fir 1,410 1,420 1,060 1,260 1,550 1,770 1,420

Lodgepole pine 5,290 5,320 5,640 5,360 7,060 9,210 5,320

Limber pine 610 620 550 580 640 670 620

Whitebark pine 540 540 270 510 540 550 540

Aspen 620 630 530 620 640 660 630

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Prescribed Fire(Total) 23,600 23,300 23,300 23,300 22,800 21,900 23,300

Douglas-fir 4,950 4,870 4,840 4,870 4,750 4,590 4,870

Spruce/fir 550 540 500 530 550 570 540

Lodgepole pine 1,970 1,970 2,020 1,980 2,190 2,450 1,970

Limber pine 1,740 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,660 1,540 1,720

Whitebark pine 340 340 300 340 330 310 340

Aspen 920 910 900 910 880 820 910

Wildfire Acres 185,200 182,900 184,100 183,700 175,000 161,400 182,900

Road Construction MilesTimber 2 2 2 2 3 4 2

Miles of open motorized 

roads and trailsSummer(total)

940 940 820 940 940 940 940

Miles of open motorized 

roads and trails (Winter total) 670 690 230 680 690 970 690

Miles of snowmobile trails 280 280 160 280 280 280 280

Motorized RecreationWinter(Acres available) 887,600 479,800 103,000 323,700 525,200 825,200 479,800

Motorized RecreationWinter(Acres not available) 1,550,000 1,956,800 2,335,000 2,114, 300 1,911,600 1,612,800 1,845,600

Winter Range Motorized 

Closure (total) 173,800 155,260 224,400 155, 800 115,400 0 150,023

Motorized RecreationSummer (Acres available) 570,000 570,200 321,800 350,000 655,900 823,300 529,000

Motorized RecreationSummer (Acres not 

available)

1,868,000 1,868,000 2,116,000 2,088,0007 1,782,000 1,615,000 1,909,000

Ski Area Development

Or Expansion 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

194

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

designates the least amount of suitable timber base (86,300 acres) as compared to alternatives B 

through F while offering approximately the same amount of suitable habitat (1,960 acres) to 

active management as alternatives B, D, and G more acres then alternative C but less acres 

(approximately 140 and 370 acres) then alternatives E and F, respectively, that could potentially 

alter the habitat components preferred by the species. 

As displayed in table 47, the predicted timber harvest output in primary habitat (spruce/fir) 

varies from 1,550 to 2,330 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 

alternatives may allow from 161,400 to 185,200 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 

As displayed in table 47, 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 47, 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. 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, 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 

161,400 to 185,200 acres in all action alternatives. Depending upon fire severity and scale, these 

outputs could have negative or positive influences on the American marten. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

195

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 

high-quality 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 of Effects and Rationale for Determination – American marten

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

Affected Environment 

The Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) was initially listed by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered in 1974. 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 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 gray wolf population achieved its numerical and distributional 

recovery goals at the end of 2000. 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. The states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming developed post-delisting wolf 

management plans to meet the Endangered Species Act requirements to ensure adequate 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

196

regulatory mechanisms would exist should the Endangered Species Act protections be removed. 

In 2004 and in 2009, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the Wyoming’s wolf 

management plan was inadequate to conserve Wyoming’s share of a recovered Northern Rocky 

Mountain gray wolf population. In August of 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. The Wyoming 

Legislature in 2012 made changes to State statutes, which allow Wyoming to move forward with 

its management plan. The provisions of the 1994 experimental population rules will remain in 

place until the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service approves Wyoming’s plan in all of Wyoming, 

except the Wind River Tribal Lands, because the tribe had a USFWS-approved plan.

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 (C. lupus) are the largest wild members of the dog family. In the Northern 

Rocky Mountain [NRM], adult male gray wolves 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 NRM, 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).

Population Information 

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

Wyoming outside of YNP, Grand Teton National Park (GTNP), WRR, and the National Elk 

Refuge (NER) from September 30, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Monitoring and management of 

wolves was conducted by the National Park Service (NPS) in YNP and GTNP, the Eastern 

Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game Department (TFGD) on tribal lands in 

WRR, and the USFWS on NER.

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 1or 

more adult males and 1 or more adult females in a pack producing 2 or more pups that survived 

through 31 December of that year. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

197

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. Even though the wolf population 

decreased statewide by approximately 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.

Wolf/Livestock Interactions 

In 2012, confirmed livestock depredations by wolves included 44 cattle and 112 sheep; other 

animals killed included 3 dogs and 1 horse (table 48). Agency control efforts removed 43 

depredating wolves in Wyoming (35 percent of all mortality causes) 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; however, the number of sheep killed by wolves 

increased in 2008, 2009 and 2012 and decreased in 2010 and 2011(Jimenez et al. 2012, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department et al. 2013).

Table 48. Wolf depredations in Wyoming: 2000−2012 (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

Status of the Gray Wolf

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

Within the planning area, the main factor controlling the population is management by the 

Wyoming Game and Fish for livestock/wolf conflicts and the public hunting season.

Status of the Gray Wolf Habitat/Distribution on the Shoshone 

The gray wolf was delisted (from non-essential experimental) 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 YNP, Grand Teton National Park (GTNP), Wind 

River Reservation, and the National Elk Refuge (NER) from September 30, 2012 to December 

31, 2012. 

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 on many areas of the Shoshone. Thirteen (13) wolf packs 

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

River, Gooseberry, Spring Mountain, Washakie, Lava Mountain, and East Fork) have home 

ranges that overlap NFS land on the Shoshone (Jimenez et al. 2012, Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department 2013). Den sites for several of these packs have traditionally occurred on the Forest. 

Table 49 depicts confirmed wolf packs and livestock depredation on the Shoshone in 2012.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

198

Table 49. 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 as the Shoshone provides year-round 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 (see Rocky mountain elk discussion).

Wolf/Livestock Interactions within the Shoshone

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

wolf/ livestock conflicts and removes 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, Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department 2013). Losses do not reflect lost or missing livestock.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game on Wolves: 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, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

199

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 attracted 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 on the total wolf population.

Alternatives A, B, D, and G. The number of animal unit months (AUMs) 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. 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. The number of AUMs would decrease by 47 percent from alternative s A, B, D 

and G and conflicts with cattle would likely decline as livestock grazing is eliminated on big 

game winter range.

Similar to alternative A, the past level of conflicts and gray 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 E. The number of AUMs would increase by 25 percent over the existing amount of 

AUMs 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.

Similar to alternative A, the past level of conflicts and gray 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 F. The number of AUMs would increase under this alternative by 26 percent. Seven 

allotments that are currently vacant would be made available for livestock grazing, adding 

40,000 acres. This increase in livestock numbers has the greatest potential to increase 

wolf/livestock conflicts of all the alternatives. 

While it is difficult to predict, nonetheless, recovery of the gray wolf has the potential to be set 

back under this alternative.

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 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

200

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

depredations include trapping and radio collaring wolves; intensive monitoring; issuing 

Less-than-Lethal Munitions (rubber bullets) to harass wolves; lethally removing wolves through 

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

were killed in 2011, using Shoot-on-Sight 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).

In 2012, Wyoming held its first public hunting season for wolves, since delisting. Over half of 

the wolf mortalities in 2012 were a result of this hunting season. It is uncertain at this time of the 

long term impact of the implementation Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale for the Determination

Based on the documented increase in the wolf population throughout the NRM 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 alternatives to it 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

Affected Environment

The hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus cinereus) is the most widespread bat in the Americas. They 

range through the eastern two-thirds 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. 

Historical populations, distribution, or abundance are unknown on the Shoshone. No trend data 

are available that is specific to the Shoshone or Wyoming. The WGFD surveyed for bats in 

northwestern Wyoming in 2009, and detected hoary bats on the Shoshone based on acoustic calls 

and mist netting (WGFD 2010b). Most of the hoary bats detected were males. 

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Forest

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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

201

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 Shoshone (USDA Forest Service 2012b). Some evidence 

suggests that lodgepole pine has become less abundant in the last century, while spruce/fir has 

increased (USDA Forest Service 2012a). Fire suppression reinforces this trend, but increases in 

wildfire and insect outbreaks may begin to reverse this trend.

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

Forest. 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 Forest.

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 Shoshone, 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. 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Effects from Timber Management: The primary risk factor for the hoary bat from forest 

management is timber harvest. Other risk factors include pesticides and other containments and 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

202

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 47.

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 (86,300 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; less acres than 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 47, 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 4 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 161,400 to 185,200 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 

As displayed in table 47, there is little difference between no action and alternatives B through 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 the no action, it is estimated that wildland fire use may be used as a management tool on 

161,400 to 185,200 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 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 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 (288,807 acres) of the suitable habitat (mature spruce/fir, lodgepole 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

203

pine, Douglas-fir, whitebark pine), 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 (USDA Forest Service 2012a). Fire suppression reinforces this trend, but 

increases in wildfire and insect outbreaks may begin to reverse this trend. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Hoary Bat

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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, 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. 

Forest Birds

Black-backed woodpecker

Affected Environment

Black-backed woodpeckers (Picoides arcticus) 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). Historical populations, 

distribution, or abundance are unknown on the Forest, and no population trend data specific to 

the Forest are available. 

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

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 (USDA Forest Service 2012b). Some evidence 

suggests that lodgepole pine has become less abundant in the last century, while spruce/fir has 

increased (USDA Forest Service 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) (USDA Forest Service 2009). This suggests that there is abundant 

potential habitat for this woodpecker on the Shoshone. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

204

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 (USDA Forest 

Service 2012a). 

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

50 indicates 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 50. 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 51), 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 51. Shoshone vegetation treatment history 2002 to 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.

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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

205

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

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.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Timber Management and Fire Management: Forest Service management 

activities that may affect black-backed woodpecker habitats include timber harvest (salvage 

logging), fire suppression, removal of fire-killed or insect-infested trees, conversion of mature 

and late successional forest to young stands with decayed trees, and human disturbance near nest 

sites. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in table 52.

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 (86,300 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 than 

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 52, the predicted timber harvest output in primary habitat varies from 

17,700 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 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 

4 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 161,400 to 185,200 acres of wildland fire use. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

206

Depending upon fire severity and scale, these outputs could have negative or positive influences 

on blacked-back woodpecker. 

Table 52. Activities and outputs that could Influence the black-backed woodpecker by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Suitable Timber base acres 86,300 127,000 122,100 124,500 179,700 251,200 127,000

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Mechanical and Mechanical 

w/Prescribed Fire(Total)

15,500 15,600 14,500 15,100 17,900 21,700 15,600

Douglas-fir 2,920 2,740 2,340 2,630 3,180 4,250 2,740

Spruce/fir 1,410 1,400 1,060 1,260 1,550 1,770 1,400

Lodgepole pine 5,290 5,330 5,640 5,360 7,060 9,210 5,330

Limber pine 610 620 550 580 640 670 620

Whitebark pine 540 540 270 510 540 550 540

Aspen 620 630 530 620 640 660 630

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Prescribed Fire(Total) 23,600 23,300 23,300 23,300 22,800 21,900 23,300

Douglas-fir 4,950 4,870 4,840 4,870 4,750 4,590 4,870

Spruce/fir 550 540 500 530 550 570 540

Lodgepole pine 1,970 1,970 2,020 1,980 2,190 2,450 1,970

Limber pine 1,740 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,660 1,540 1,720

Whitebark pine 340 340 300 340 330 310 340

Aspen 920 910 900 910 880 820 910

Wildfire Acres 185,200 182,900 184,100 183,700 175,000 161,400 182,900

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G 

As displayed in table 52, there is little difference between no action and alternatives B through 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 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. 

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

161,400 to 185,200 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 

harvesting 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

207

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 woodpeckers where it 

occurs. However, approximately 92 percent of the suitable habitat (mature spruce/fir, 

Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, whitebark pine) 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 (USDA Forest Service 2012a). Fire suppression reinforces this trend, but 

increases in wildfire and insect outbreaks may begin to reverse this trend. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale for the Determination – Black-backed 

Woodpecker

All 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

Affected Environment

Boreal owls (Aegolius funereus) 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). Historical populations, distribution, or abundance are unknown on the Forest, 

and no trend data specific to the Shoshone are available.

Areas previously surveyed on the Shoshone were resurveyed in 2008 to 2009, 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 to 

2009 that may 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 Forest

In the Rocky Mountain region, boreal owls typically inhabit mature, high-elevation subalpine 

forests composed of Englemann spruce, subalpine fir, and mature lodgepole pine, with some 

mature aspen stands 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 meters) (Garber et al. 1991).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

208

On the Shoshone, there are about 309,442 acres of spruce/fir and 382,886 acres of lodgepole 

pine (USDA Forest Service 2012b). Some evidence suggests that lodgepole pine has become less 

abundant in the last century, while spruce/fir has increased (USDA Forest Service 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 indicate 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) (USDA Forest 

Service 2009). This suggests that there is abundant potential habitat for boreal owls on the 

Shoshone. 

Aspen has a limited distribution on the Forest and covers roughly 23,295 acres. Field 

observations indicate that most aspen is mature (USDA Forest Service 2009).

In recent years, the Shoshone has experienced insect epidemics. Over the past 11 years, 

widespread bark beetle epidemics have occurred on the Forest. Table 50 shows the acres affected 

and the type of insects involved with the outbreaks (USDA Forest Service 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 an 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 or 

absence and improve distribution information.

Conservation Measures

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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

209

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 Forest. This would include the location and extent of insect outbreaks and 

recent wildfires. Both of which are currently inventoried on an annual basis.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Timber Management: Plan direction that could potentially influence the boreal 

owl primarily involves timber management. 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 53.

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 (86,300 acres) as compared to alternatives B through G 

while offering approximately the same amount of suitable habitat (approximately 1,960 acres of 

spruce/fir) to active management as alternatives B, D, and G more acres then alternative C, but 

fewer acres (approximately 140 and 380 acres) than alternatives E and F, respectively, that could 

potentially alter the habitat components preferred by the species. 

As displayed in table 53, the predicted timber harvest output in primary habitat varies from 

1,560 to 2,340 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 161,400 to 185,200 acres of wildland fire use. Depending upon 

fire severity and scale, these outputs could have negative or positive influences on boreal owls.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

210

Table 53. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially Influence the boreal owl, by 

alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Suitable Timber base acres 86,300 127,000 122,100 124,500 179,700 251,200 127,000

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Mechanical and Mechanical 

w/Prescribed Fire (Total)

15,500 15,600 14,500 15,100 17,900 21,700 15,600

Spruce/fir 1,410 1,400 1,060 1,260 1,550 1,770 1,400

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Prescribed Fire(Total) 23,600 23,300 23,300 23,300 22,800 21,900 23,300

Spruce/fir 550 540 500 530 550 570 540

Wildfire Acres 185,200 182,900 184,100 183,700 175,000 161,400 182,900

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G

As displayed in table 53, there is little difference between no action and alternatives B through 

Gin 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 is 

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 

161,400 to 185,200 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 Forest well into the future. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale for the Determination – Boreal Owl

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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. 

• 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

Affected Environment

Northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis atricapillus) 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

211

and Keinath 2004). Goshawks are known to breed on the Shoshone. Historical populations, 

distribution, or abundance on the Forest are unknown.

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 two 

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 two active territories within five habitat 

blocks in 2006, and three active territories within 10 habitat blocks in 2009 (USDA Forest 

Service 2010d).

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Across a goshawk’s territory, their 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, goshawks nest 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 (USDA 

Forest Service 2012b). Some evidence suggests that lodgepole pine has become less abundant in 

the last century, while spruce/fir has increased (USDA Forest Service 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) (USDA Forest 

Service 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 Forest. Table 50 shows the acres affected 

and the type of insects involved with the outbreaks (USDA Forest Service 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.

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).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

212

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

To provide management for goshawks and to maintain or improve the species’ potential 

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

incorporation into forest plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. Given the relatively 

high 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-fledging area should include 

all known alternate nests. Suitable goshawk habitat consists of mature lodgepole pine, 

Douglas-fir, and quaking aspen. The PFA 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 1to 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.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Timber Harvest, Fuels Treatments, Wildlife Management Activities, 

Motorized and Non-motorized Recreation: Plan direction that could potentially influence the 

northern goshawk primarily involves 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 54.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

213

Table 54. Activities and outputs that could Influence the northern goshawk by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Suitable Timber base acres 86,300 127,000 122,100 124,500 179,700 251,200 127,000

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Mechanical and Mechanical 

w/ Prescribed Fire (Total)

15,500 15,600 14,500 15,100 17,900 21,700 15,600

Douglas-fir 2,920 2,740 2,340 2,630 3,180 4,250 2,740

Lodgepole pine 5,290 5,330 5,640 5,360 7,060 9,210 5,330

Aspen 620 630 530 620 640 660 630

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Prescribed Fire (Total) 23,600 23,300 23,300 23,300 22,800 21,900 23,300

Douglas-fir 4,950 4,870 4,840 4,870 4,750 4,590 4,870

Lodgepole pine 1,970 1,970 2,020 1,980 2,190 2,450 1,970

Aspen 920 910 900 910 880 820 910

Road Construction MilesTimber 2 2 2 2 3 4 2

Wildfire Acres 185,200 182,900 184,100 183,700 175,000 161,400 182,900

Motorized RecreationSummer (Acres available) 570,000 570,300 321,800 350,000 655,900 823,300 529,000

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 (86,300 acres) as compared to alternatives B 

through G, while offering approximately the same amount of suitable habitat (16,300 to 

16,700 acres) to active management as alternatives B through D and G; and fewer acres than 

alternatives E and F by approximately 1,140 and 5,300 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 54, the predicted timber harvest output in primary habitat (approximately 

162,774 acres) varies from 16,300 to 22,000 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 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 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

214

projected to occur on approximately 23,600 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 161,400 to 185,200 acres of wildland fire use. 

Depending upon fire severity and scale, these outputs could have negative or positive influences 

on northern goshawk. 

Alternatives A and B offer the third highest amount of motorized recreation compared to the 

other alternatives. This difference could potentially allow greater disturbances to the northern 

goshawk during nesting season, depending upon the type, timing, and scope of the activity.

Alternatives B through G

As displayed in Table 54, there is little difference between no action and alternatives B, C,D, and 

G in regard to timber harvest. 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 54, alternative C offers fewer potential disturbances than the other 

alternatives from summer motorized recreation because of decreases in the amount of motorized 

use area. 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 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 23,600 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 from 161,400 to 

185,200 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 would improve habitat conditions. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Northern Goshawk

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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 (Douglasfir, 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 backcountry designations where natural processes will dominate.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

215

Olive-sided flycatcher

Affected Environment

Olive-sided flycatchers (Contopus cooperi) 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). Historical populations, distribution or abundance are unknown 

for this species on the Forest.

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 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 (USDA Forest Service 2012b). 

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

spruce/fir has increased (USDA Forest Service 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 Forest 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 (USDA Forest Service 2012a). 

Wildfires are creating ideal habitat for olive-sided flycatchers, and will continue to do so into the 

future. 

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). 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

216

Timber harvest occurs at a very small scale compared to the available habitat on the Forest, 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

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 Shoshone. This would include age class distribution of spruce/fir and the 

location and extent of wildfires. Wildfires are currently inventoried on an annual basis.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Timber Management and Fuels Management: Plan direction that could 

potentially influence the olive-sided flycatcher primarily involves timber harvest and possibly 

fuels treatment activities. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are 

displayed in table 55.

Table 55. Activities and outputs that could Influence the olive-sided flycatcher by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Suitable Timber base acres 86,300 127,000 122,100 124,500 179,700 251,200 127,000

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Mechanical and Mechanical 

w/ Prescribed Fire (Total)

15,500 15,600 14,500 15,100 17,900 21,700 15,600

Spruce/fir 1,410 1,400 1,060 1,260 1,550 1,770 1,400

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Prescribed Fire (Total) 23,600 23,300 23,300 23,300 22,800 21,900 23,300

Spruce/fir 550 540 500 530 550 570 540

Wildfire Acres 185,200 182,900 184,100 183,700 175,000 161,400 182,900

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in table 55, the predicted timber harvest output in primary olive-sided flycatcher 

habitat varies from 1,550 to 2,330 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 olive-sided 

flycatcher or populations on the Shoshone. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

217

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 161,400 to 185,200 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 

As displayed in table 55, there is little difference between no action and alternatives B, C, D, E, 

and G in regard to timber harvest. 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 the Shoshone in all 

alternatives can be expected to provide mature trees, which is 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 161,400 to 185,200 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 Forest well into the future. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Olive-sided 

Flycatcher

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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 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.

Grassland/sagebrush mammals

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep

History, Status, and Distribution on the Forest

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis Canadensis) 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 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

218

(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 Clarks Fork (map 12). These core herds currently occupy 67 percent (1.65 million 

acres) of the Forest. Also, a small portion of the Washakie Ranger District is occupied by the 

Temple Peak herd. This herd is not a core herd. It is classified as a remnant herd. Also 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.

Francs Peak Bighorn Sheep Herd

This core native herd occupies portions of the Shoshone 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. Domestic sheep/goat grazing on public 

lands closest to the Francs Peak Herd is approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) to the east on 

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 National 

Forest 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 because of 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 48:100. 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

219

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 

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 to 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 veterinary 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 2010c).

No domestic sheep grazing occurs within this herd unit. Domestic sheep/goat grazing on public 

lands closest to the Whiskey Mountain Herd is approximately 9.7 kilometers (6 miles) west on 

the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Four domestic sheep were removed (shot) in Hunt Area 8 that 

had strayed onto core native bighorn sheep habitat on the Bridger-Teton National Forest 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. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

220

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.

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

221

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 

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-
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

222

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 to 

2011) is 2.8 (maximum # = 5). No observations have been made since 2010 (WGFD 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 quasiextirpation herd is likely to eventually go extinct. Due to the low population, no population data 

are 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

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 National Forest 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. 

Bighorn Sheep Population Trends on the Forest

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 16).
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

223

Figure 16. Population trends for bighorn sheep herd units that encompass the Shoshone National 

Forest

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Habitat for bighorn sheep is abundant on the Shoshone. There are approximately 819,430 acres 

of grass/forb/sedge meadow habitat and approximately 328,170 acres of potential escape cover 

(rock). Additional habitat may be available in some sagebrush cover types at lower elevations on 

winter range. Crucial bighorn sheep winter range is the most important habitat on the Shoshone 

(map 13). The Shoshone contains about 663,320 acres of crucial winter range.

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 (USDA Forest Service 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 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

224

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

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 (BHS) habitat to pack goat use (see map 

14). This is needed to protect core native bighorn sheep herds from the potential for 

contact 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. Conduct management activities that disturb wintering bighorn sheep 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.

Monitoring Considerations

The WGFD annually monitors bighorn sheep populations. The Shoshone will continue to rely on 

their data.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

225

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Domestic Sheep Grazing, Recreation Pack Goat Use, and Wildlife 

Management: Plan direction that could potentially influence the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 

primarily involve 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 56.

Table 56. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep (BHS), by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Permitted 

AUMs 

(Sheep 

only)

410 410 410 410 410 410 410

Suitable 

Acres 

(Total)

15,780 15,780 15,780 15,780 15,780 15,780 15,780

Permitted 

commercial 

livestock 

and

domestic 

pack goat 

use

No 

permitted 

domestic 

sheep and 

a 

temporary 

closure for 

pack 

goats in 

Core 

Native 

BHS 

Habitat on 

Clarks 

Fork, 

Wapiti, 

Greybull 

and Wind 

River 

Ranger 

Districts

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.

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 

Shoshone.

Livestock 

allotments 

closed to 

domestic 

sheep 

grazing in 

Core 

Native 

BHS 

Habitat.

Domestic 

goats 

(including 

pack goats 

allowed on 

entire 

Shoshone.

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.

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in table 56, alternative A continues to allocate allotments to domestic sheep 

grazing, but it is very limited, currently set at 410 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 transmittal from domestic sheep and goats to 

bighorns on the Shoshone, it is possible that a risk would remain for such an event. 

Wildlife habitat management to improve big game winter range is projected to occur on 

2,000 acres during the life of the 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. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

226

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G

As displayed in table 56, all alternatives maintain the same permitted numbers and area for 

domestic sheep as alternative A, currently set at 410 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 goat use (including pack goats) in core native bighorn sheep 

habitat. Alternatives E and F allow domestic goat use in core native bighorn sheep habitat. 

Although the risk of future contact between domestics and bighorn would not be completely 

eliminated, alternatives B, C, D, and G reduce the potential for a disease transmittal. Although 

there is no documented case of disease transmittal 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 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 transmittal 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 among 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 Shoshone. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Bighorn Sheep

Based on this analysis, it is determined that alternatives A, E, and F “may adversely impact 

individuals, 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 

follows: 

• Bighorn and domestic sheep and goat (including pack goats) ranges 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, 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).
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

227

• Alternatives B, C, D and G include similar conservation measures to reduce the risk of 

contact and disease transmittal.

Grassland/sagebrush birds

Brewer’s sparrow and sage sparrow

Affected Environment

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) and sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli) 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 Brewer’s sparrows (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 slight declining trend (- 0.7), but 

the trend is not significant (p = 0.37) (WGFD 2010b). 

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 three birds from 2002 to 

2009 (one in 2007, two 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 Forest. At the State 

level, breeding bird surveys indicate a slightly increasing trend (0.8), but the trend is not 

significant (p = 0.72) (WGFD 2010b). 

With fluctuations in natural ranges of habitat, it is difficult to determine if populations of these 

species on the Shoshone are similar to historic levels or not. Regional declines reported in 

breeding bird survey 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 effects currently are not occurring to a significant extent on 

the Forest compared to surrounding lands.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

228

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

Both sparrows are dependent on sagebrush habitats, tending towards 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 approximately 38,784 acres of sagebrush, representing 

2.0 percent of the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2012b). This acreage includes all types of 

sagebrush. Mountain big sagebrush dominates the montane shrublands throughout the Absaroka 

Mountains. Black sagebrush, Wyoming sagebrush, and basin big sagebrush occur on the eastern 

margins of the Forest. The most extensive of these stands are found in the North and South Fork 

Shoshone River valleys and along the Beartooth front. 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 on the Forest. 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 influence sagebrush ecosystems. High stocking rates typically result 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 provides adequate areas of little influence from 

this effect. Livestock may also increase the risk for the introduction of invasive plants.

Data on the effects of livestock grazing in shrubsteppe habitat, on migratory birds including the 

Brewer’s and sage sparrow are 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. 

Invasive plants 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 invasive plants.

Climate change has the potential to increase the risk of invasive plant invasion and could result 

in more frequent stand-replacement fires.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

229

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 for habitat diversity 

considerations, and should be conducted in the late spring or fall. 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 invasive 

plants 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 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 invasive plants. 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 Sage-Grouse 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. In areas with cheatgrass and other invasive plants, avoid prescribed burns to reduce the 

risk of further spread.

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 nesting cover in the following season. 

4. Consider resting burned areas from grazing to provide adequate regeneration of native 

vegetation. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

230

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 invasive 

plants.

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.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Fuels Management and Livestock Grazing and Invasive Plants: Plan direction 

that could potentially influence the Brewer’s and sage sparrows primarily involves fuels 

treatment activities, livestock grazing, and invasive plants. Differences in projected outputs by 

alternative for these activities are displayed in table 57.

Table 57. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence Brewer’s sparrow and 

sage sparrow, by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Prescribed Fire (Total) 23,600 23,300 23,300 23,300 22,800 21,900 23,300

Grass 910 910 910 910 940 970 910

Sagebrush 2,730 2,700 2,720 2,710 2,600 2,420 2,700

Wildfire Acres 185,200 182,900 184,100 183,700 175,000 161,000 182,900

Livestock 

Permitted AUMs (Cattle only) 55,500 55,500 31,000 55,500 57,890 61,100 55,500

Suitable Acres (Cattle only) 359,600 359,600 201,000 359,600 359,600 399,600 359,600

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in table 57, alternative A provides for a similar amount of fuels treatment in mixedshrubland 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 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 57, 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 Brewer’s and sage sparrows where activities and 

habitat overlap. On NFS land, however, these activities are expected to be minor because of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

231

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 

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 NFS 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 57, alternatives B, D, and G provide for the same amount of livestock 

grazing as alternative A. There are slight reductions 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 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 of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Brewer’s Sparrow 

and Sage Sparrow

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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 activities could overlap occupied Brewer’s and sage sparrow habitat and have negative 

influences on the species. 

• The Shoshone Plan incorporated guidance provided to maintain and improve sagebrush 

habitat conditions.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

232

Ferruginous hawk

Affected Environment

The ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) 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 2010b). 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 2010a). 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

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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

233

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 invasive plants.

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. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Motorized and Non-motorized Recreation, and Livestock Grazing: Plan 

direction that could potentially influence the ferruginous hawk primarily involves motorized and 

non-motorized recreation, and possibly livestock grazing. 

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 on the Shoshone. Potential 

effects to this species are, therefore, most likely limited to possible disturbances from motorized 

vehicles or recreational activities. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G 

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 Plan revision 

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 of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Ferruginous Hawk

All alternatives, including alternative A, are expected to have No Impact on the ferruginous 

hawk or its primary habitat. The rationale for this determination follows: 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

234

• 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

Affected Environment

Grasshopper sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum) 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, shortgrass 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 short-grass 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 (USDA Forest Service 

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 (USDA Forest Service 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 (USDA Forest Service 2012a). Also, in some areas prescribed fire may be reducing 

the advancement of sagebrush and trees into grassland habitat.

Grasshopper sparrow is associated with mixed and short-grass prairies habitats, which are 

incidental on the Shoshone. Overgrazing in these habitats is a major threat to grasshopper 

sparrow. 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 grazing and other ground-disturbing activities may also increase the risk for the 

introduction of invasive plants.

Data on the effects of livestock grazing in shrubsteppe habitat, on migratory birds including the 

grasshopper sparrow are limited, Bock et al. (1993) found that of 23 bird species studied, only 

three were positively affected, while 13 species were negatively affected. The grasshopper 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

235

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.

Risk Factors

The primary risk factors from forest management are livestock grazing, fire suppression and 

invasive plants. 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 invasive plants 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

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 Shoshone.

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 invasive plants.

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 the 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 invasive plants.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

236

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.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Fire Management and Livestock Grazing: Plan direction that could potentially 

influence the grasshopper sparrow primarily involves fire suppression and livestock grazing. 

Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities appear in table 58.

Table 58. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence grasshopper sparrow, by 

alternative 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Prescribed Fire (Total) 23,600 23,300 23,300 23,300 22,800 21,900 23,300

Grass 910 910 910 910 940 970 910

Sagebrush 2,730 2,700 2,720 2,710 2,600 2,420 2,700

Wildfire Acres 185,200 182,900 184,100 183,700 175,000 161,400 182,900

Livestock Grazing 

Permitted AUMs (Cattle only) 55,500 55,500 31,000 55,500 57,890 61,100 55,500

Suitable Acres (Cattle only) 359,600 359,600 201,000 359,600 359,600 399,600 359,600

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in table 58, alternative A provides for a similar amount of fuels treatment in mixedshrubland 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 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 161,400 to 185,200 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 are 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 58, 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 NFS 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

237

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G 

As displayed in table 58, 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 on NFS land, potential 

influences on grasshopper sparrow and other sagebrush-associated species are expected to be 

similar to alternative A.

As displayed in table 58, 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 

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 improve the grass/forb 

understory, increase the age class diversity, improve forage conditions, and improve habitat. 

Overall, little influence or cumulative effects on sagebrush-associated species are expected on 

the Shoshone because of limited activities in this habitat type.

Determination of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Grasshopper 

Sparrow

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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 activities could overlap occupied grasshopper sparrow habitat and have negative 

influences on the species. 

• The Shoshone Plan incorporated guidance provided to maintain and improve sagebrush 

habitat conditions. 

Greater sage-grouse

Affected Environment

Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) are categorized as G4/S4 species through the natural 

heritage program ranking. They are a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

238

Act and are a Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species. Historical populations, distribution, or 

abundance are unknown for sage-grouse on the Shoshone. 

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). The WGFD tracks 

the number of males at leks each year. Within the Bighorn Basin, the number of males at leks has 

fluctuated (figure 17). No core habitat for sage grouse occurs on the Shoshone, 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 Forest.

Figure 17. 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 approximately 38,784 acres of sagebrush, 

representing 2.0 percent of the Forest (U.S. Forest Service 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 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 within some stands classified as 

grassland on the Shoshone.

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 on the Forest. 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). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

239

Roads on the Shoshone have likely fragmented some sagebrush stands. To what extent is 

currently unknown.

Overgrazing 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.

Invasive plants 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 

portions 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 invasive plants.

Climate change has the potential to increase the risk of cheatgrass 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 does 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 for habitat diversity 

considerations, which should be conducted in the late spring or fall. 

As mentioned previously, activities that have potential to expand cheatgrass or other invasive 

plants 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 invasive plants. 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 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 Sage-Grouse 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

240

Conservation Plan (WGFD 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. In areas with cheatgrass and other invasive plants, avoid prescribed burns to reduce the 

risk of further spread.

3. Maintain native grasses and forbs through proper livestock grazing practices. Use 

rotational grazing systems to provide rest. 

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 invasive 

plants.

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 

Executive Order #2011-5 to maintain and enhance greater sage-grouse habitat and 

populations. 

Monitoring Considerations

Sage-grouse populations are difficult to monitor outside of known lek sites. The Shoshone staff 

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.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Fuels Management and Livestock Grazing: Plan direction that could potentially 

influence the greater sage-grouse primarily involves fuels treatment activities, and livestock 

grazing. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in table 

59.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

241

Table 59. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence greater sage-grouse, by 

alternative 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Prescribed Fire (Total) 23,600 23,300 23,300 23,300 22,800 21,900 23,300

Grass 910 910 910 910 940 970 910

Sagebrush 2,730 2,700 2,720 2,710 2,600 2,420 2,700

Livestock Grazing 

Permitted AUMs (Cattle only) 55,500 55,500 31,000 55,500 57,890 61,100 55,500

Suitable Acres (Cattle only) 359,600 359,600 201,000 359,600 359,600 399,600 359,600

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in table 59, alternative A provides for a similar amount of fuels treatment in mixedshrubland 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 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 activities 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 59, the 

permitted amount and area for cattle grazing does not differ between 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 NFS 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

As displayed in table 59, 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 on NFS land, potential 

influences on greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-associated species are expected to be 

similar to alternative A.

As displayed in table 59, alternatives B, D, and G provide for the same amount of livestock 

grazing as alternative A. There are slight reductions 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. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

242

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 habitat 

improvement. Overall, little influence or cumulative effects on sagebrush-associated species are 

expected on the Shoshone, because of limited activities in this habitat type.

Determination of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Greater Sage-grouse

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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: 

• 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 involve habitat conversions and activities on 

private lands. 

• Some 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

Affected Environment

Loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus) 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 a Forest Service Region 2 sensitive 

species.

The loggerhead shrike is a widespread species in North America. It occurs across the Canadian 

prairies and into the United States, from central Washington to Virginia in the north, to the 

southern states and central plains (except for heavily forested higher mountains and higher 

portions of the desert) (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, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

243

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 2010b). 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 (USDA Forest Service 

2012b). 

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 (USDA Forest Service 2012a). 

Livestock grazing in shrub-step habitats can influence loggerhead shrike habitat. It has been 

shown in short-grass prairie and shrub-steppe habitats, which are incidental on the Shoshone, 

that 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 provides 

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 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

244

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

To maintain and improve potential habitat for the loggerhead shrike 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 shrub-steppe associated species, resulting in a low 

viability risk to this species. 

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 and shrub-steppe habitat. 

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 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 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 invasive 

plants.

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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

245

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.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Fuels Management, and Livestock Grazing and Big Game: In occupied habitat, 

Plan direction that could potentially influence loggerhead shrikes primarily involves fuels 

treatment. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in 

table 60.

Table 60. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence loggerhead shrike, by 

alternative 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Prescribed Fire (Total) 23,600 23,300 23,300 23,300 22,800 21,900 23,300

Grass 910 910 910 910 940 970 910

Sagebrush 2,730 2,700 2,720 2,710 2,600 2,420 2,700

Livestock Grazing 

Permitted AUMs (Cattle only) 55,500 55,500 31,000 55,500 57,890 61,100 55,500

Suitable Acres (Cattle only) 359,600 359,600 201,000 359,600 359,600 399,600 359,600

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 NFS portion of Shoshone. Suitable habitat for the loggerhead 

shrike is limited, with no breeding or local populations confirmed within the planning area. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G 

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 is for this species on NFS lands 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 of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Loggerhead Shrike

All 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 Shoshone, with no 

breeding populations known to occur. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

246

Northern harrier

Affected Environment

Northern harriers are (Circus cyaneus) 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 Shoshone.

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).

There are approximately 459,000 acres classified as grassland and 38,784 acres of sagebrush on 

the Shoshone (USDA Forest Service 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 (USDA Forest Service 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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

247

Conservation Measures

To maintain and improve potential habitat for northern harriers 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 

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. In areas with cheatgrass and other invasive plants, avoid prescribed burns to reduce the 

risk of further spread.

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.

7. Retain grassland and sagebrush habitats (no type conversions).

8. Re-establish native bunch grasses in habitat now dominated by invasive plants.

Monitoring Considerations

Of most importance for this species would be to attain distribution information for the Shoshone. 

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.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game and Fire Management: Plan direction that 

could potentially influence the northern harrier primarily involves livestock grazing, and fire 

suppression. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in 

table 61.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

248

Table 61. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence northern harrier, by 

alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Prescribed Fire (Total) 23,600 23,300 23,300 23,300 22,800 21,900 23,300

Grass 910 910 910 910 940 970 910

Sagebrush 2,730 2,700 2,720 2,710 2,600 2,420 2,700

Wildfire Acres 185,200 182,900 184,100 183,700 175,000 161,000 182,900

Livestock Grazing 

Permitted AUMs (Cattle only) 55,500 55,500 31,000 55,500 57,890 61,100 55,500

Suitable Acres (Cattle only) 359,600 359,600 201,000 359,600 359,600 399,600 359,600

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in table 61, alternative A provides for a similar amount of fuels treatment in mixedshrubland 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 161,400 to 185,200 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 is 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 61, 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 NFS 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 

As displayed in table 61, 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 NFS land, potential 

influences on northern harrier and other sagebrush-associated species are expected to be similar 

to alternative A.

As displayed in table 61, alternatives B and D and G provide for the same amount of livestock 

grazing as alternative A. There are slight reductions 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

249

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 habitat 

improvement. Overall, little influence or cumulative effects on sagebrush-associated species is 

expected on the Shoshone, because of limited activities in this habitat type.

Determination of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Northern Harrier 

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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 populations associated with the Shoshone involve habitat 

conversions and activities on private lands. 

• Some activities could overlap occupied northern harrier habitat and have negative influences 

on the species. 

• The Shoshone Plan incorporated guidance provided to maintain and improve sagebrush 

habitat conditions.

Short-eared owl

Affected Environment

Short-eared owls (Asio flammeus) 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).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

250

They are an uncommon resident Forest-wide, and suitable breeding habitat appears to be rare on 

the Shoshone. There have been no observations on the Forest, but a few in lower elevations just 

outside the Forest boundary (WYNND 2010). Also, there have been none observed 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 short-eared 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 (USDA Forest Service 201b). 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.

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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

251

Conservation Measures

To maintain and improve potential habitat for the short-eared owl 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 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. In areas with cheatgrass and other invasive plants, avoid prescribed burns to reduce the 

risk of further spread.

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).

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. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game and Fire Management: Plan direction that 

could potentially influence the short-eared owl primarily involves livestock grazing and fire 

suppression. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are displayed in 

table 62.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

252

Table 62. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence short-eared owl, by 

alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Prescribed Fire (Total) 23,600 23,300 23,300 23,300 22,800 21,900 23,300

Grass 910 910 910 910 940 970 910

Sagebrush 2,730 2,700 2,720 2,710 2,600 2,420 2,700

Willow 110 110 110 110 110 100 110

Wildfire Acres 185,200 182,900 184,100 183,700 175,000 161,000 182,900

Livestock Grazing 

Permitted AUMs (Cattle only) 55,500 55,500 31,000 55,500 57,890 61,100 55,500

Suitable Acres (Cattle only) 359,600 359,600 201,000 359,600 359,600 399,600 359,600

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 Shoshone. Suitable habitat for the short-eared owl is limited, 

with no breeding or local populations confirmed on Forest lands within the planning area. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G 

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 is limited on the Shoshone, with no breeding or local populations 

confirmed on NFS lands within the planning area. 

Cumulative Effects 

No cumulative effects are expected because of lack of suitable nesting habitat. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Short-eared Owl 

All 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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

253

Riparian (lakes, streams, marshes) mammals

River otter

Affected Environment

The North American river otter (Lontra canadensis) 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 (USDA Forest Service 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.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

254

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

To maintain and improve the river otter 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 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.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Water Management and Recreation Management: Plan direction 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 63.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

255

Table 63. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence river otter by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Miles of open 

motorized 

roads and 

trailsSummer(total)

940 940 820 940 940 940 940

Special areas 

and 

designations

Five 

wilderness 

areas

One 

wilderness 

study area

No new 

wilderness 

recommendation

Recommends 

628,800 acres 

wilderness 

additions

Recommends 

194,500 acres 

wilderness 

additions

No new 

wilderness 

recommendation

No new 

wilderness 

recommendation

No new 

wilderness 

recommendation

One special 

interest area

Proposes 3 

new 

special 

interest 

areas

Proposes 3 

new special 

interest areas

Proposes 3 

new special 

interest areas

Proposes 1 

new 

special 

interest 

area 

(Kirwin)

Proposes 

no new 

special 

interest 

areas 

Proposes 3 

new special 

interest 

areas

One special 

management 

unit

One 

research 

natural area

Proposes 6 

new 

research 

natural 

areas –

Beartooth 

Butte, Lake 

Creek, 

Grizzly 

Creek, 

Sheep 

Mesa, 

Arrow 

Mountain, 

Roaring 

Fork

Proposes 8 

new research 

natural areas 

- Beartooth 

Butte, Lake 

Creek, Pat 

O’Hara, Bald 

Ridge, Grizzly 

Creek, Sheep 

Mesa, Arrow 

Mountain, 

Roaring Fork

Proposes 8 

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 

Proposes 8 

new 

research 

natural 

areas -

Beartooth 

Butte, Lake 

Creek, Pat 

O’Hara, 

Bald Ridge, 

Grizzly 

Creek, 

Sheep 

Mesa, 

Arrow 

Mountain, 

Roaring 

Fork

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

Protects 16 

eligible 

wild/scenic 

river 

segments

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in table 63, 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 area 

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 

alternatives is expected to be secondary to other factors such as drought and private water 

management activities. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

256

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G 

All action alternatives (B through F) 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 they allow more active 

management. 

Cumulative Effects 

Habitat conditions in most of the smaller perennial streams on the Shoshone have continued to 

improve over time, but they still do not support populations of closely associated species such as 

beaver. Restoration and expansion of beaver would result in an increasing trend in potential river 

otter habitat due to the close association between these species. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale for Determination – River Otter

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

which is 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

Affected Environment

Water voles (Microtus richardsoni) 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).

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-
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

257

Teton National Forest (Klaus and Beauvais 2004). Therefore, water vole 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 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 

to 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 (USDA Forest Service 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. 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 

(USDA Forest Service 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 

streambanks. 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 sub-alpine 

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 

overhanging streambanks with non-compacted soils where burrows can be constructed. Highelevation riparian management can be accomplished through proper livestock grazing 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

258

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 streambanks, widening stream channels, lowering local water tables, eroding soil, and 

altering nutrient cycling (Klaus and Beauvais 2004).

Conservation Measures

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 long-term 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 Forestwide scale. Evaluations of the maintenance or improvement of habitat in representative sites 

Forest-wide would accomplish this need.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game and Summer Motorized Recreation Use:

Plan direction that could potentially influence water voles primarily involves livestock grazing 

and summer motorized recreation. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these 

activities are displayed in table 64.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

259

Table 64. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence water vole, by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Livestock Grazing 

Permitted AUMs (Total) 55,900 55,900 31,400 55,900 58,300 61,500 55,900

Suitable Acres (Total) 375,400 375,400 216,800 375,400 375,400 415,400 375,400

Motorized RecreationSummer (Acres available) 570,600 570,800 322,400 350,600 656,500 823,900 570,800

Alternative A: No action

Livestock grazing can have negative influences on water voles when activities overlap suitable 

habitat. Impacts to riparian areas and over story 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 64, 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. Livestock 

could continue to impact certain riparian habitats that this species needs.

As displayed in table 64, although differences among alternatives are difficult to evaluate in 

regard 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 

streambanks and vegetation. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G 

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 current Forest Plan (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 64, 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. Alternative D offers the next fewest motorized acres, while alternative F 

offers the highest amount of motorized 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 off road use.

Cumulative Effect 

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 

Forest are primarily private 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 the Forest’s riparian habitat. Individual 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

260

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 of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Water Vole

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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, an 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.

Riparian (lakes, streams, marshes) birds

Bald eagle

Affected Environment

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 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 2010a, b). This population extends into Idaho and Montana. Bald 

eagles don’t regularly nest on the Shoshone because nesting habitat is very limited. All active 

nests in recent years have been on adjacent BLM land (USDA Forest Service 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 2010a, 

b). 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. 

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 roadkill, winter mortalities of big game, and livestock (Travesky 

and Beauvais 2004).
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

261

Potential nesting habitat occurs primarily 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

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.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Winter Motorized Use: The Shoshone primarily provides habitat for bald eagles 

during the non-breeding (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 below 

in table 65.

Table 65. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence bald eagles, by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Miles of open motorized roads 

and trails (Winter total) 670 690 230 680 690 970 690

Miles of snowmobile trails 280 280 160 280 280 370 280

Motorized RecreationWinter(Acres available) 887,600 481,2000 103,000 323,800 526,400 825,200 592,400
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

262

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 65, 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. 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 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 Plan. 

These activities may benefit prey species for the bald eagle if it occurs in areas where fish or 

waterfowl species will benefit from the actions. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G 

As displayed in table 65, 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 

amount of acres available to winter motorized recreation. Alternatives C and D offer the least 

amount of acres available for motorized travel. Alternatives C and D, therefore, offer the highest 

probability of maintaining habitat options for bald eagles that depend on minimal 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. 

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 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 site-specific basis. 

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 of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Bald Eagle

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

263

• 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

Affected Environment

While considered a G4 species globally (relatively common), Harlequin ducks (Histrionicus 

histrionicus) 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 WGFD surveys (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 Forest, The WGFD (2009) also found 

fewer pairs than during surveys done 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). 

Based on past observations, Harlequins are known to occur along several rivers on the Shoshone 

including; N. Fork Shoshone River, S. 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 (USDA Forest Service 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

Within Region 2, their primary threats are disturbance to females at nest sites and degradation of 

water quality (Wiggins 2005). Harlequin females have abandoned nest sites after repeated human 

disturbance (Wiggins 2005).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

264

Timber harvest and associated activities such as road building could create potential impacts to 

Harlequin duck habitat. This is primarily due to increased run-off and altered water flow 

(Wiggins 2005). 

Livestock grazing may have an impact on Harlequin duck habitat. Impacts could include: 

reduction in streamside vegetation, increased run-off, 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 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. 

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 Forest should continue to coordinate with the 

WGFD for completion of 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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

265

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game, Recreation Management, Road 

Construction, and Special Area Designation: 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 66.

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in table 66, although differences among 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 alternative F, because it provides less indirect 

influences from livestock grazing that could potentially influence streambank habitat and water 

quality. Alternatives B through E and G all provide more potential habitat protection then 

alternative A, due to no increase or less amount of 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. 

Action Alternatives: Alternatives B through G 

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 Forest 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 protections would be ensured through preparation of site-specific NEPA analysis and 

biological evaluations, with protection offered through Forest-wide standards and guidelines. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

266

Table 66. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence Harlequin duck, by 

alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Livestock 

Grazing 

Permitted 

AUMs (Total) 55,900 55,900 31,400 55,900 58,300 61,500 55,900

Suitable 

Acres (Total) 375,400 375,400 216,800 375,400 374,700 415,400 375,400

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

Prohibits 

camping 

within 100 

feet of 

streams 

and 200 

feet of 

lakes

Road 

Construction 

Miles-Timber

2 2 2 2 3 4 2

Special 

areas and 

designations

5 wilderness 

areas

1 wilderness 

study area

No new 

wilderness 

recommendation

Recommends 

628,800 acres 

wilderness 

additions

Recommends 

194,500 acres 

wilderness 

additions

No new 

wilderness 

recommendation

No new 

wilderness 

recommendation

No new 

wilderness 

recommendation

1 special 

interest area

Proposes 3 

new special 

interest 

areas

Proposes 3 

new special 

interest areas

Proposes 3 

new special 

interest areas

Proposes 1 

new 

special 

interest 

area 

(Kirwin)

Proposes 

no new 

special 

interest 

areas 

Proposes 3 

new special 

interest 

areas

Special 

areas and 

designations 

(continued)

1 special 

management 

unit

1 research 

natural area

Proposes 6 

new 

research 

natural 

areas –

Beartooth 

Butte, Lake 

Creek, 

Grizzly 

Creek, 

Sheep 

Mesa, 

Arrow 

Mountain, 

Roaring 

Fork

Proposes 8 

new research 

natural areas -

Beartooth 

Butte, Lake 

Creek, Pat 

O’Hara, Bald 

Ridge, Grizzly 

Creek, Sheep 

Mesa, Arrow 

Mountain, 

Roaring Fork

Proposes 8 

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 

Proposes 8 

new 

research 

natural 

areas -

Beartooth 

Butte, Lake 

Creek, Pat 

O’Hara, 

Bald Ridge, 

Grizzly 

Creek, 

Sheep 

Mesa, 

Arrow 

Mountain, 

Roaring 

Fork

1 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

Protects 16 

eligible 

wild/scenic 

river 

segments
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

267

Determination of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Harlequin Duck

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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: 

• Due to the 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

Affected Environment

Trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinators) 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 northwestern 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).

Trumpeter swans are surveyed annually within and outside of the Tri-State Core Area (WGFD 

2010b). No breeding pairs have been observed on the Shoshone (WGFD 2010b). On the 

Shoshone, trumpeter swans are occasionally observed. 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 18).

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 Plan revision.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

268

Figure 18. 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)

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. Trumpeter swans are not 

known to winter on the Shoshone.

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 Forest is at Swamp Lake, which 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 Forest, the risk to viability of the species is low.

Conservation Measures

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 the 

potential for improving breeding habitat.

2. Maintain wetlands.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

269

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 would be to improve information on known 

observations and any potential breeding areas. The Shoshone staff should coordinate with the 

WGFD to complete 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.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Recreation Management: 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 67.

Table 67. Acres of management areas by alternative

MA Description Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

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

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

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 of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Trumpeter Swan

All 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 Shoshone, with no 

breeding populations known to occur. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

270

Riparian (lakes, streams, marshes) amphibians

Boreal western toad, Columbia spotted frog, Northern leopard frog

Affected Environment

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

northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens) are grouped into one assessment as they all occupy 

similar habitat and are subject to the same threats. (Detailed descriptions for these species are

contained in the biological evaluation.) The northern leopard frog has a natural heritage ranking 

of G5/S3; the Columbia spotted frog is ranked G4/S3; and the boreal western toad is ranked 

G4/S1. Historical populations, distribution, or abundance are unknown for any of these 

amphibian species that occur on the Shoshone. 

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. 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 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).They are known to occur on the Shoshone based on past surveys. 

No trend data are available for the Shoshone, but it is suspected that the population is declining 

in Wyoming (Smith and Keinath 2007).

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 

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 national parks of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 

based on the number of new breeding sites found each year and the general persistence of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

271

species in previously identified occupied areas. However, some local declines of spotted frogs 

have been observed in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Patla and Keinath 2005).

Boreal western toads range over much of northwestern North America from the southern Yukon 

to Nevada. In Wyoming, they occur in the western and south-central mountain ranges. 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 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). On the Shoshone, they are found throughout the Forest. No trend data are available for 

the Shoshone. During amphibian surveys conducted on the Shoshone by the Wyoming Natural 

Diversity Database (WYNDD) in 2009, spotted frogs were found at 6 of 47 sites and boreal 

toads were found at 4 sites (and 2 additional unconfirmed boreal toad sites) (Keinath et al. 2009). 

No leopard frogs were found during surveys.

Within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, declines have been reported in both Grand Teton and 

Yellowstone National Parks (Keinath and McGee 2005).

Declines in amphibian species can be characterized under two general patterns: those species 

that have been affected 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). 

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 (USDA Forest Service 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. 

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 

(USDA Forest Service 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 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

272

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. 

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 

streambanks. 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 include: livestock grazing, timber harvest, 

recreation activities and travel management within riparian areas. Other risk factors include 

predation (including from fish stocking) and disease. 

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 undersized 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

273

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).

Conservation Measures

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 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. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Timber Management, Livestock Grazing and Big Game, Road Construction, 

Motorized and Non-motorized Recreation, and Fuels Management: Plan direction that could 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

274

potentially influence the boreal toad primarily involves timber harvest, livestock grazing, road 

construction/ reconstruction, motorized/non-motorized recreation, and fuels treatment activities 

(wildland fire use only). Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are 

displayed in table 68.

Table 68. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the boreal toad, by 

alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Suitable Timber base acres 86,300 127,000 122,100 124,500 179,700 251,200 127,000

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Mechanical and Mechanical 

w/ Prescribed Fire (Total)

15,500 15,600 14,500 15,100 17,900 21,700 15,600

Spruce/fir 1,410 1,400 1,060 1,260 1,550 1,770 1,400

Aspen 620 630 530 620 640 660 630

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Prescribed Fire(Total) 23,600 23,300 23,300 23,300 22,800 21,900 23,300

Spruce/fir 550 540 500 530 550 570 540

Aspen 920 910 900 910 880 820 910

Road Construction MilesTimber 2 2 2 2 3 4 2

Wildfire Acres 185,200 182,900 184,100 183,700 175,000 161,400 182,900

Livestock Grazing

Permitted AUMs (Total) 55,900 55,900 31,400 55,900 58,300 61,500 55,900

Suitable Acres (Total) 375,400 375,400 216,800 375,400 375,400 415,400 375,400

Motorized RecreationSummer (Acres available) 570,000 570,200 321,800 350,000 655,900 823,300 529,000

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in table 68, there are several activities that could potentially influence habitat 

suitability for the boreal toad. Because wetlands and alpine systems are particularly vulnerable to 

human impacts and disturbances, it is probable that alternatives 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 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 boreal toad habitat (spruce/fir) varies from 

1,550 to 2,340 acres and is very minimal in all alternatives. Additional timber harvest in aspen 

varied from 1,430 to 1,540 acres of harvest during the life of the Plan (10 to 15 years). Although 

impacts could occur if timber sale activities occurred around a yet unknown population or 

breeding site, it is unlikely that this would occur due to continued survey requirements and 

conservation measures. Also, the overall amount of timber harvest associated with alternative A 

is 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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

275

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 boreal toads 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). Alternative A (as does alternatives B and G) provides for motorized recreation 

opportunities as well as non-motorized recreation opportunities. Alternatives A and B would 

have fewer acres affected by motorized recreation then alternatives E and F, and more motorized 

recreation than alternatives C and D. This difference could potentially lessen impacts to highelevation upland sites that could be considered potential habitat. 

Cattle and sheep are grazed at higher elevations and can frequently overlap with potential boreal 

toad 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, with approximately 55,900 AUMs on 375,400 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 161,400 to 185,200 acres of wildland fire use. Depending upon fire 

severity and scale, these outputs could have negative or positive influences on the boreal toad. 

Primary influences of fire in boreal toad 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 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 

As displayed in table 68, the projected timber harvest output in spruce/fir and aspen forest in 

alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G varies from about 2,980 acres (alternative C) to 3,820 acres 

(alternative 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 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 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 effect 

or minimal effects on boreal toad habitat. 

Alternative B offers the same amount of disturbance from summer motorized use as alternative 

A. The effects from these two alternatives maintain suitable boreal toad habitat at the existing 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

276

condition. Alternatives C, D, and G offer fewer potential disturbances than no action from 

summer motorized recreation because of the decreased amount of permitted motorized use area. 

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 68, alternative B maintains the same permitted numbers and area for 

livestock grazing as alternatives D and G, with approximately 55,900 AUMs on 375,400 acres 

and potential effects would be similar to alternative A. Alternative C reduces livestock numbers 

and allotment area to 31,400 AUMs and 216,800 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. Alternative E would increase amount of livestock use to 58,300 AUMs on 

375,400 acres, and alternative F would increase livestock use and allotment area to 61,500 

AUMs on 415,400 acres. Sheep allotments currently vacant could be filled under alternatives E 

and F. Alternative F would require more management attention to assure that livestock do not 

damage potential habitat for the boreal toad. 

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

161,400 to 185,200 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 

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 

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 Forest. 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 of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Boreal Toad, 

Columbia Spotted Frog, and Northern Leopard Frog

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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, an expanded road network, and potential 

ground disturbances in riparian habitat.

• Riparian and wetland habitat used by boreal toads 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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

277

Caves and mines mammals

Fringed myotis, Spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat

Affected Environment

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes pahasapensis), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), and 

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) 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 WGFD surveyed for bats in 

northwestern Wyoming in 2009 and detected fringed myotis on the Shoshone based on acoustic 

calls and mist netting (WGFD 2010b).

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 it 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 2010b).

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 yearround resident throughout most of Wyoming, but are primarily found in the north-central and 

southeastern parts of the state (Hester and Grenier 2005). The WGFD surveyed for bats in 

northwestern Wyoming in 2009, and detected Townsend’s big-eared bats at multiple locations on 

the Shoshone based on acoustic calls (WGFD 2010b).

Habitat Distribution and Condition on the Shoshone

These three bats use a variety of habitats (table 69). 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 69. 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
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

278

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 Forest (USDA Forest Service 2012b). 

Shrubland foraging habitat is limited on the Shoshone. There are about 76,060 acres of willow, 

sagebrush, and aspen (USDA Forest Service 2012b). Some evidence suggests that lodgepole pine 

has become less abundant in the last century, while spruce/fir has increased (USDA Forest 

Service 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) 

(USDA Forest Service 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 (USDA 

Forest Service 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).

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

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 

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 includes:
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

279

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.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Minerals Management, Fuels and Timber Management: Plan direction 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 70.

Table 70. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the fringed myotis, 

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

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Vegetation Treatment 

Acres Mechanical and 

Mechanical w/

Prescribed Fire (Total)

15,500 15,600 14,500 15,100 17,900 21,700 15,600

Douglas-fir 2,920 2,740 2,340 2,630 3,180 4,250 2,740

Lodgepole pine 5,290 5,330 5,640 5,360 7,060 9,210 5,330

Aspen 620 630 530 620 640 660 630

Vegetation Treatment 

Acres Prescribed Fire

(Total)

23,600 23,300 23,300 23,300 22,800 21,900 23,300

Douglas-fir 4,950 4,870 4,840 4,870 4,750 4,590 4,870

Lodgepole pine 1,970 1,970 2,020 1,980 2,190 2,450 1,970

Aspen 920 910 900 910 880 820 910

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

Same 

as alt. A

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 effect 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 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

280

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 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 

Alternatives B, C, D, and G are similar to alternative A; effects would be similar to those 

discussed above.

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 allocate 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 

timber management treatments in dry forest types similar to 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 regard 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 are 

also very sensitive to disturbances within these habitats. There is no difference among the 

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 NFS 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. 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 of these habitats, and implementation of 

protection measures, if necessary. Some of the caves adjacent to the Forest have received batfriendly closure gates to mitigate human recreation impact. The most significant cumulative 

impact to rock outcrops and 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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

281

Determination of Effects and Rationale for Determination -- Fringed Myotis, 

Spotted Bat, and Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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 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 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. 

Cliff birds

American peregrine falcon

The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) 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.

Affected Environment

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 2010a). 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 2010b). These data include 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 Yellowstone National Park since about 1990 (figure 19). No trend data are 

available that are specific to the Shoshone, but the trend is also likely increasing.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

282

Figure 19. Total counted peregrine falcon nesting pairs and fledglings in Yellowstone National Park 

(YNP), 1984 to 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 2010a). 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 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 will be retained as a Region 2 sensitive species on the Shoshone through forest 

plan revision.

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).
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

283

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. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects from Motorized and Non-motorized Recreation: Plan direction that could potentially 

influence the peregrine falcon primarily involves 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 

71.

Table 71. Activities and projected outputs that could potentially influence the peregrine falcon, by 

alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Motorized 

RecreationSummer (Acres 

available)

570,000 570,300 321,800 350,000 655,900 823,300 529,000

Riparian and 

Watershed 

Improvements

No acres 

available

No acres 

available

No acres 

available

No acres 

available

No acres 

available

No acres 

available

No acres 

available

Alternative A: No action

Existing conditions have recovered the peregrine falcon to the point that it has been delisted 

from the Endangered Species list. 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. 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 they are currently influencing nest productivity or causing 

disturbances. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

284

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 

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 NFS 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 on lands 

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 of these habitats, and 

implementation of protection measures, if necessary. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale for Determination – Peregrine Falcon

All alternatives, including alternative A, “may adversely impact individuals, 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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

285

Management indicator species

Ruffed grouse

Affected Environment

Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) are considered a G5/S5 species by the State Natural Heritage 

ranking for Wyoming. Historical populations, distribution, or abundance are unknown for this 

species on the Shoshone.

Ruffed grouse range across the northern half of North America. They occur from central Alaska, 

through most of Canada, south to Utah, Wisconsin, and the Appalachian Mountains (Rusch et al. 

2000). Ruffed grouse are a permanent resident in mountainous regions of the northwestern, 

north-central, and northeastern parts of the State.

No trend data are available that are specific to the Shoshone or Wyoming. WGFD does not track 

populations of this species, but they do periodically collect hunter harvest information. Based on 

recent WGFD harvest data (2010), ruffed grouse are consistently harvested in upland game 

management areas that encompass the Shoshone. 

In Wyoming, ruffed grouse are found in aspen and aspen/conifer mixed stands. On the Shoshone, 

aspen is found in scattered stands across the Forest. There are about 23,300 acres of aspen on the 

Shoshone. Field observations indicate that most aspen is mature (USDA Forest Service 2009). 

Aspen occurs as a seral species and a climax species on the Shoshone (USDA Forest Service 

2009). Climax stands occur below the lower limits of conifers, while seral stands grow among 

conifers. These seral stands are replaced by conifers over time without disturbance. Aspen is 

thought to be at the lower end or just below the historic range of variability (USDA Forest 

Service 2009).

The size of aspen stands has likely declined on the Shoshone. This is primarily due to fire 

suppression and livestock and wild ungulate grazing. White et al. (1999) documented that in an 

aspen stands that were in areas of known gray wolf use, may have benefited due to less browsing 

by elk on saplings. 

Ruffed grouse were a management indicator species under the 1986 Forest Plan. They will be 

carried forward as a management indicator species in the Plan to represent aspen habitat.

Desired Condition

To maintain and improve potential habitat for ruffed grouse on the Shoshone, the following 

conservation measures were developed for incorporation into the Plan goals, objectives, 

standards, guidelines, and management approach. Inclusion of these measures would continue to 

provide adequate habitat for this species, as well as other aspen associated species, resulting in a 

low viability risk to ruffed grouse. 

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Allow for wildland fire use, where appropriate, to maintain aspen and to increase the 

size and age class diversity of aspen stands.

2. Utilize prescribed fire and/or mechanical treatments to regenerate aspen, reduce conifer 

and sagebrush encroachment, and to increase the size and age class diversity of aspen 

stands.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

286

3. Consider resting burned and/or mechanically treated aspen stands from livestock grazing 

to provide for successful aspen regeneration. 

4. When proposing treatments to regenerate aspen, treat the most acres of aspen possible at 

the same time to reduce the impacts from livestock grazing and wild ungulate (elk) 

browsing. 

5. When treating small aspen stands, consider protecting them post-treatment with high 

fencing (Humphrey 2009). These stands are highly susceptible to overgrazing/browsing, 

especially by elk. Small aspen stands can be eliminated if the aspen suckers are not 

protected until they are above browsing height. 

6. When proposing treatments to regenerate aspen, strive to achieve over 1,000 stems per 

acre, over 10 feet in height within 10 years post-treatment. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Timber Management, Fire and Fuels Management, Livestock Grazing, and 

Big Game: The primary risk factors from forest management are fire suppression and livestock 

grazing. A natural risk factor is wild ungulate grazing, primarily by elk. Maintaining and 

increasing the acreage of aspen on the Shoshone would be the most important forest 

management consideration. Increasing aspen age class diversity would also be an important 

aspect of aspen management. Protecting recently treated aspen stands from livestock grazing and 

wild ungulate browsing would be important to successfully regenerate aspen. 

Alternative A provides for a similar amount of vegetation treatment in aspen as alternatives B, C, 

D, E, F, and G. These treatments primarily involve prescribed fire to reduce conifer 

encroachment in aspen stands and to improve stand health. Because vegetation treatment on 

aspen stands on the planning area is limited, potential impacts to ruffed grouse from these 

activities on the Shoshone are expected to have a positive impact to the species.

Wildland fire use is not a planned output in any of the alternatives. However, it would be utilized 

as a tool to allow natural disturbances to occur, as opportunities arise. The alternatives may allow 

from 161,400 to 185,200 acres of wildland fire use. Aspen is a target species for wildland fire 

use on the planning area, and potential impacts to ruffed grouse from this activity on the 

Shoshone is expected to be beneficial. 

Livestock grazing on the Shoshone is likely to overlap potential habitat for the ruffed grouse. 

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 ruffed grouse where activities and habitat overlap. On NFS 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. There is a reduction in AUMs and area in alternative C. 

The decrease in grazing area and stocking rates in alternative C may provide some secondary 

benefits to species such as the ruffed grouse. Alternatives E and F maintain the highest permitted 

forage allocation to livestock and, are therefore, assumed to have a potential for negative impacts 

to ruffed 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 in the Plan are similar across all 

alternatives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

287

Cumulative Effects 

Although aspen has a limited distribution across the Shoshone, livestock grazing effects have 

occurred where grazing activities occur within active allotments. Fuels management may occur 

in areas, which include small stands of aspen, but otherwise are dominated by other vegetation 

types. Management actions are conducted in aspen stands on adjacent BLM lands where the 

objectives include opening up decadent stands to reduce conifer encroachment, improve the 

grass/forb understory, and to increase the age class diversity in aspen stands. Overall, little 

influence or cumulative effects on aspen-associated species are expected on the Shoshone, 

because of limited activities in this habitat type.

Brewer’s sparrow

Affected Environment

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri breweri) is categorized as a G5/S5 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 this species are typically constructed in the bottom portion of live sagebrush plants, 

typically in the taller shrubs. Brewer’s sparrows winter in the southwestern United States and 

north-central 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 Brewer’s sparrows (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 slight declining trend (- 0.7), but 

the trend is not significant (p = 0.37) (WGFD 2010b). 

With fluctuations in natural ranges of habitat, it is difficult to determine whether populations of 

this species on the Shoshone are similar to historic levels. Regional declines reported in breeding 

bird survey 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 sparrow populations, 

though these effects currently are not occurring to a significant extent on the Shoshone, as 

compared to surrounding lands.

Brewer’s sparrows are dependent 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 approximately 38,800 acres of sagebrush, representing 

2.0 percent of the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2012b). This acreage includes all types of 

sagebrush. Mountain big sagebrush dominates the montane shrublands throughout the Absaroka 

Mountains. Black sagebrush, Wyoming sagebrush and basin big sagebrush occur on the eastern 

margins of the Forest. The most extensive of these stands are found in the North and South Fork 

Shoshone River valleys and along the Beartooth front. On the Washakie Ranger District, 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

288

mountain big sagebrush is mixed with bitterbrush and mountain snowberry. Additional sagebrush 

habitat likely occurs within some stands classified as grassland on the Shoshone.

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 on the Shoshone. 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 this species on the Shoshone.

Roads on the Shoshone have likely fragmented some sagebrush stands. To what extent is 

currently unknown.

Livestock grazing can influence sagebrush ecosystems. High stocking rates typically result 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 this sparrow nests 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 (Bock et al. 

1993). Livestock may also increase the risk for the introduction of invasive plants.

Invasive plants 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 

portions 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.

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 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 would 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 for habitat diversity 

considerations, which should be conducted in the late spring or fall. The guidelines developed 

for vegetation management in sage grouse habitat (WGFD 2003) would likely be adequate for 

these species. 

In a review of management indicator species for the Plan, Brewer’s sparrows were recommended 

to be maintained as a management indicator species in the Plan revision due to their habitat

association and effective monitoring through point counts. 

Desired Condition

For continued and improved management for the Brewer’s sparrow and its habitat, the following 

conservation measures were developed for incorporation into revised Plan goals, objectives, 

standards and guidelines. Inclusion of these measures would continue to provide adequate 

habitat for this 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

289

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 Sage-Grouse 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. In areas with cheatgrass and other invasive plants, avoid prescribed burns to reduce the 

risk of further spread.

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 nesting cover 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 sagebrush habitat (no type conversions).

8. Re-establish sagebrush and native bunch grasses in habitat now dominated by invasive 

plants.

9. Provide a mosaic of open (5 percent) to moderate (25 percent) shrub canopy cover on 

the landscape.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Fire Management, Livestock Grazing, Big Game, and Invasive Plants: Primary 

risk factors from forest management include: habitat fragmentation, prescribed fire, livestock 

grazing, and invasive plants.

As mentioned previously, activities that have potential to expand cheatgrass or other invasive 

plants should be closely monitored to ensure further loss of habitat does not occur. Climate 

change has the potential to increase the spread of cheatgrass 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 invasive plants. Additional road construction in large stands 

of sagebrush should be minimized.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

290

Alternative A: No action

As displayed in table 57, alternative A provides for a similar amount of fuels treatment in mixedshrubland 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 Brewer’s sparrows from fuels reduction activities on the Shoshone are expected to be 

minor, but cannot be completely discounted.

As displayed in table 57, 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 Brewer’s sparrows where activities and habitat 

overlap. On NFS 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 

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 NFS land, potential influences on Brewer’s sparrows and other 

sagebrush-associated species are expected to be similar to alternative A. 

As displayed in table 57, 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 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 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, and to improve forage conditions and habitat. 

Overall, little influence or cumulative effects on sagebrush-associated species is expected on the 

Shoshone, because of limited activities in this habitat type. 

Red-breasted nuthatch

Affected Environment

Red-breasted nuthatches (Sitta canadensis) are a non-migratory, native avian species on the 

Shoshone. They are widespread in distribution in coniferous forests on the Shoshone and 

throughout Wyoming. They are associated with mature structural stages, primarily due to their 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

291

association with soft snags for nesting cavities, and from both insects in bark and cone crops as 

forage. Hart and Hart (2001) found that old live aspen with heart rot was a significant component 

in cavity construction and indirectly benefits the nuthatch since it nests in constructed cavities. 

Norris and Martin (2008) suggest that nuthatches selected sites that maximized nesting and 

foraging opportunities, and during food pulses (mountain pine beetle outbreaks), nuthatches may 

select more foraging opportunities over higher densities of suitable nest trees. 

This species would be most strongly associated with mature to older forest habitat structural 

stages (4A, 4B, 4C), and have been known to occur in the younger stages if snags are present. 

Currently, approximately 49 percent of the forested habitats are in structural stage 4, of which 

approximately 14 percent (174,000 acres) is in the 4C category. Nuthatches are not known to be 

sensitive to edge or fragmentation issues, including effects of roads or timber harvest. Keller and 

Anderson (1992) found similar results when comparing cut stands of trees (fragmented habitat) 

to unfragmented stands. While it was not clear from their 1992 data that red-breasted nuthatches 

were influenced by fragmentation, in previous study years they were more abundant in the uncut 

stands. Continued availability of their habitat (4C, snags, etc.) would be the issue of concern. 

Since 2002, the Shoshone has undertaken avian point count monitoring to improve its 

information available on population trends for several species. The nuthatch is adequately 

detected through this survey protocol, and baseline trends indicate a stable population with 

estimated densities of approximately 206,500 (72 percent coefficient of variation) (Rehm-Lorber 

et al. 2010). However, populations are known to fluctuate in response to cone crops.

In a review of management indicator species for Plan revision, the red-breasted nuthatch was 

recommended to be a management indicator species due to their habitat association with snags in 

mature conifer forest stands.

Desired Condition

For continued and improved management for the red-breasted nuthatch and its habitat, the 

following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into the Forest Plan goals, 

objectives, standards and/or guidelines: maintain as recommended by current literature, the size, 

density and distribution of snags in habitat structural stage 4B (mature trees with 40 to 70 

percent canopy closure) and 4C (mature trees with 70 to 100 percent canopy closure) when 

vegetation management practices are proposed. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Timber Management and Fire and Fuels Management: Anticipated activities 

(prescribed fire, commercial harvest, wildland fire use, and fuelwood cutting) that have the 

potential for removing mature coniferous habitat may have an impact on this species.

Alternatives A through G: No Action and Action Alternatives

The primary habitat factors associated with effects to red-breasted nuthatches would be both the 

availability and distribution of HSS 4C and old forest, and snags. 

In summary of effects to habitat from management activities, alternatives A, B, C, D, and G 

would likely provide the greatest amount of this type of habitat (4C, old forest and snags) in the 

next planning period. Alternative E would follow, with alternative F having the least of any of 

the alternatives, but still an adequate amount of this type of habitat within the range of historic 

range of variation as designed by the snag guidelines adopted in the Plan. These effects are from 

the results of timber harvest, though the natural processes of insects and disease and fire would 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

292

continue to be the largest source of influence on the availability of 4C and old forest stages and 

snags. Timber harvest would only occur on suited acres, which range from 8 percent of the total 

forested acres on the Shoshone in alternative A to approximately 20 percent in alternative F. 

Recent and past harvest activities have occurred on approximately 3 percent of the forested 

acres.

Snag removal occurs with firewood harvest. This effect typically only occurs within a few 

hundred feet along open roads. Where additional roads are constructed in support of harvest 

activities, there would be more of this type of habitat removed. Again, this would be most 

prevalent in alternatives E and F, with alternatives A through D and G all having the least amount 

of snag removal. However, it is also likely that due to the large expanses of habitat away from 

roads remaining, more than adequate snag abundance would be provided regardless of 

alternative, and desirable snag abundance levels would still be ensured in project areas, even 

following harvest. Timber modeling indicates that regardless of alternative, the forested acres 

would continue to mature with an abundance of mature structural stages. Wildfires and 

prescribed burns would create snags by killing live trees, and mosaic patterns typically leave 

green recruitment trees for future snags. 

With regard to effects to Forest-wide populations, it could be assumed that populations would 

follow the trend of the habitat as discussed above, which would largely be driven by natural 

disturbance processes. However, as with any wildlife species, elements of climate would have a 

strong influence, affecting forage and prey available, and thereby, reproduction success. Redbreasted nuthatches are relatively unaffected by human disturbance. As with other passerines, 

active nests could be occasionally removed through timber and firewood harvesting. However, 

as only a few hundred acres of commercial harvest or firewood harvest are typically active in 

any given breeding season, this effect is thought to be minimal and undetectable to populations, 

particularly at the Forest-wide scale. The Plan will implement the measures required by the 

Migratory Bird Executive Order 13186 by providing appropriate management direction, 

monitoring, and consideration of rare species. 

Anticipated activities (prescribed fire, commercial harvest, and wildland fire use) in all 

alternatives that may change habitat are all viewed as maintaining the habitat through time as 

desired by the Forest-wide strategy in the Plan. Diversity in age class structure may help prevent 

more widespread loss of habitat, and/or create resiliency to disturbance, even though habitat may 

actually be reduced in the short term through disturbance activities.

Cumulative Effects 

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Shoshone and adjacent lands adjacent within 

3 miles of its boundary. The period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 

10 to 15 years. Cumulative effects include the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, as mentioned in the summary of activities table (table 20). From this table, for the 

nuthatch, the past and present activities of vegetation management have been insignificant, as 

much of the landscape adjacent to the Shoshone is shrub/sagebrush habitat. The reasonably 

foreseeable future activities of subdivisions and vegetation treatments on adjacent lands are also 

insignificant.

The Shoshone would continue to be influenced by the natural disturbance processes, and only 

secondarily by timber harvest or prescribed burns. Alternatives E and F would have the most 

potential for timber harvest and fuelwood harvest, which can lower the number of snags in an 

area for this species. Logging activities and firewood harvest occur on private lands adjacent to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

293

the Shoshone, though this is typically limited by slope and road access, and occurs mostly in the 

southern part of the Forest.

Species of local concern

Rocky Mountain elk

Affected Environment

Historically, elk ranged across much of North America from western Canada south through most 

of the conterminous United States and into Mexico (RMEF 2009). Currently, elk still range 

across most of the western United States and Canada with isolated re-introduced populations in 

several eastern states. Rocky mountain elk (Cervus canadensis) occur across most of Wyoming 

where suitable habitat exists, including the Shoshone. Elk are considered a big game animal in 

Wyoming.

No trend data specific to the Shoshone are available, but data are available for elk herd units that 

encompass the Shoshone. Five herd units overlap the Shoshone including: Gooseberry, Cody, 

Clarks Fork, Wiggin’s Fork, and South Wind River. For the most part, trends for these herd units 

have been relatively stable (USDA Forest Service 2012a) (figure 20). Population objectives have 

been at or above herd unit objectives. In a recent study completed on the Clarks Fork elk herd, 

Middleton (2012) found that pregnancy rates did differ by age class for the migratory versus 

non-migratory subpopulations of this elk herd, with non-migratory elk showing a higher 

pregnancy rate in the younger and older age classes. In addition, there has been a shift in calf 

production of the two subpopulations, with migratory elk producing fewer calves than nonmigratory. Middleton’s findings suggest that large carnivore recovery and drought, operating 

simultaneously, influenced the makeup of the migratory elk.

Figure 20. Population trends for elk herd units that encompass the Shoshone National Forest
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

294

Since elk are habitat generalists, virtually the entire Shoshone would be considered some type of 

seasonal range for elk, except for the most rugged portions of the Wind River Range. Elk calving 

and crucial winter ranges are the most important habitats on the Shoshone (see map 15).The 

Shoshone contains about 479,100 acres of calving areas and 896,000 acres of crucial winter 

range.

Security habitat is abundant on the Shoshone within the wilderness areas and the grizzly bear 

primary conservation area. 

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 (USDA Forest Service 2012c). 

Wildfires create ideal foraging habitat for elk.

In February 2004, Wyoming lost its brucellosis class-free status when 31 reactor cattle were 

detected in a Sublette county herd (Wyoming Brucellosis Coordination Team [WBCT] 2005). 

Infection of these cattle likely originated from elk on the nearby elk feedground. Following this 

loss of class free status, increased surveillance of Wyoming cattle revealed a series of herds with 

the disease in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem ([GYE]; WBCT 2005).

To develop management strategies regarding brucellosis in the GYE of western Wyoming and 

regain brucellosis class-free status, the Wyoming Brucellosis Coordination Team identified the 

Brucellosis Management Action Plan (BMAP) process as their highest priority recommendation 

(WBCT 2005). BMAPs have already been finalized for several of elk herds including the Cody 

elk herd on the Shoshone.

The disease known as Brucellosis is caused by the bacteria Brucella abortus and is transmitted 

when a susceptible animal contacts and ingests bacteria following the abortion or stillbirth from 

an infected female. Exposure of a susceptible animal to the bacteria elicits an antibody immune 

response that can be detected (with varying degrees of accuracy) following one to several unique 

blood tests. When several or more animals are tested from a population within a given time 

period, this provides an index of exposure (but not infection) to the bacteria. This mathematical 

proportion of exposure (i.e., those animals that are antibody-positive divided by the sample 

population) is commonly referred to as “seroprevalence.”

Exposure of elk to brucellosis was first documented at the National Elk Refuge in 1933, and 

since then, has been documented in elk attending all 22 Wyoming state-operated winter 

feedgrounds on the adjacent Bridger-Teton National Forest, as well as winter free-ranging elk 

from western Wyoming, northeastern Idaho, and southern Montana. Seroprevalence of 

brucellosis in elk attending Wyoming winter feedgrounds averages about 25 percent and 

generally declines to levels less than 10 percent in winter free-ranging elk throughout the Greater 

Yellowstone Area. However, winter free-ranging elk habituating lands of the Shoshone National 

Forest in Wyoming, particularly those areas north of Lander and Dubois, have had 

seroprevalence levels as high as 22 percent.

It has long been recognized that elk of the Greater Yellowstone Area are a reservoir of 

brucellosis. Despite the use of winter feedgrounds, strain 19 vaccination, and several other best 

management practices, the threat of spillover from elk to domestic livestock has been realized 

and confirmed several times in the past decade. As elk herds of the Shoshone National Forest 

have continued to grow and utilize winter habitats in similarity to winter feedgrounds, it is likely 

that these elk will maintain elevated seroprevalence and also pose a threat to adjacent livestock 

operations. Most recently, this particular threat was realized following confirmed spillover of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

295

brucellosis from winter free-ranging elk of the Shoshone National Forest to adjacent livestock on 

private lands.

Whether from elk attending feedgrounds or winter free-ranging, elk-to-livestock transmission 

events have caused economic and logistical constraints for livestock producers and induced timeconsuming policy changes at state and federal levels.

Desired Condition

Maintaining diverse and productive seasonal habitats would be the most important forest 

management emphasis for elk. In addition, limiting human access to elk calving and wintering 

areas would be important to reduce potential disturbance during these critical time periods. 

Providing sufficient security habitat outside of wilderness and the grizzly bear primary 

conservation area would be important.

The 1986 Forest Plan developed standards and guidelines to provide security for elk by 

maintaining a certain percentage of the forested habitat in hiding cover. However, later research 

recognized that hiding cover, which is defined as cover that would hide 90 percent of an adult 

elk at 200 feet (Lyon and Christensen 1992), did not incorporate the larger concern of the effect 

of road densities on elk distribution. 

Elk security habitat is defined as “any area that will hold elk during periods of stress because of 

geography, topography, vegetation, or a combination of those features” (Lyon and Christensen 

1992). Hillis et al. (1991) quantified elk security areas as nonlinear blocks of hiding cover 

250 acres or more in size and 0.5 mile or more from any open road. They noted that elk 

vulnerability increases when security areas comprise less than 30 percent of an analysis unit.

For planning purposes, five geographic areas (WGFD elk herd units) were selected as the 

analysis units. The existing amounts of security habitat were assessed in these areas. Existing 

security areas were defined as those areas that met the habitat criteria (forested structural stages 

1T, 2T, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B and 4C with 250 or more acres), that were greater than 0.5 mile from 

any open road (Level 2 to 5) or motorized trail. Areas that were dropped out of the security 

analysis included 1T within fires less than 20 years old (recent burned young stand) and nonforested polygons. Table 72 displays the amount of existing and minimum security for each of 

the five elk herd units.

Table 72. Amount of existing and minimum security for the five elk herd units

Herd unit Existing percentage of herd unit 

providing secure habitat

Minimum percentage of herd unit 

providing secure habitat

Clarks Fork 34 30

Cody 25 30

Gooseberry 31 30

South Wind River 44 30

Wiggins Fork 36 30

Potential elk security cover was also assessed to delineate areas that could meet security cover 

needs for elk in the future once timber stands that don’t currently provide cover (such as 

seedling/sapling stands) mature. For potential security, the same habitat parameters were used, 

although it was assumed that the Shoshone would not likely close a road long term if it were a 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

296

Level 3 to 5 due to investments (gravel, etc.), so areas within a 0.5-mile buffer of these types of 

roads could not be considered potential. Potential secure habitat is displayed in the 

environmental consequences section. 

Elk were selected as a species of local concern due to the social interest in the species, and due to 

the species’ habitat associations with forested canopy cover alterations and road densities. 

Security areas provide an analysis function for species with similar habitat associations, namely 

larger blocks of forested stands that have less human disturbance as they are greater than 

0.5 mile from an open road. Examples of other emphasis species that may benefit from this type 

of habitat include grizzly bear, lynx, American marten, wolverine, goshawk, and boreal owl. As 

displayed above, some herd units are close to the minimum amount of security to meet the 

recommended level of 30 percent per analysis unit, largely due to a lack of forested cover from 

naturally occurring meadows and shrublands. Hillis et al. (1991) did not specify a minimum 

threshold of elk security for maintaining population abundance or to meet other specific 

management objectives. However, the interdisciplinary team recognized the need to maintain at 

least the existing amount of elk security for each elk herd unit and seek to improve during 

site-specific project implementation. 

Elk security cover indirectly improves local economies because of the hunter opportunity 

generated by the quality habitat and resulting hunting experience. This becomes evident where

general hunting season areas have been switched to limited entry, reducing both the number of 

hunters in the field and hunter success (WGFD 2004). The change in number of hunters has been 

especially evident in Hunt Area 52, Sunlight Basin.

Reductions in road densities to improve elk security cover need to be balanced with the public’s 

desire to have motorized access for hunting and other recreation pursuits, including wildlife 

viewing, fishing, and scenic viewing. Adequate access is also necessary to achieve desired elk 

harvest levels. Closed roads and non-motorized trails are also main avenues of recreation access, 

providing larger disturbance potentials to wildlife from recreation as compared to areas where no 

trails or roads occur. Direct impacts from roads can include overexploitation, increased hunting 

pressure and increased roadkill (USDA Forest Service 2000). While changes in road density can 

improve elk security cover through seasonal closures during hunting seasons, the benefit of yearround secure habitat for other species is also important. However, based on radio locations of elk 

on the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range (The Starkey Project), M. M. Rowland (cited in 

Rowland et al. 2005) found no relations between the number of elk locations and habitat 

effectiveness based on open road densities. By contrast, the number of elk increased as the 

distance to roads increased. The main challenge to this type of habitat has been from the 

increased use of all-terrain vehicles as compared to conditions projected in the 1986 Forest Plan. 

Snowmobiles may also reduce the winter availability of secure areas, mainly for species other 

than elk. 

Currently, no specific elk habitat monitoring occurs on the Shoshone, other than verification of 

application of standards and guidelines in projects. The 1986 Forest Plan directed habitat 

monitoring and treatment for big game winter range, which has not regularly occurred, though 

some project-specific treatments (e.g., prescribed burns) have occurred with monitoring for that 

purpose. The Shoshone provides a substantial amount of winter range, including crucial winter 

range and is primarily used by elk year-round. Issues with winter range primarily focus on 

human disturbance and stress, for which the 1986 Forest Plan contained management direction, 

as would the Plan.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

297

Standardized Definitions for Seasonal Wildlife Ranges were developed in Wyoming among 

Federal and State agencies and the Wildlife Society, Wyoming Chapter, and adopted by these 

agencies in 2006. Big game winter range is where a population or portion of a population of 

animals uses the documented suitable habitat within this range annually, in substantial numbers 

only during the winter (variable, but commonly between December 1 and April 30).WGFD 

adopted the dates November 15 through April 30 for winter range closures in 2004. Timing 

restriction dates of December 1-April 30 were identified in the Revised LMP for all alternatives 

on big game crucial winter range.

Crucial range describes any particular seasonal range or habitat component (often winter or 

winter/yearlong range in Wyoming) but describes that component which has been documented as 

the determining factor in a population’s ability to maintain itself at a certain level (theoretically 

at or above the WGFD population objective) over the long term. These definitions were used in 

this analysis.

It is the desire of the Shoshone staff to coordinate with the WGFD to improve security habitat on 

the Forest, to improve the ability to maintain elk herds within population objective and to 

provide improved hunter opportunity.

It is also the desire of the Shoshone to work cooperatively with the WGFD to reduce 

transmission risks of brucellosis between elk and cattle.

In order to provide management for elk and to maintain or improve its potential distribution on 

the Shoshone, the following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into Plan 

goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. Since elk are habitat generalists and currently occur 

at or above management objectives, overall viability risk from forest management to elk is low. 

Conservation measures summarized include:

• In cooperation with the WGFD, seasonally close motorized access to crucial elk winter range 

during critical time periods.

• Conduct management activities that disturb wintering elk outside of the critical time period 

except when the project is designed to maintain or improve crucial winter range conditions 

(i.e., prescribed fire).

• Conduct management activities that disturb calving elk outside of the critical time period 

except when the project is designed to maintain or improve elk calving area conditions (i.e., 

prescribed fire).

• When proposing treatments to regenerate aspen, treat the most acres of aspen possible at the 

same time to reduce the impacts from elk browsing. 

• Utilize prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to maintain and improve elk seasonal 

ranges.

• Allow for wildland fire use, where appropriate, to maintain and improve elk seasonal ranges.

• Manage domestic livestock grazing on elk crucial winter ranges to provide sufficient forage 

for wintering elk within herd population objectives.

• Identify and maintain sufficient elk security habitat outside of the grizzly bear primary 

conservation area.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

298

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Timber Management, Fire Management and Road Use: The primary risk factor 

from forest management is human disturbance during critical time periods (calving and winter), 

fire suppression, and roads.

Roads can provide the mechanism to increase the harassment, poaching, collisions with vehicles 

and displacement of terrestrial vertebrates, including elk. Direct mortality of large mammals 

from motorized travel on forest roads is usually low, except for those with a home range 

straddling a road (USDA Forest Service 2000). 

Disease risks include chronic wasting disease and brucellosis. Chronic wasting disease is 

currently not known to be prevalent in elk herds on the Shoshone.

Existing elk security areas were incorporated into different alternatives depending upon the 

amount of road and trail open to motorized use. For example, in alternative C, which has the 

most recommended wilderness and back country non-motorized, more secure habitat is proposed 

compared to the other alternatives. The same goes for potential secure habitat. This is habitat that 

would provide cover in the future due to seedling and sapling stands maturing into cover. 

Alternative C would once again provide more potential secure habitat due to less roads and trails 

open to motorized use. Table 73 displays the amount of secure and potential secure elk habitat by 

alternative for each of the elk herd units.

Table 73. Amount of secure and potential secure elk habitat for elk herd units, by alternative

Herd unit Herd unit 

acres

Secure habitat Potential secure habitat

Alt. C Other Alts. Alt. C Other Alts.

Secure 

acres

Pct 

secure

Secure 

acres

Pct 

secure

Secure 

acres

Pct 

secure

Secure 

acres

Pct 

secure

Clarks Fork 544,541 184,959 34% 176,409 32% 238,495 44% 229,561 42%

Cody 824,184 206,449 25% 206,079 25% 357,414 43% 357,016 43%

Gooseberry 209,831 64,280 31% 64,227 31% 68,609 33% 68,555 33%

South Wind River 242,405 107,021 44% 92,403 38% 111,272 46% 95,647 39%

Wiggins Fork 617,069 219,371 36% 212,663 34% 244,649 40% 237,905 39%

Existing crucial winter range was also incorporated into management area (MA) prescriptions by 

alternative. This included managed big game crucial winter range (MA 5.4) For example, in 

alternative B, 55,000 acres of crucial winter range was designated MA 5.4, where under 

alternative F, all MA 5.4 acres were assigned to MA 5.1 instead. Even though the amount of 

crucial winter range varies by management area in each of the alternatives, the total amount of 

crucial winter range remains the same in all alternatives. Table 74 displays the crucial winter 

range by management area and alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

299

Table 74. Crucial winter range acres by alternative management areas

MA MA Description Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

1.1 Wilderness 458,000 458,000 458,000 458,000 458,000 458,000 458,000

1.1A Glacier Addition 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100

1.2 Recommended Wilderness 0 0 265,500 61,500 0 0 0

1.2A Recommended High Lakes Wilderness 0 0 1,320 0 0 0 0

1.2B Recommended Dunoir Wilderness 0 0 6,790 6,790 0 0 0

1.3 Backcountry Non-Motorized 219,300 213,400 45,000 216,900 198,500 131,100 199,500

1.5A Clarks Fork of Yellowstone Wild River 4,110 4,110 1,940 4,110 4,110 4,110 4,110

1.6A High Lakes Wilderness Study Area 1,320 1,320 0 1,320 1,320 1,320 1,320

1.6B Dunoir Special Management Unit 6,780 6,780 0 0 6,780 6,780 6,780

2.2A Line Creek Research Natural Area 1,060 1,060 76 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060

2.3 Potential Research Natural Area 57 11,450 2,330 12,700 0 0 12,190

3.1A Swamp Lake Botanical Area 570 570 570 570 570 570 570

3.1B Potential Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological Area 0 210 210 210 0 0 210

3.1C Potential Sawtooth Peatbeds Geological Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.3A Back Country Motorized 56,200 9,000 0 0 7,020 107,400 5,260

3.3B Back Country Winter Motorized 0 4,590 0 0 4,870 0 24,800

3.3C Back Country Summer Motorized 0 35,400 1,970 4,210 58,800 2,660 31,700

3.5 Back Country Recreation and Restoration 0 19,800 0 0 0 0 0

3.5A Back Country Restoration Motorized 520

3.5B Back Country Restoration Winter Motorized 1,710

3.5C Back Country Restoration Summer Motorized 6,690

3.5D Back Country Restoration Non-Motorized 10,200

4.2 Travel Corridor 67,600 59,000 48,300 59,000 60,600 60,700 58,400

4.3 Back Country Access Corridor 0 5,760 1,870 5,730 3,580 1,990 5,760

4.5A Potential Kirwin Historical Area 49 49 49 49 49 1,670

5.1 Managed Forests and Rangelands 26,700 0 0 0 130 132,300 0

5.2 Public Water Supply 0 4,530 3,880 3,880 4,530 0 4,530

5.4 Managed Big Game Crucial Winter Range 45,600 55,000 52,100 54,000 79,900 0 55,000

8.2 Ski-based Resort 0 330 330 330 330 330 330
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

300

The biggest impact from the alternatives to elk crucial winter range is whether there are 

motorized use timing stipulations on crucial winter range. The degree of disturbance caused by 

winter recreationists (skiers, snowmobilers, helicopters) has mostly been reported in terms of 

flight distance or in some observed change in behavior manifested by animals. Based on elk 

heart rate data, Chabot (1991) showed that even when disturbances do not induce an overt 

behavioral response, the increased heart rates can result in relatively high energy expenditures, 

during the time of year when ungulates are struggling with weight loss. While no acreage figures 

were developed for each alternative, table 75 displays the timing restrictions proposed by 

alternative. Map 74 displays existing snowmobiles trails in relationship to crucial winter range.

Table 75. Winter motorized use on winter range

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Winter 

motorized 

use on big 

game 

winter 

range

Allowed 

on less 

than one 

third of 

crucial 

winter 

range

Allowed 

on just 

over 5% 

of crucial 

winter 

range

Prohibited 

on all winter 

range 

including 

crucial

winter 

range.

Prohibited 

on all 

crucial 

winter 

range

Allowed 

on 10% 

of crucial 

winter 

range

Allowed on 

40% of 

crucial winter 

range. No 

winter range 

timing 

restrictions.

Allowed 

on just 

under 

10% of 

crucial 

winter 

range

Alternative C would provide the most disturbance-free winter habitat as it would restrict 

motorized use on all big game winter range, including crucial winter range. Alternative F would 

provide the least amount of disturbance free winter habitat as it proposes no timing restrictions in 

big game winter range. Alternatives D, B, G, E, and A would provide disturbance free habitat in 

a descending order from most to least, but all would provide more habitat then alternative F. 

In addition to management prescription analysis, the likelihood of road construction or timber 

harvest in elk security areas was also assessed by alternative. Timber harvests are conducted to 

accomplish other resource objectives, in addition to providing commercial products. There are 

benefits from harvest activities in terms of forage production for elk and other wildlife, and 

general habitat diversity in terms of a variety of age classes created (structural stages). Timber 

harvests also remove a cover component of elk security habitat, and frequently roads are 

constructed to access timber stands, which are the two main variables in assessing elk security 

areas. 

Alternative A would likely retain existing elk security areas in their current configuration for the 

next planning period. Small areas of existing elk security would likely be entered in alternatives 

B, C, D, and G. Larger areas of existing elk security would be entered in alternatives E and F. 

This is indicated by the amount of acres suited for timber production by alternative. The overlap 

of suited acres with security areas does not mean that harvest or road construction would 

necessarily occur. However, the likelihood of harvest and road construction activities increases 

with the number of acres of overlap given the higher objectives for timber harvest associated 

with those acres. Table 76 displays the acres of suitable timber by alternative.

Table 76. Acres of suitable timber, by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Suitable timber base acres 86,300 127,000 122,100 124,500 179,700 251,200 127,000
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

301

While elk security areas can theoretically be maintained by closing roads following uneven-aged 

harvest prescriptions, the risk of losing the integrity of the security area increases as more acres 

are harvested and more roads are built. People will continue to use roads and skid trails for 

access, whether by foot or horseback, depending upon the closure effectiveness. Studies on other 

forests have indicated a significant problem in achieving effective closures (Griffin 2004), and 

the Shoshone faces similar challenges. Road impacts can be offset by management of access 

prior to initiating timber harvest. Road closure in areas adjacent to planned harvest units can 

improve elk security prior to entering the adjacent area. In addition, if timber harvest treats larger 

areas (greater than 40-acre clearcuts), similar to natural disturbance processes in lodgepole pine, 

fewer roads would be needed, resulting in less impact on elk security.

It is also likely that some improvements to elk security would occur with Plan implementation. 

There may be additional user-created routes from motorized vehicles that may reduce the 

effectiveness of identified elk security, or potential elk security areas. It should be noted that 

user-created routes are not included in the model because they are not system roads or trails, and 

often locations are not specifically known.

It is assumed that security areas would be created within the geographic area through road 

closures to mitigate any additional user-created routes. However, this has yet to be tested at the 

project implementation scale, given known public resistance to road closures. It is feasible to 

rotate elk security areas on the landscape. In other words, as harvest or other vegetation 

management is conducted in one area, an adjacent area could have roads successfully closed to 

allow for elk and other species to use those areas. Similarly, as forested areas are either harvested 

or grow up, the forested cover aspect of security habitat can be rotated on the landscape. Travel 

management decisions would need to incorporate considerations for elk security, as would other 

vegetation management (e.g., prescribed fire) projects. The current projections for prescribed fire 

that have the potential for reducing forested canopy are relatively minor acres of forested habitat 

(approximately 1,450 acres per year).

Timber harvest and other vegetation management projects are also important for elk and other 

animals that rely on early seral stages for forage or other habitat needs. It is not desirable to 

retain mature forested canopies over the entire Shoshone to keep security areas, but rather a 

balanced need for a diversity of structural stages also needs to be considered (Toweill and 

Thomas 2002). The creation of additional forage in alternatives E and F would benefit summer 

range conditions; though the availability of the forage may be offset if roads are not effectively 

closed and elk do not use the areas. Also, summer forage quantity has not been a limiting factor 

for elk due to the natural interspersion of meadows on the landscape.

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game: Livestock grazing would have no direct 

effects on elk security habitat. However, security habitat is most effective when it occurs 

adjacent to quality foraging habitat. Livestock grazing would remove forage that would be 

available to elk and other wildlife. Forage utilization standards and guidelines were developed 

with this in mind, and administration of these measures would largely address this issue. 

Currently, localized areas within individual allotments have problems with the cumulative use of

rangeland vegetation by livestock and wildlife. Fences added to manage commercial livestock 

grazing can have a negative impact on big game species by catching them in the wire or 

restricting movement patterns due to the height of the wire. Alternatives E and F would have the 

greatest impact on forage on big game crucial winter range since both alternatives propose no 

forage utilization restrictions on commercial livestock on crucial winter range. Alternative C, 

which eliminates all commercial livestock grazing on crucial winter range, would benefit big 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

302

game species the most. Alternatives A, B, D, and G all have the same effect since they propose 

forage utilization standards on crucial winter range.

Alternative C would provide the least potential transmission of brucellosis with domestic 

livestock. Alternative C would minimize disturbance to wintering elk, making it more likely they 

would remain on all Forest winter ranges, including crucial winter range. Without some type of 

timing restriction on elk crucial winter range, there is the potential of elk moving off the Forest 

to adjacent private property, increasing the opportunity for elk to intermingle with livestock. 

Alternative F would provide the greatest opportunity of transmission with domestic livestock 

because it proposes no timing restrictions on disturbing activities in elk crucial winter range, 

thereby providing the least amount of protection from disturbance during the critical winter 

months. Alternatives D, B, G, E, and A would provide disturbance-free habitat in a descending 

order from the most to least, but all would provide more protection from winter disturbance than 

alternative F. Under all alternatives, should brucellosis issues between elk and domestic 

livestock become more of a concern on National Forest System lands, recommendations in the 

Cody brucellosis management action plan developed by the Wyoming Governor’s Brucellosis 

Coordination team and Wyoming Game and Fish Department will be utilized.

Effects from Recreation Management and Special Uses: Recreation activities would influence 

the effectiveness of elk security cover. In the absence of other large predators, human 

disturbance is the only major factor that displaces elk. The potential effect of humans is 

addressed in the discussion above on travel management. Where higher road densities occur, 

there is greater viewing and hunting pressure on elk, providing the disturbance that causes elk to 

seek secure habitat. Studies have shown that hunters, and presumably most recreationists, stay 

within 0.25 mile of open roads and trails (Lyon and Burcham 1998). Disturbance is largely a 

function of dispersed recreational use, as developed campgrounds are a localized source of 

disturbance. A surrogate for dispersed recreation would be the motorized recreation opportunities 

on the Shoshone, which largely follow trends in road development associated with timber 

harvest as described above, with similar effects by alternative.

With regard to effects on winter range, disturbance from recreation is typically of concern, as 

stress during this period can increase mortality. Most of the activity on winter range involves 

snowmobile use and collection of antler sheds. Similar to the 1986 Forest Plan, areas of 

identified winter range were mapped by the WGFD, and depending upon the alternative, would 

be closed or not to motor vehicle traffic as prescribed by the Forest-wide guideline (see crucial 

winter range timing restriction discussion above). There have been few vegetation management 

projects in winter range to improve forage conditions in the past several years. In addition, 

fences added to manage recreational developments can have a negative impact on big game 

species by catching them in the wire or restricting movement patterns due to the height of the 

wire. There would likely be no differences among alternatives with regard to treatments on big 

game winter range and the use of fences in developed recreational sites.

Special use activities such as recreation cabins, lodges, and other uses displace some wildlife, 

though these activities are not currently thought to be as significant as dispersed recreation.

Effects from Oil and Gas/Mineral and Energy Development: Oil, gas, and minerals 

development can impact wildlife primarily through alteration or destruction of habitat and 

through disturbance. In some circumstances, these activities may also create enhancement 

opportunities. The significance of the circumstances, these activities may also create 

enhancement opportunities. The significance of the impact depends on the amount, intensity, and 

duration of the disturbance, the specific locations and arrangements of the disturbance, and the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

303

ecological importance of the habitats affected. Small, isolated disturbances within non-limiting 

habitats are often a minor consequence within most ecosystems. However, larger-scale 

developments within habitats that are essential to survival or reproduction of wildlife (including 

migration corridors) become a more significant concern because such impacts cannot be relieved 

or absorbed by surrounding, unaltered habitats. Effects are mitigated through land reclamation 

and restrictions on timing, location, and types of disturbance as identified in documents such as 

Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Important Wildlife Habitat 

(WGFD 2010d). These recommendations are implemented through standard lease terms, and 

standards and guidelines in the revised Plan.

The projected development potential for mineral and oil and gas development on the Forest is 

low to very low under all alternatives. Because of this low potential, none of the alternatives are 

expected to have an adverse effect on wildlife.

Cumulative Effects 

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Shoshone and the adjacent lands within 

3 miles of the Forest boundary. The period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of 

the Plan, 10 to 15 years. Cumulative effects include the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, as mentioned in the summary of activities table (table 20). From this table, for elk, 

the past and present activities of vegetation management and roads are the most significant, and 

the reasonably foreseeable future activities of subdivisions and increased recreation use (off-road 

vehicles, demographics) are most significant. 

It is likely that wildfire would continue to influence the majority of cover and forage attribute 

conditions of elk security, regardless of alternative. It has been the increase of wildfire and 

recreation use that has led to the current lack of elk security. While some areas are less than the 

recommended 30 percent by elk herd unit due to these activities, some areas are naturally lower 

because of the amount of meadows versus forested areas. 

Recreational use is likely to increase due to population factors surrounding the Shoshone, 

regardless of alternative. Use would continue to increase on the Forest and challenge us in 

managing the creation of additional roads and trails, and in the additional disturbance to wildlife. 

The Shoshone provides the majority of yearlong habitat in the cumulative effects area. 

On lands adjacent to the Shoshone within 3 miles of the Forest boundary, private land is often 

viewed as refuge, as many land owners currently restrict hunter access either by charging high 

fees or through simple denial. Elk use of these areas is often highest during the late fall 

disturbance periods. The WGFD continues to work with land owners on this issue to gain access 

to achieve a better elk harvest. It is not known if improvements in elk security habitat on the 

Shoshone would alter or reverse the migratory behavior of elk to these areas during periods of 

stress, though it is possible over time (Thompson and Henderson 1998). This private refuge issue 

is important to the WGFD’s management of elk, as it makes it more difficult to stay at 

population objectives, especially when winters are mild and forage is sufficient to support large 

populations. 

Finally, the development of timber resources on private land adjacent to the Shoshone is very 

minor and has little effect on elk security habitat. Any additional roads and loss of cover are 

somewhat mitigated by restricted access on private lands, and the effects of this use are fairly 

localized.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

304

Losses of elk security areas would presumably lower the habitat available for the other wildlife 

species associated with this type of habitat.

It is not likely that the changes to elk security from the alternatives would have a measurable 

effect on elk populations in the next planning period. Elk populations respond more to changes 

in climate (e.g., drought), which influences availability and quality of forage in summer and 

winter. Loss of winter range is another issue for elk populations. However, under most climate 

conditions, hunter harvest is the most important factor influencing population abundance. 

Harvest can be directly affected by the location and extent of elk security areas on the Shoshone. 

If improvements in elk security occur, it is likely that the WGFD would be able to better manage 

elk populations with regard to objectives because of the increased effectiveness of hunter 

harvest. The Shoshone would likely try additional seasonal road closures to improve security 

habitat in areas.

Mule deer

Affected Environment

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are found in western North America from British Columbia 

south to Mexico and east to the western Great Plains. Mule deer occur throughout Wyoming 

where suitable habitat exists, including on the Shoshone. Mule deer are considered a big game 

animal in Wyoming.

No trend data specific to the Shoshone are available, but data are available for mule deer herd 

units that encompass the Shoshone. Five herd units overlap the Shoshone including: Upper 

Shoshone, Clarks Fork, Owl Creek/Meeteetse, Dubois, and South Wind River. For the most part, 

trends for these herd units have been relatively stable (USDA Forest Service 2010e) (figure 21). 

All herd units, except the Upper Shoshone, have been near or below population objectives. The 

Upper Shoshone herd unit has been at or above objective for the past several years. Habitat for 

mule deer in all these units has suffered from long-term drought effects, especially on winter 

range (see map 16).
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

305

Figure 21. Population trends for mule deer herd units that encompass the Shoshone National Forest

Since mule deer are habitat generalists, virtually the entire Shoshone would be considered some 

type of seasonal range for mule deer, except for the most rugged portions of the Wind River 

Range. Mule deer crucial winter range is the most important habitat on the Shoshone (table 

77).The Shoshone contains about 186,905 acres of crucial winter range. A vast majority of the 

crucial mule deer winter range occurs at lower elevations off the Shoshone.

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 (USDA Forest Service 2012c). 

Wildfires create ideal foraging habitat for deer.

Desired Condition

Maintaining diverse and productive seasonal habitats especially those mixed mountain shrub 

habitats at mid-elevations that provide mule deer transition ranges between winter and summer 

ranges would be the most important forest management emphasis for mule deer.

Limiting human access to mule deer wintering areas also would be important to reduce potential 

disturbance during this critical time period. 

To provide management for mule deer 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. Although several mule deer herd units are below 

management objective, incorporating conservation measures to maintain and improve habitat for 

mule deer on the Shoshone results in an overall low viability risk for mule deer. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

306

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. If necessary, coordinate with the WGFD to seasonally close motorized access to crucial 

mule deer winter range during critical time periods.

2. Conduct management activities that disturb wintering mule deer outside of the critical 

time period except when the project is designed to maintain or improve crucial winter 

range conditions (i.e., prescribed fire).

3. Utilize prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to maintain and improve mule deer 

seasonal ranges.

4. Allow for wildland fire-use, where appropriate, to maintain and improve mule deer 

seasonal ranges.

5. Manage aspen for retention and expansion over current levels.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Timber Harvest: The primary risk factor from forest management is human 

disturbance during critical time periods (winter) and fire suppression.

Disease risks include chronic wasting disease, which is currently only known to occur in one 

hunt area that contains a small portion of the Shoshone.

Timber harvest and roads have minor effects to mule deer habitat, though any loss of habitat due 

to road construction would be negative, unless other roads are closed and revegetated to mitigate 

the loss. Clearcuts and harvest are considered beneficial for deer due to the increase in forage. 

Timber harvest in some winter ranges has been done to open canopies and increase forage 

quantity and quality, though this has been minimally practiced in the past. Harvest levels would 

be greatest in alternatives E and F, and remain largely the same as current levels in alternatives A 

and C, with moderate increases in harvest in alternatives B, D and G.

Effects from Fire Management: Prescribed burning would likely continue to be conducted to 

improve winter range conditions, though the levels conducted may not sufficiently regenerate 

enough ranges to meet the demand of wildlife use. An exception would be areas where sagebrush 

is a primary forage component, as fire can potentially reduce this shrub on the landscape for 

many years. However, the competing invasion of conifers into aspen stands may be a result of 

fire exclusion. Wildfire occurrence may account for significant changes in the next planning 

period, as the shrublands are regarded to be in a condition where they have missed fire cycles 

due to suppression, and could be more susceptible to catastrophic loss of larger acreages. There 

would be little difference among alternatives with regard to this potential.

Although crucial winter range (MA 5.4) would be managed regardless of alternative, it is most 

emphasized in alternatives E, B, G, D, C, and A, respectively, with F having the least amount, as 

shown in table 77.

Table 77. Management area 5.4 acres of crucial winter range, by alternative

Mgmt. area Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

5.4 45,600 55,000 52,100 54,000 79,900 0 55,000
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

307

Effects from Recreation: Human disturbance on big game winter range has been of increased 

concern, primarily due to the stress imposed on big game for activities such as antler hunting. 

Similar to the crucial winter range analysis discussed for elk, alternative C would provide the

most disturbance-free winter habitat, as it would restrict motorized use on all big game winter 

range, including crucial winter range. Alternative F would provide the least amount of 

disturbance-free winter habitat, as it proposes no timing restrictions in big game winter range. 

Alternatives D, B, G, E, and A provide disturbance-free habitat in descending order from most to 

least, but all provide more habitat then alternative F. 

Hiking and antler hunting would not be prohibited through the Plan at this time. This would not 

vary by alternative.

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game: Potential conflicts with livestock grazing have 

been of concern in both summer and winter range areas, where combined use of forage can result 

in degraded habitat conditions. Revised Plan direction would address this, though instances of 

localized problem sites would likely continue in all alternatives for the next planning period. 

This issue is dealt with at the individual allotment scale, and includes shrub and grasslands on 

winter range, as well as willow and aspen cover types. 

Effects from Oil and Gas/Mineral and Energy Development: The effects to mule deer are 

similar to those described for Rocky Mountain elk.

Cumulative Effects 

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Shoshone and adjacent lands within 3 miles of 

its boundary, based on average deer/lion use patterns. The period considered for this analysis is 

the anticipated life of the Plan, 10 to 15 years. Cumulative effects include the past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, as mentioned in the summary of activities table (table 20). 

For deer, the past and present activities of vegetation management and roads are the most 

significant, and the reasonably foreseeable future activities of subdivisions and increased 

recreation use (off-road vehicle, demographics) are most significant.

Winter range is in the zone with the most potential for increases in noxious weeds and nonnatives (cheatgrass) due to the elevation and lack of forested canopy cover. While possibly 

limited amounts of winter range would be lost by this effect in the next planning period, the 

likelihood increases with time as has been demonstrated in other winter ranges in the State. 

Where roads, livestock grazing, recreational horse use, and wildlife use occur in these areas, 

those uses would be the most likely vectors. As weeds and other non-native species are 

expanding on private lands surrounding the Shoshone, this has the potential to increase risk on 

the Forest with similar effects. Any additional loss of winter range or other habitat on the 

Shoshone would translate into reduced carrying capacity on the Forest, eventually resulting in a 

downward trend or reduced population levels. 

In addition, growth of housing developments in areas adjacent to the Shoshone may reduce 

carrying capacity of winter range. This may place a higher value on the availability and 

condition of winter range on the Shoshone. 

Disease may continue to play an increased role in the abundance of mule deer herds, though 

currently this portion of Wyoming is thought to be minimally impacted by diseases such as 

chronic wasting disease. Displacement of mule deer by white-tailed deer may occur in localized 

areas, as white-tailed deer appear more able to persist with increased human occupation in lands 

adjacent to the Shoshone. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

308

The subject of mule deer population declines is currently of research interest within the State and 

many western states and is typically related to a combination of many of the factors mentioned 

above. 

Climate (drought and winter severity, annual forage production), hunting, and vehicle-related 

mortality would continue to be the primary factors associated in determining population levels 

and trends for both species. Forage quality on the Shoshone can also affect the condition of deer 

heading into winter ranges, with competition by livestock and increasing noxious weeds being a 

potential problem. Yearly coordination meetings would continue to be held with the WGFD to 

discuss habitat conditions and population objectives. There would not likely be a difference 

among alternatives overall with regard to deer habitat and populations in the foreseeable future.

Moose

Affected Environment

Moose (Alces alces) are a circumboreal species. In North America, they range throughout the 

boreal zone of Alaska and Canada, south to Colorado, Minnesota, and Maine. The subspecies A. 

a. shirasi occurs in the Intermountain West, including Wyoming (Baker 2008). Shiras Moose 

have a natural heritage ranking of G5/S5. They are considered a big game animal in Wyoming.

Moose are known to occur on the Shoshone, but at low density probably due to limited habitat. 

No trend data specific to the Shoshone are available. On the north end of the Shoshone within 

the Absaroka moose herd unit, population data collection is very difficult, if not impossible in 

the Absaroka Mountains (WGFD 2009a). On the south end of the Shoshone, the moose 

population in the Lander moose herd unit has been relatively stable in recent years, but below 

objective (WGFD 2009b). Similar to the Absaroka moose herd unit, no reliable population data 

exist for the Dubois moose herd unit, but it is suspected to be declining (WGFD 2009b). 

Moose could be classified as riparian generalists because they utilize riparian habitat and 

adjacent forest. Winter moose habitat in northwestern Wyoming is dominated by 

riparian/deciduous shrub and lodgepole pine (Baker 2008). Where riparian habitats are less 

extensive, mature conifer forests that contain a high diversity of forage species become 

important (Baker 2008). In the summer, moose prefer lodgepole pine, spruce/fir, and 

riparian/deciduous shrub habitats.

Riparian shrub habitat is very limited on the Shoshone, especially along the Absaroka Front 

where most river valleys are V-shaped. Therefore, crucial winter range is also limited. About 

82,000 acres of crucial winter range is found scattered across the Shoshone with the largest areas 

in the Upper Clarks Fork and Sunlight Basin (see map 17).

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 (USDA Forest Service 2012c). 

Wildfires that promote regeneration of upland and riparian shrubs would have a positive effect 

on moose, while wildfires in mature spruce/fir could have a negative effect. Also, the epidemic 

beetle kill in mature spruce/fir has likely reduced this important habitat type.

Desired Condition

Maintaining diverse and productive seasonal habitats would be the most important forest 

management emphasis for moose with emphasis on maintaining vigorous deciduous riparian 

vegetation.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

309

Limiting human access to moose wintering areas also would be important to reduce potential 

disturbance during this critical time period. 

In order to provide management for moose and to maintain or improve its potential distribution 

on the Shoshone, the following conservation measures were developed for incorporation into 

Plan goals, objectives, standards and guidelines. By incorporating these conservation measures 

to maintain and improve habitat for moose on the Shoshone, viability risk from forest 

management should remain low. 

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Where necessary, coordinate with the WGFD to seasonally close motorized access to 

crucial moose winter range during critical time periods.

2. Conduct management activities that disturb wintering moose outside of the critical time 

period, except when the project is designed to maintain or improve crucial winter range 

conditions (i.e., prescribed fire, reclamation of habitat).

3. Maintain sufficient mature conifer forest within moose winter range to provide thermal 

cover. 

4. Utilize prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to maintain and improve moose 

seasonal ranges, especially riparian deciduous shrub habitat.

5. Manage aspen for retention and expansion over current levels.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Timber Harvest and Fire Management: The primary risk factors from forest 

management include timber harvest of mature conifer forest (spruce/fir) in moose winter range 

and human disturbance during critical time periods (winter).

Natural risk factors include stand-replacement wildfire in mature spruce/fir and epidemic beetle 

kill in mature spruce/fir.

Direct effects of management to winter habitat (mature spruce/fir) and willow (riparian) are 

primarily associated with timber harvest, though wildfire would continue to be the main 

disturbance agent for this resource. Moose often take advantage of burned areas to eat sprouting 

shrubs and trees. Alternatives E and F would likely have the highest levels of harvest for 

spruce/fir, although uneven-aged harvest (selection) prescriptions would likely retain habitat 

values in spruce/fir. Roads do not likely have a major effect on moose. The amount of willow 

proposed to be treated in each alternative does not vary and is so limited, not enough positive 

effect can be determined. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game: Livestock grazing would continue to be an 

effect on willow communities, with improvement over time through implementation of standards 

and guidelines. There would be little difference by alternative with regard to effects from 

livestock grazing. Areas where the combination of high use by livestock and moose negatively 

impact willow would be addressed through allotment planning and coordination efforts with the 

WGFD. 

Effects from Oil and Gas/Mineral and Energy Development: The effects to moose are similar 

to those described for Rocky Mountain elk.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

310

Effects from Recreation: Winter recreation may have an effect on moose, displacing them from 

some areas, such as riparian zones, where heavy snowmobile traffic or cross-country skiing may 

occur. Effects from snowmobiling are generally in localized areas rather than Forest-wide. 

Snowmobile use would be allowed to occur under all alternatives, but the amounts and types of 

use would vary according to any use of the 1.2 and 1.3 management prescriptions that limit 

snowmobile use, which would primarily be in alternative C. 

Cumulative Effects 

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Shoshone and adjacent lands within 3 miles of 

its boundary. The period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10 to 15 

years. Cumulative effects include the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, as 

mentioned at the beginning of chapter 3 (table 20). From this table, for moose, the past and 

present activities of vegetation management (including livestock grazing) and roads are the most 

significant, and the reasonably foreseeable future activities of subdivisions and increased 

recreation use (off-road vehicles, demographics) are most significant. 

Combined livestock and wildlife browsing of willows and aspen would likely continue to be an 

impact throughout the next planning period, regardless of alternative. Efforts in management 

would continue to address bringing the use levels within the carrying capacity of the resources. 

Increases in noxious weeds, which affect riparian resources by decreasing native vegetation, 

would have a negative effect on moose habitat. Effects from lands adjacent to the Shoshone are 

minor, as moose spend the bulk of their time on the Forest.

Due to limited suitable habitat, moose populations would likely remain at current levels in 

absence of additional hunting or weather-related mortality.

Yellowstone Checkerspot

Affected Environment

The Gillette’s checkerspot (Euphydryas gillettii) has a natural heritage ranking of G3 and no 

State ranking. Historical populations, distribution, or abundance are unknown on the Shoshone. 

This butterfly is locally known as the Yellowstone checkerspot. 

Gillette’s checkerspot has a very restricted range in North America. They are found in isolated 

populations in southeastern British Columbia, southwestern Alberta, Montana, eastern Idaho, and 

western Wyoming (Vaughan and Shepherd 2005). No trend data specific to the Shoshone or 

Wyoming are available. On the Shoshone, Gillette’s checkerspots are known from two areas in 

the Beartooth Mountains, two locations in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness, and one site on the 

Washakie Ranger District.

Gillette’s checkerspots are found in a variety of damp habitats in mountains including open, 

moist conifer forests; moist meadows; and streamsides (Vaughan and Shephard 2005). Larval 

host plants include twinberry honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrata), common snowberry 

(Symphoricarpos albus), and American alpinespeedwell (Veronica wormskjoldii).

Potential habitat for Gillette’s checkerspot is likely abundant on the Shoshone in high-elevation 

moist meadows in the Beartooth Plateau and Wind River Range.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

311

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 (USDA Forest Service 2012c). 

Disturbance from wildfire is an important factor that contributes to Gillette’s checkerspot habitat 

abundance (Debinski 1994, Williams 1995).

Desired Condition

Maintaining moist mountain meadows and an abundance of the larval host plants are important 

forest management emphases for Gillette’s checkerspot.

For the known populations on the Shoshone, maintaining suitable habitat is these locations 

would be very important.

To provide management for Gillette’s checkerspot 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. By developing 

conservation measures to maintain habitat, overall viability risk from forest management is low.

Conservation measures summarized include:

1. Manage livestock grazing so that potential habitat is improved or maintained, 

particularly during drought years. 

2. Manage dispersed camping and recreational uses such that degradation of riparian areas 

does not occur, and achieve improvements in existing degraded areas. 

3. Allow for wildland fire use, where appropriate, to create potential habitat for Gillette’s 

checkerspot.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game, Road Construction, and Fire Management: 

The primary risk factors from forest management are livestock grazing and road construction, 

due to threats to the nectar or host plants, and fire suppression.

Plan revision activities that could potentially influence the checkerspot primarily involve 

livestock grazing. Differences in projected outputs by alternative for these activities are 

displayed in table 78.

Table 78. Activities that could potentially influence the checkerspot, by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Livestock Grazing 

Permitted AUMs (Total) 55,900 55,900 31,300 55,900 67,100 70,200 55,900

Suitable Acres (Total) 374,700 374,700 216,800 374,700 374,700 414,700 374,700

Motorized RecreationSummer (Acres available) 570,600 570,800 322,400 350,600 656,500 823,900 570,800

Alternative A: No action

Livestock grazing can have negative influences on Gillette’s checkerspots when activities 

overlap suitable habitat. Impacts to riparian areas and overstory and understory forage plants are 

of particular concern because of their importance to checkerspots in meeting species 

requirements for cover and food. As displayed in table 78, the permitted amount and area for 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

312

cattle grazing does not differ among alternatives A, B, D, and G. These activities are, therefore, 

predicted to have potentially negative influences on this butterfly where activities and habitat 

overlap. Livestock could continue to impact certain riparian habitats that this species needs.

Although differences among alternatives are difficult to evaluate in regard to potential influences 

on Gillette’s checkerspots, 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 streambanks and 

vegetation. 

Action Alternatives: Alternative B through G 

In alternatives B through G, there would 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 current Forest Plan (alternative A). Alternative C reduces the 

total AUMs and would have the least impact on habitat conditions for the butterfly. 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 Gillette’s checkerspots into potential habitat on the Shoshone; however, 

more focused management compliance would be needed under alternative F.

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. 

Alternative D offers the next fewest acres of motorized use, while alternative F offers the highest 

amount of acreage. Effects of alternatives B, E, and G fall between the other action alternatives. 

Reductions in areas open to motorized use should decrease the potential for loss of habitat.

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 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 Shoshone, but may increase the value of riparian habitat. Individual species 

protections would be ensured through preparation of site-specific NEPA analysis with protection 

offered through Forest-wide standards and guidelines

Clark’s Nutcracker

Affected Environment

The Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga Columbiana) has a natural heritage ranking of G5 and no 

State ranking. Historical populations, distribution, or abundance are unknown on the Shoshone. 

This species is a permanent resident in the State; may be nomadic but not migratory in the 

typical sense.

Clark's nutcrackers are year-round residents from central British Columbia and west-central 

Alberta south through the mountain ranges and pine-covered ridges of the West to southern 

California, Arizona, and New Mexico (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2012).
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

313

Clark’s nutcrackers in Wyoming typically occupy conifer forests dominated by whitebark pine at 

higher elevations and ponderosa pine and limber pine along with Douglas-firs at lower 

elevations, relying largely on seeds of these species for food. They are often seen above treeline 

in alpine meadows or flying among drainages (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2012).

The year-round diet consists primarily of fresh and stored pine seeds, but also includes insects 

and spiders, small animals (birds and mammals), and carrion (Tomback 1998). Conifer seeds 

(mostly ponderosa pine) made up 83 percent of the ingested food and occurred in the stomachs 

of all but nine of the 426 nutcrackers collected at low to moderate elevation in western Montana 

during 1946 to 1949. Nutcrackers ate Douglas-fir seeds only during the fall and winter of 1946 

to 1947, when a bumper crop occurred (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2012).

Family groups and non-breeding Clark's nutcrackers occupy large home ranges in spring and 

summer, which are based on location of seed caches (Tomback 1998). Pine seeds can be 

transported up to 32.6 kilometers (19.5 miles) for caching in home ranges (Lorenz et al. 2011). 

Nutcrackers have a mutualistic relationship with whitebark pine, being the primary agent of 

dispersal for the pines, which in turn are a major source of food for the nutcrackers throughout 

the year (Tomback 1998). Caches contain typically 1 to 15 seeds; a single nutcracker may cache 

as many as 35,000 to 98,000 pine seeds in late summer and fall. A flock of about 20 nutcrackers 

at 2,610 meters (8,565 feet) in the Pioneer Mountains (SW Montana) in early September stored 

an average of 3.6 whitebark pine seeds per cache (n = 95 caches, range = 1 to 9 seeds) and 

covered each cache with earth or vegetation, effectively depositing the seeds at bill depth 

(Montana Natural Heritage Program 2012). Memory of caches is retained as long as 285 days; 

retrieval of caches sustains birds when cones are not available on trees. Breeding territories are 

much smaller than home ranges. One Montana breeding territory was 0.85 hectare (2.1 acres) in 

size (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2012). Raptors are the major predators of adults and 

juveniles. Clark’s nutcrackers most likely occur throughout the Shoshone. During surveys 

conducted by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory from 2002 to 2009, Clark’s nutcrackers 

were regularly observed in moderate densities. There is no population trend specific for the 

Shoshone.

Climate Change 

One stressor common to all rare plant habitat groups that is beyond Forest Service control 

includes climate change. Potential climate change on the Shoshone has been described in Rice 

et al. (2012). Predicted climate shifts may result in changes in kind, amount, and distribution of 

precipitation, in turn, affecting rare plant habitat. Of particular concern is the effect on whitebark 

pine.

Desired Condition

Whitebark pine is an “obligate” mutualist of Clark’s nutcracker, which means it is dependent on 

the bird for seed dispersal, whereas the nutcracker can survive without whitebark pine. In areas 

where numbers of living whitebark pine have diminished, nutcrackers may be infrequent visitors, 

thus, no longer providing seed dispersal “services” (Tomback 2005). 

In an effort to restore and protect whitebark pine stands, management of whitebark pine in the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, including the Shoshone, would be guided by the Whitebark 

Pine Strategy for the Greater Yellowstone Area (Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee 

Whitebark Pine Subcommittee 2011). Loss of pines (whitebark, limber) to fire, disease, and bark 

beetle outbreaks could impact populations; management activities promoting the health of pines 

would benefit nutcrackers.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

314

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Timber Management and Fire Management: Loss of whitebark and limber pine 

to disease, insect outbreaks, and fire may lead to local and widespread population declines of 

Clark’s nutcrackers.

Alternatives B through G would incorporate specific management direction into the Plan to 

protect, maintain, and restore whitebark and limber pine stands through identified goals and 

guidelines. Alternative A, while not addressing the need for whitebark and limber pine 

restoration, would still be able to include restoration efforts using best available science, but 

management direction would not contain the same focus as in alternatives B through G. 

Fire may have beneficial effects to the restoration of whitebark pine by setting back successional 

stages by removing spruce and fir. All of the alternatives use fire as a tool to accomplish 

management goals and objectives. The alternatives have different management emphasis areas 

and as such, the use and emphasis of fire vary by alternative. The use of prescribed fire does not 

vary enough by alternative to make a difference in regard to effects on Clark’s nutcracker. 

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

disturbances to occur within suitable Clark’s nutcracker habitat as opportunities arise. It is 

estimated that all alternatives may allow from 161,400 to 185,200 acres of wildland fire use. 

Depending upon fire severity and scale, these outputs could have negative or positive influences 

on this species. Table 79 displays the potential use of fire by alternative.

Table 79. Potential use of wildland fire, by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Vegetation Treatment Acres 

Prescribed Fire (Total)

Limber pine 1,740 1,720 1,720 1,720 1,660 1,540 1,720

Whitebark pine 340 340 300 340 330 310 340

Total 2,080 2,060 2,060 2,060 1,990 1,860 2,060

Wildfire Acres 185,200 182,900 184,100 183,700 175,000 161,400 182,900

All alternatives would have similar effects on the restoration of whitebark pine habitat.

Effects from timber harvest (potential for increased habitat loss from road construction), 

livestock grazing, motorized recreation (potential for user-created roads and increased dispersed 

recreation use from anticipated road construction), mineral or energy and oil or gas development, 

land use authorizations, and lands allocated to management area affect wildlife resources to 

some degree under all alternatives. Alternatives in the order of least impact to most are C, D, B, 

G, A, E, then F. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects evaluate the potential impacts to wildlife resources from the proposed action 

when combined with past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions. 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 Forest are primarily private 

or BLM and located at lower elevations. Private lands receive minimal pressure from urban 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

315

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 

Clark’s nutcrackers habitat on the Forest. 

The lands within the Shoshone boundary form the geographic scope for cumulative effects 

because this is the scope of the higher elevation forest types that make up the majority of Clark’s 

nutcracker habitat when considering the areas where management activities are likely to occur 

on the forest. The temporal bound would be the life of the Plan, which is estimated to be 10 to 15 

years.

In the subalpine / krumholtz zone, whitebark pine is predicted to retreat from lower-elevation 

ranges and either marginally exist at the highest elevations of the Shoshone or become extirpated 

(Rice et al. 2012). Further loss of whitebark pine habitat would have a negative effect on Clark’s 

nutcracker.

Summary of Effects to Wildlife

All alternatives affect terrestrial wildlife resources to some degree. The greatest impacts from 

management activities are associated with timber harvest, roads and trails, and land use 

authorizations. Alternatives in the order of least impact to most are C, D, B, G, A, E, then F.

There is no difference among alternatives in the effects from management for riparian and 

wetland areas, scenic resources, wildlife habitat and old growth, soil and watershed, and heritage 

resources.

Alternatives that allow the least ground-disturbing activity and that discourage or make difficult 

human presence and activity, such as wilderness and inventoried roadless designations, will 

result in the least risk of disturbance to wildlife species. Alternatives in the order of least impact 

to most are C, D, B, G, A, E, then F.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

316

Aquatic, Riparian and Fisheries Resources

Introduction

There are a variety of aquatic and riparian ecosystems on the Shoshone National Forest, 

including streams, rivers, ponds, reservoirs, wetlands, and riparian areas. These ecosystems 

support complex communities of vertebrate and invertebrate aquatic animals and an assortment 

of riparian and aquatic plants. Complex, species-rich communities of phytoplankton, 

zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and fish can be found in many of these habitats. 

Forest management activities can affect the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics and 

functions of aquatic ecosystems, both positively and negatively over the short and long term. The 

challenge to resource managers is to implement multiple-use activities while conserving, 

protecting, and restoring aquatic biodiversity, watershed/stream health, and riparian/wetland 

conditions over the long term. 

Historically, people have used aquatic ecosystems for many purposes including water 

development facilities for agricultural and municipal uses and water-dependent recreational uses. 

Human demand for water resources is increasing, and meeting these demands will be 

challenging for forest resource managers in the future. 

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) was enacted to restore and maintain 

the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the Nation’s waters. The Endangered Species 

Act requires Federal agencies to conserve threatened and endangered species. These acts, along 

with other land use laws, executive orders, and policies, guide management of aquatic resources 

on NFS lands. Other laws pertinent to watershed management of NFS lands can be found in 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2501.1.

Organic Administration Act of 1897 recognized watersheds as systems to be managed with 

care to sustain their hydrologic function and secure favorable conditions of water flow.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, intends to restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. There are five required 

elements:

• Compliance with state and other Federal pollution control rules.

• No degradation of instream water quality needed to support designated uses.

• Control of nonpoint source water pollution through conservation or best management 

practices (BMPs).

• Federal agency leadership in controlling nonpoint sources pollution from managed lands.

• Rigorous criteria for controlling discharge of pollutants into the Nation's waters. 

Sustained Yield Forest Management Act of 1944 and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act 

of 1960 allow for the production of multiple quality goods and resources at sustained levels over 

time, including maintenance of water supplies. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

317

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended, requires an 

assessment of present and potential productivity of the land. This act contains many references to 

suitability and capability of specific land areas, to maintenance of land productivity, and the need 

to protect and, where appropriate, improve the quality of soil and water resources. The act 

specifies that substantial and permanent impairment of productivity must be avoided and has farreaching implications for watershed management on national forests.

National Forest Management Act of 1976 prevents watershed condition from being 

irreversibly damaged and protects streams and wetlands from detrimental impacts. Land 

productivity must be preserved. Fish habitat must support a minimum number of reproductive 

individuals and be well distributed to allow interaction between populations. 

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 provides states with more resources and 

authority to enact the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977. This amendment directs the state to 

identify source areas for public water supplies that serve at least 25 people or 15 connections at 

least 60 days a year. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for 

regulatory enforcement of this law.

Wilderness Act of 1964 provides direction for fish management including fish stocking in 

wilderness. 

Executive Orders

Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to provide leadership and take action on 

Federal lands to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts 

associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Agencies are required to avoid 

the direct or indirect support of development on floodplains whenever there are reasonable 

alternatives and evaluate the potential effects of any proposed action on floodplains. 

Executive Order 11990, as amended, requires Federal agencies exercising statutory authority 

and leadership over Federal lands to avoid to the extent possible, the long- and short-term 

adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Where practicable, 

direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands must be avoided. Federal agencies are 

required to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 

Regulation and Policies

Regulations and policies have been passed in support of these laws and require the following:

• Protection of surface resources and productivity from all natural resource management 

activities (36 CFR 219).

• Limitations on land management activities to protect watershed condition. Forest Service 

Manual (FSM) 2500 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2500 state policy and direction 

regarding watershed management.

• Watershed analysis as part of all planning activities (36 CFR 219, FSM 2500).

Regional Direction

Region 2 Species Conservation Assessments for Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout, Mountain Suckers 

and Lake Chubs. Describes current status and management direction for these sensitive fish 

species.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

318

Other Agreements and Management Direction

Rangewide Status and Conservation Assessment for Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout, 2010. Provides 

current status and general management direction for Yellowstone cutthroat trout throughout its 

range. A Plan for the Management and Conservation of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in Wyoming 

(in draft). Wyoming Game and Fish Department Cheyenne, Wyoming. provides general 

management direction for Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Wyoming. 

The memorandum of understanding (Supplement No. 1500-2007-1, August 1, 2007) between the 

Rocky Mountain Region and Intermountain Region of the Forest Service and the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Commission, through the WGFD, outlines the agencies’ respective 

responsibilities in the management of fish and wildlife populations and their habitat. The Forest 

and the WGFD work in partnership to address habitat and population management issues for 

wildlife.

Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of 

Land Management Wilderness, 2006. Provides guidance to State fish and wildlife agencies, 

Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management personnel for managing fish and wildlife 

populations in wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC 1131-1136).

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and the 

USDA Forest Service on Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat Management within National Forest 

Wilderness in Wyoming, 2010. The memorandum of understanding serves as a framework for 

enhanced cooperation between Wyoming Game and Fish and the Forest Service Regions 2 and 4 

in the management of fish, wildlife and habitat on Forest Service-administered wilderness areas 

in Wyoming. 

Resource Protection Measures 

Region 2 of the Forest Service has developed a Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook 

(FSH 2509.25), Forest Service National Best Management Practices Directives (collectively 

referred to as: Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives), which provides direction 

for resource managers within the context of existing laws, regulations, and policies. The Forest 

Service Regional and National BMP Directives list standards and design criteria designed to 

protect, maintain, and enhance the integrity of soil, water and aquatic ecosystems and the biota 

that use them. Standards and design criteria are referenced under guidelines in the revised Plan. 

According to the Handbook, streams and watersheds that exhibit the following three conditions 

are at “potential” and in a dynamic equilibrium:

• Integrity of stream flow − expressed as minimum flood runoff and maximum base flows. 

Healthy watersheds have high rates of infiltration and minimum surface runoff. Most 

precipitation soaks into the soil, which reduces flooding, recharges groundwater, maintains 

riparian and wetland areas, and regulates stream flow.

• Integrity of the fluvial (stream) system − expressed as stable stream networks and 

channels and a balance between runoff and sediment yield. In healthy watersheds, the stream 

network is not expanding through gully erosion; streams are not aggrading or degrading; 

channel capacity is maintained over time; and streambanks are well vegetated.

• Integrity of water quality and aquatic habitat − good stream health supports productive, 

diverse, and stable populations of aquatic life and displays a natural range of habitat features 

(pool depth, substrate composition, and sequences of pools and riffles) for aquatic 

organisms. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

319

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring of best management practices are typically carried 

out as an administrative review and do not involve quantitative water quality measurements. 

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring of Regional and National BMP Directives, the 

practices outlined in the Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives and forest plan 

standards and guidelines can be carried out by a variety of personnel, including timber sale 

administrators, contract officer representatives, resource specialists, and line officers. 

Documentation of this monitoring might include field notes, memos, contract daily diaries, or the 

annual forest monitoring report. Systematic monitoring and adjustment of land management 

activities to protect soil and aquatic resources will ensure the highest possible level of best 

management practices implementation and effectiveness. 

Methodology 

For this integrated analysis, we incorporated historical habitat and population information, 

current survey and monitoring data, relevant research, reports and publications. We used this 

information to determine current stream and riparian habitat conditions, potential effects from 

future land management activities and their effects on the aquatic biota that use these habitats. 

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

To determine effects, we analyzed potential short-term impacts and long-term benefits to 

riparian, stream and lake habitats and the aquatic biota that depend on them, addressing a variety 

of land management activities proposed in various alternatives over the planning period 

(15 years). We used information from the integrated Watershed Conservation Framework, which 

analyzes information at the 6th hydrologic unit code (HUC) level. 

Affected Environment 

See discussions under the water and soil section for descriptions of the Shoshone’s surface water, 

groundwater, water developments, riparian, and wetland areas that provide habitat for aquatic 

biota. Natural disturbances and human influences that affect aquatic resources are discussed. The 

physical, chemical, and biological integrity of Forest aquatic systems are assessed and key risks 

are identified. 

Aquatic Habitats and Biota

The Shoshone supports a variety of biota in its aquatic and riparian ecosystems. The most 

common aquatic biota on the Forest can be broadly categorized as fishes, aquatic plants, aquatic 

insects, and the embryonic and larval stages of amphibians. Less obvious and even less 

understood are the phytoplankton, zooplankton, and microbes, which play a vital role in nutrient 

cycling and energy flow within the aquatic ecosystem. Amphibian species are discussed in more 

detail in the wildlife section.

Stream Habitats and Fisheries

The Shoshone currently has about 4,150 miles of perennial streams. About 1,420 miles of stream 

contain fish. 

Diverse stream and riparian habitats are found throughout the Forest because of different 

geologic, soil and vegetative types, elevation, precipitation, and climatic changes. The central 

two-thirds of the Shoshone (from about the Clarks Fork River to the Wind River) are located in 

the Absaroka volcanics. The volcanics are generally characterized as young in geologic time, 

have poor water absorption characteristics and unconsolidated soils, and are highly erodible. As 

a result, tributary streams typically have high gradients, steep slopes, and large substrate with 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

320

pocket pools providing the majority of the fish-holding habitat. Riparian zones are narrow and 

limited. The main stem valley streams are typically braided, unstable, and often migrate laterally 

due to significant bed load deposition. The floodplain and riparian zones are wide and dynamic. 

As a result, these main stem volcanic streams naturally carry substantial amounts of heavy fine 

sediments, bed load material, and woody debris during major runoff events. The main stem 

streams tend to be shallow and wide with low pool to riffle ratios, little in stream cover and 

streambank vegetation at base flows. This situation results in lower fish densities per linear mile

of stream compared to other geologic-driven stream habitats on the Shoshone. Where suitable 

pool holding habitat does exist, fish densities are higher. 

The northern and southern parts of the Shoshone are generally pre-Cambrian granitics. They are 

much less erodible than the volcanics. As a result, streams in these areas generally have more 

stable and well-defined channels with wide riparian and floodplain habitats, low gradients, more 

deep pools, well-established bank vegetation, and lower sediment loads than the volcanic 

streams. Additionally, these streams are narrower and deeper with higher pool to riffle ratios and 

have more suitable fish-holding habitat. The northern part of the Shoshone (generally north of 

the Clarks Fork River) is composed of hard granitics that are highly resistant to erosion, which 

results in very little instream fine sediment compared to the volcanics. Biological productivity is 

generally low since the hard granitics are erosion-resistant and nutrient-poor. The southern part 

of the Shoshone (generally south of the Wind River) is primarily composed of decomposed 

granitics that result in higher fine sediment in the form of sand with higher nutrient loading and 

biological productivity than the hard granitics. 

Limited stream habitat is found in the North Platte River drainage on the Washakie District due 

to the small area encompassed in this headwater system on the Shoshone. It is located in the 

lower gradient, limestone geology type. These stream types are meandering, deep with wide 

riparian habitat, and typically have flood plains with significant willow habitat.

Overall, stream habitat conditions on the Shoshone are improving or remaining stable, and most 

are currently meeting desired conditions. Improving livestock grazing practices, improving road 

drainage, removing and replacing stream crossing barriers to fish passage, and implementing 

various stream habitat enhancement projects have all helped improve stream conditions, both on 

and adjacent to the Shoshone.

Historic native trout stream species include Yellowstone cutthroat trout and mountain whitefish. 

Subsequently, numerous game trout have been introduced into occupied and previously 

unoccupied stream habitats. They include Yellowstone and Snake River cutthroat, rainbow, 

rainbow-cutthroat hybrids, brook, brown, lake trout, and arctic grayling. Non-game stream fish 

species include longnose dace, white, longnose, common, and mountain suckers. 

Lake Habitats and Fisheries

There are numerous lakes on the Shoshone with the majority located on the Beartooth Plateau, 

the Fitzpatrick Wilderness, the Popo Agie Wilderness, and adjacent areas. Currently, 311 lakes 

comprising about 9,074 acres support some type of fishery. Most of these lakes are found in the 

granitic geologic types. Granitics are not as erosive as the volcanics, tend to form rolling bench 

lands, and are less steep. The soil type is more porous and stores more surface water. The 

Absaroka volcanics have very few lakes and ponds because of steep slopes and high erosiveness, 

and the soil types do not absorb much surface water.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

321

Historically, all of the high mountain lakes on the Shoshone were barren of fish because they

were formed by uplifting and glacial activity. This process generally separated high mountain 

lakes and ponds from lowland streams, preventing upstream fish access and colonization. Many 

of the lakes that have suitable fish habitat have been subsequently stocked. Introduced lake game 

fish species include Yellowstone and Snake River cutthroat, rainbow, rainbow-cutthroat hybrids, 

brook trout, golden trout, lake trout, splake, and arctic grayling. Non-game lake species include 

white and longnose suckers. Other non-game fish include mountain suckers and lake chubs. 

Of the 311 high mountain lakes with fish on the Shoshone, about 11 lakes are currently known to 

contain naturally reproducing conservation populations of Yellowstone cutthroat trout. 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout were originally planted since all the high mountain lakes on the 

Forest were presumed to be barren at the time of white settlement.

Forest-wide, some lakes are still barren with a portion of them having the potential to support a 

viable fishery. The WGFD staff believes all lakes within the Shoshone on the north zone with 

current fisheries potential have been stocked. On the south zone, the WGFD noted numerous 

lakes on the Shoshone with fisheries potential that have not been stocked, primarily within 

wilderness. 

In stocked, previously fishless subalpine lakes, fish introductions have provided additional 

recreational opportunities and a diversity of fish species. Conversely, they have also affected the 

abundance, composition, and distribution of native amphibians and macroinvertebrates because 

of fish predation on various life stages and competition for available food sources. 

Fisheries Habitat and Fish Species Management

The WGFD primarily manages fish populations, while the Forest Service primarily manages the 

habitat on the Shoshone. Both habitat and populations need to be managed in concert on and off 

the Shoshone to maintain productive, sustainable aquatic ecosystems. As a result, management 

of stream and lake habitats and fish populations is an ongoing cooperative effort between the 

WGFD and the Shoshone. 

Outside of wilderness, fish stocking and population management are the primary responsibility 

of the WGFD in coordination with the Shoshone. In wilderness, fisheries management follows 

direction contained in the Wilderness Act and further defined in other agreements and 

memoranda of understanding with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the WGFD.

Sensitive Fish Species

Yellowstone cutthroat trout − At the time of white settlement, the distribution of Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout included large areas of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Rangewide, historical 

habitat for Yellowstone cutthroat trout was estimated to include about 17,720 miles of streams 

and 61 lakes (May et al. 2007, Gresswell 2009). In Wyoming, Yellowstone cutthroat trout 

historically occupied an estimated 6,710 stream miles. 

Current distribution is estimated at about 7,530stream miles rangewide. As of 2006, Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout conservation populations occupied 7,200 miles of streams and 205 lakes (May et 

al. 2007). This represents 41 percent of the historical stream habitat. In Wyoming, Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout conservation populations (greater than75 percent pure) currently occupy 

4,050 stream miles or 53 percent of the Yellowstone cutthroat trout’s current range.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

322

Historically, Yellowstone cutthroat trout had an estimated 670 miles of stream habitat on the 

Shoshone (see map 18). Many streams were blocked from historical upstream migration due to 

natural barrier falls. Subsequent stocking of streams and downstream drift from upstream 

stocked lakes significantly increased stream fish distribution. This resulted in about 1,420 stream 

miles with fish currently on the Shoshone (WGFD Stream and Lake database 2011) and 

essentially doubled the historical miles of stream with fish on the Shoshone. From hybridization 

and competition with non-native fish species, Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations were 

significantly reduced to about 390 miles of stream for Yellowstone cutthroat trout conservation 

populations (greater than75 percent genetic purity) or about 59 percent of the historic, native 

stream miles on the Shoshone (May et al. 2007). 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout are designated as a species of special concern by Montana, Idaho, 

Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. The Forest Service classifies Yellowstone cutthroat trout as a 

sensitive species, and the BLM classifies Yellowstone cutthroat trout as a type-2 species, 

rangewide/globally imperiled. As a result, Yellowstone cutthroat trout are currently included on 

the Forest Service Region 2 sensitive fish species list. 

Mountain suckers are found throughout much of western North America. It is widely distributed 

in some parts of its range and sparsely distributed in others. In Region 2, it occurs throughout 

Wyoming and in northwestern Colorado and western South Dakota. The species appears to be 

stable in some regions and declining in others (Mountain Sucker Conservation Assessment 

2006). Currently, they are a sensitive fish species in Region 2. On the Shoshone, mountain 

suckers are common to abundant where suitable habitat is found (WGFD Stream and Lake 

Database 2011) primarily due to limited habitat alteration, development, and introduction of 

non-native species. In and around the Shoshone, mountain suckers are found in a variety of 

habitats including large rivers and streams at lower elevations and alpine lakes and streams in the 

mountains. 

Lake chubs have a wide range and are found throughout much of Canada and the northern tier of 

the United States (Lake Chub Conservation Assessment 2006). The species is uncommon in the 

Great Plains. In Region 2, populations in South Dakota, Colorado, and Nebraska occur as small, 

isolated populations that have been declining steadily since European settlement. They are a 

sensitive fish species in Region 2. The species is currently widespread in Wyoming and is rated 

as secure (S5) by the Natural History Database. In Wyoming, they are typically found in cool, 

slow-moving back water foothill streams and in lakes. Where suitable habitat is available on the 

Shoshone, lake chubs are common to abundant (WDGF Stream and Lake Database 2011). This 

situation is primarily due to limited habitat alteration, development, and introduction of nonnative species. 

For more detailed information and management direction for these sensitive fish species see the 

Sensitive Fish Species Biological Evaluation located in the project record.

Aquatic Management Indicator Species

Stream game trout were selected as the management indicator species for aquatic habitat because 

they are well distributed throughout the Shoshone. In addition, good stream trout population 

information is available throughout the Shoshone for trend indices from working cooperatively 

collecting population information with the WGFD. Aquatic management indicator species 

include Yellowstone cutthroat trout, rainbow, their hybrids, brook and brown trout. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

323

The primary risk factors from forest land management activities include improper timber 

harvest, livestock grazing, roads, and trails. Improper land management can increase stream 

sediment beyond natural levels. Streams can become wide and shallow with little instream cover. 

Undersized stream crossings can completely or partially block upstream fish passage. 

Catastrophic fires can significantly affect stream trout populations from increased sediment, 

removal of vegetative cover and greatly increase the potential for significant runoff events. Other 

natural risks include severe climatic events such as drought and floods outside the natural range 

of variability. Climate change has the potential to reduce summer flows in streams, increase 

spring runoff events, and increase summer water temperature in the long term (Rice et al. 2012). 

Increases in water temperature may also shift fish communities to favor non-native stream trout. 

Aquatic invasive species are also potential risk factors to stream trout and other fish populations. 

Desired Condition

Stream and lake habitats and the aquatic biota that use them are conserved and managed within 

their natural range of variability. Streams are in dynamic equilibrium with their water and 

sediment supplies. Stream systems retain their ability to transport sediment, they neither aggrade 

nor degrade, and the floodplain is accessible when stream flows are above bankfull level. Lakes 

and their associated habitats are managed within their natural potential. These conditions provide 

for a range of habitats needed for aquatic biota over time. No new aquatic invasive species 

become established on the Shoshone. Sensitive fish species and their habitats are conserved and 

enhanced, thereby preventing listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Environmental Consequences 

Nearly all activities carried out on the Shoshone and described in this analysis have the potential 

to affect aquatic and riparian resources in some manner, both positively and negatively, over the 

short and long term. 

About half of the Shoshone is located in designated wilderness. The other half of the Shoshone is 

located in lands that are managed for various multiple-use resource objectives. One of the 

primary management strategies is to utilize management techniques that simulate natural 

processes. Periodic disturbance is an integral part of natural process on the landscape that is 

required for long-term sustainability of aquatic ecosystems (Kreutzweiser et al. 2012). These 

land management activities generally result in acceptable short-term impacts within forest plan 

standards and guidelines, Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives, and other 

management direction for long-term benefits to riparian habitat and the biota that use them.

Creating riparian buffer protection zones and setbacks for long periods of time delays 

succession, reduces vegetative diversity and productivity, and increases the chances for largescale fires outside the natural range of variability (Van de Water and North 2012). These 

researchers felt that the current “hands-off” management approach for riparian habitat 

management under the Northwest Forest Plan will continue on an altered trajectory of ecological 

processes and have undesirable long-term consequences (Messier et al. 2012). 

Generally, land management actions have the most impacts immediately after the activity, with 

disturbance effects decreasing over time. Activities that alter the quantity, timing, and quality of 

water resources, permanently alter stream channel dynamics, or increase stream sediment 

significantly above natural levels over the long term have the greatest potential for adverse 

effects. Generally, the risk of adverse effects from land management activities increases the 

closer the disturbance is to riparian areas, streams, or wetlands. It also generally increases 

cumulatively the more activities there are in a drainage within a shorter timeframe. This aquatic 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

324

and riparian resource analysis focuses on effects from anticipated management activities by 

alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Streams, floodplains, riparian areas, lakes and ponds, and other aquatic habitats for various biota 

are closely related and interconnected. For each of the resource areas described below, the 

environmental consequences for aquatic resources including riparian and stream habitat and the 

biota that use them are compared by alternative, based on key indicators of disturbance for each 

type of activity. In general, alternatives that propose greater levels of disturbance activities for 

various resource uses in shorter periods of time within a drainage tend to pose greater risks to 

aquatic and riparian resources.

Effects from Timber Harvesting:

Aquatic resource habitat

Timber harvest can affect aquatic resources in a variety of ways over the short and long term, 

both positively and negatively. Harvest in riparian zones can reduce streamside vegetation and 

overhead cover, which can increase annual and daily stream temperature fluctuations somewhat 

and decrease the supply of large woody material available for recruitment to streams. Timber 

harvest can also increase stream sediment levels over the short term. Increased stream sediment 

also carries increased nutrients, which can increase biological productivity over the short term. 

Associated timber harvest equipment can damage or compact streambanks and riparian areas. 

With proper implementation, administration, and compliance, timber harvest can help simulate 

natural processes, set back succession, and provide a diversity of vegetative habitat types over 

the long term alone or in conjunction with prescribed fire, where appropriate. 

Indirect effects of riparian and streamside timber harvest to aquatic ecosystems managed 

improperly could be changes in community composition and relative abundance of aquatic biota 

through excessive fine sediment covering interstitial spaces resulting in reduced or modified 

aquatic invertebrate communities and reductions in the abundance, distribution, and quality of 

fish spawning habitat. 

In addition to timber harvest, associated roading can impact aquatic and riparian resources. 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines have been developed to minimize the impacts of timber 

harvest activities and associated roading on aquatic resources. In addition, the Forest Service 

Regional and National BMP Directives contain substantial design criteria and direction for 

timber harvest and associated roading to minimize short- and long-term impacts. Careful project 

planning, development of design criteria, and site-specific project implementation with proper 

implementation, administration, and compliance are critical. This strategy will ensure that 

vegetation management does not preclude achieving desired conditions for aquatic and riparian 

ecosystems or adversely affect viability of aquatic sensitive and management indicator species in 

the long term. 

The risk of adverse consequences to riparian, streams, fish habitat, and the biota that use them 

may increase with higher timber harvest and associated roading levels. Potential for conflict with 

standards or guidelines could occur as land management activities begin to approach upper 

thresholds. Additionally, unplanned natural events such as large-scale fire, insects and disease, 

and/or flooding have the potential to increase cumulative effects.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

325

Management indicator species, sensitive fish species, and aquatic invasive species effects

Generally, this analysis assumes that the amount of timber harvest increases the potential effects 

to aquatic resource effects proportionally. The actual risks and consequences are dependent on a 

variety of project-level factors, including the type of harvest and location relative to water 

resources and amount and type of roading, including stream crossings and types of crossings. 

Effective implementation, administration, and compliance of watershed conservation practices 

and other project design criteria are critical to avoiding or minimizing impacts to aquatic 

resources and potentially affected streams under any alternative. Actual areas harvested and 

harvest type in any given year varies depending on alternative and budget levels. Site-specific 

effects to aquatic and riparian resources would occur as a result of a variety of factors including 

harvest levels and type, location of harvest relative to aquatic resources, amount of roads and 

type, the number and type of stream crossings, and the number and type of equipment used at the 

project level. 

Based on the overall amounts of projected estimated harvest in the timber harvest section, 

alternatives F and E, respectively have the highest risk of effects to aquatic resources including 

riparian and fish habitat, stream management indicator species, fish sensitive species, and 

potential for aquatic invasive species establishment from timber harvesting and associated 

roading. Alternatives C and D, respectively would have the least amount of impacts because 

there is more wilderness and non-motorized emphasis with less roading. Alternatives B and G 

provide timber and roading similar to the existing forest plan levels, which would generally help 

minimize establishment of aquatic invasive species.

Effects from Roads and Trails Management: 

Aquatic resource habitat

The Shoshone contains a variety of roads and trails with various levels of condition and 

maintenance. Roads range from paved highways maintained by the Federal Highway 

Administration and Wyoming Department of Transportation to system roads that range from 

gravel to two tracks. Many system roads were originally constructed to access suitable timber. 

There are many non-system and user-created routes and trails on the Shoshone. Roads and trails 

that are not disconnected from stream systems can be a chronic source of increased sediment 

(Winters et al. 2004). Some streams have adjacent roads or trails where significant erosion can 

deliver sediment directly into the stream. Excessive sediment can fill pools and change channel 

morphology, reducing habitat for fish, and plug the interstitial spaces of the streambed, 

suffocating fry and invertebrates and/or reducing habitat for invertebrates and spawning and 

rearing fish. Unlike many other disturbances that increase erosion, sedimentation from 

travelways tends to be chronic and to last as long as the travelways exist, which can create longterm impacts to aquatic habitat unless corrected. Roads, trails, and associated human travel also 

can cause reduction, disturbance, and interruption of riparian habitat. Accordingly, numerous fish 

and wildlife species associated with riparian areas can be adversely affected by excessive roadrelated sediment. 

There are both economic and ecological consequences from increased sediment derived from 

roads and other sources. Sediment does not dissipate and is carried through the stream system 

where it may affect diversion structures, reservoirs, and water supplies. It can shorten the usable 

life of structures or result in higher maintenance costs. Since channels are interconnected, 

sediment delivered to ephemeral channels moves on to perennial channels during major runoff 

events. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

326

Alteration of aquatic habitats for sensitive and management indicator fish species can include 

reductions in spawning gravels and hiding cover as substrates become more embedded. Pool 

volume can be reduced as sedimentation increases. During critical low-flow or overwintering 

periods, reduced pool depth can result in insufficient protection and survival for fish. Sediment 

deposition in spawning gravels reduces spawning success and the survival of emerging juvenile 

fish. Excessive fine sediment can adversely affect other aquatic biota including 

macroinvertebrates that fish use as a food source.

The proper implementation, administration and compliance with Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines, the Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives, in conjunction with the 

appropriate project design criteria will minimize impacts from new or reconstructed roads. 

Bringing existing roads into compliance with improved protection measures is ongoing. The 

Shoshone has inventoried the existing road system and has been actively correcting road 

drainage and stream sediment problems over the planning period, as time and funding have 

become available. 

Future road management should consider relocation or obliteration of existing roads out of 

riparian areas to reduce associated impacts. Impacts can be greatly reduced by proper road 

location and design. Where possible, travelways should be located away from stream channels, 

riparian areas, steep slopes, high-erosion-hazard areas and areas of high mass movement. Good 

design provides stable cut and fill slopes and adequate drainage that allows water to filter 

through vegetated buffers or sediment traps before entering the stream channel. Realignment of 

roads and other travelways so that they traverse riparian areas and streams at perpendicular 

rather than parallel angles would improve the quality of riparian and aquatic habitats by reducing 

chronic sediment sources. If relocation is not possible, seasonal restrictions could limit road 

damage and subsequent sedimentation. The Forest Service Regional and National BMP 

Directives, contain detailed guidance on roads and trails management from an aquatic resources 

perspective. 

In the current plan, fish and other aquatic organism barriers at road crossings were not identified 

as an issue, and therefore, not addressed. Undersized stream crossings, especially culverts can 

restrict the channel, create downstream drops at the outlet, and flush out existing substrate within 

the culvert, resulting in complete or partial barriers to upstream aquatic and terrestrial organism 

passage. Undersized culverts also increase the chances of flood damage, maintenance or 

replacement costs. More recently, we have inventoried the entire forest for fish barriers at stream 

crossings on the entire Forest. We have developed an integrated priority list for crossing 

replacement. We use the Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives and natural 

stream simulation principles to replace undersized crossings, which provide passage for aquatic 

and terrestrial organisms, reduce erosion, lessen the risk of damage from flooding, and provide a 

safe crossing for forest users. 

Management indicator species, sensitive fish species and aquatic invasive species effects

The amount of road construction and stream crossings generally varies directly with the amount 

of suited land that has been allocated for timber harvest and allowable motorized use. 

Alternatives F and E, respectively would have the most road construction and motorized use of 

any of the alternatives considered, due to the larger amount of timber harvest activity and 

motorized use. These alternatives would have the most potential for adverse effects to aquatic 

resources, management indicator species, fish sensitive species and potential spread of aquatic 

invasive species. Alternatives C and D, respectively would have the least amount of expected 

road related impacts and spread of aquatic invasive species since there is more wilderness and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

327

non-motorized emphasis. Alternatives G and B provide a road and trail system similar to the 

existing forest plan levels and effects fall between the other alternatives.

Effects from Fires and Fuels management: 

Aquatic resource habitat

Wildfire: Wildfire within the natural range of variability generally creates a mosaic of habitat 

types, sets back vegetative succession, and creates vegetative diversity in and around riparian 

areas. These processes also release sediments and nutrients into streams, which also increases 

biological productivity. Due primarily to past fire suppression policies, much of the forest and 

riparian areas are in a mature condition and susceptible to wildfire outside the natural range of 

variability. More recent fire management efforts have been undertaken to help correct these 

imbalances. 

Wildfires significantly outside the natural range of variability can burn large landscapes very hot 

in some areas damaging soils and releasing significant amounts of sediment into streams, well 

above natural conditions. This can result in significant adverse effects to aquatic resources from 

erosion, excessive stream sedimentation, and extensive vegetative removal that can take a long 

period of time for recovery. Wildfire, prescribed fires, and their associated suppression activities 

can have the potential to impact aquatic and riparian resources. Fire suppression efforts can 

considerably increase erosion potential and delivery of sediment to streams from fire lines 

constructed by heavy equipment or by hand, if installed improperly. 

The effects of prescribed fire can be considerably less severe than wildfires when managed 

properly. Because the location and severity of the fire are controlled to a greater degree, more 

ground cover remains and erosion potential is reduced. For example, sediment-trapping buffers 

can be left around stream channels to reduce the amount of sediment delivered to the stream. 

Entire watersheds are rarely burned by prescribed fires, and this reduces the effects of changes in 

water yield and peak flow. The use of prescribed fire can help reduce the risk of wildfire that 

would otherwise burn with increased severity and intensity, which can severely alter watersheds 

and riparian areas. Alteration of aquatic habitats for sensitive fish and management indicator 

species from excessive sedimentation resulting from wildfire includes reductions in spawning 

gravels and hiding cover as substrates become more embedded, reducing reproductive success. 

Pools can be filled with fine sediment and aquatic invertebrate production can be significantly 

decreased. 

Prescribed Fire: Prescribed fire is primarily intended to improve wildlife habitat, reduce fuel 

loads, protect developments, and reduce the risk of severe wildfires. Many projects are 

completed in conjunction with mechanical fuels treatment prior to prescribed burning. These 

types of treatments generally simulate natural conditions, and have short-term minor impacts 

with positive long-term benefits for aquatic habitats and the biota that use them. Reductions in 

forested stands can also slightly increase stream flows that may be beneficial to aquatic 

resources. Fire suppression activities are typically conducted to minimize impacts to riparian 

areas by restricting the use of dozer lines and retardant in riparian areas. When retardant is 

allowed to reach water sources, aquatic biota may be impacted as a result from diminished water 

chemistry and quality. Potentially undesirable aquatic invasive species may also be transferred 

from one water source to another, from the use of the various types of fire suppression 

equipment that transport water and fine sediments where most aquatic invasive species are 

found.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

328

Management indicator species, sensitive fish species and aquatic invasive species effects

Generally, the chances for wildfire are somewhat similar for all alternatives. It would be reduced 

somewhat with the alternatives that propose the most prescribed fire and timber harvest, but 

would also result in the most habitat disturbances (alternatives F and E, respectively). 

Alternatives C and D, respectively, propose the least amount of prescribed fire and timber 

harvest. Alternatives G, B, and A propose direction and management area allocations to help 

prevent catastrophic fires while helping to minimize short-term impacts to aquatic resources, 

management indicator species, and sensitive fish species, while helping to prevent the 

establishment of aquatic invasive species. 

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game:

Aquatic resources 

Excessive ungulate grazing can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources, particularly in 

areas where livestock tend to concentrate, such as riparian areas for watering, feeding, and 

loafing. With proper grazing, management impacts to riparian areas can be compatible with 

maintaining desired conditions.

Historic livestock use has changed the vegetation composition and stream channels of some 

riparian areas. A loss of deep-rooted shrub and carex species has made streambanks in these sites 

more susceptible to grazing impacts and erosion. Improper livestock management and wild 

ungulate grazing can reduce streambank stability through vegetation removal, streambank 

trampling, and shearing. Livestock and other ungulates can compact soil or destabilize 

streambanks by direct hoof action, causing increased sediment, stream widening or down-cutting 

of stream channels, and often change riparian vegetation types, resulting in insufficient habitat 

for fish. Stream widening and sedimentation can reduce instream cover and habitat quality for 

fish though mechanisms similar to those described for vegetation removal through timber harvest 

or fire, but grazing impacts can be compounded by repeated annual livestock use of the same 

areas. Stream down-cutting often causes the water table to drop, which results in less riparian 

habitat and a vegetative type change. Down-cutting also leads to channel straightening and 

reduced stream sinuosity, which also reduces habitat for aquatic biota.

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and G maintain the same by number of allotments and animal unit 

months (AUMs); the same as the 1986 Forest Plan as amended allocation. Alternative C would 

reduce the total AUMs significantly, compared to alternative A; from 55,880 to 31,300 AUMs. 

Alternative E would increase AUMs substantially, compared to alternative A from 55,900 to 

67,100 AUMs for the same number of allotments. Alternative F would significantly increase 

acreage to 348,900 acres. AUMs would also increase the most for all alternatives from 55,900 

AUMs for current levels to 70,200 AUMs. 

Livestock grazing under any of the alternatives has direct and indirect impacts on riparian and 

aquatic resources. Generally, as the livestock numbers and use increase, we will begin to reach 

the upper limits of acceptable use and potential for adverse aquatic resources cumulative effects, 

especially if additional allotments and use were added. Incorporation of and compliance with the

revised Plan standards and guidelines would minimize the impacts on aquatic resources.

Drier periods may result in changes in livestock management, including reduced use and/or the 

livestock coming off the allotment early. Cool, wet spring and early summer weather may result 

in livestock coming on the allotment later in the season. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

329

Management indicator species, sensitive fish species and aquatic invasive species effects

Alternatives B, A, C, D, and G maintain the same by number of allotments and AUMs; the same 

as the 1986 Forest Plan as amended allocation and would have similar effects. Alternative C 

would reduce the total AUMs significantly, compared to alternative A and would have the least 

impacts. Alternative E would increase AUMs substantially, compared to alternative A for the 

same number of allotments and have the potential for increased livestock impacts to aquatic 

resources. Alternative F would significantly increase the number of allotments and AUMs 

compared to current levels and have the most potential for aquatic resources impacts. 

Effects from Recreation: Recreational use is estimated to increase overall during the planning 

period. The types of recreational uses would change under the various alternatives. 

Summer Recreation: Most summer developed and dispersed recreation sites are located near 

streams, lakes, or valley bottoms. The potential influence of developed and dispersed recreation 

sites on aquatic resources varies across the Shoshone. Some sites are located in riparian habitats, 

and so corresponding influences would be anticipated there. Dispersed summer recreation sites 

are expected to have more negative impacts on aquatic resources, because they were not 

established with specific design criteria or standards and guidelines and, thus, do not provide the 

same level of resource protection as managed developed sites. 

Recreation impacts to water resources on the Shoshone are generally related to streamside 

recreation use including roads and trails, camping, water-based recreation, and indirect potential 

effects from upland recreation activities. Motorized off-road non-winter recreation travel can 

cause riparian area degradation and adverse water quality impacts. Horse, bike, and foot traffic 

generally have less impact, but can cause localized effects, especially where trails parallel or 

cross streams. Lakes and streams, especially those with fish that attract anglers or provide good 

hunting opportunities in the area, can receive significant impacts from recreational livestock and 

foot traffic if not managed properly. Water-based recreation is increasing, and degradation can 

occur if proper facilities are not in place and use is not managed. Streamside areas are often 

chosen for dispersed campsites and recreational livestock use. Summer dispersed campsite use 

can damage riparian vegetation, cause soil compaction in riparian zones, erode streambanks, and 

cause increased nutrient loading and pathogen levels due to human waste contaminating streams 

and lakes. Often, the impacts tend to be localized; however, in areas that experience substantial 

recreational use, the cumulative impacts to aquatic and riparian ecosystems can be both 

observable and measurable. Protection of water quality, quantity, and riparian habitat near 

recreationally significant aquatic and riparian ecosystems is achieved through the 

implementation, administration, and compliance of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Forest 

Service Regional and National BMP Directives, and project-level design criteria. 

Recreational and commercial livestock can reduce water quality through bacterial input, nitrate 

pollution, and fine sediment from erosion if not managed properly.

The direct impacts to fish populations and fishing experiences are expected to be proportional to 

overall summer use increases. The WGFD primarily manages fish populations and can limit 

harvest through fishing regulations. Increased angling use can reach a point where a quality 

fishing experience can be impacted. Generally, the magnitude and extent of summer motorized 

recreation trends have a greater effect on aquatic resources than non-motorized recreation. 

Motorized recreational use has seen the largest increase in recreational uses during the planning 

period. Generally, increased recreation impacts on aquatic, riparian, and fish populations, 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

330

including sensitive species, and aquatic management indicator species are assumed to be 

proportional to the acres available to summer motorized recreation. 

Alternative F has the highest risk for potential adverse effects to aquatic resources from 

increased summer motorized recreation.

Fishing is an activity that occurs on the Shoshone. Access to streams, lakes, and reservoirs 

provides a variety of angling opportunities in locales that range from easily accessible developed 

sites to remote subalpine wilderness areas.

Fishing and associated equipment can contribute to the propagation and distribution of aquatic 

invasive species, which can damage aquatic biota and disrupt aquatic ecosystems.

Fishing pressure on the Shoshone is expected to increase under all of the revised Plan 

alternatives during the planning period. Except for stocked lakes and reservoirs and a few stream 

reaches with high fishing pressure, fishing is a “supply-limited” activity because there generally 

is more fishing pressure on easily accessible fisheries than the fish populations can support. The 

WGFD manages the majority of streams on the Shoshone under the “Wild” management 

concept; i.e., stocking does not augment fish populations. The WGFD has also placed special 

regulations on some streams to offset increased angling pressure.

Recreational fishing may adversely affect existing populations of Yellowstone cutthroat trout, 

and aquatic management indicator species on the Shoshone, because increased recreational 

fishing pressure generally results in increased harvest and incidental fishing mortality, although 

this can be addressed through fishing regulation changes and stocking strategies.

Non-motorized trails are popular among forest users and it is reasonable to expect increasing use 

on hiking and pack trails over the planning period. This increased use could result in the 

alteration and degradation of aquatic, riparian, and wetland resources without proper 

management. Trails can provide relatively easy access and opportunities for those who could 

introduce aquatic invasive species into aquatic environments.

Winter recreation: Generally, over-the-snow winter motorized recreational uses do not 

significantly impact aquatic resources because the streams and lakes and adjacent habitats are 

snow and/or ice covered. Some winter activities do have the potential to adversely affect aquatic 

and riparian resources if not managed properly. Non-motorized winter uses include cross-country 

skiing and snowshoeing. Motorized winter uses include snowmobiling and snow cat use for 

recreation and trail maintenance. Damage to vegetation and soil erosion can occur if snowpack is 

not adequate to protect these resources. Winter motorized activities can also compact the snow, 

forming barriers that may alter spring runoff patterns, which can result in soil erosion and gullies 

in certain situations.

Water contamination from human waste and petroleum products, such as motor oil and gasoline, 

can degrade water quality in waters adjacent to areas of concentrated use such as parking lots 

and snowmobile staging areas. The likelihood and magnitude of impacts from these activities 

depend on site-specific factors such as average slope, aspect, elevation, vegetation, weather 

conditions, available facilities, and amount of use. In very high-use, concentrated winter 

motorized use areas such as Yellowstone Park others have found adverse effects to water quality 

and aquatic biota. Because the Shoshone generally has much less use, site conditions vary, and 

these sites are relatively small in area and widely dispersed, it is reasonable to assume that 

cumulative impacts will be minimal at the Forest scale. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

331

Developed winter recreation sites may adversely affect aquatic and riparian resources. Downhill 

ski areas include Sleeping Giant near Pahaska and the Red Lodge Race Camp on the Beartooth 

Plateau. Cross-country ski trails include the Park County Nordic Ski Association Trails at 

Pahaska, and Beaver and Willow Creek cross-country ski trails near Lander. They are permitted 

to operate on the Shoshone. Downhill ski area development can lead to increased runoff and 

erosion through timber clearing for lifts, runs, trails, and other facilities. Snowmelt runoff is 

increased, especially when cleared areas are compacted through grooming or where snow 

making has artificially increased the snow depth. Sleeping Giant uses water from the North Fork 

Shoshone River for making snow early in the ski season. The amount of water used is minimal 

and the intake is screened to prevent fish entrainment. As a result, this operation has no 

measurable effect on sensitive fish and aquatic management indicator species. Downhill ski areas 

and snow resorts also typically disturb soils throughout cleared areas. Erosion and sediment can 

result, especially from soils that are near streams, unstable, or highly erodible. In addition, these 

uses can also degrade wetlands and riparian areas by draining or filling them, or by altering their 

vegetation.

The Red Lodge Race Camp is located in high alpine above tree line. The operation is run in the 

late spring and early summer using existing snowpack. As a result, impacts to aquatic resources 

are minimal. 

Currently, all alternatives would continue to permit the existing downhill and cross-country ski 

areas on the Shoshone. These are small enough that there are minimal impacts to aquatic 

resources from their use. Any future expansions would be designed to mitigate effects to aquatic 

resources with appropriate project design features. 

Effects from Mineral and Energy Development: 

Mining: The largest current activity associated with mining on the Shoshone, is limited to 

exploitation of mineral materials for road construction purposes or individual permits for 

landscaping use off-Forest. Gravel pits are generally located in areas with minimal impacts to 

aquatic resources. The development of mineral materials is not expected to be significant with 

any alternative. 

Existing mining operations, for locatable minerals, in the Shoshone are typically small and 

limited in number and regulated by revised Plan standards and guidelines. Increases in mining 

activity are not anticipated for the future.

Mining effects could include land disturbances and processing activities that may affect surface 

and groundwater quality, water quantity, and timing of release. For this analysis, aquatic resource 

effects from mining are assumed to be proportional to the amount of land available for locatable 

minerals. Potential impacts to aquatic habitats and populations are expected to be minor for all 

alternatives, as there are no expected proposals for large mineral development operations 

because of minimal, if not non-existent, potential for development of these resources. 

Alternatives A, B, E, F, and G have the same area available for locatable minerals exploration 

and have the greatest risk of adverse effects. Alternatives C and D have lower amounts of land 

available because recommended wilderness areas may eventually have minerals withdrawn from 

development. These alternatives would have lower risk of adverse effects from this activity than 

the other alternatives. Forest standards, guidelines, and project design features with proper 

implementation, administration, and compliance would minimize the effects to aquatic resources 

from mining activities, should they occur. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

332

Oil and Gas Development: The possibility of oil and gas development in the planning period is 

predicted to be low or very low under all alternatives. Potential adverse effects would be from 

improper roading, land disturbance, effects to ground water and potential for spills. For oil and 

gas potential surface occupancy with stipulations, alternative A has the most acreage. 

Alternatives F, B, and E have less acreage in decreasing order. Alternatives C and D have less 

land available, and alternative G has the least acreage. If oil and gas development were to occur, 

Forest standards, guidelines, and project design features with proper implementation, 

administration, and compliance would minimize the effects to aquatic resources from oil and gas 

development.

Effects from Wilderness and RNA Allocation: Generally, wilderness and RNA allocations are 

beneficial to aquatic resources because there is significantly less land disturbance and 

development. And, these management areas allow for natural processes to occur. Existing 

fisheries population management is allowed to occur in these areas including management and 

conservation of Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations. These activities would benefit sensitive 

fish species and aquatic management indicator species. These areas would reduce the potential 

adverse effects of roading. They would reduce vehicular access, helping to reduce the threat of 

aquatic invasive species establishment. Alternatives C then D propose the most recommended 

wilderness, special interest areas, and research natural areas. Alternative F recommends no new 

wilderness, special interest areas, and research natural areas. Alternative E proposes the least 

amount of new areas. Alternative B recommends no new wilderness and proposes six new 

research natural areas. Alternative G recommends two new research natural areas in addition to 

those recommended in alternative B.

Cumulative Effects 

This cumulative effects analysis is for the period of expected plan implementation (about 

15 years), and is bounded by the 6th-level hydrologic unit code watershed boundaries. 

Through the implementation of forest plan standards and- guidelines, the Forest Service 

Regional and National BMP Directives, and project design features, with proper implementation, 

administration, and compliance, the Shoshone delivers good, clean water of the proper quality 

and quantity to the Forest boundary. The cumulative effects table at the beginning of chapter 3 

(table 20) includes the list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that were 

considered with regard to cumulative effects to aquatic resources. There are no new anticipated 

water depletions proposed on the Shoshone. As a result, there should be no increases in this 

effect in the next planning period. Alternative C is expected to have the least impact to aquatic 

and riparian resources and alternative F would have the most effect on those resources. Effects 

are expected to be similar across the entire forest, over the life of the revised Plan, with regard to 

cumulative effects on aquatic and riparian resources. 

Another effect would be the reconstruction of highways within the Forest boundary. There can

be both short- and long-term effects from these types of activities. Currently, there is 

reconstruction planned for a portion of the Beartooth Highway on the Beartooth Plateau and the 

Louis Lake Road on the Washakie District during the planning period. Although there would be 

short-term disturbances, through implementation, administration, and compliance of Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines, the Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives, Association 

of State Highway Transportation Officials guidelines, and specific project design features, there 

would be long-term benefits to aquatic resource habitat conditions and aquatic passage through 

improved road and stream crossing design techniques.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

333

As further development and human use is anticipated adjacent to the Shoshone, there is potential 

for noxious weeds or other invasive plants and aquatic invasive species to become established on 

the Shoshone, primarily due to motorized equipment, boats, recreational equipment, livestock, 

and human use. 

Future management of aquatic resources will depend upon integration and cooperation with 

other agencies and stakeholders. Most emphasis of forest management is on the maintenance, 

protection, or enhancement of habitats and the organisms that inhabit them including maintaining 

population viability. The Forest Service and the various cooperating agencies including the 

WGFD, USFWS, Trout Unlimited, BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, and Wyoming State Lands 

predicate the long-term maintenance and protection of Forest aquatic and riparian biodiversity 

from effective natural resource management. 

Management of fish populations is primarily the role of State and other Federal agencies that 

rely on forest management of habitats to meet overall viability goals. A specific example of 

cooperative management among various agencies is protection and conservation of viable 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations. 

Aquatic habitat protection and improvement projects should focus on the needs of native, 

sensitive, and management indicator species. Management decisions that affect these species 

should be made collaboratively by the appropriate State and Federal agencies and other 

stakeholders. Other threats to native and desired, non-native species viability, such as invasive 

species, habitat loss, and pathogens should also be managed collaboratively. 

Looking past the forest boundary to consider how the Shoshone National Forest direct and 

indirect effects add cumulatively to downstream water quality and quantity, the most important 

consideration is that the headwaters of streams and rivers are located on the Shoshone. While the 

direct and indirect effects analysis shows that Shoshone activities affect downstream water, 

overall, the water quality leaving the forest is good, as documented by Conservation District 

water monitoring. About half of the Shoshone is located in designated wilderness. Impacts of 

agriculture, subdivisions, roads, and septic systems downstream of the national forest boundary 

are considered to be significantly more important contributors to water pollution and reductions 

in water quantity than all Shoshone activities combined. 

Proper implementation, administration, and compliance with local, State, and water quality 

regulations, standards and guidelines, Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives, and 

individual project design features will ensure that future management activities under any of the 

alternatives would continue to protect aquatic and riparian resources on the Shoshone in the long 

term and will not contribute to water quality degradation downstream of the Forest. Overall, it is 

anticipated that physical aquatic resource habitat conditions will be maintained or improved, due 

primarily to changes and/or continued improvements in management efforts, such as livestock 

grazing and timber harvesting practices, and improvements in the Shoshone transportation 

system. Barriers to upstream aquatic passage at stream crossings for organisms that use streams 

both on and off the Shoshone have been identified and corrected as funding and time becomes 

available. Biological effects on aquatic species such as drought, insects and disease, changing 

climate, and species competition are difficult to anticipate. Efforts will be made to research, 

understand, and plan future management activities considering these potential effects.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

334

Fisheries Climate Change Effects 

Rice et al. (2012) noted streamflows are a primary control for fish that are highly sensitive to 

climate change (Rieman and Isaac 2010 in Rice et al. 2012) as salmonid habitat availability can 

be limited by streamflow. Low flows can reduce habitat, forcing a migration to more suitable 

habitat (Gregory et al. 2009 in Rice et al. 2012). In addition to streamflow, stream temperature is 

another control that can limit salmonid habitat. Stream temperatures have been found to have a 

strong relationship with air temperatures (Webb and Noblis 2007; Kaushal et al. 2010 in Rice et

al. 2012). 

Cold-adapted fish species ranges are projected to generally shift upward in elevation due to 

downstream temperature increases, and to become increasingly fragmented and disjointed from 

larger streams that naturally hold source populations (Kelekher and Rahel 1996 in Rice et al. 

2012). However, increased temperatures may improve habitat for native cutthroat trout at higher 

elevations, and isolated headwater streams may provide protection from non-native invasive 

trout (Cook et al. 2010 in Rice et al. 2012). The smaller tributaries and lower populations 

supported at higher elevations are projected to experience decreased genetic variability and 

probability of native trout survival (Cook et al. 2010 in Rice et al. 2012).

Potential consequences include shifted or reduced salmonid habitat and associated species, and 

reduced recreational fishing opportunities for native cold water fish if salmonid habitat is 

reduced or degraded. Also, the Shoshone may serve as a high-elevation refugium for salmonid 

populations (Rice et al. 2012).

Determination and Rationale 

Sensitive Fish Species Determination: 

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

(Yellowstone cutthroat trout, mountain suckers, and lake chubs), 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.” A summary for this determination follows. For a more 

detailed rationale, including management and conservation measures, see the Sensitive Fish 

Biological Evaluation located in the project record.

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout 

The primary reason for the significant reductions of Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarkia) on the Shoshone is from past introductions of non-native trout that compete and/or 

hybridize with native Yellowstone cutthroat trout. WGFD currently manages for wild, 

genetically pure Yellowstone cutthroat trout wherever possible to minimize future impacts. 

Additionally, integrated and coordinated range-wide and geographic management unit 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout restoration projects, including both population and habitat 

components have been and will continue to be implemented during the planning period, helping 

to restore and conserve Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations on and adjacent to the Forest. 

Stream and riparian habitat currently is in good to excellent or improving condition overall on 

the Forest from improved grazing, roading, stream crossing, and stream habitat improvement 

projects. Proper implementation, administration, and compliance of Forest Service Regional and 

National BMP Directives, and other relevant measures including project design features will help 

maintain and improve aquatic habitat during the planning period.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

335

Mountain Suckers 

Stream and riparian habitat currently is in good to excellent or improving condition overall on 

the Shoshone from improved grazing, roading, stream crossing, and various habitat improvement 

projects. Mountain suckers (Catostomus platyrhynchus) are common to abundant on the Forest 

where suitable habitat exists. As a result, mountain suckers have issues in other parts of Region 

2, but not on the Shoshone.

Lake Chubs 

Stream, riparian, and lake habitat currently is in good to excellent or improving condition overall 

on the Shoshone from improved grazing, roading, stream crossing, and various habitat 

improvement projects. Lake chubs (Couesius plumbeus) are common to abundant on the Forest 

where suitable habitat exists. As a result, lake chubs have issues in other parts of Region 2, but 

not on the Shoshone.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

336

Rare Plants

Introduction

The Forest Service has a legal requirement to maintain or improve habitat conditions for 

threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. 

Species covered under Endangered Species Act are those listed by the U.S. Department of 

Interior (USDI) USFWS. Sensitive plant species are developed and protected under the Regional 

Forester’s Sensitive Species Program. The Shoshone National Forest is required to identify and 

mitigate potential effects to these species from Federal land-disturbing actions. To comply with 

the Endangered Species Act and the Sensitive Species Program, the forest botanist conducts 

inventories during project planning to locate and protect any threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate, Region 2 sensitive plant species, and forest plant species of local concern. 

Legal and Administrative Framework 

These acts, along with other land use laws, executive orders, and policies guide management of 

rare and sensitive plants on NFS lands. Other laws pertinent to management of NFS lands can be 

found in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2600.

Laws

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended creates an affirmative obligation “that all 

Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species of 

fish, wildlife, and plants.” The act also requires Federal agencies to ensure that any authorized 

action funded or carried out by them does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species 

or modify critical habitat.

Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974: Provides for 

maintenance of land productivity and the need to protect and improve the soil and water 

resources.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976: “It is the policy of the Congress that all 

forested lands in the NFS shall be maintained in appropriate forest cover with species of trees, 

degree of stocking, rate of growth and conditions of stand designed to secure the maximum 

benefits of multiple use sustained yield. Plans developed shall provide for the diversity of plant 

and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order 

to meet the overall multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objective.”

Executive Orders

Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies exercising statutory authority and leadership 

over Federal lands to avoid to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts 

associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Where it is practicable, new 

construction in wetlands should be avoided. Federal agencies are required to preserve and 

enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 

Regulation, Policies and Regional Direction

Regulations and policies have been passed in support of these laws and require the following:

• Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2600 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2609 state policy 

and direction regarding wildlife, fish and sensitive plant program management.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

337

• Forest Service Manual 2631.3. This manual outlines regional policy on the management of 

fens. Fen habitat accounts for 13 of the current 26 Region 2 sensitive plants on the Forest.

Resource Protection Measures 

Threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species have special management requirements 

for all Forest Service management activities. The Endangered Species Act section 7 guidelines 

and recovery objectives have been followed where potential habitat of suspected threatened plant 

species may occur on the Forest. 

For sensitive species, management efforts to ensure the diversity of rare plant communities or 

their habitat are already in place. The Forest Service management policy (FSH 2609.25, 1.25, 

1988 and FSM 2670) ensures that for all the rare plant species, the following measures will be 

taken: 

1. Biological evaluations will be written for all activities that may affect sensitive species 

and their habitat. 

2. “Effects” of activities will be determined as similar to those for threatened, endangered, 

or proposed species. 

3. Special management emphasis will be included in all management activities to ensure 

the viability of the sensitive species and to preclude trends toward endangerment that 

would result in the need for Federal listing. This Forest Service management policy will 

be employed at a species level in all alternatives to ensure its mandates are achieved and 

that sensitive species are conserved.

Management activities in fens are guided by Forest Service Handbook 2509.25, 2631.3, Region 

2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook, and Forest Service National Best Management 

Practice Directives (collectively referred to as Forest Service regional and national BMP 

directives). The management measures and design criteria in the handbook include practices that 

are important parts of meeting desired conditions for soil, aquatic, and riparian resources. Field 

reviews of the application of best management practices provide information on effectiveness.

Sensitive species are assessed in a biological evaluation; information is summarized here. 

All effects analyses describe the condition and effects to habitat in general on the Shoshone for 

purposes of assessing viability for rare plants. The main approach for species viability is to 

ensure that ecosystem components and processes remain functioning, and then to verify needed 

habitat components persist for rare species and species representative of others due to similar 

habitats. 

Methodology

The rare plant species included in the analysis are those that are either listed under the 

Endangered Species Act, are on the Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) Regional Forester's 

Sensitive Species list, or plant species of local concern. No threatened or endangered plant 

species are known to occur on the Shoshone. There is one candidate plant species on the Forest, 

whitebark pine. Because of its candidate status, it is listed as a Region 2 sensitive plant. 

Distribution, habitat information, and population data for each species are available from the 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD), the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, and Region 

2 sensitive plant species conservation assessments and evaluations. Species Conservation 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

338

Assessments, evaluations, and rationale documents can be found in the Forest Plan project 

records and at the following website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/.

Forest plant lists were derived from extensive botanical work conducted by the Rocky Mountain 

Herbarium and by WYNDD since the last forest plan. This work has resulted in nearly 

50,000 voucher specimens representing approximately 1,690 vascular plant taxa. Recently 

started inventory work on the non-vascular (bryophytes) of the Shoshone has to-date yielded 

approximately 200 taxa. Knowledge of fungi species on the Forest is limited. Information on 

Wyoming plants from the Rocky Mountain Herbarium is found at the following website 

http://www.rmh.uwyo.edu. WYNDD information on Wyoming rare plants is found at the 

following website: http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/. 

Significant habitat for rare plants exists in the Swamp Lake Botanical Area, Line Creek Research 

Natural Area, and potential special interest areas and research natural areas. These special areas 

are an essential component for conserving rare plants on the Shoshone.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

The primary spatial context used for Region 2 sensitive plant species and plant species of local 

concern is the area within the Shoshone National Forest boundary. This area represents the NFS 

lands where changes may occur to rare plants or habitats from activities implementing the 

various alternatives. Information from the University of Wyoming’s WYNDD and Rocky 

Mountain Herbarium is used to analyze potential threats on the Forest. The timeframe of the 

analysis is 15 years or the life of the revised Forest Plan.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information 

Distribution maps of Region 2 sensitive plant species and plant species of local concern are in 

many cases incomplete or are unknown. This information need will be emphasized prior to the 

next planning cycle. Knowledge of fungi and bryophytes on the Shoshone is limited. Systematic 

inventory of these classes of organisms is just beginning. Fen habitat inventory is lacking on 

most of the forest. The only area with extensive inventory is the Beartooth Mountains. Fen 

habitat is important because it contains 12 of the Forest’s Region 2 sensitive plants.

Rare Plant Species

The Shoshone rare plant species include Region 2 sensitive plant species and species of local 

concern that occur, or could occur in the planning unit. Currently, 26 Region 2 sensitive and 

23 species of local concern are documented on the Shoshone. Each of the Shoshone rare plant 

species was placed into one of seven appropriate habitat groups. The habitat groups include the 

following: fens/riparian, calcareous montane grasslands, calcareous rocky slopes and ridges, 

volcanic rocky slopes/montane shrublands, granitic montane grasslands, alpine, and 

subalpine/krumholtz forests. A brief discussion of the habitat groups follows.

Sensitive plant species that occur on the Shoshone are listed in table 80 with the associated 

habitat group; species of local concern that occur on the Shoshone are listed in table 81 with the 

associated habitat group. Most plant species of local concern are considered to be sensitive in 

Forest Service Region 1, Region 4, and/or the BLM within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Both lists evolve as knowledge of these species increases.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

339

Table 80. Rocky Mountain Region sensitive plant species on the Shoshone National Forest 

(documented)

Common name(s) Global/state ranking17 Habitat

Sphagnum moss 

Sphagnum angustifolium G5/S1 Fens 

Triangleglobe moonwort 

Botrychium ascendens G2G3/S1 Riparian

A Roundleaf orchid 

merorchis rotundifolia G5/S1 Fens

Lesser panicled sedge 

Carex diandra G5/S2 Fens

Livid sedge 

Carex livida G5/S2 Fens

Chamisso’s bristlegrass 

Eriophorum chamissonis G5/S2 Fens

Slender bristlegrass 

Eriophorum gracile G5/S2 Fens

Hall’s fescue 

Festuca hallii G4/S2 Calcareous montane grasslands

Simple bog sedge 

Kobresia simpliciuscula G5/S1 Fens

Wyoming tansymustard 

Descurainia torulosa G5/S2 Volcanic rocky slopes and shrubland

English sundew 

Drosera anglica G5/S2 Fens

Fremont’s bladderpod 

Lesquerella fremontii G2/S2 Calcareous rocky slopes and ridges

Kotzebue’s grass of Parnassus 

Parnassia kotzebuei G5/S2 Alpine

Absaroka Range beardtongue 

Penstemon absarokensis G2/S2 Volcanic rocky slopes and montane 

shrubland

Greenland primrose 

Primula egaliksensis G4/S1 Fens

Absaroka goldenweed 

Pyrrocoma carthamoides var. 

subsquarrosa

G4G5T2T3/S2 Calcareous montane grasslands

Tranquil goldenweed 

Pyrrocoma clementis var.villosa G3G4/T2 Granitic montane grasslands

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

scale, with 1 denoting that a species is critically impaired and 5 denoting that 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 denoted by its Nrank, and its condition in a particular state/province is denoted by its S-rank. State rank is assigned by 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) biologists and denotes a species probability of 

elimination in Wyoming. Subspecies, varieties, or any other designation below the level of a global ranked 

species, receives 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, WYNDD February 2012).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

340

Table 80. Rocky Mountain Region sensitive plant species on the Shoshone National Forest 

(documented)

Common name(s) Global/state ranking17 Habitat

Entire-Leaf goldenweed 

Pyrrocoma integrifolia G3?/S1 Granitic montane grasslands

Ice cold buttercup 

Ranunculus gelidus ssp. grayi G5/S1 Alpine

Barratt’s willow 

Salix barrattiana G5/S1 Alpine

Sageleaf willow

Salix candida G5/S2 Fens

Myrtle leaf willow

Salix myrtillifolia G5/S1 Fens

Shoshone carrot

Shoshonea pulvinata G2G3/S2 Calcareous rocky slopes and ridges

North Fork Easter daisy

Townsendia condensate var. 

anomola

G4T2/S2 Volcanic rocky slopes and shrubland

Lesser bladderwort

Utricularia minor G5/S2 Fens

Whitebark pine

Pinus albicaulis G3G4/S3 Subalpine forests

The conservation status of a species or ecosystem is designated by a number from 1 to 5, preceded by a letter reflecting 

the appropriate geographic scale of the assessment (G = Global), N = National, and S = state/province). The numbers 

have the following meaning: 

1 = critically imperiled 

2 = imperiled 

3 = vulnerable

4 = apparently secure 

5 = secure.

For example, G1 would indicate that a species is critically imperiled across its entire range (i.e., globally). In this sense, 

the species as a whole is regarded as being at very high risk of extinction. A rank of S3 would indicate the species is 

vulnerable and at moderate risk within a particular state or province, even though it may be more secure elsewhere.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

341

Table 81. Shoshone National Forest plant species of local concern (documented)

Common name(s) Global/state ranking18 Habitat

N/A

Adoxa moschatellina G5/S2 Subalpine forests

Pink goat chicory

Agroseris lackschewitzii G4/S3 Fens/riparian

Sweet-flowered rock jasmine

Androsace chamaejasme var. 

carinata

G5T4/S1S2 Calcareous rocky slopes and ridges

Least moonwort

Botrychium simplex G5/S2 Riparian

N/A

Carex idahoa G2G3 Riparian

Enander’s sedge

Carex lenticularis var. dolia G5T3/S1 Alpine

Bristly stalked sedge

Carex leptalea G5/S3 Riparian

Black and purple sedge

Carex luzulina var. atropurpurea G5T3/S2 Fens/ Riparian

Evert’s waferparsnip

Cymopterus evertii G2G3/S2S3 Calcareous rocky slopes and ridges

Woolly fleabane

Erigeron lanatus G3G4/S1 Alpine

Arctic cottongrass

Eriophorum gracile G5/S2 Alpine

Northern fescue

Festuca viviparoidea G4G5/SNR Alpine

Hall’s rush

Juncus hallii G4G5/S3 Riparian

Siberian bog sedge

Kobresia sibirica G5/S1 Alpine

Island purslane

Koenigia islandica G4/S1 Alpine

Shortflower monkey flower

Mimulus washingtonensis G4/S2 Riparian

Stalkpod locoweed

Oxytropis podocarpa G4/S2 Alpine

 18 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 denoted by its N-rank, and its condition 

in a particular state/province is denoted by its S-rank. State rank is assigned by WYNDD biologists and 

denotes a species probability of elimination in Wyoming. Subspecies, varieties, or any other designation 

below the level of a global ranked species, receives 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 nonbreeding (N) population in a particular nation or state/province. (NatureServe, February 2012, WYNDD 

February 2012).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

342

Table 81. Shoshone National Forest plant species of local concern (documented)

Common name(s) Global/state ranking18 Habitat

Icegrass

Phipsia algida G5/S1 Alpine

Alpine poppy

Papaver radicatum ssp. 

kluanense

G5T3T4/S2 Alpine

Smoothstem parrya

Parrya nudicaulis G5/S2 Alpine

N/A

Potentilla nivea var. pentaphylla G5/S2 Alpine

Weber’s saw-wort

Saussurea weberi G2G3/S2 Alpine

Alpine meadow rue

Thalictrum alpinum G5/S2 Alpine

Affected Environment 

Habitat Groups

A brief description of the seven habitat groups follows.

Fens and riparian 

Fens are a type of wetland that occupies only a small percentage of the landscape, but represents 

an important element of biological diversity. Because of their water-holding capability and 

unique characteristics, fens provide very stable habitats and often support several globally rare 

plant and invertebrate species and unique species assemblages. In the Rocky Mountain Region, 

fens are usually groundwater driven and are dominated by wetland plants. Fens are generally 

characterized by their stable presence on the landscape for thousands of years and associated 

plant and animal communities that may be relics from historic glaciation periods. Because the 

rate of accumulation of peat in fens is so slow and the species associated with fens are so unique, 

these ecosystems are difficult to reclaim and are essentially irreplaceable. 

Thirteen sensitive and 7 plants of local concern on the Shoshone are restricted to fen and other 

riparian habitats. Fen habitats can be further characterized by different plant communities and 

species, different substrates, different pH and different abiotic processes. In numerous cases, 

sensitive plant species co-occur at known fen sites and the stressors and ecological processes that 

influence their habitats apply to all of them. Riparian vegetation across the Forest is also diverse 

and ecologically complex. Trianglelobe moonwort appears to be most associated with tall willow 

habitat in the Absaroka Range. Fen and riparian habitat can be found across the Shoshone. 

Potential and existing research natural areas and special interest areas offering protection of 

outstanding examples of this habitat include: Line Creek Research Natural Area, Swamp Lake 

Botanical Area; potential Sawtooth Peatbeds Geological Area, and Little Popo Agie Moraine

Geological Areas; and potential Lake Creek and Beartooth Butte Research Natural Areas.

Calcareous montane grasslands 

Two sensitive plants occur in calcareous montane grasslands. Dominated by Idaho fescue, these 

grasslands are found at the north end of the Shoshone on soils derived from limestone geologic 

formations. This includes areas on Bald Ridge, Rattlesnake Mountain, and Logan Mountain. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

343

Potential research natural areas offering protection of outstanding examples of this habitat 

include: Arrow Mountain, Pat O’Hara, and Bald Ridge.

Calcareous rocky slopes and ridges

Two sensitive and two plant species of local concern occur in calcareous rocky slopes and ridges. 

This habitat is found on soils derived from limestone geologic formations. On the north end of 

the Shoshone this includes areas on Bald Ridge, Rattlesnake Mountain, and Logan Mountain. On 

the south end of the Forest, this habitat is found on sedimentary geologic formations along the 

flanks of the Wind River mountain range. Potential research natural areas offering protection of 

outstanding examples of this habitat include: Arrow Mountain, Pat O’Hara, and Bald Ridge. Of

these three research natural areas, only the potential Bald Ridge Research Natural Area provides 

protection for the largest known population of Shoshonea, a species endemic to the northeast 

portion of the Greater Yellowstone Area.

Volcanic rocky slopes and montane shrublands

Three sensitive plants occur in volcanic rocky slopes and montane grasslands. This habitat is 

found on soils derived from the various formations in the Absaroka volcanics. This habitat 

occupies large areas of the central portion of the Shoshone. Potential research natural areas 

offering protection of outstanding examples of this habitat include Grizzly Creek and Sheep 

Mesa.

Granitic montane grasslands

Two plants are associated with granitic montane grasslands. The habitat for this species is found 

in granitic uplands of the Wind River Range. The potential Roaring Fork Research Natural Area

offers protection of an outstanding example of this habitat.

Alpine

Three Region 2 sensitive plants and 13 species of local concern occur in alpine grasslands. This 

habitat is found at elevations generally greater than 9,800 feet. This habitat exists on almost a 

quarter of the Shoshone and, with a few exceptions (Beartooth, Phelps, and Carter Mountains), is 

mostly wilderness. Line Creek Research Natural Area and the potential Sheep Mesa, Beartooth 

Butte, Roaring Fork, Arrow Mountain, and Pat O’Hara Research Natural Areas offer protection 

of outstanding examples of this habitat. 

Subalpine and krumholtz forests

Subalpine forests occur generally above 8,500 feet in elevation across the Shoshone. One 

candidate Region 2 sensitive plant (whitebark pine) and one species of local concern occur in 

subalpine forests and krumholtz habitat. Whitebark pine is a common five-needle pine in the 

Greater Yellowstone Area. Within subalpine forests, whitebark pine gradually becomes more 

common with increasing elevation. It is not as common on calcareous substrates. Krumholtz 

forests are found at upper tree line in harsh wind-blown environments. Adoxa moschatellina is 

found on lower-elevation subalpine forests with calcareous substrates. 

Whitebark pine is threatened by bark beetle infestations, white pine blister rust, altered fire 

regimes, and climate change across its range. The whitebark pine strategy for the Greater 

Yellowstone Area (GYCC 2011) provides guidance to land managers for managing whitebark 

pine across the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Line Creek Research Natural Area and the 

potential Sheep Mesa, Beartooth Butte, Roaring Fork, Arrow Mountain, Lake Creek, and Pat 

O’Hara Research Natural Areas offer protection of outstanding examples of this habitat.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

344

Climate Change

One stressor common to all rare plant habitat groups that is beyond Forest Service control is 

climate change. Potential climate change on the Shoshone has been described in Rice et al. 

(2012). Predicted climate shifts may result in changes in kind, amount, and distribution of 

precipitation, in turn affecting rare plant habitat. Of particular concern is the effect on whitebark 

pine, alpine, lower-elevation grassland and shrubland, and riparian and fen habitats. In the 

subalpine/krumholtz zone, whitebark pine is predicted to retreat from lower-elevation ranges and 

either marginally exist at the highest elevations of the Forest or be extirpated. Alpine vegetation 

is predicted to decrease in extent and increase in fragmentation, resulting in refugia alpine 

habitat. Lower-elevation grassland and shrubland habitat will become drier and habitat will shift 

upward in elevation. This will create the potential for cheatgrass and other noxious weed spread 

on the landscape. Wetland (fen and riparian) habitat may be reduced in extent or lost (Rice et al. 

2012). Climate change has the greatest potential of affecting the 26 sensitive and 23 plant species 

of local concern due to the predicted effects on rare plant habitat.

Environmental Consequences

The known threats and/or stressors that have the potential to negatively affect the plant species 

were reviewed for each of the seven plant habitats. Potential adverse effects were considered 

based upon the likelihood and intensity to which the various alternatives may affect the threats or 

stressors.

Potential threats are defined as activities (Forest Service or otherwise) or natural conditions that 

currently or potentially have negative effects on the diversity of rare plant communities or their 

habitat. Threats can be divided into the following three types: direct (e.g., livestock grazing—

trampling; herbivory; and recreational activities—off-road vehicle, over-snow travel, hiking, and 

associated trampling), alteration of ecological factors (e.g., fire exclusion, insects, and disease), 

and habitat reduction (e.g., oil and gas exploration and road construction and reconstruction). 

These are discussed where appropriate by the seven habitat groups.

Fens and riparian 

Several management activities and risks may affect rare plants in this habitat. They include 

management actions that alter hydrologic regimes; alterations to riparian plant community 

succession through vegetation manipulation; changes to natural disturbance regimes such as 

flooding; management activities that affect water quality, such as road construction, 

reconstruction and maintenance activities that result in runoff; livestock use; sedimentation from 

timber harvest activities; invasive plants and their control; off-road vehicle use around wet 

margins; and recreational use. 

The Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives provide a high level of protection for 

rare plants in fens and other riparian habitat. Those protections are in effect for all the 

alternatives. The most substantial risk to this habitat that has not been mitigated by these 

protections is the risk of a wildfire burning a large area and affecting either the hydrologic 

regime or nutrient inputs into these habitats. 

Calcareous montane grasslands

Several management activities and risks may have effects on rare plants in this habitat. These 

include disturbance associated with recreational use, trail construction, road maintenance, and 

maintenance of administrative sites. Livestock grazing levels and water developments may affect 

plant numbers. Invasion of exotic plant species may affect some sites. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

345

Calcareous rocky slopes and ridges

Several management activities may affect rare plants in this habitat. These include disturbance 

associated with recreational use, trail construction, maintenance of roads, and maintenance and 

use of administrative sites. Probably the most substantial risk to the plants in this habitat is the 

risk of a wildfire or prescribed fire burning a large area and precipitating the invasion of exotic 

plant species, particularly cheatgrass, which may affect rare plant survival. Chemical control of 

invasive plants also may have a negative effect.

Volcanic rocky slopes and montane shrublands

Several management activities and risks may affect rare plants in this habitat. These include 

disturbance associated with recreational use, trail construction, maintenance of roads, and 

maintenance of administrative sites. Invasion of exotic plant species, particularly cheatgrass, 

may affect plant survival after wild and prescribed fire. Spotted knapweed and Dalmatian 

toadflax spread may threaten habitat and chemical control efforts also may have a negative 

effect.

Granitic montane grasslands

Several management activities and risks may affect rare plants in this habitat. These include 

disturbance associated with recreational use, trail construction, livestock grazing, maintenance of 

roads, and maintenance of administrative sites. 

Alpine

Several management activities and risks may affect rare plants in this habitat. These include 

disturbance associated with recreational use, trail construction, off-road vehicle use, livestock 

grazing, and maintenance of roads.

Subalpine and krumhotlz forests

Effects on this habitat include timber harvest, wildfire, prescribed fire, road and trail 

construction, and other activities that could directly impact populations through vegetation 

and/or ground disturbance. However, some of these actions may have overall beneficial effects 

for whitebark pine.

Direct and Indirect Effects

At the scale of the entire Shoshone National Forest, it is important to realize the difficulties 

associated with assessing the impacts of broad forest plan direction to 26 Region 2 sensitive 

plants and 23 plant species of local concern. Plant species may be rare due to evolutionary 

history, basic population ecology, historic or current human activities, or more likely, a complex 

combination of these factors. Human activities may or may not be responsible for the current 

distribution and abundance of the rare plant species. However, an important assumption in this 

analysis is that certain management actions may contribute or detract from the availability or 

quality of habitats that support rare plant species. 

For each of the resource areas described below, the environmental consequences for rare plant 

habitat are discussed and then compared by alternative, based on key indicators of disturbance 

for each type of activity. In general, alternatives proposing greater levels of disturbance activities 

increase the potential for impacts to rare plant populations. The exception is whitebark pine 

where disturbance processes can be a beneficial effect and may aid in restoring this species.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

346

Effects from Timber Harvesting: Mechanical activities include vegetation management 

treatments, whether for restoration or to meet timber production objectives. Activities such as 

logging can have impacts to plants and plant habitat through canopy removal, soil disturbance 

and erosion, and stream sedimentation. In addition, mechanical activities for vegetation 

treatment may require road building. Roads can increase access to and fragment habitat, thus 

providing an avenue for invasive plant species. They can be placed on ridge tops, in riparian 

areas, or through rocky slopes, which are important habitats for a number of species. 

Reconstruction and maintenance of existing roads can directly or indirectly affect plant 

populations by introducing competitive weeds and altering availability of light, nutrients, and 

moisture. 

Most of timber harvesting activity on the Forest is in subalpine forests. As discussed above in 

fire, restoring historical fire regimes and restoring conditions toward historic range of variability 

that provide a range of seral stages may benefit some Region 2 sensitive plant species, 

particularly whitebark pine, in the long term. 

Alternatives that include more timber harvest activity have more potential to negatively affect 

rare plant habitat. Acres of timber harvest range from 6,030 acres in alternative C where the 

potential impact is lowest to 12,200 acres in alternative F where the potential impact is highest. 

Alternatives A, B, D, and G are at the lower end of the range established by alternatives C and F. 

Though timber harvest can negatively affect rare plant habitat, the acres of timber harvest 

activity is small compared to total Forest acres and any negative effects would be addressed by 

applying design criteria for maintaining rare plant habitat. 

Alternatives A, B, D, E, F, and G would have similar beneficial effects in restoring whitebark 

pine habitat. Alternative C would have the least beneficial effect.

Effects from Roads and Trails Management: Roads or trail use, maintenance, and construction 

can contribute to the spread of noxious weeds, and increase areas to soil disturbance that may 

affect rare plant habitat.

Habitat areas of particular concern include calcareous rocky slopes and ridges and calcareous 

montane grasslands. Existing NFS roads pass through habitat of Fremont’s bladder pod, 

Shoshone carrot, Hall’s fescue, and Absaroka goldenweed. Increased use and subsequent 

maintenance may affect habitat.

Alternatives with more miles of road and trail construction have more potential to negatively 

affect rare plant habitat. Miles for motorized roads and trails are projected to increase in all 

action alternatives except alternative C, where miles decrease. The greatest increase would be in 

alternative F where road miles increase by 4 miles and motorized trail miles increase by 

60 miles. Non-motorized trail miles are projected to remain constant across all alternatives. 

Though new construction, reconstruction, and maintenance activities associated with roads and 

trails can negatively affect rare plant habitat, the acres of land impacted by these activities would 

be small compared to total Forest acres, and any negative effects would be addressed by 

applying design criteria for maintaining rare plant habitat. 

Effects from Disturbance Processes (fires/fuels management and insect/disease mortality): 

Timing of burns is an important factor to some rare plants. For example, the use of prescribed 

fire in the spring has potential impacts to some rare plants. In general, these plants are not 

adapted to fire at this time of year and spring burning can interfere with flowering, fruiting, and 

other physiological impacts; and could affect life history patterns with pollinators. However, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

347

those risks have to be weighed against the trade-offs in the event that prescribed burning could 

not take place at another time of year and, therefore, a higher risk occurs that an 

uncharacteristically intense wildfire occurs. In general, most plant species would benefit by 

restoring more historical fire regimes. For those rare plants that thrive in open areas created by 

fires, using fire to help restore a more natural fire regime could benefit those species in the long 

term. There are also impacts to plants associated with wildfire suppression activities, such as fire 

line construction and other mechanical activities, reforestation following fire, and the increased 

potential for the spread of noxious weeds.

Wild and prescribed fires can pose risks to rare plants in fen and riparian habitats, particularly 

when the fires are uncharacteristic. Rare plants at Swamp Lake Botanical Area and the potential 

Peatbeds Geological Area are particularity susceptible.

Prescribed and wildfire impacts to the calcareous montane grasslands, rocky slopes and ridges, 

and volcanic rocky slopes and montane shrublands habitats can and has led to the spread of 

cheatgrass and Dalmatian toadflax. Rare plant competition with invasive species may lead to 

population declines. Increased chemical control methods may also impact rare plants in these 

habitats.

Fire may have beneficial effects in restoring whitebark pine by removing spruce and fir and 

setting back successional stages.

All of the alternatives use fire as a tool to accomplish management goals and objectives. The 

alternatives have different management emphasis areas and as such, the use and emphasis of fire 

vary by alternative. 

White pine blister rust is having an impact on whitebark pine. This disease is affecting large 

acreages of whitebark pine, and in conjunction with bark beetle epidemics, is killing large 

numbers of trees. This combined impact is accelerating the reduction of whitebark pine in some 

areas. Restoration activities for whitebark pine are included in all alternatives, but it will be 

many years until the scope and effectiveness reach the point where the trend can be reversed.

Alternatives that include more hazardous fuels reduction activity have more potential to 

negatively affect rare plant habitat. Acres of hazardous fuels reduction activity range from 

35,000 acres in alternative C, where the potential impact is lowest, to 41,200 acres in alternative 

F, where the potential impact is highest. Alternatives A, B, and D are at the lower end of the 

range established by alternatives C and F. Though hazardous fuels reduction activity timber 

harvest can negatively affect rare plant habitat, the acres of timber harvest reduction activity is 

small compared to total forest acres and any negative effects would be addressed by applying 

design criteria for maintaining rare plant habitat. 

All alternatives would have similar effects on the restoration of whitebark pine habitat.

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game: Direct livestock or big game grazing effects 

are from herbivory and trampling. Indirect effects become detrimental to rare plants when 

grazing exceeds capacity and results in habitat decline from loss of ground cover, lowered 

ecological condition, or introduction of invasive species.

Fens and riparian habitat are resilient but can be altered by grazing beyond capacity. Trampling 

and introduction of invasive species such as Canada thistle are concerns in some fens containing 

rare plants. The Sawtooth Peatbeds potential special interest area is particularly susceptible to 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

348

trampling. Exposed vegetation on peat is easily displaced and results in erosion of an 

irreplaceable resource.

Herbivory does not directly affect rare plants in the volcanic montane shrub habitat. Both 

sensitive species in this habitat are forbs that occupy rocky sites. Indirect effects become 

detrimental when grazing exceeds capacity and results in habitat decline from loss of ground 

cover, lowered ecological condition, or introduction of invasive species.

Several active grazing allotments contain calcareous montane grasslands habitat. Hall’s fescue 

may decrease with heavy grazing pressure (Anderson 2006). Potential over utilization around 

water developments may affect habitat. Effects of grazing on Hall’s fescue have not yet been 

studied on the Shoshone.

In alpine habitats, hoof action causing trampling and displacement of thin alpine soils potentially 

may have a negative effect on rare plant habitat. Increased animal unit months (AUMs) may lead 

to more incidental use of alpine habitat.

In considering the alternatives, alternatives E and F have more emphasis on active grazing 

management than the others, while alternative C has the least. Alternatives A, B, D, and G are 

similar in AUMs. In general, it is assumed that the greater number of AUMs, the greater the 

potential of impact on rare plant habitat. 

Alternatives that include more commercial livestock grazing have more potential to negatively 

affect rare plant habitat. Commercial livestock grazing AUMs range from 31,309 AUMs in 

alternative C, where the potential impact is lowest, to 70,212 AUMs in alternative F, where the 

potential impact is highest, followed by alternative E with 67,057 AUMs. Alternatives A, B, D, 

and G would be the existing level of 55,881 AUMs.

Though livestock grazing can negatively affect rare plant habitat, negative effects may be 

addressed by applying design criteria for maintaining rare plant habitat. 

Effects from Recreation: Recreational impacts can include trampling, both by hikers and offroad vehicle use. Road building and the development of campgrounds and other facilities used 

by recreationists also contribute to plant impacts, as these developments make more areas 

accessible and concentrate use. Dispersed camping and recreation have similar impacts, which 

are more difficult to monitor. Other recreational impacts include off-road vehicle use, which can 

also disturb soil, affecting both habitat and potential habitat. Roads and trails for recreational use 

can contribute to the spread of noxious weeds, and increase the accessibility of areas to 

disturbance. Recreational livestock use as well as native ungulates may have impacts relating to 

trampling and herbivory. Snow compaction by heavy snowmobile use has been shown to have 

negative effects on fen habitat.

Fens/riparian, calcareous montane grasslands, calcareous rocky slopes and ridges, volcanic rocky 

slopes/montane shrublands, granitic montane grasslands, alpine, and subalpine/krumholtz forests 

habitats to some degree have the potential to be effected by concentrated areas of recreational 

activities. 

In general, it is assumed that the greater the motorized recreation use, the greater the potential 

impact on rare plant habitat. In considering the alternatives, alternatives E and F have more 

emphasis on summer motorized recreation, and alternatives C and D have the least use 

associated with motorized recreation. Alternative A, B and G fall in between the extremes. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

349

Alternatives A and F have more emphasis on winter motorized recreation, and alternatives C, and 

D have the least use associated with motorized recreation. Alternative B, E and G falls in 

between the extremes.

Effects from Noxious and Invasive Species: Introduced invasive plant species can displace rare 

species through competitive displacement. Indirect impacts include herbicide spraying and 

mechanical ground disturbance to control noxious weeds once they gain a foothold. Competition 

from invasive non-native species and noxious weeds can result in the loss of habitat, loss of 

pollinators, and decreased rare plant species viability. Roads, trails, livestock, and canopy 

reduction can provide ideal pathways for introducing non-native species. Indirectly, herbicide 

spraying can destroy populations of native pollinators by contaminating nesting materials and 

pollen resources, further decreasing the viability and reproductive success of rare species.

Fens/riparian, calcareous montane grasslands, calcareous rocky slopes and ridges, volcanic rocky 

slopes/montane shrublands, and granitic montane grasslands rare plant habitats are most 

susceptible to noxious week invasion. Many vectors for potential spread may be linked to 

increased disturbance, which may come from fire, timber harvesting, recreation, wildlife, 

livestock, mineral development, and road and trail corridors. 

Alternatives E and F, with their emphasis on active management, would be expected to have the 

greatest impacts on weeds, and at the other end of the spectrum, alternatives C and D would be 

expected to have the least impacts. Alternatives A, B, and G fall between those two extremes. 

Effects from Mineral and Energy Development: Mining directly adjacent to wetlands, or 

within streams or flood plains that are connected to wetlands, can reduce water availability or 

flow, sedimentation, and/or pollution. 

In considering the various alternatives, reasonably foreseen mining activities are low to very low 

and similar across alternatives. Consequently, effects to rare plant resources would be the same 

across alternatives.

Effects from Oil and Gas Development: Road construction and pad site disturbance associated 

with oil and gas development have the potential to remove rare plants and their habitat.

In considering the various alternatives, reasonably foreseen mining activities are low to very low 

and similar across alternatives. Consequently, effects to rare plant resources would be the same 

across alternatives.

Effects from Wilderness Recommendation for Designation: Wilderness designations 

generally increase the level of protection to rare plants and their habitat. Where trail 

construction, recreational livestock, and authorized special use permits may directly affect rare 

plants and their habitat, research natural areas in wilderness offer more protection options for 

rare plant habitat. The exception is for whitebark pine—wilderness limits beneficial management 

options for planting, thinning, and prescribed fire.

In considering the alternatives, alternatives C and D include the most recommended wilderness 

designation, which may lead to greater protection of rare plant habitat. Alternatives A, B, E, F, 

and G would not recommend increasing designated wilderness, which may lead to less potential 

protection for rare plant habitat. The opposite is true in the case of whitebark pine habitat 

restoration.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

350

Effects from Research Natural Areas and Special Interest Area Allocation: Research natural 

area and special interest area designations generally increase the level of protection to rare plants 

and their habitat. The exception in special designation is in wilderness where trail construction, 

recreational livestock, and authorized special use permits may directly affect rare plants and their 

habitat. In research natural areas and special interest areas those activities may be limited, 

depending on their effect to rare plant habitat and other plant communities.

Rare plant habitat in calcareous montane grasslands, rocky slopes, and ridges would be most 

affected by alternatives A, B, E, and F. These alternatives do not include Bald Ridge and Pat 

O’Hara potential research natural areas. These two research natural areas are central to two of 

the three largest populations of Shoshonea in the world; all three are on the Shoshone. 

Alternatives that do not recognize Bald Ridge and Pat O’Hara research natural areas may 

increase the risk of eventual listing of some rare plants. These areas and the other potential 

research natural area / special interest areas are an essential and complementary component to 

conservation of rare plants on the Forest, the Greater Yellowstone Area, nationally, and globally.

In considering the alternatives, alternatives C, D and G place more emphasis on special area 

designation, which leads to greater protection of rare plant habitat. Alternatives A, E, and F 

would involve less designated areas and subsequently less protection for rare plant habitat. 

Alternative B does not include Pat O’Hara and Bald Ridge research natural areas and would not 

protect needed rare plant habitat for calcareous montane grasslands, rocky slopes, and ridges.

Determination and Rationale

The overall determination for most species in this plan is “May adversely impact individuals 

but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing.” For whitebark pine, the determination is the same, but some management 

elements would have a “Beneficial impact” for the species across its range.

Fens/riparian habitat-related sensitive species

Implementation of any of the alternatives for this project, as described above, may adversely 

impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing for any of the sensitive plant species known to occur or 

likely to occur on Shoshone National Forest as described above. These species include: 

sphagnum moss, triangleglobe moonwort, roundleaf orchid, lesser panicled sedge, livid sedge, 

Chamisso’s bristlegrass, slender bristlegrass, simple bog sedge, English sundew, Greenland 

primrose, sageleaf willow, myrtle leaf willow, and lesser bladderwort.

This determination is based on the recognition of known occurrences and/or suitable habitat for 

all the sensitive plant species within the Shoshone, and the possibility that these species could 

occur in future project areas and be affected by the actions associated with those projects. It also 

takes into account that site-specific pre-disturbance plant surveys will be implemented on areas 

that contain potential habitat for these species, and if any sensitive plant species are found, 

avoidance measures will be implemented unless the management action could improve habitat 

conditions for sensitive plant species without adversely affecting the viability of the affected 

sensitive plant species populations.

Calcareous rocky slopes and ridges habitat-related sensitive species

Implementation of any of the alternatives for this project, as described above, may adversely 

impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing for any of the sensitive plant species known to occur or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

351

likely to occur on Shoshone National Forest as described above. These species include: 

Shoshone carrot and Fremont’s bladderpod.

This determination is based on the recognition of known occurrences and/or suitable habitat for 

all the sensitive plant species within the Shoshone, and the possibility that these species could 

occur in future project areas and be affected by the actions associated with those projects. It also 

takes into account that site-specific pre-disturbance plant surveys will be implemented in areas 

that contain potential habitat for these species. If any sensitive plant species are found, avoidance 

measures will be implemented unless the management action could improve habitat conditions 

for sensitive plant species without adversely affecting the viability of the affected sensitive plant 

species populations.

Calcareous montane grasslands habitat-related sensitive species

Implementation of any of the alternatives for this project, as described above, may adversely 

impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing for any of the sensitive plant species known to occur or 

likely to occur on Shoshone National Forest as described above. These species include: Hall’s 

fescue and Absaroka goldenweed.

This determination is based on the recognition of known occurrences and/or suitable habitat for 

all the sensitive plant species within the Shoshone, and the possibility that these species could 

occur in future project areas and be affected by the actions associated with those projects. It also 

takes into account that site-specific pre-disturbance plant surveys will be implemented in areas 

that contain potential habitat for these species. If any sensitive plant species are found, avoidance 

measures will be implemented unless the management action could improve habitat conditions 

for sensitive plant species without adversely affecting the viability of the affected sensitive plant 

species populations.

Alpine habitat-related sensitive species

Implementation of any of the alternatives for this project, as described above, may adversely 

impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing for any of the sensitive plant species known to occur or 

likely to occur on Shoshone National Forest as described above. These species include: 

Kotzebue’s grass of Parnassus, ice cold buttercup, and Barratt’s willow.

This determination is based on the recognition of known occurrences and/or suitable habitat for 

all the sensitive plant species within the Shoshone, and the possibility that these species could 

occur in future project areas and be affected by the actions associated with those projects. It also 

takes into account that site-specific pre-disturbance plant surveys will be implemented in areas 

that contain potential habitat for these species. If any sensitive plant species are found, avoidance 

measures will be implemented unless the management action could improve habitat conditions 

for sensitive plant species without adversely affecting the viability of the affected sensitive plant 

species populations.

Volcanic rocky slopes and montane shrubland habitat-related sensitive species

Implementation of any of the alternatives for this project, as described above, may adversely 

impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing for any of the sensitive plant species known to occur or 

likely to occur on Shoshone National Forest as described above. These species include: North 

Fork Easter daisy, Wyoming tansymustard, and Absaroka Range beardtongue.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

352

This determination is based on the recognition of known occurrences and/or suitable habitat for 

all the sensitive plant species within the Shoshone, and the possibility that these species could 

occur in future project areas and be affected by the actions associated with those projects. It also 

takes into account that site-specific pre-disturbance plant surveys will be implemented in areas 

that contain potential habitat for these species. If any sensitive plant species are found, avoidance 

measures will be implemented unless the management action could improve habitat conditions 

for sensitive plant species without adversely affecting the viability of the affected sensitive plant 

species populations.

Granitic montane grasslands habitat-related sensitive species

Implementation of any of the alternatives for this project, as described above, may adversely 

impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing for any of the sensitive plant species known to occur or 

likely to occur on Shoshone National Forest as described above. These species include: tranquil 

goldenweed and entire-leaf goldenweed.

This determination is based on the recognition of known occurrences and/or suitable habitat for 

all the sensitive plant species within the Shoshone, and the possibility that these species could 

occur in future project areas and be affected by the actions associated with those projects. It also 

takes into account that site-specific pre-disturbance plant surveys will be implemented in areas 

that contain potential habitat for these species. If any sensitive plant species are found, avoidance 

measures will be implemented unless the management action could improve habitat conditions 

for sensitive plant species without adversely affecting the viability of the affected sensitive plant 

species populations.

Subalpine forests and krumholtz habitat-related sensitive species

Implementation of any of the alternatives for this project, as described above, may adversely 

impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing for any of the sensitive plant species known to occur or 

likely to occur on Shoshone National Forest as described above. These species include: 

whitebark pine. Some management elements of habitat restoration will have a “Beneficial 

impact” for the species across its range, but the determination remains the same due to the 

potential loss of individual plants of whitebark pine in these projects. 

This determination is based on the recognition of known occurrences and/or suitable habitat for 

all the sensitive plant species within the Shoshone National Forest, and the possibility that these 

species could occur in future project areas and be affected by the actions associated with those 

projects. It also takes into account that site-specific pre-disturbance plant surveys will be 

implemented in areas that contain potential habitat for these species. If any sensitive plant 

species are found, avoidance measures will be implemented unless the management action could 

improve habitat conditions for sensitive plant species without adversely affecting the viability of 

the affected sensitive plant species populations.

Summary of conservation measures for sensitive plant species

The Shoshone National Forest has been actively managing for sensitive and rare plant species for 

at least the past two decades. Work since the 1986 Forest Plan as amended implementation 

focused on a Forest-wide floristic inventory by the Rocky Mountain Herbarium and the 

establishment of research natural areas and special interest areas that would protect areas of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

353

important rare plant biodiversity. The floristic work was completed in 2011. The establishment of 

research natural areas and special interest areas are part of the current forest plan effort.

Future work needs to address:

• Mapping distributions of Region 2 sensitive and Forest plants of local concern. 

• Inventory of bryophytes and fungi. Researchers are just starting to understand their 

environmental and taxonomic diversity.

The whitebark pine strategy for the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYCC 2011) provides guidance 

to land managers for conserving whitebark pine across the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Summary of Effects to Resource 

Generally, the more disturbance, the greater the probability of an adverse effect to rare plant 

habitat. This effect is mitigated by rare plant surveys, pertinent project design features, and best 

management practices. The exception is whitebark pine, where an increase of disturbance by 

management may have a Forest- and range-wide beneficial effect.

Not designating Bald Ridge and Pat O’Hara potential research natural areas will have the 

greatest effect on protection of rare plant populations found in calcareous montane grasslands, 

rocky slopes, and ridges habitat.

Overall, potential effects to rare plants would be least under alternatives C, D, and G, and 

greatest under alternatives F and E, with alternatives A and B falling between. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past actions that have added elements of protection to rare plants and their habitat on the 

Shoshone include the designation of the Swamp Lake Botanical Special Interest Area and the 

Line Creek Research Natural Area. Forest plan management area standards and guidelines 

provide direction for management. In proposed connected actions, Sawtooth Peatbeds 

Geological Special Interest Area and Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological Special Interest Area, 

and eight potential research natural areas will provide protection to maintain high quality 

occurrences of Region 2 sensitive plant species over time. The combination of these proposed 

actions are important to preserve rare plant habitat for their contributions to biological diversity 

at Forest, Greater Yellowstone Area, Forest Service region, and national levels.

Climate change combined with wild and prescribed fire activity in volcanic rocky 

slopes/montane shrublands, calcareous montane grasslands, calcareous rocky slopes and ridges 

habitat in all alternatives may lead in the future to a type conversion to cheatgrass and other 

noxious weeds. This, in turn, may lead to a loss of Forest rare plants and their habitat, which 

increases the risk of future listing.

Climate change combined with increased livestock grazing in alpine grasslands and wetlands in 

alternatives E and F may lead to the loss of rare plants and their habitat, which increases the risk 

of future listing.

Prescribed and wild fire may potentially lead to a cumulative adverse effect on Fremont’s 

bladderpod habitat. The effects are the same across all alternatives. 

Research natural area and special interest area designations are important considerations in 

evaluating the status of rare plant species, as recognized by the Forest Service, USFWS, or State 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

354

natural heritage programs. Research natural area and special interest area designations are among 

the regulatory mechanisms (factor D) considered in determining global and state ranks of rare 

plants. Establishment of research natural area and special interest areas can help avert threats to 

plant species conservation by supporting long-term viability of species by consistent 

management (factor A). They are a proactive approach to potentially keep rare plants from being 

considered under the Endangered Species Act. 

Alternatives A, E, and F have the least research natural areas proposed. Alternative B does not 

include two potential research natural areas that are critical to rare plant conservation. Some rare 

plants may have an increased risk of being listed if potential research natural areas are not 

established. Alternatives C, D, and G include all eight potential research natural areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

355

Disturbance Processes

Fire and Fuels Management

Introduction

Fire and fuels management is not a resource, but rather a representation of how the Shoshone 

National Forest will respond to unplanned fires and vegetation conditions that affect the 

biological and physical resources as well as the social and economic aspects of the Forest. 

Wildfires are unplanned, but expected to occur. Fire is a naturally occurring disturbance process 

that has a significant influence on the landscape. The type and condition of the vegetation has a 

direct relation to fuels that are available to burn during fire season and, subsequently, the fire 

behavior and extent or size of a wildfire. The response to wildfire is guided by wildland fire 

management policies and by the land management goals and objectives expressed in the forest 

plan. In some situations, we use fire to accomplish a resource objective and in others we respond 

in a manner designed to protect a resource or value. Vegetation is manipulated with mechanical 

and prescribed fire treatments to protect values or accomplish resource benefit objectives where 

wildfire is not feasible. The analysis for fire and fuels management will address how the 

proposed land management goals and objectives for the various resources affect wildfire and 

hazardous fuels management actions that are implemented to accomplish the desired conditions 

for the Shoshone.

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws

These acts, along with other land use laws, executive orders, and policies guide fire and fuels 

management on NFS lands. Other laws pertinent to fire and fuels management of NFS lands can 

be found in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 5100. 

Organic Administration Act – June 4, 1897 (U.S.C.551): Authorizes the Secretary of 

Agriculture to make provisions for the protection of national forests against destruction by fire.

Economy Act of 1932 – June 30, 1932 (41 U.S.C. 686): Provides for the procurement of 

materials, supplies, equipment, work, or services from other Federal agencies.

Reciprocal Fire Protection Act – May 27, 1955 (42 U.S.C. 1856): Authorizes reciprocal 

agreements with Federal, state, and other wildland fire protection organizations.

Wilderness Act – September 3, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131, 1132): Authorizes the Secretary of 

Agriculture to take such measures as may be necessary in the control of fire within designated 

wilderness.

National Forest Management Act of 1976 – October 22, 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600): Directs the 

Secretary of Agriculture to specify guidelines for land management plans to ensure protection of 

forest resources.

Clean Air Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 1857): Provides for the protection and enhancement of the 

Nation’s air resources.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

356

Healthy Forests Restoration Act – December 3, 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6501). This act improves the 

capability of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior to conduct hazardous fuels 

reduction projects across the landscape on NFS lands and National Park Service agency lands.

Tribal Forest Protection Act – 2004 (P.L. 108). This act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 

(with respect to land under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service) to carry out a project to protect 

Indian forest land or rangeland (including a project to restore Federal land that borders on or is 

adjacent to such land) under the Secretary’s jurisdiction and bordering or adjacent to the Indian 

forest land or rangeland under the Indian tribe’s jurisdiction.

Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act of 2009. Authorizes a 

supplemental funding source for catastrophic emergency wildland fire suppression activities on 

Department of the Interior and NFS lands and requires the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture to develop a cohesive wildland fire management strategy.

Regulation and Policies

Key policies and guidance that have been developed in support of enacted laws include the 

following:

• The National Forest Directives System (manuals, handbooks and their current amendments) 

outlines the administrative framework for fire management activities, which includes 

protecting resources and other values from wildfire and using prescribed fire to meet land 

and resource management goals and objectives. The framework in these manuals and 

handbooks provides for cost-efficient wildfire protection and embraces the positive roles that 

fire plays on NFS lands. Specifically, fire management guidance can be found in Forest 

Service Manual 5100, chapters 10 through 90, and Forest Service Handbooks 5109.14, 

5109.17, 5109.18, and their subsequent amendments.

• Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2001)

• Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2008)

• Interagency Prescribed fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide (2008)

• A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (2011)

Other Agreements 

Wyoming Interagency Cooperative Fire Management Agreement (2012) is the primary 

agreement by which the Shoshone cooperates with its interagency partners regarding all aspects 

fire management. Participants to the agreement include Federal and State agencies, counties, and 

local fire departments. Annual operating plans are developed at the local and dispatch zone 

levels that address specific aspects of fire management activities.

Resource Protection Measures 

Specific standards and guidelines designed to avoid or mitigate the effects from fire and fuels 

management activities, as well as provide direction regarding the use and management of fire, 

are addressed in the forest plan or Forest Service manuals and handbooks.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

357

Methodology 

Data for fire regime condition class and represented fuel types for the Shoshone were obtained 

from LANDFIRE19 (USDA et al. 2011). The data were reviewed and edited to account for 

changed conditions on the Shoshone that were not represented in the current data downloaded 

from LANDFIRE. The changes were primarily related to recent fires that were not yet mapped 

and areas affected by insects that were not represented in the fuels layer. Historical fire 

occurrence, size, and cause were extracted from the National Interagency Fire Management 

Integrated Database (NIFMID) for 1970 to 2011. Projections for acres burned by wildfire and 

acres of vegetation treatments for the planning period were based on what has burned and been 

treated for the past 10 years (2002 to 2011). Key assumptions made were that vegetation, fuel, 

and climate conditions present in the past 10 years were likely to persist the next 10 to 15 years 

and, subsequently, so would the occurrence of wildfire in frequency and size. Acres treated using 

mechanical and prescribed fire methods were obtained from the Shoshone’s database record of 

accomplishments.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The analysis area for fire and fuels management is the Shoshone National Forest. The effects to 

fire and fuels management were predicted for the planning period of 10 to 15 years.

Affected Environment 

Wildland fire 

Wildland fire is a general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. 

Current policy identifies two types of wildland fire: wildfire and prescribed fire. A wildfire is an 

unplanned ignition caused by lightning, or unauthorized and accidental human-caused fires. 

Prescribed fire is a planned management-ignited fire intended to accomplish one or more 

objectives.

During the last century, the Shoshone’s fire management program was focused on fire 

suppression, with efforts to keep fires as small as possible (table 82, table 83, and figure 22). An 

insect epidemic has affected over 1 million acres of the Shoshone. The insect-killed trees, 

combined with periods of drought and warmer and drier than average summers as well as typical 

continental summer weather conditions, have created an increasing trend in acreage burned 

since 1998 (table 83, figure 23, and map 19). Within the last decade, wildfire management 

efforts have focused more on management responses that balance suppression efforts against the 

values to be protected from the fire, as well as managing for resource benefits. Management 

responses on the Shoshone have ranged from monitoring fires, to full containment and control. 

Fires inside and outside wilderness areas have been managed for a combination of protection and 

resource benefit objectives.

Since 1970, the Shoshone has averaged 27 wildfires annually, averaging 49 percent from natural 

ignition, 32 percent from escaped campfires, and 19 percent from other causes. Lightning-caused 

fires account for over 90 percent of the acres burned (NIFMID 2011).

 19 LANDFIRE (Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools) is interagency vegetation, fire, 

and fuel characteristics mapping program, sponsored by the United States Department of the Interior and 

the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

358

Table 82. Annual number of wildfires in Shoshone National Forest, 1970 through 2011

Size class Size in acres Number of fires

A 0 to 0.25 787

B 0.25 to 9.9 177

C 10 to 99.9 39

D 100 to 299.9 9

E 300 to 999.9 8

F 1,000 to 4999.9 13

G > 5,000 9

The use of unplanned wildland fire to accomplish resource benefit objectives has become a 

major component of the wildland fire acres burned. Resource objectives identified in the 1986 

Forest Plan as amended that can be accomplished using wildland fire included hazardous fuels 

reduction, wildlife habitat improvement, natural processes in wilderness, and other vegetation 

management. In 2008, the Gunbarrel Fire (approximately 68,000 acres) was managed for a 

combination of resource benefit and protection objectives, and more recently, in 2011, the 

Norton Point Fire (approximately 24,000 acres) was managed for multiple objectives as well. By 

increasing the opportunity for using fire as a natural process, a mosaic of burned and unburned 

areas will occur, producing a more natural patchwork of vegetation. In the last 10 years, nearly 

183,000 acres of the Shoshone have burned because of wildfire; most of these acres were in 

designated wilderness. A similar amount of fire is anticipated on the Shoshone over the next 10 

to 15 years, but the distribution of those fires could change. More acres outside wilderness areas 

are likely to burn. Several thousand acres associated with the Gunbarrel Fire burned outside 

wilderness.

Figure 22. Number of fires in Shoshone National Forest by size, 1970 through 2011
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

359

Table 83. Annual acreage burned in Shoshone National Forest, 1970 through 2011

Year Acres Year Acres Year Acres Year Acres

1970 1,358 1981 83 1992 33 2003 26,079

1971 55 1982 3 1993 3 2004 2

1972 2 1983 135 1994 10 2005 15

1973 90 1984 10 1995 104 2006 40,489

1974 189 1985 118 1996 1,935 2007 5,700

1975 467 1986 15 1997 1 2008 68,274

1976 1,992 1987 7 1998 3 2009 332

1977 15 1988 197,228 1999 190 2010 381

1978 54 1989 5 2000 1,725 2011 27,596

1979 1,204 1990 5 2001 5,416

1980 236 1991 12 2002 13,451

Figure 23. Annual acres burned in Shoshone National Forest (logarithmic scale), 1970 through 2011

Response to wildfire

The type and level of response to a wildfire is based on the land management goals and 

objectives. The land management goals and objectives for a given management area may be 

orientated toward protecting values at risk or using fire to accomplish a resource objective, or in 

some situations, a combination of both. In addition to the land management goals and objectives, 

the response to a wildfire is also guided by considering firefighter and public safety, costs, and 

other factors. All unplanned ignitions receive an appropriate management response. The 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

360

appropriate management response concept provides managers with increased flexibility to 

implement a response based on an individual set of circumstances and conditions to use a full 

range of responses. The amended 1986 Forest Plan as amended allows the application of any 

management response on a Forest-wide basis, giving fire managers the latitude to choose from 

the full spectrum of response options to implement the best actions given a set of circumstances.

Appropriate management response has been, and would continue to be, applied at all levels when 

managing a fire for resource benefit and/or protection objectives, including initial attack.20 In 

some situations, the management response would be an action that managers may take, and in 

others, it would be an action managers must take, depending on the circumstances in which a fire 

occurs and the preplanned objectives for an area. Examples of options managers may choose 

include: 

• Monitoring from a distance 

• Monitoring on-site

• Confinement

• Monitoring with limited contingency actions

• Monitoring with mitigation actions

• Initial attack

• Suppression with multiple strategies

• Control and extinguish

• Any combination of some or all of the above as well as other options

For all unwanted wildland fire (wildfire), the overarching goal of suppression would be applied 

in every case. The initial suppression action (initial attack) would usually focus on prompt and 

decisive control of the fire commensurate with public and firefighter safety and cost 

effectiveness. If initial or subsequent actions fail, control objectives may be modified and the 

tactical options that comprise the appropriate management response may change. As described 

above, the range of responses could include monitoring, or aggressive suppression actions, or 

some combination. Resource values to protect, expected fire behavior, availability of resources, 

probability of success, and firefighter and public safety are some of the factors that would be 

used to determine the appropriate management response.

The 1986 Forest Plan as amended was amended in June 2008 (amendment 2008-01) to allow 

wildland fire from unplanned ignitions21 to be managed to accomplish resource benefits 

anywhere on the Shoshone when and where conditions are appropriate. Previously, use of 

wildfire to accomplish resource objectives was allowed only in designated wilderness areas on 

the Shoshone. In addition, management response options to wildfires were expanded Forest-wide 

to include the full range of options from monitoring to intensive suppression actions. Forest-wide 

and management area direction, standards, and guidelines that were redundant, process oriented, 

or no longer needed were removed or modified. The desired condition (goal) statement, general 

 20 Initial attack is a planned response to a wildfire given the wildfire’s potential fire behavior. The 

objective of initial attack is to stop the spread of the fire and put it out at least cost. It is an aggressive

suppression action consistent with firefighter and public safety and values to be protected.

21 An unplanned ignition is the initiation of a wildland fire by lightning, volcanoes, or unauthorized and 

accidental human-caused fires. Wildland fire is a general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs 

in the wildland.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

361

direction, standards, and guidelines regarding fire management activities and related resource 

protection measures were added as part of the amendment.

The Shoshone has a significant amount of area where wildfire may be used to accomplish 

resource management objectives. Areas where values present have protection objectives are also 

contained within the Forest boundary. These areas include lands suitable for timber production, 

developed recreation sites and facilities, Forest administrative sites, utility corridors, 

communication sites, and permitted recreation residences and resorts. Private property and 

structures are adjacent to the Shoshone boundaries. Wildland-urban interface areas 22 have been 

identified in Community Wildfire Protection Plans for Fremont, Hot Springs, and Park County 

(see map 20). Within the identified wildland-urban interface areas, many of the previously 

mentioned values are found on the Shoshone, as well as adjacent private lands. Most of the 

wildland-urban interface areas are associated with areas in Fremont and Park Counties. 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans are periodically updated and the identified wildland-urban 

interface areas are likely to change as additional structures are built on private lands near the 

Shoshone.

Fire regimes

In ecosystems where periodic fire has historically played a role in maintaining vegetation 

structure and composition, fire exclusion has resulted in vegetation changes and allowed fuels to 

develop to unprecedented levels in many areas of the country, including some areas on the 

Shoshone. The departure of fire from its historic role contributes to ecosystem health and fire 

management problems. Symptoms of these problems include the development of unnaturally 

dense vegetation at broad scales and a heightened susceptibility to wildfires that are often 

uncharacteristically large, sometimes destructive, and costly to control.

By focusing on assessing resilience to fire disturbance, we will be able to adjust management 

actions to restore lands to a more healthy fire frequency and intensity. 

Natural fire regimes are classified based on the role fire would play across a landscape in the 

absence of human intervention, but includes the possible influence of aboriginal fire use. Five 

natural fire groups are classified according to fire frequency (the average number of years 

between fires). The fire frequency is combined with characteristic fire severity that reflects the 

replacement of dominant overstory vegetation. The fire regimes are defined in table 84.

 22 In applying Title I of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, wildland-urban interface is defined as an area 

within or adjacent to at-risk community identified in a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). In 

the case where a CWPP is not in effect, wildland-urban interface may be defined as in an area 0.5 to 

1.5 miles from the boundary, depending upon the potential threat from adjacent fuels, terrain, or fire 

regime condition class (USDA, USDI 2004).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

362

Table 84. Fire regime groups and description

Fire group Fire frequency Severity Severity description

I 0 to 35 years Low/mixed

Generally low-severity fires replacing less than 

25% of the dominant overstory vegetation; can 

include mixed-severity fires that replace up to 

75% of the overstory

II 0 to 35 years Replacement High-severity fires replacing greater than 75% 

of the dominant overstory vegetation

III 35 to 200 years Mixed/low Generally mixed-severity; can also include lowseverity fires

IV 35 to 200 years Replacement High-severity fires

V 200+ years Replacement/any 

severity

Generally replacement-severity; can include 

any severity type in this frequency range

Fire regime condition class is used to measure ecological integrity and/or departure from 

reference conditions (NIFTT 2010). A stand is within fire regime condition class 1 when 

vegetation characteristics, fuel composition, and fire frequency, severity, and pattern are 

maintained within historical bounds for the fire regime. It is most relevant to measure long-term 

trends rather than annual changes.

At broad scales, 14 percent of the Shoshone’s acres are in fire regime condition class 1. 

Approximately 63 percent of the Forest is in condition class 2. In general, the Forest has a 

considerable amount of vegetated acres in the late seral successional classes and a growing 

number of acres in the early seral successional classes; however, there is an absence of fire 

regimes that are in the mid-seral condition which is indicated by the large percentage of 

condition class 2. A summary of the number of acres by fire regime condition class is displayed 

in table 85. 

Table 85. Fire regime condition class acres on the Shoshone National Forest

Fire regime Condition class Fire return 

interval Burn severity Acres Percentage of 

the Forest

III 1

35 -200 years Mixed

55,445 2.3%

2 586,340 24.0%

3 8,560 0.4%

IV 1

35- 200years Stand-replacement

197,150 8.1%

2 803,852 33.0%

3 19,729 0.8%

V 1

200 + years Stand-replacement

86,582 3.6%

2 387,584 15.9%

3 10,058 0.4%

Non-Classified None None None 282,850 11.6%

Vegetation community types are associated with the various fire regime groups. Desired 

conditions and objectives for fire regime condition classes overlap with those described for the 

vegetation communities. Table 86 displays the relationship of the vegetation communities to fire 

regimes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

363

Table 86. Fire regimes and associated vegetation communities

Fire regime Elevations Associated vegetation community types

II Low Grasslands

Sagebrush

Middle Grasslands

Sagebrush

III Low Grasslands

Sagebrush

Middle Grasslands 

Sagebrush Willow Douglas-fir lodgepole pine, spruce/fir, aspen

IV Low Willowriparian areas, sagebrush 

Middle Willowriparian areas, lodgepole pine, spruce/fir, aspen

V Middle Lodgepole pine, spruce/fir, aspen

High Willow whitebark pine, spruce/fir, alpine

Over 102,000 acres have burned in the last 5 years, and 183,000 acres over the past 10 years on 

the Shoshone. In the past 10 years, an additional 44,300 acres have been treated using prescribed 

fire and/or received mechanical treatments that affected the fire regime condition class. The 

Gunbarrel Fire (2008) and the Norton Point Fire (2011) were managed for multiple objectives 

and, as a result, fire regime condition class was improved and hazardous fuels were reduced on 

approximately 68,000 and 24,000 acres, respectively. Since 2006, the Shoshone has managed 

several fires that have accomplished resource benefit objectives on an estimated 125,000 acres.

Hazardous fuels

Hazardous fuel conditions are present throughout much of the Shoshone (see table 87 and map 

68). Some conditions are a result of fire exclusion and have resulted in changes in vegetation 

type and structure, such as sagebrush-grasslands being overgrown with juniper and other 

conifers, or aspen stands now dominated by conifers. Middle-elevation conifer stands have 

become mature and are homogeneous on a broad scale. They lack diversity in age or size classes 

and are more prone to large-scale, high-severity, stand-replacement wildfires rather than mixed 

severity. The natural fuel conditions of the mature spruce/fir forest and high-elevation subalpine 

forests are typically considered to be in a state of high hazard. Hazardous fuel conditions are also 

being augmented by an insect outbreak that has resulted in tree mortality on hundreds of 

thousands of acres.

Currently, the Shoshone is experiencing a beetle epidemic composed of Douglas-fir beetles, 

spruce beetles, western balsam bark beetles, and mountain pine beetles. Reconnaissance flights 

since 1999 have mapped approximately 1 million acres of infestation. These beetles kill trees by 

boring under the bark, girdling the trees, and introducing blue stain fungus. First, an increase in 

canopy fuels (dead needles) perpetuates crown fires, then, as the needles drop, the probability of 

crown fire decreases slightly and surface fire intensity increases as dead material accumulates. 

Observed fire behavior on the Shoshone over the past several years indicates that forest types in 

the gray stage (needles dropped) are highly susceptible to extreme fire behavior and very 

resistant to control actions when attempted.

High-fuel levels result in uncharacteristically high fire intensities and sizes that can cause 

undesirable resource impacts, making it difficult to manage wildland fires and more difficult to 

use prescribed fire safely as a management tool. Residential development is increasing on private 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

364

lands adjacent to NFS lands, which increases the values to be protected from high fuel levels and 

wildland fire. Prescribed burns require extra planning and personnel during implementation to 

ensure infrastructure in adjacent developments is protected.

Table 87. Hazardous fuel conditions on the Shoshone National Forest

Hazard fuel rating* Acres Percentage of total burnable 

acres on the Forest

None (non-burnable) 570,021 NA

Low (flame length 0 to 4 feet) 696,189 37%

Moderate (flame length 4 to 8 feet) 345,500 18%

High (flame length 8+ feet) 826,440 44%

* Hazard fuel rating was based on potential flame lengths using Scott and Burgan 40 Fire Behavior Models. Data were 

obtained from LANDFIRE and FlamMap software was used to estimate flame lengths to determine the hazard rating 

(Low = 0 to 4 feet; Moderate = 4 to 8 feet; High = 8+ feet).

Another consequence of the increase in hazardous fuels conditions is the cost associated with fire 

suppression. While there have been only nominal increases in the average suppression costs per 

acre over the past several years, total fire suppression costs have increased substantially because 

of the increase in the number of acres burned each year. Protection of wildland-urban interface 

areas23 is also contributing significantly to fire suppression costs. Impacts to communities are 

also increasing. Communities responsible for protecting private property are incurring additional 

economic costs from larger and more intense fires. And, a reduction in visitors to the area can 

lead to economic impacts to local communities.

In 1998, the Shoshone’s prescribed fire program increased as part of the overall fire management

program. With the 2000 National Fire Plan, funding increased to facilitate increases in staffing 

and equipment to further support the fire program. During the fall of 2002, the Shoshone 

engaged in a Forest-wide vegetation analysis, resulting in an integrated vegetation management 

program that included the use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to accomplish 

objectives. The 2003 Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act combined to 

provide the tools, funding, and expectation to begin treating hazardous fuels and improving fire 

regime condition class. More recently, the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region has 

emphasized mitigating the effects of hazardous fuels and trees resulting from the bark beetle 

epidemic. The Shoshone has benefited from additional funding to reduce the associated hazards 

in priority locations.

The Shoshone hazardous fuel treatment strategy is composed of two parts. The first part is 

focused on planning and implementing projects in what would be considered the actively 

managed portions of the Shoshone, which includes urban interface areas, Forest Service 

developments and facilities, and suitable timber lands. Many of these projects have been 

integrated with timber and wildlife management objectives and are accomplished with a mix of 

mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. Priority locations include areas that have been 

identified in community wildfire protection plans for Fremont and Park counties. National 

Environmental Policy Act decisions have been completed for nearly all the projects that include 

priority areas identified in the community wildfire protection plans. Project implementation is 

 23 Wildland-urban interface is the line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet 

or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetation fuels.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

365

approximately 50 percent complete, with most of the remaining mechanical treatments on the 

Wind River and Washakie Ranger Districts.

The second part of the Shoshone’s fuels treatment strategy has been to use lightning-ignited 

wildfires to accomplish fuels reduction on a landscape scale. In the priority areas where 

hazardous fuels treatments have been completed, we are afforded more opportunities to manage 

adjacent wildfires on a landscape scale to accomplish resource benefit objectives, which includes 

reducing hazardous fuels. As described earlier, we have been successful in managing wildfire for 

resource benefits to treat 125,000 acres of hazardous fuels since 2006. These fires have primarily 

occurred in wilderness and back country areas. 

Over the past 10 years, nearly 57,000 acres have been treated by prescribed fire or mechanical 

treatments (figure 24) with an additional 183,000 acres of wildfire that have effectively reduced 

the accumulation of fuels and changed the resulting fire behavior in the future. The long-term 

fuels management for the Shoshone is to average approximately 6,000 acres per year from 

prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in the actively managed portions of the Shoshone, 

with an additional 180,000 acres or more expected from wildfire and prescribed fire being 

applied on a landscape scale over the next 10 years. 

Figure 24. Acres of hazardous fuels reduction from mechanical and prescribed fire treatments, 1997 

to 2011

The climate change report for the Forest predicts an increase in annual temperatures. The report 

also predicts a potential, but highly variable and uncertain, precipitation increase for the Greater 

Yellowstone Area for the long term beyond the planning period (Rice et al. 2012).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

366

Desired Condition

Wildland fire plays a role in maintaining healthy, resilient ecosystems, as appropriate, for the 

vegetation type and management objectives. Fire disturbance contributes to vegetation diversity 

across the landscape. Stand-replacement fires reestablish seedling/sapling structural stages. 

Lower intensity fires contribute to intra-stand diversity by creating or maintaining vegetation 

patch size and density. Fire disturbances generally range in size from a few hundred to thousands 

of acres. Fire’s natural role is reduced and occurs at smaller scales in areas where existing 

resource values and infrastructure limit the desirability of large-scale fires.

Hazardous fuel conditions have declined. Within the wildland-urban interface, the forest 

understory is discontinuous and relatively free of ladder fuels (trees and/or brush), trees are 

generally spaced to create open discontinuous canopies, and deciduous species are present where 

conditions are favorable. In areas that receive more frequent management actions, hazardous fuel 

conditions are lower and stands are younger and more diverse. In these areas, lower fuel levels 

and greater stand diversity provide more opportunities for controlling unwanted wildfire. In the 

remaining areas, vegetation and hazardous fuel conditions vary across the landscape, providing 

fewer opportunities for controlling wildfire when desired.

Environmental Consequences 

Wildfire

Fire exclusion during the last century contributed to the presence of continuous areas of 

homogeneous forested cover types that are in older age classes and susceptible to insect and 

disease epidemics on a large scale. The Shoshone has over 1 million acres of represented forest 

types that have been affected by a series of insect attacks during the past 10 years. As a result, 

the Shoshone has large continuous areas of forest composed of dead trees that provide receptive 

fuels for ignition and growth of wildfires. When fire danger is high, large stand-replacement fires 

in any given season are possible. Stand-replacement fires (over 300 acres) have been occurring 

frequently over the past 10 years. Large fires have occurred during periods of that were 

characterized as being abnormally warm and dry, as well as during summers with typical 

continental weather patterns that were preceded by wet springs with above normal precipitation. 

Currently, the primary factor influencing the large fire growth can be attributed the extensive 

amount of dead and down fuel that readily burns when a fire danger rating24 of high or greater is 

present. 

Wildfire is expected to continue to be a significant influence on the landscape for the next 10 to 

15 years. Despite the number of large fires and acres burned during the past 10 years, there are 

still extensive continuous forested areas that contain high loadings of dead and down fuel that 

are conducive to sustaining large fire growth. For all alternatives it is expected that 

approximately 90 percent of the wildfire acres burned would occur in forest cover types. This 

estimate is based on observations of fires on the Shoshone. The grassland and sagebrush cover 

types do not become significant carriers of fire until late August. Fuel conditions on the 

Shoshone are conducive to prolific spotting at short and long ranges and fires often skip over 

barren or “green” cover types such as grass and sagebrush during the early and middle portions 

of the fire season.

 24 Fire danger ratings for the Forest have been established based on an analysis of historical fuel condition, 

weather and fire occurrence (CIDC 2012). Fire danger rating levels are: low, moderate, high, very high, 

and extreme.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

367

The estimated acres that could burn as a result of wildfire for alternatives A through D and G

range between 182,900 and 185,200 acres. For alternatives E and F, the number of acres 

allocated to wilderness and back country management decreases and the management areas 

allocated toward active management increases. Since there would be emphasis on protecting 

timber values in management area category 5, there would likely be an increase in the use of 

suppression responses to manage fires and thus, less acres would be expected to burn from 

wildfires. It is estimated that for alternative E nearly 175,000 acres could be affected by wildfire 

and approximately 161,400 acres could burn under alternative F during the planning period. 

Table 88 displays a summary of the estimated acres that could burn from wildfire for each 

alternative.

Table 88. Projected acres that could experience wildfire by alternative 

Alternative Wildfire acres

A 185,200

B 182,900

C 184,100

D 184,000

E 175,000

F 161,400

G 182,900

Response to Wildfire

The full range of management response options would be available for all alternatives and could 

include monitoring or aggressive suppression actions, or some combination of different 

responses. All alternatives include management areas that allow for the use of wildfire to 

accomplish resource benefit objectives as well as management areas where the emphasis is to 

protect values. Wilderness and back country management areas (Categories 1, 2, and 3) offer the 

most opportunity to use wildfire to accomplish resource objectives, whereas the active 

management areas (Categories 4, 5, and 8) have more areas where protection of values is the 

primary objective. Alternatives A through D and G have similar amounts of land allocated to the 

wilderness and back country management areas and similar amounts allocated to the 

management areas where the primary objective is to protect values. Given that alternatives A 

through D and G have more acres where wildfires could be managed to accomplish resource 

benefit objectives, it is likely there would be more instances where monitoring and less 

aggressive actions would be implemented. 

Alternatives E and F contain more acres of land suitable for timber production where protection 

objectives would be considered and more aggressive responses would be used more frequently. 

The presence of other values on the Shoshone that warrant a response to meet protection 

objectives remains constant for all the alternatives. These values include wildland-urban 

interface areas composed of permitted recreation residences and resorts, developed recreation 

sites and facilities, administrative sites, utilities, and tourism. Areas of wildland-urban interface 

composed of private property with structures are adjacent to some areas of the Forest. These 

areas also influence the response to a wildfire, but the presence is independent of all the 

alternatives and is expected to increase in the future.

The safety and welfare of firefighters and the public will be the overriding factor that influences 

the response to wildfires for all alternatives. There have been and will continue to be situations 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

368

where response to a wildfire is based exclusively on the ability of firefighters to safely engage 

and manage a fire while also ensuring the safety of the public. In these situations, the desired 

land management resource benefit or protection objectives may not be met. 

Cost of Managing Wildfires

Table 89 displays the estimated cost of managing wildfires for each alternative. The per acre cost 

of $212 ($207 for wildfire management and $5 for post-fire rehabilitation) used was based on 

actual cost for wildfires that occurred on the Shoshone National Forest from 2008 through 2012. 

Seven large fires that ranged in size from 214 to 68,148 acres were used to the derive costs. 

These fires were managed for protection and/or resource benefits objectives and management 

responses ranged from monitoring, partial suppression, point protection, and full suppression. 

The season of 2008 was selected as the starting year because it is the same year that the 1986 

Forest Plan as amended was amended to allow the management of wildfires outside of 

wilderness as well as providing managers with the full range of response options for managing 

wildfire. The revised plan would continue with the same management direction that is currently 

in the amended plan. Based on the similarity in management direction, it was determined that the 

costs associated with managing large fires on the Forest would be representative of future costs 

for the next 10 to 15 years.

Table 89. Estimated wildfire management cost (2013 dollars)

Alternative Wildfire acres Wildfire 

management cost

Post-fire 

rehabilitation cost Total Cost

A 185,200 $38,254,299 $884,763 $39,139,062

B 182,900 $37,779,218 $873,775 $38,652,994

C 184,100 $38,027,086 $879,508 $38,906,594

D 184,000 $38,006,431 $879,030 $38,885,461

E 175,000 $36,147,421 $836,034 $36,983,455

F 161,400 $33,338,250 $771,062 $34,109,312

G 182,900 $37,779,218 $873,775 $38,652,994

The level of response to wildfires will also influence the cost of managing wildfires. Generally, 

average per acre costs associated with large fires increase with the amount of aggressive 

suppression actions being taken. Aggressive suppression actions are taken to meet objectives 

associated with protecting values associated with wildland-urban interface, forest developments 

and facilities, utility corridors, special areas, wildlife habitats, cultural resources, and land 

suitable for timber production. Values to be protected are relatively constant across all 

alternatives except for alternatives E and F, where the acres that could be managed for timber 

production and other commodities increase substantially. As previously noted, use of more 

aggressive suppression actions are likely with alternatives E and F to meet protection objectives 

and, subsequently, the overall wildfire management costs could be higher than the table 

represents. In addition, the dollar savings received from managing fires that accomplish resource 

benefits on a landscape are not accounted for.

There are likely to be situations under all alternatives where the estimated costs associated with 

managing a fire would be prohibitive and it may not be possible to meet all desired resource 

protection or benefit objectives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

369

Fire Regime Condition Class

The Shoshone has an overabundance of fire regime condition class 2. The desired condition is to 

have more of the Forest in condition class 1 through either maintenance of areas that are 

currently in condition class 1 or conversion of areas that are in condition classes 2 and 3. All 

alternatives would contribute to improving fire regime condition class through the use of wildfire 

on a landscape scale and through the use of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. Table 90

displays a summary of the anticipated acres affected for each alternative.

Alternatives A through D and G would affect the condition class on a range of acres between 

218,700 and 221,300. The distribution of acres affected from management vegetation treatments 

(mechanical and prescribed fire) and wildfire are similar among alternatives A through D and G. 

Approximately 16 percent of the total would be affected through the use of prescribed fire and/or 

mechanical treatments. The remaining 84 percent of the total acres affected would be from 

wildfires.

Alternatives E and F would affect fire regime condition class on 212,400 and 201,100 acres, 

respectively. The distribution of acres affected by management vegetation treatments 

(mechanical and prescribed fire) and wildfire are similar between alternatives E and F; however, 

the distribution of acres between mechanical and prescribed fire changes as compared to 

alternatives A through D and G. Under alternatives E and F, more acres would be treated using 

mechanical or a combination of mechanical and prescribed fire than there would be for just using 

prescribed fire. This difference is attributed to the increase in acres that are suitable for timber 

production associated with alternatives E and F. The increase in land designated as suitable for 

timber production would result in more acres being treated using a preferred combination of 

mechanical and prescribed fire to meet timber production objectives and fewer acres being 

treated with prescribed fire only.

Table 90. Acres of fire regime condition class improved or maintained as a result of vegetation 

management and wildfire 

Alternative Mechanical 

only

Mechanical 

with 

prescribed fire

Prescribed 

fire only

Total 

mechanical and 

prescribed fire 

treatments

Wildfire 

acres

Total 

affected 

acres

A 5,700 9,770 20,700 36,100 185,200 221,300

B 5,730 9,640 20,400 35,800 182,900 218,700

C 5,570 8,900 20,500 35,000 184,100 219,100

D 5,670 9,390 20,500 35,600 183,700 219,300

E 6,260 11,600 19,500 37,400 175,000 212,400

F 7,090 14,600 18,000 41,200 161,400 201,100

G 5,730 9,640 20,400 35,800 182,900 218,700

Hazardous Fuels

Hazardous fuels conditions at the moderate to high level are prevalent in forest cover type across 

the Shoshone. In many of the forest types, this is consistent with the associated fire regimes (III, 

IV, and V) that have a low frequency of fire occurrence, but burn at a mixed or standreplacement severity. Fire exclusion has resulted in large continuous areas of older age classes 

rather than patches of different age classes over the landscape. The typical hazardous fuel 

conditions have been exacerbated by a Forest-wide insect epidemic, which has increased the 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

370

potential for large fire growth and extreme fire behavior. In most areas of the Shoshone, the 

problem with the condition of vegetation associated with fire regimes III, IV, V is primarily one 

of ecological restoration in management area categories 1, 2, and 3. In management area 

categories 4, 5, and 8, the hazardous fuels problem is a combination of restoration and threat to 

values that can be damaged or lost as a result of wildfire.

All alternatives would contribute to reducing hazardous fuels from vegetation treatments and 

wildfire. In general, the moderate to high hazardous fuels conditions found on the Shoshone are 

closely correlated forested cover types as well as fire regime condition classes in many instances. 

General observations of fire behavior on the Shoshone indicate that most of the large fire growth 

occurs in the forested cover types and that the grassland and sagebrush cover types do not 

become significant carriers of fire until later parts of the fire season (late August and September). 

Given this relationship, it is assumed that 90 percent of the acres burned will be in a moderate to 

high hazard condition. Mechanical and prescribed fire treatments are expected to be targeted 

specifically in areas where hazardous fuels conditions are a concern.

Alternatives A through D and G would affect hazardous fuels on a range of acres between 

200,400 and 202,800. The distribution of acres affected from management vegetation treatments 

(mechanical and prescribed fire) and wildfire are similar among alternatives A through D and G. 

Approximately 18 percent of the total would be affected through the use of prescribed fire and/or 

mechanical treatments. The remaining 82 percent of the total acres affected would be from 

wildfires.

Alternatives E and F would affect hazardous fuels on 194,900 and 184,900 acres, respectively. 

The distribution of acres affected from management vegetation treatments (mechanical and 

prescribed fire) and wildfire are similar between alternatives E and F; however, the distribution 

of acres between mechanical and prescribed fire changes as compared to alternatives A through 

D and G. Under alternatives E and F, more acres would be treated using mechanical or a 

combination of mechanical and prescribed fire than there would be for just using prescribed fire. 

This difference is attributed to the increase in acres that are suitable for timber production 

associated with alternatives E and F. The increase in land designated as suitable for timber 

production would result in more acres being treated using a preferred combination of mechanical 

and prescribed fire to meet timber production objectives and fewer acres being treated with 

prescribed fire only.

Table 91 illustrates the estimated acres of hazardous fuels that would be reduced as a result of 

vegetation treatments and wildfire. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

371

Table 91. Acres of hazardous fuels reduced as a result of vegetation management and wildfire 

Alternative Mechanical 

only

Mechanical 

with 

prescribed fire

Prescribed 

fire only

Total mechanical 

and prescribed fire 

treatments

Wildfire 

acres

Total 

affected 

acres

A 5,700 9,770 20,650 36,100 166,600 202,800

B 5,730 9,650 20,400 35,800 164,600 200,400

C 5,570 8,900 20,540 35,000 165,700 200,700

D 5,670 9,390 20,490 35,600 165,300 200,900

E 6,260 11,650 19,520 37,400 157,500 194,900

F 7,090 14,630 18,000 41,200 145,200 184,900

G 5,730 9,650 20,400 35,800 164,600 200,400

Direct and Indirect Effects

For each of the resource program areas described below, the environmental consequences for fire 

and fuels management are compared by alternative, based on key indicators of disturbance for 

each type of activity. In general, the effects on fire and fuel management vary based on the goals 

and objectives; standards and guidelines; and actions associated with specific resources as well 

as the management area allocations. Wildfire occurrence and acres burned; response to wildfire 

including options likely to be used, exposure of firefighters and costs; fire regime condition 

class; and hazardous fuels are aspects of fire and fuels management that can be affected by other 

resource management actions. Each of the resources listed below are evaluated for the effects on 

these aspects of fire and fuels management. Effects on fire regime condition class and hazardous 

fuels are quantified. Effects on the type of response to wildfire likely to be implemented, 

firefighter safety, cost, and changes in frequency of human-caused wildfire are described based 

on the relative change to the existing condition and management direction, which is represented 

by alternative A.

Effects from Timber Harvesting: Acres of fire regime condition class maintained and improved 

and hazardous fuels reduced as a result of timber harvest are similar for alternatives A through D 

and G (table 92). The use of mechanical vegetation treatments would have a similar affect as a 

wildfire from the standpoint of disturbance mechanism. Acres treated range between 6,030 and 

7,080 for these alternatives. Affected fire regime condition class acres and hazardous fuels for 

alternatives E and F would be 8,510 and 12,220, respectively, and are a result of the increase in 

commodity production objectives associated with the two alternatives. 

Table 92. Acres of fire regime condition class maintained or improved and hazardous fuels reduced 

as a result of timber harvest 

Indicators

Alternative

A B C D E F G

Acres of FRCC maintained or 

improved 7,080 6,880 6,030 6,600 8,510 12,220 6,880

Acres of hazardous fuels 

reduced 7,080 6,880 6,030 6,600 8,510 12,220 6,880

For all alternatives, timber harvesting would reduce hazardous fuel loadings on harvested acres, 

and subsequently, resistance to control would be lowered. In some wildfire situations, it would 

allow fire managers to respond with less aggressive options which have the benefit of less 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

372

exposure and risk to firefighters to meet land management objectives. The probability of 

successfully meeting protection objectives increases while also reducing cost. Recent fire 

history25 on the Shoshone provides evidence of this occurring (Weldon et al. 2008).

Given the similarity in timber harvest acres associated with alternatives A through D and G, there 

would not be any differences or change from the existing response options likely to be used for a 

wildfire. The same mix of aggressive and less aggressive options would continue. The exposure 

and risk to firefighters as well as wildfire management cost would not change from existing 

levels for alternatives A through D and G.

The types of wildfire response options implemented could change with alternatives E and F. 

Since the amount of timber harvest acres increase, the associated benefits are likely to increase. 

The beneficial changes in wildfire response options, exposure and risk to firefighters, and cost 

would be slight for alternative E and somewhat greater for alternative F.

The frequency of human-caused wildfire would not change with alternatives A through D and G. 

Due to the increased use and presence of mechanical equipment associated with timber 

harvesting that can accidentally start a wildfire; there could be an increase in the frequency of 

human-caused wildfire. The relative increase as compared to alternatives A through D and G 

would be slight for alternative E, with a greater increase for alternative F. However, the overall 

change would not be great.

Effects from Roads and Trails Management: Roads and trails provide public access to the 

Shoshone and with that access comes an increase in the potential for human-caused wildfire. 

People start approximately 51 percent of the wildfires that occur on the Shoshone. While 

alternatives B through G show an increase of 2 to 3 miles of new roads, alternatives B, D, E, F, 

and G show varying increases in the miles of motorized trail additions. This increase in 

motorized access is likely to increase the number of people in portions of the Shoshone, and 

thus, an increase in the number of human-caused fires is possible. Alternative D could result in a 

slight increase and alternatives B, E, F, and G could have more of an increase. There would be no 

change in the potential for human-caused fires associated with alternative A, as the miles of 

motorized trails do not change. Since motorized trails decrease in alternative C, so would the 

related potential for human-caused fire. While there are differences among the alternatives, the 

relative change from the existing human-caused fire associated with motorized access would not 

be considered great for any of the alternatives.

Effects from Insects and Disease: The primary effect to fire and fuels management from insect 

and disease is related to tree mortality and the subsequent increase in fuels that are available to 

burn. The greater the extent of an infestation, the more likely that fire behavior and the response 

to wildfire will be influenced. Trees that are in what is known as the red stage still have dead 

needles attached and are much more receptive to fire spread than green trees due to lower 

moisture content of the fine fuels. Crown fires are more likely accompanied by rapid rates of 

spread when weather and fuel moisture conditions are conducive to ignition. Once the needles 

fall from the trees, they are then referred to as being in the gray stage. Although they are not 

quite as volatile as trees in the red stage, expansive areas of insect-killed trees in the gray stage 

burn readily in a wider range of weather and fuel conditions, as compared to green forests not 

 25 The Gunbarrel Fire burned over 68,000 acres in the North Fork of the Shoshone River in 2008. 

Numerous resorts and residences were threatened, but successfully defended. Prior to the year of the fire, 

timber harvesting to reduce hazardous fuels was conducted to throughout the North Fork corridor.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

373

affected by insects. Situations where forests are in the gray stage are compounded by the 

increase in dead fuels that accumulate on the ground and add to the potential for surface fires. 

In the past 10 years, insects and disease at epidemic levels have affected over 1 million acres of 

forests on the Shoshone. Conifer tree species found on the Forest have been affected at a 

landscape-level scale. Most of the affected areas on the Shoshone are now in the gray stage; 

however, newly infested areas in the red stage continue to occur. These conditions have had and 

are likely to continue to have a profound effect on the fuel profile and the associated fire 

behavior. Wildfires on the Forest are occurring at a landscape scale as part of the natural process 

characteristic of the fire regimes found on the Shoshone. Large stand-replacement fires are likely 

to continue to be a common occurrence, and at times, exhibit extreme fire behavior. All 

alternatives have land management objectives that recognize and depend on wildfire as tool that 

can be used to accomplish desired conditions at a landscape level. Given the fire behavior 

characteristics and the remote and rough terrain of the Shoshone, there are often limited options 

available when developing and implementing fire management strategies to meet protection 

objectives. Overall, there is little difference among any of the alternatives that will alter the 

insect and disease situation on the Shoshone and that will have a major effect on the size and 

intensity of wildfires at the landscape level, which are likely to occur for the next 10 to 15 years. 

All alternatives have vegetation treatments that provide some mitigation associated with insectand disease-infected stands. These treatments can be effective at changing the fuel profile and 

reducing fire behavior at a small scale provide healthy stands and defensible space around values 

where protection objectives exist, such as developed campgrounds and wildland-urban interface 

areas. Alternatives A through D and G treat about the same amount of vegetation prone to insect 

and disease problems in these areas and would not be a change from existing levels. Alternatives 

E and F use timber harvesting and other vegetation treatments on more acres and would provide 

slightly more mitigation to insect and disease problems at a small scale, but the overall change 

and impact that insects and disease have on wildfires on the Shoshone would not be great.

Effects from Recreation: Visitors recreating on the Forest are a potential source of ignition for 

wildfires. The primary source of human-caused fires on the Shoshone is from escaped campfires. 

Other sources include smoking, fireworks, and mechanical equipment. While human-caused fires 

account for approximately 51 percent of the ignitions on the Forest, the vast majority of the acres 

burned are from fire started by lightning. However, the potential for large fires attributed to 

human-caused fires associated with people recreating on the Forest is possible. Other than the 

effects-related increases in motorized access noted previously, there are no significant 

differences in the expected recreation uses for all the alternatives that would result in changes in 

the frequency of human-caused fires. 

Effects from Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species: Noxious weeds can affect fire regime 

condition classes (FRCC 2010). An infestation of noxious weeds can result in an uncharacteristic 

vegetation condition, alter the fire regime, and affect ecological integrity. Fire occurrence can be 

altered as well as the long-term vegetation composition of a landscape. Several noxious weeds 

are present on the Shoshone; however, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) has the most potential to 

affect fire regime condition class. The species can spread rapidly into disturbed areas, including 

those where wildfire and prescribed fire have occurred. All alternatives have ground-disturbing 

management activities that can result in the introduction and spread of noxious weeds as well as 

management actions, standards and guidelines that provide for detection, prevention, and 

containment of noxious weeds. Overall differences among the alternatives are not great, and 

potential effects on natural fire regimes will continue to be a concern. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

374

The presence of noxious weeds and invasive aquatic species can affect wildfire management 

actions as well. The use of prescribed fire in some areas may be prevented due to the presence 

and/or potential for noxious weeds. In some situations, more aggressive management actions 

may be needed to keep a wildfire from reaching an infested area, thus increasing the exposure of 

firefighters and wildfire management costs. Invasive aquatic species can affect fire management 

activities by preventing use of some water sources needed for fire suppression due to the 

potential to spread invasive species to non-infested waters. Optimum areas needed for fire camps 

and helibases may need to be avoided due the presence of noxious weeds. Both invasive weeds 

and aquatics require equipment to be cleaned and washed before entering and being used in an 

area. These actions all add to the cost of managing fire. Overall differences among the 

alternatives are not great and the effects to wildfire management actions will continue as a 

regular part of operations.

Effects from Mineral, Oil, and Gas Development: Areas that become developed for minerals, 

oil, or gas may require management actions to protect them if sites are threatened by a wildfire. 

The actions would vary based on the location, presence of hazardous fuels, exposure and risk to 

firefighters, and values on the site. Implementation of more aggressive actions would increase 

cost and exposure to firefighters. All alternatives estimate potential for development to be low to 

very low. There would be no change from current expectations nor are there any differences as to 

the expected wildfire response options among alternatives.

Effects from Wildlife Habitat Management: Wildlife habitat management desired conditions, 

goals and objectives, standards, and guidelines are consistent across all the alternatives. In 

general, the use of wildfire and prescribed fire to accomplish wildlife habitat management goals 

and objectives are either common or not in conflict with vegetation and fuels management 

objectives in most instances. Protection of sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat 

from wildfire is proposed for all alternatives as well as standards and guidelines that add some 

restrictions on the use of prescribed fire in sagebrush. These changes in wildlife management 

from the 1986 Forest Plan as amended have some potential to affect fire management.

Sagebrush cover type is currently being used as the management indicator for sage-grouse on the 

Forest. There are approximately 39,000 acres of sagebrush. When developing a response to 

wildfires, sagebrush cover types mapped as sage-grouse habitat would be considered a value to 

protect, based on stated land management objectives. In some situations, this could include 

implementing a more aggressive response action on all or a portion of a fire to meet the 

protection objectives. However, the amount of sage grouse habitat mapped at this time is less 

than 2 percent of the burnable vegetation on the Forest. In addition, sagebrush stands and 

grasslands are not significant carriers of fire on the Forest until late August in most fire seasons. 

This characteristic could reduce the number of situations when a more aggressive response 

action is needed to protect sage-grouse habitat. 

The effect on response to wildfire for all alternatives would be a slight increase in the use of 

more aggressive fire management actions. This could also include a slight increase in the cost of 

managing a fire and exposure of firefighters. The overall change from the existing approach for 

managing wildfire would not be great. The proposed changes for protecting sage grouse habitat 

would have only a minor effect on the use of prescribed fire for reducing hazardous fuels. The 

standards and guidelines that propose restricting some use of prescribed fire in sagebrush allow 

enough flexibility to use prescribed fire in situations where needed to reduce hazardous fuels for 

all alternatives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

375

Effects from Heritage Management: Heritage resources are present throughout the Forest. 

Some of these resources can be damaged or destroyed by fire when located in areas where 

burnable vegetation is present. Protection of these sites is an objective that can influence the type 

of response to a wildfire in some situations. The response may be as simple as clearing 

vegetation from around the site or applying water to the site with a sprinkler. Some situations 

may require use of more aggressive actions that involve more resources and financial 

commitments. Implementing hazardous fuels reduction projects in advance of a wildfire to 

protect a site is also an option.

There are no differences regarding heritage resource management among the alternatives. 

Protection of heritage sites from wildfire has been occurring on the Forest and response options 

used would continue to be the same for all alternatives. 

Effects from Land Use Authorizations: Permitted land use authorizations such as resorts, 

recreation residences, youth camps, utility corridors, and communication sites generally have 

protection objectives that include preventing loss or damage from wildfires. Numerous sites on 

the Forest are in locations that have been and are likely to continue to be threatened by wildfires 

when they occur. Protection of these sites generally requires the use of more aggressive 

management actions to suppress threatening fires. The more aggressive actions typically involve 

more exposure and risk to firefighters as well as increased costs. The extent and need for more 

aggressive fire suppression actions can be and have been reduced on the Forest by planning and 

implementing hazardous fuels reduction projects in advance of a wildfire starting. This strategy 

has been implemented under the 1986 Forest Plan as amended for several years and has allowed 

for the use of less aggressive suppression action such as point protection rather perimeter control 

where fuels reduction projects have been completed. The Forest is continuing to plan and 

implement these types of projects. 

None of the alternatives propose a significant increase in permitted facilities and developments 

that would increase the number of potential situations where more use of aggressive suppression 

actions would be needed to meet protection objectives. All the alternatives propose to continue to 

allow vegetation management activities that reduce hazardous fuels in areas where structures and 

other developments need protection from wildfires. Therefore, there are no differences among 

the alternatives.

Wilderness and RNA Allocation: The primary objective of fire management in wilderness is to 

permit lightning-caused fires to play, as nearly as possible, their natural ecological role within 

wilderness. The objectives regarding fire management for research natural areas is similar, 

provided the effects from the fire are consistent with the objectives for the research natural areas. 

Although natural-caused wildfire may be desirable in wilderness areas and research natural 

areas, it is possible that it may not be applicable in some of these areas due to their proximity to 

high value areas, or unbroken expanses of fuels leading to areas of high value resources or 

improvements. These high value areas include wildland-urban interface areas located on and off 

the Forest, developed recreation sites, administrative sites and facilities, and lands suitable for 

timber production. For any fires within designated wilderness or research natural areas requiring 

suppression actions, the logistics may be more difficult and cost of suppression may be higher 

than other areas due to restrictions on use of mechanized equipment and access limitations. 

This effect may be offset by reduced costs associated with use of less aggressive actions of 

expending funds for suppression and by the resource benefits derived from allowing fire on the 

landscape. Wilderness management objectives of allowing fire to play its natural role also has 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

376

the benefit of restoring, improving, or maintaining the health of the ecosystem. Areas in which 

wildfires actually occur are less likely to experience fuels buildup that would result in 

uncharacteristically intense fires, which could cause losses of key ecosystem components.

Current forest plan direction allows for the use of wildfire within and outside of wilderness. This 

direction continues under all the proposed alternatives. Recommended wilderness increases for 

alternatives C and D. Although the expansion would be primarily into back country areas where 

the opportunity and expected acres of wildfires managed for resource benefits would not change, 

there would be some increase in the total number of acres where using wildfire to accomplish 

resource benefits would be the primary objective and a reduction in the areas where protection of 

values is the primary objective. The changes in protection acres from the existing levels are 

approximately 60,000 acres for alternative C and 30,000 acres for alternative D. While these 

changes are not great, they are enough to have some effects on indicators for wildfire 

management. Due to the increase in recommended wilderness and subsequent decrease in 

motorized access, there would be a decrease in human-caused fires in alternative C and a slight 

decrease in alternative D. There would be an increase in the use of less aggressive response 

options in alternative C and a slight increase in alternative D. The risk and exposure to 

firefighters and wildfire management cost would be lower with alternative C and slightly lower 

in alternative D. Although there are differences among alternatives C and D and alternatives A, 

B, E, F, and G, they are small.

Effects from Lands Allocated to Management Area: The combined effects from the topics 

analyzed above are summarized in table 93. There is little or no difference between alternatives 

A, B, and G for all the indicators. The effects would be similar to current levels. For the 

alternatives where there are changes and differences, it is important to note that none of the 

changes would be substantial increases or decreases from existing levels.

A decrease in human-caused fires would be expected for alternatives C and D due a reduction in 

motorized trail access and less use of mechanized equipment to treat vegetation. The opposite 

effect would occur for alternatives E and F, where an increase in motorized access and use of 

mechanical equipment to treat vegetation would be associated with more land being allocated 

toward management area categories 4 and 5.

For alternative C, there would be an increase in the use of less aggressive response options due 

to the increase in lands allocated to recommended wilderness and a corresponding decrease in 

the lands allocated toward more active management (management area categories 4 and 5). The 

same effect and rationale would occur for alternative D, but would not be as great as in 

alternative C. The change would be slight. Use of more aggressive actions would decrease for 

alternative C and slightly decrease for alternative D. Conversely, alternatives E and F would 

result in an opposite effect. Use of less aggressive response options would decrease and use of 

more aggressive responses would increase with alternatives E and F. This effect is a result of the 

increase in area allocated to management area categories 4 and 5, which would contain more 

values with protection objectives, primarily lands suitable for timber production. The changes in 

exposure and risk to firefighters and fire management cost parallel the changes associated with 

use of more aggressive suppression options for alternatives C through F.

The effects on fire regime condition class and hazard fuels from lands allocated to management 

areas are the same as those described above in the General Effects section. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

377

Table 93. Effects from lands allocated to management areas

Indicators

Alternative

A B C D E F G

Change in frequency 

of human-caused 

wildfire 

none none decrease slight 

decrease

slight 

increase increase none

Change in use of 

less aggressive 

response options

none none increase slight 

increase

slight 

decrease decrease none

Change in use of 

more aggressive 

response options

none none decrease slight 

decrease

slight 

increase increase none

Change in exposure 

and risk to firefighters none none decrease slight 

decrease

slight 

increase increase none

Change in wildfire 

management costs none none decrease slight 

decrease

slight 

increase increase none

Acres of FRCC 

maintained or 

improved

221,300 218,900 219,100 219,300 212,400 201,100 218,900

Acres of hazardous 

fuels reduced 202,800 200,400 200,700 200,900 194,900 184,900 200,400

Cumulative Effects

Past, current, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects for fire and fuels were considered 

and analyzed. The activities listed in the cumulative effects table (see table 20) were considered 

in the cumulative effects analysis for fire and fuels. The following cumulative effects were 

discussed in the context of cumulative effects expected over the next 10- to-15-year period. The 

area of consideration for these cumulative effects is primarily encompassed within the boundary 

of the Shoshone existing and expected urban interface areas on lands adjacent to the Shoshone 

boundary taken into consideration. Although fire history was researched back to the early 1900s, 

fire statistics used in estimating fire risk and acres burned by wildfire included the years 1970 

through 2011.

Wildfire, Fire Regime Condition Class, and Hazardous Fuels

The cumulative effect of fire exclusion during the last century, in combination with a series of 

insect attacks during the past 10 years has resulted in large continuous areas of forest cover types 

composed of dead trees that provide receptive fuels for ignition and growth of wildfires. Large 

stand-replacement fire has been occurring with increased frequency over the past 10 years and is 

expected to continue for the next 10 to 15 years. In addition, during the past 10 years, the 

implementation of land management direction for the current forest plan reflected changes in 

Federal wildland policy. These changes included more use of wildland fire to accomplish 

resource objectives and less use of aggressive suppression actions in situations where resource 

values were low and risks to firefighter safety were a concern. The end result was more acres 

were allowed to burn as compared with earlier periods where most fires were suppressed as 

quickly as possible.

The 10-year moving average for the number of fires over the past 30 years was at 28 per year in 

1982. The 10-year moving average fell to a low of 20 per year from 1998 to 2000 and has risen 

to an average of 27 fires in 2011. The overall annual average for number of fires since 1970 is 

27. The influence of climate change on fire frequency and size is uncertain for the near term as 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

378

the dominant influence on wildfire occurrence at this time appears to be related to the condition 

of the fuels on the Forest combined with extended warm and dry periods typical for July, August, 

and September. During the past 10 years, large fires on the Forest have occurred during years of 

what were characterized as abnormally warm and dry, as well as during years that had cool wet 

springs with above normal precipitation. Large fires have been absent during some years with 

low snowpack, early runoff, and below normal annual precipitation. Implementation of the 1986 

Forest Plan as amended, which seeks to use fire on a landscape scale to accomplish resource 

management objectives, and changes in Federal wildland fire policy have also influenced the 

size of fires. Other than the potential influences climate change may have had on the extent of 

the insect epidemic which has changed the fuels profile, it is difficult to assess the extent of the 

cumulative effects from climate change for the past 10 years as well as the next planning period 

of 10 to 15 years.

If the projected climate changes occur, the long-term result could be an increase in the frequency 

of fires and a shift in fire regimes on the landscape (e.g., where ground-disturbing management 

activities result in increased invasive plants) under any alternative. Areas could become more 

productive and burn more severely than before (Rice et al. 2012).

Although an increase in fire size is a possibility, the potential may be mitigated due to the 

amount of fire that has burned during the last 10 years, along with what is expected for the 

upcoming planning period. The estimated range of acres burned by wildfire plus what is 

forecasted for the next planning period range from 328,000 for alternative E and nearly 

350,000 acres for alternative A. When combined with the projected mechanical and prescribed 

fire treatments, there would a substantial change in the continuity of fuels across the landscape. 

There would likely be more barriers (previously burned areas) to the spread of large severe 

burning stand-replacement wildfires. Previously burned areas may burn again with shorter time 

periods between the last fires. These areas would likely burn with much less intensity due to the 

presence of more forest types in earlier successional stages that are less susceptible to large 

stand-replacement fire. While there is a difference in the estimated acres that would have burned 

over a 20- to-25-year period, the differences in cumulative effects among the alternatives is not 

substantial.

Response to Wildfire

The Shoshone has been using less aggressive suppression actions since 2001. In addition, the 

forest plan amendment in 2008 allows for the use of wildfire to accomplish objectives outside of 

wilderness. Most wildfires on the Shoshone have and will continue to receive a suppression 

response, as current policy does not allow the human-caused fires to be used for accomplishing 

resource benefits. Unwanted fires that escape initial attack may still receive something less than 

a full suppression response when values at risk are low, exposure and risk to firefighters are high 

and/or management cost are not commensurate with the values at risk. In some situations, the 

use of lightning-ignited fires to accomplish resource objectives is not always feasible and fires 

will be suppressed. All of these management and policy factors are expected to be similar for all 

alternatives and are expected to have the same influences on the number of acres burned on the 

Shoshone during the next 10 to 15 years. The one additional factor that could influence the 

response to wildfires would be an increase in wildland-urban interface. None of alternatives 

propose any significant changes to the current amount of permitted residences, resorts, or other 

developments on the Shoshone that would affect wildfire response options. However, increases 

in wildland-urban interface on areas adjacent to the Shoshone are expected. An increase in 

wildland-urban interface areas would likely require that more aggressive response options be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

379

implemented to meet protection objectives. The increased use of aggressive actions would 

increase the risk and exposure to firefighters and increase overall costs.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

380

Insects and Disease

Introduction

Insects and diseases are disturbance processes in the forested ecosystem. They occur at differing 

intervals of time and can be large or small in scale as far as how much of the forest is affected at 

any given time. Endemic populations of forest pests are generally a natural part of the forest. 

They function to recycle nutrients and cause successional changes in the forest. When 

populations increase to epidemic levels, there can be consequences that reduce the ability to 

achieve desired future conditions. Insects and diseases may cause losses in timber volume and 

value, potential growth of forest vegetation, native plant species and forage condition, quantity 

and quality of wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, visual aesthetics, and changes in fire and 

fuel conditions.

In general, a healthy forest contains endemic populations of forest pests. They usually kill 

isolated, overmature, and stressed trees on an annual basis. A healthy forest is able to keep insect 

and disease populations from reaching epidemic levels. The main goal of integrated forest pest 

management is to keep the forest in a healthy condition. Generally, the most effective means of 

reducing the size of epidemics is reducing the susceptibility of the forest stands to insects and 

diseases. This is typically best accomplished through silvicultural techniques to change the forest 

conditions on the landscape.

Generally, stands of lodgepole over 80 to 100 years in age are susceptible to epidemic mountain 

pine beetle outbreaks. Engelmann spruce over 100 to 150 years is susceptible to Engelmann 

spruce bark beetle outbreaks. When trees are healthy, they can repel beetle attacks by flows of 

resin that pitch the beetles out. Overmature trees and trees growing in dense stands are less 

resistant to attack. This is particularly true during times of stress, such as drought or after a fire. 

If beetle populations reach epidemic levels, they successfully attack even the most vigorous 

trees.

Sound forest management is regarded as a way to develop stands that are more resistant to insect 

and disease epidemics. Integrated pest management strategies involve the collection of available 

knowledge on pest/host relationships and identifying thresholds for unacceptable damage. 

Integrated pest management requires consideration of a full range of management strategies and 

techniques before prescribing treatment designed to reduce damage from any forest pest. 

Strategies include indirect control (which focuses on increasing forest resistance to epidemics) 

and direct control (which focuses on reducing the actual insect or disease population). 

Management strategies can include biological, chemical, mechanical, or manual control and 

prescribed fire to manage populations.

Over the past 12 years, widespread bark beetle epidemics have occurred on the Shoshone. All the 

major bark beetles have been in epidemic status on at least parts of the Shoshone during this time 

(see table 94). It should be noted that even though an acre may be counted as affected, in all 

cases not every tree on that acre was killed. In addition, in mixed conifer stands multiple species 

of bark beetles may be impacting the various species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

381

Table 94. Acres of insect-caused mortality on the Shoshone National Forest, 2000 through 2009, 

2010, 2011

Beetle species Acres affected 

2000 through 2009

Acres affected

2010

Acres affected

2011

Spruce beetle

(Dendroctonus rifipennis) 256,310 57,362 32,364

Douglas-fir beetle 

(Dendroctonus pseudotsuqae) 251,477 4,705 1,060

Mountain pine beetle 

(Dendroctonus ponderosae) 645,671 227,137 183,825

Western balsam bark beetle 

(Dryocoetes confuses Swaine) 117,299 39,811 19,149

Spruce budworm 

(Choristoneura occidentalis) 11,003 3,743 13,883

Legal and Administrative Framework 

National Forest Management Act: Requires assessment of alternative management actions to 

facilitate balanced, integrated approaches to resource protections and development and 

implementation of sound management practices to prevent excessive losses due to pests.

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978: Sets forth the basic Federal authority for forest 

insect and disease management and provides for cooperation with states and private individuals.

Code of Federal Regulations 36 CFR 219.16 (a)(2)(iii) allows for the harvesting of stands of 

timber that have not reached CMAI (Culmination of Mean Annual Increment) “which are in

imminent danger from insect or disease attack.”

Code of Federal Regulations 26 CFR 219.27 sets the minimum specific management 

requirements to be met in accomplishing goals and objectives for the National Forest System. 

36 CFR 219.27(a)(3) requires that all management prescriptions utilize principles of integrated 

pest management to prevent or reduce serious, long lasting hazards and damage from pest 

organisms, consistent with the relative resource values involved. 36 CFR 219.27(c)(2) discusses 

the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) and states: “Nothing in this paragraph prohibits, salvage or 

sanitation harvesting of timber stands which are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or 

other catastrophe, or which are in imminent danger of insect or disease attack and where such 

harvests are consistent with silvicultural and environmental standards.” 36 CFR 219.27(c)(7) 

states: “Timber harvest and other silvicultural treatments shall be used to prevent potentially 

damaging populations increases of forest pest organisms. Silvicultural treatments shall not be 

applied where such treatments would make stands susceptible to pest-caused damage levels 

inconsistent with management objectives.”

Resource Protection Measures 

Numerous Forest-wide and management area prescription standards and guidelines exist 

concerning vegetation. Forest management has been used to increase resilience to insect and 

disease outbreaks. Sanitation and salvage sales are one forest management tool that may be used

to suppress, or to utilize merchantable products affected by insect and disease activity where 

necessary and allowed.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

382

Affected Environment

Insects and diseases can affect the production of timber resources, wildlife habitat, older stands, 

recreation opportunities and can change fire risk. Insects and disease are also a key component of 

ecosystem processes, creating habitat and serving as prey for many wildlife species.

The most serious insect pest of pine throughout the West is the mountain pine beetle 

(Dendroctonus ponderosae). This is a native beetle that can attack and kill all of the pine species 

(lodgepole, whitebark, and limber pine) in the Shoshone National Forest. Mountain pine beetle

activity in lodgepole pine has historically occurred throughout the forest, with the most recent 

past outbreak occurring in the mid-1970s in the Dubois area. Whitebark and limber pine have 

been a less frequent host of mountain pine beetle, although an epidemic in the 1930s occurred in 

Yellowstone National Park and certainly caused widespread mortality on the forest as well. 

Efforts to minimize the mountain pine beetle population have taken place throughout the post 

settlement history.

The mountain pine beetle can reach epidemic proportions and kill significant numbers of their 

hosts. Although beetle behavior is well understood in relation to lodgepole pine stands, the same 

cannot be said of whitebark and limber pines. In lodgepole pine, the beetle generally attacks 

large-diameter, overstory trees, but once an epidemic starts, smaller trees can also be killed 

(Amman and Cole 1983). The death of overstory trees influences stand structure and 

composition, and can lead to stand conversion to other species.

The mountain pine beetle generally completes its life cycle in one year in lodgepole pine, 

although at higher elevations, it can take two years (McGregor and Cole 1985). Adults typically 

emerge sometime in July or August and attack standing green trees. On successfully attacked 

trees, adults lay eggs and larvae develop under the bark. Immature larvae overwinter under the 

bark, and then finish feeding in the spring and early summer. The developing larvae feed on the 

phloem, killing the tree.

Mountain pine beetle populations in lodgepole pine are in a large part dependent on the 

conditions present in the forest. In lodgepole pine, susceptibility to mountain pine beetle is based 

on three factors (Amman et al. 1977): 

• Average tree diameter

• Average tree age

• Location by latitude and elevation

Less work has been done on mountain pine beetle behavior in whitebark and limber pine. What 

is known is that brood production is fairly high in limber pine, indicating that beetles do very 

well in this species (Cerezke 1995). It is also been shown, that like lodgepole, larger tree 

diameter and higher stand density are important drivers in whitebark (Perkins and Roberts 2003). 

It is assumed that a similar situation exists for limber pine. The apparent attack thresholds for 

whitebark are slightly lower than in lodgepole.

In lodgepole pine, factors that can be managed to reduce a stand’s susceptibility to beetles 

include reducing average diameter and age and/or reducing stand density. Treating the stands to 

reduce susceptibility would provide the most long-term defense against a mountain pine beetle 

epidemic. In lodgepole pine, thinning is effective at reducing future losses to the mountain pine 

beetle (Amman et al. 1988, Cole 1989, Gibson 1989, McGregor et al. 1987). Since beetles are 

attracted to the largest trees initially, removal of large-diameter material is also effective at 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

383

reducing loss during epidemics (Cahill 1978, Cole et al. 1983, McGregor et al. 1987). 

Clearcutting lodgepole pine stands removes the risk of beetle infestation. 

In areas where beetle populations have already become established and started increasing, 

sanitation harvesting can be considered. Sanitation efforts prior to the beetle flight period (July to 

August) may serve to reduce localized beetle spot expansion. However, sanitation harvesting on 

a small scale does not prevent future bark beetle migration from adjoining areas. 

Silvicultural treatments for reducing beetle damage in whitebark and limber pine would be 

similar to those in lodgepole. Based on what is known, whitebark and limber pine stands should 

be treated to remove the largest diameter trees and reduce stocking levels in a stand to reduce 

mountain pine beetle risk.

Rating the overall forest’s relative risk for mountain pine beetle was done using the current 

structural stages. For the pines, tree diameter seems to be the biggest risk factor, so stands in 

structural stage 4A/B/C were considered high hazard. Stands in all other stages were considered 

low hazard. There was no attempt to put stands into moderate categories. 

Thirty-one percent of the identified whitebark and limber pine stands are in a condition that 

would be considered high hazard for a mountain pine beetle outbreak. There are 69 percent of 

the whitebark/limber pine stands that are in a low hazard condition due to tree size or density. 

Areas of whitebark and limber pine are currently being attacked by mountain pine beetle. In 

areas where beetles have already built up, the risk to the surrounding high hazard and even to 

lower hazard stands is significant. Over the past 15 years, over 500,000 acres of 5-needle pine 

have been affected by mountain pine beetle on the Forest. This includes stands that are 

considered as either whitebark or limber and also stands that may contain a component of 

5-needle pine, but are considered some other forest type. At this time, these stands may be the 

most heavily impacted by insects and diseases (white pine blister rust is also mapped) of any 

forest type on the forest. The mortality occurring in 5-needle pine stands seems to be of the 

magnitude of that which occurred in the 1930s when it was stated that “All whitebark pine stands 

of the Yellowstone National Park and adjacent national forests were seriously depleted during the 

duration of this epidemic” (Evenden 1944).

Thirty percent of the lodgepole pine on the Shoshone is in a state of high hazard for a mountain 

pine beetle outbreak. The remaining 70 percent is low hazard. Currently, there is a large and 

ongoing, landscape-level mountain pine beetle epidemic occurring in most areas with lodgepole 

pine. Over the past 15 years (1996 to �2011), about 263,000 acres of lodgepole pine has been 

affected to some degree on the Forest. In some cases, this is a lighter infestation, such as 1 to 

5 trees per acre, while in much of the area a heavy infestation is killing entire stands. Large areas 

of the lodgepole cover type are no longer at high hazard for beetles, as the beetle has reset the 

forest to an earlier structural stage. 

The most important threat to spruce is the spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis). The spruce 

beetle is a native bark beetle that occurs throughout the range of spruce in North America. The 

beetle is typically found at endemic levels in downed trees and large pieces of slash. Epidemic 

populations most often occur after large disturbances, such as windthrows, create a large volume 

of suitable host material for the beetle to inhabit and reproduce. Once populations reach an 

epidemic stage, all sizes of standing green spruce can be attacked except for seedlings and 

saplings. However, the spruce beetle is most often focused on the larger trees within a stand. 

Epidemics develop as small spruce beetle outbreaks, which increase and coalesce into large areas 

of infested trees as the beetle continues to attack and kill vast acreages of the cover type (Massey 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

384

and Wygant 1954, Holsten et al. 1999). Recovery and regeneration of affected stands may be 

very slow; often spruce is replaced by subalpine fir which, over time, is replaced by spruce again 

as the fir dies (Schmid and Hinds 1974).

Spruce beetle, unlike mountain pine beetle, is attracted to, and often builds up in, damaged trees. 

Frequently this is in windthrown or blowdown trees; however, fire-scorched trees also are 

susceptible. Rasmussen et al. (1996) found an increased number of spruce beetles in trees that 

were scorched up to a certain level of damage. Once scorching exceeded 60 percent of the basal 

circumference girdled, trees were no longer as suitable for spruce beetle infestation. This is 

something to be considered when using prescribed fire. Many of the larger spruce may have bark 

thick enough to survive lighter prescribed burns, however, if they are scorched to a certain 

degree, they can be more susceptible to spruce beetle attack. Stands that contain a large number 

of larger, partially scorched spruce could be centers for spruce beetle buildup and epidemics.

The spruce beetle usually requires two years to complete a generation; in high elevations it can 

take three years. Adults fly, attack host trees, and lay their eggs in June and July. Larvae develop 

under the bark and remain there to overwinter. Larval development continues the following 

spring and summer, with new adults emerging in August. These adults then hibernate beneath the 

bark until the following June and July. 

Spruce stands that are most susceptible to spruce beetle outbreaks generally have the following 

characteristics (Schmid and Frye 1976): 

• Located in creek bottoms.

• Have large-diameter host trees.

• Have high basal areas.

• Have a large proportion of spruce in the canopy.

Spruce beetle is a concern that should be noted in stands that have large mature and overmature 

trees. Windthrow events in or near these stands can lead to mortality of standing green trees 

(Schmid and Hinds 1974). 

Seventy-one percent of the spruce/fir cover type rate as a high hazard for a bark beetle outbreak 

across the forest. Twenty-nine percent rate in a low hazard condition. Over the past 15 years, 

some 300,000 acres have been affected by spruce beetle on the Forest. Many of these acres have 

been significantly impacted, with all spruce trees down to 5 to 6 inches in diameter being killed. 

There continues to be significant spruce beetle populations in parts of the Forest, indicating that 

even more stands would be affected in the future.

The western balsam bark beetle (Dryocoetes confusus) infests a number of western conifers, but 

is most significant in subalpine fir. It contributes to subalpine fir decline, which is a poorly 

understood problem in this species. It is a significant problem on parts of the Shoshone, 

particularly the southern end; it kills both large-diameter and small-diameter trees. The decline 

appears to be associated with the western balsam bark beetle and root disease. The beetle appears 

to have a 2-year life cycle. Attacking beetles introduce a virulent fungus (Ceratocystis 

dryocoetidis) (Kend. and Moln), that contributes to the decline of the attacked tree. This 

insect/root disease association appears to be important in converting fir/spruce stands to 

predominantly spruce stands over long periods.

As there is no accepted method for risk rating stands for western balsam bark beetle, a 

conservative estimate for the number of stands at risk would be to use numbers similar to what 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

385

the spruce beetle show. It is likely that far more fir is at risk, since the beetles will attack and kill 

much smaller trees than is typically seen with spruce beetle. Western balsam bark beetle and 

subalpine fir decline has had generally less impact across the Forest. Presently, somewhere 

around 17,000 acres have been impacted by some mortality of fir trees. Much of this mortality 

has been located in the southern part of the Shoshone.

The Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) is a native insect that attacks Douglas-fir 

throughout its range in North America. It has a single generation per year, generally 

overwintering as newly emerged adults. Its life cycle is similar to other bark beetles, with new 

adults infesting host trees in the summer. 

The Douglas-fir beetle is usually found at low densities in the forest. It is often found building to 

epidemic populations following other disturbance events such as windthrow or fire (Furniss 

1962, Furniss et al. 1981). After these disturbance events, beetles can reach levels where 

surrounding green trees are attacked and killed. 

Stands of Douglas-fir can be rated as to their susceptibility to Douglas-fir beetle based on stand 

density, average stand age, and the amount of Douglas-fir in the stand (Weatherby and Thier 

1993, Negron 1998, Negron et. al 1999). 

Currently, 53 percent of the Douglas-fir stands are in a condition that leaves them susceptible to 

large-scale Douglas-fir beetle mortality. The other 47 percent are in a less susceptible state, based 

on tree size and density. A number of areas have had significant Douglas-fir beetle-caused 

mortality over the past decade, and high levels of mortality are still occuring in the Clarks Fork 

area. Any stands that are in the high hazard category and even many that are borderline between 

high and low hazard in these areas could be significantly affected. The Douglas-fir beetle has 

affected over 200,000 acres across the forest over the past 15 years. During this epidemic, 

Douglas-fir stands in heavily impacted areas lost almost 80 percent of the Douglas-fir basal area 

and had reduction in tree size from 14 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) to 8 inches d.b.h. 

(Allen et al. 2006). There are ongoing epidemics of Douglas-fir beetle on the forest, so the 

impact on this cover type is not over.

Western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) also exists on the Shoshone. Stands 

usually are able to survive attacks for a year or two, however, four to five years of continuous 

defoliation may result in top-killing and tree mortality. This defoliation would make the trees 

vulnerable to attack by other insects and diseases.

Western spruce budworm has been at relatively low levels over the past 15 years; however, there 

has been a noted increase in acres defoliated the last 2 years. The acres affected increased to 

12,000 in 2011, mostly in the northern part of the Shoshone.

The gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), has been accidentally introduced into areas in and around 

the forest on a few occasions during the last 20 to 30 years. As of now, it is not known to have an 

established breeding population in this area. Chances of further introductions and the possibility 

of this insect becoming established in this area are increasing. As more people from infested 

areas visit and bring campers and recreational vehicles that could harbor gypsy moths into the 

area, the chances of this insect being brought in increase. 

The gypsy moth is a serious threat to all forest resources. It will feed on the leaves of over 

300 trees and shrubs, predominantly hardwoods (Liebhold et al. 1995). If gypsy moths become 

established in the Shoshone, the biggest threat would be to riparian and aspen communities. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

386

A number of other exotic forest pests could, in theory, become established. As with the gypsy 

moth, any exotic insects that are found should be handled using an eradication plan as soon as 

possible.

Aspen decline is associated with a variety of canker and stem and root decay pathogens that 

cause stands to decline, die, and fall apart over time. The usual suspects are stem decays 

(Ganoderma applanatum and Phellinus tremulae), root decay (Armillaria ostoyae), canker 

diseases (Cytospora sp., Ceratocystis fimbriata, and Hypoxylon mammatum). 

Dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) and Comandra blister rust (Cronartium comandrae) in 

lodgepole pine cover the most acres of any disease problems on the Shoshone. Dwarf mistletoe 

increases mortality and decreases growth and seed production. Young trees can be killed, while 

mature trees may take years to show noticeable damage. The mistletoe infection lowers the 

resistance of trees to attacks by other diseases and insects. 

Dwarf mistletoe spreads at a relatively slow rate through a forest stand. Over long periods of 

time, especially in the absence of fire, lightly infested dwarf mistletoe stands become severely 

infested as the pathogen intensifies and spreads. Fire is an important regulator of dwarf mistletoe 

occurrence, particularly where large-scale stand-replacing fires have occurred. These fires 

eliminate the dwarf mistletoe-infested overstory and understory pines and allow new seedlings to 

grow free of the plant parasite. 

Comandra blister rust is a native rust fungus that requires two different hosts to complete its life 

cycle—bastard toadflax and hard pines such as lodgepole and ponderosa. The spores are spread 

by wind from the Comandra plants to infect pine needles and new shoots. The fungus then grows 

into the branch and creates a canker that kills the branch. These cankers often produce spores 

that appear as rust-colored blisters; the spores travel from the pine to infect the Comandra plant. 

As the fungus grows in the tree branch, it will advance toward the tree stem. If the fungus forms 

a girdling canker on the stem, then the top of the tree dies, causing top-kill (Mielke 1957). 

Timber harvest is one tool for controlling diseases such as dwarf mistletoe and Comandra blister 

rust on the Shoshone. Areas of high mistletoe risk or infestation are a prime consideration when 

locating and designing timber sales. Current strategies to control Comandra blister rust are 

generally aimed at reducing the disease rather than preventing infections. One option is to 

harvest the heavily infected stand while trees they are still usable. 

White pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola), an exotic disease, infects limber and whitebark 

pine trees on the Shoshone. The rust fungus also infects alternate hosts of currant or gooseberry 

plants (Ribes spp.) to complete its life cycles. The wind spreads fungal spores from the Ribes 

plants to infect pine needles. After a short infection time, the fungus will develop cankers that 

girdle and kill branches and eventually stems. Around the edges of these cankers, the fungus 

produces blisters of spores that travel by wind to infect the Ribes plants. While spores from 

Ribes can travel a great distance and still be viable, most pine infections in Wyoming occur in 

areas where Ribes plants grow in close proximity to the trees (Mielke 1943). 

Limber and whitebark pines are being infested severely in many parts of the Forest by white pine 

blister rust. In places where this disease has moved through in the past, such as Idaho (in western 

white pine), mortality can be as much as 90 to 95 percent of the cover type. It is unknown what 

the final impact will be on the Shoshone; however, there are places where the disease has already 

killed a high percentage of the host trees.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

387

Armillaria root disease does occur in the forest, and likely Annosus, and perhaps others. Root 

diseases can be major factors in causing growth loss and even outright mortality in forest stands. 

Root diseases can be stress factors that increase the likelihood of bark beetle attacks on trees 

when beetles are at endemic levels. Root diseases can also be major factors in causing tree 

failures, and so are important organisms in and around developed recreation areas. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Management area designation can influence the occurrence of insect and disease activity and 

what, if any, actions are taken to minimize impacts.

Natural disturbance events (larger scale and less frequent occurence) will continue to operate 

regardless of the alternative; however, the scale upon which natural processes operate as the 

primary agents of change would vary by alternative. Alternatives C and D would allow natural 

processes to predominate, and vegetative management activities of insect and disease 

populations are less likely. Since insect risk is medium or high on much of the forest, it is 

possible that many of these acres at risk of insect damage would be attacked within the next 

50 years. The same could be said of the disease situation on the Shoshone. With the current high

levels of infection, it is likely there would be continued high levels of tree mortality and stand 

structural changes over the next 50 years. The potential exists for large areas of the Forest to be 

subject to large-scale events when high-risk conditions occur.

The emphasis on management activities to prevent or reduce pest populations varies from one 

alternative to another, and may correspond to levels of timber harvest or other activities that 

promote greater habitat diversity. Aternative F allocates the most area for management areas 5.1

and 5.4, followed by alternatives E, B, G, and A, which would change the mix of age classes, 

density, and species makeup of forest stands, would have the greatest effect on reducing impacts 

from insects and diseases. These effects would generally be restricted to the managed parts of the 

Shoshone. Large areas of the Shoshone would still be influenced by natural processes. 

Alternatives C followed by D would emphasize natural processes being the major change agent 

and would have greater risk to loss from insect and diseases.

Effects from Fire and Fuels Management: Large wildfires would likely reduce forest pests 

that exist in areas where extremely hot fires burn over. Fires can also reduce stand density and 

make stands more resistant to attack. However, lower burning intensities associated with parts of 

most wildfires and most prescribed fires can severely weaken the resistance of trees to pest 

attacks by damaging root systems and cambial tissues. This can, in turn, lead to increasing 

populations and subsequent outbreaks of some pest species. 

Estimated acres that could burn as a result of wildfire for alternatives A through D range between 

182,900 and 185,200 acres. It is estimated that for alternative E, nearly 175,000 acres could be 

affected by wildfire and approximately 161,400 acres could burn under alternative F during the 

planning period. In alternatives that have more wildfire there is the potential for there to be more 

acres that are susceptible to insect epidemic as a result of the trees being weakened by fire. 

The extent and frequency of large fires often increase following major bark beetle outbreaks, as 

currently seen throughout the Rocky Mountains. Large-scale insect and disease disturbances can 

create an increase in dead and down fuels. 

Effects from Administrative Site Management: Costs of vegetative management treatments 

may be higher for administrative sites due to more intensive treatments (e.g., spraying of 

individual trees and removal of hazard trees) than for vegetative management treatments across 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

388

general forest areas. More intensive vegetative treatments near administrative sites may occur to 

ensure that vegetation surrounding administrative sites is not degraded due to the activity of 

insects and diseases (e.g., tree falling on a building). Vegetative management around 

administrative sites would not vary from one alternative to another. 

Effects from Timber Management: Timber harvesting and timber stand improvement provide 

opportunities to prevent or reduce pest outbreaks. Harvesting trees provides an opportunity to 

remove diseased and high-risk trees. Clearcuts and other final harvest methods provide 

opportunities for long-term protection and prevention of insect and disease outbreaks. Stands 

most susceptible to insect damage and most infected with mistletoe can be harvested and 

replaced with mistletoe-free young stands. In stands scheduled for overstory removal, 

shelterwood, or uneven-aged management, individual suppressed or dying trees can be removed, 

increasing the overall growth and vigor of remaining trees. In commercial and precommercial 

thinning operations, susceptibility to insects and disease would be decreased by increasing the 

growth and vigor of the remaining trees. 

Under all alternatives, there exists potential for salvage and/or sanitation cuts to harvest dead or 

damaged timber and to attempt to slow or impede infestations from spreading. The degree to 

which these harvests are undertaken would largely depend upon the risks associated with the 

potential infestation spread into healthy stands, public safety, the presence of high value 

resources, and the resource emphasis of the infected or adjoining area.

Timber management can help create forests with increased age and species diversity. The more 

diversity that is present in an area, the less likely large-scale epidemics would occur. 

Alternative F has the greatest allocation to management area 5.1, which emphasizes vegetative 

mangement activities and would have less area left at high risk to insect and disease outbreaks, 

followed by alternatives E, B, G, A, and D. Alternative C would have the greatest area left at 

high risk to insect and disease outbreaks. 

Effects from Wilderness Management: Within wilderness, insect epidemics proceed naturally, 

and as stands age, they become more susceptible to large epidemics. Alternatives C and D, which 

recommend additional wilderness, would increase the acres where this situation exists. The acres 

of wilderness for the other action alternatives would not increase and would remain the same as 

alternative A. 

Effects from Recreation and Travel Management: In developed and dispersed sites, where 

trees are often impacted by camping activities and overall health and vigor are reduced by soil 

compaction from recreational uses, insects and diseases can occur at higher levels. Pest 

management activities would be intensified under all alternatives to protect developed recreation 

sites. Costs may be higher than for the general forest to ensure that vegetation in and around 

developed recreation areas is not degraded, causing safety hazards due to insects or disease. This 

would not vary substantially from one alternative to another. 

Alternatives C and D emphasize more wilderness, back country, and non-motorized recreation 

and would have less area with management activity for prevention or reduction of insects and 

diseases. Alternatives F and E include more management area 5.1 areas and would allow for the 

most vegetation management activities, followed by alternatives B, G, and A, respectively, and 

would allow access for activities that may prevent or reduce insect and disease impacts.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

389

Effects from Scenic Resource Management: Generally, the more restrictive the scenic integrity 

objective, the greater the potential for some pests to be present at potentially damaging levels. 

Alternative C, followed by D, would limit the amount of forest management practices across a 

larger area of the forest and would lead to denser stands and increased likelihood of bark beetle 

infestations and continued increases in mistletoe. However, alternatives C then D would have the 

least potential to spread diseases, such as root diseases. Conversely, alternative F includes the 

most area available for vegetation management activities, followed by alternatives E, B, G, and 

A, respectively. While alternatives F and E would decrease the potential for bark beetle 

infestations and continued increases in mistletoe more than the other alternatives, they would 

have the most potential to spread diseases such as root diseases on treated acres, followed by 

alternatives B, G, and A, respectively.

Effects from Wildlife Habitat Management and Mature Tree Management: In general, 

alternatives with more acres of unmanaged land favor older age classes of vegetation and tend to 

favor buildup of forest pests. Those that have more managed land favor a wide range of age 

classes, greater vertical diversity, and greater species diversity, and tend to reduce the risk of 

larger scale insect epidemics. The alternatives with the least to most acres of management areas 

allocated for some vegetation management are C, D, A, B, G, E, and F, ranging from 

312,833 acres in alternative C to 635,397 acres in alternative F.

Cumulative Effects 

Natural Processes

Increasing forest stand density, age, and size are causing an increased hazard of insect and 

disease outbreaks on a greater number of acres. Silvicultural treatments can offset these effects. 

Changes to vegetation structural stage from silvicultural treatments can create forests that are 

more resistant to large-scale outbreaks on the Forest. Salvage operations would occur in 

management areas where timber production is emphasized or where needed to reduce hazards in 

high-use recreation areas.

As forest stands age, they pass through different stages of susceptibility to insects and diseases. 

Generally, mature forest stands are at the highest risk of insect and disease activity where impact 

may exceed management objectives. As the forest ages, the susceptibility to insect and disease 

outbreaks would greatly increase.

Hazard-reducing activities would be treatments that change stand structure prior to an insect or 

disease occurrence. The more acres left to be governed by natural processes, the better the 

chance of large-scale disturbance. With large areas left to natural processes, even treated acres 

would assume some hazard if they are near disturbances. 

One of the biggest considerations would be the public acceptance of leaving much of the forest 

land in prescriptions that are allowed to follow natural processes. The current state of the 

forested vegetation on the Shoshone is at a point where natural disturbances are creating 

landscape-level changes now and into the near future. The areas where natural processes 

predominate would have changes that are more significant than those where management takes 

place. The continued growth and aging of the forest would create conditions that would continue 

to be highly susceptible to insect and disease disturbance. Those areas where forest management 

is used on a larger scale would be less susceptible to landscape-level changes; however, 

disturbances that start in areas driven by natural processes could cause change in these areas. 

Insect and disease populations in management area designations that emphasize natural 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

390

processes are difficult, if not impossible to manage within the management area boundary, and 

substantial effects can also affect adjacent management areas. 

Alternatives F and E would implement the greatest amount of hazard-reducing activities and 

would have the greatest reduction in insect and disease activity, followed by alternatives B, G, A, 

then D. Alternative C would implement the least amount of hazard-reducing activities and would 

have the greatest potential for insect and disease activity.

The Climate Change on the Shoshone National Forest,Wyoming (Rice et al. 2012) documents the 

anticipated effects from climate change on insects and pathogens as follows: 

“Effects from Climate Change on Insects and Pathogens: Climate change may be 

altering the dynamics between bark beetles and forests. Increased temperatures may be 

one factor that results in higher rates of insect outbreaks when suitable hosts are 

available (Logan and Powell 2001; Romme and others 2006). Under a warmer climate, 

many forest insects will experience greater survival, reproduction, and development 

rates (Bentz 2005; Hicke and others 2006). Range expansions are possible as more 

habitat becomes suitable for host establishment (Bale and others 2002; Ryan and others 

2008). Likewise, increased drought stress and warmer temperatures may cause some 

plant species to exhibit a decline in their capacity to resist insect attack (Ayres and 

Lombardero 2000). Bentz and others’ (2010) modeling study projected a large increase 

in the probability of spruce beetle outbreaks and a moderate increase in the probability 

of mountain pine beetle outbreaks over the next century on the Shoshone and GYE 

[Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem]. Future beetle outbreaks may shift northward and 

upward in elevation, be highly variable spatially and temporally, and result in forest 

ecosystem regime shifts beyond historical bounds (Bentz and others 2010). These 

outbreaks also leave behind dead and decaying trees that have decreased wood product 

value (Lowell and others 2010).

Bark beetles will likely follow the range of hosts as they track changes in climate, 

abandoning areas where the climate becomes too warm (Bentz 2005). Concurrently, 

bark beetles are capable of responding to climate changes faster than tree species 

(Bentz 2005). Evidence of this expansion has already occurred in British Colombia, 

Canada, where an increased area of mature pine stands in recent decades has resulted 

in unprecedented outbreaks of mountain pine beetle (Kurz and others 2008). Thus, 

elevated temperatures at higher altitudes could allow for mountain pine beetles to attack 

five needle pines-suitable hosts that, to date, have been buffered from attack by harsh 

climate (Logan and Powell 2001). Carroll and others (2006) found an increase in 

mountain pine beetle presence in formerly unsuitable habitat in Canada that “can only 

be explained by changes in climate.” Overall the potential consequences to ecosystem 

services include reduced aesthetic and commercial timber value on the landscape and 

an increase in the variability and number of forested areas turning into [Carbon] 

sources after beetle outbreaks at higher elevations on the Shoshone.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

391

Invasive species

Introduction 

This discussion addresses terrestrial invasive plant species and aquatic invasive species that can 

adversely affect native species composition and ecosystem structure/function. Non-native 

species are a serious threat to the resource values on the Shoshone. Invasive species management 

is closely coordinated with county, state, and private efforts.

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws

The Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) as amended by the Noxious Weed 

Control and Eradication Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-412). Among other provisions, the Plant 

Protection Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the importation, 

entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product, biological

control organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance, if the Secretary determines 

that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United States 

or the dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States. The Act defines 

the term “Noxious Weed.” 

Wyden Amendment (P.L. 109-54, Section 434). Under this authority, the Forest Service may 

enter into agreements to support or conduct invasive species management activities on aquatic 

and terrestrial areas owned by local and State governments, Tribes, other Federal agencies, and 

private individuals or organizations, to benefit and protect the National Forest System and other 

resources within a watershed at risk from invasive species. 

Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251, 1254, 1323, 1324, 1329, 1342, 1344; 91 Stat. 1566). 

This act amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. Invasive species management 

to improve watershed condition supports the Act’s charge to maintain the ecological integrity of 

our nation’s waters, including the physical, chemical and biological components. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C. 4321). The provisions of NEPA and the 

Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations apply to invasive species 

management (FSM 1950; FSH 1909.15). 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. §§1131 et seq.). Integrated pest management actions in 

wilderness are authorized to meet provisions of the Act and be consistent with Forest Service 

policy and guidance for wilderness management. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, (7 U.S.C. s/s 136 et seq.). This act 

describes pesticide regulations and requirements related to hazardous material use and worker 

protection standards for employees in the planning and application of pesticides. 

Regulations 

The authority to manage for invasive species on NFS lands and other lands under Forest Service 

control is delegated from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Under Secretary for Natural 

Resources and Environment at Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 2.20 (7 CFR 

2.20). This authority has been delegated in turn from the Under Secretary for Natural Resources 

and Environment to the Chief of the Forest Service at Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, 

section 2.60 (7 CFR 2.60). Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (including Parts 221, 222, 228, 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

392

241, 251, 261, 290, 292, 293, 296, and 297) provides additional authorities to manage and 

regulate invasive species across the NFS, including establishing requirements and prohibitions to 

prevent and control aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. In addition, Forest Service 

regulations at 36 CFR 222.8 acknowledge the agency's obligation to work cooperatively in 

identifying invasive species (including noxious weeds) problems and initiating control programs 

in aquatic and terrestrial areas of the NFS. 

Policy on Noxious Weed Management. Departmental Regulation 9500-10 (DR 9500-10)

(January 18, 1990). Establishes U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy to manage and 

coordinate noxious weed activities among USDA agencies to improve the quality and ecological 

conditions of crop and rangeland in the United States. 

Departmental Regulation 9500-4. USDA policy on wildlife, fish, and plant habitat 

management on NFS lands and waters. This regulation provides that the USDA will promote 

the concept and use of integrated pest management practices in carrying out its responsibilities 

for pest control, and will seek to alleviate damage by plant and animal pests to farm crops, 

livestock, poultry, forage, forest and urban trees, and wildlife and their habitats. 

Native Plant Materials Policy (FSM 2070). This Forest Service manual gives direction on the 

use of native plant materials in re-vegetation, rehabilitation, and restoration of both aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystems across the NFS. 

Pesticide Use Management and Coordination Policy (FSM 2150). This manual provides 

agency policy and guidance on the use of pesticides as part of an integrated pest management

approach. Additional guidance provided in the Pesticide Use Management Handbook (FSH 

2109).

Executive Order 

Executive Order 13112 issued February 3, 1999 (E.O. 13112). Directs Federal agencies to: 

(1) identify actions that may affect status of an invasive species; (2)(a) prevent introduction of 

such species; (b) detect and control such species; (c) monitor population of such species; 

(d) provide for restoration of native species; (e) conduct research on invasive species and 

develop technologies to prevent introduction of such species; (f) promote public education of 

such species; and (3) not authorize, fund, or carry out actions likely to cause the introduction or 

spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere unless the benefits of the action 

clearly outweigh the harm and the agencies take steps to minimize the harm. 

Forest Service Manual and Handbook Direction

FSM 2150 Pesticide-Use Management and Coordination. This manual provides direction for 

pesticide-use management and coordination on all NFS lands.

FSH 2109.14 Pesticide-Use Management and Coordination Handbook. This handbook 

provides guidelines to forest land managers who are responsible for planning and selecting 

qualified project personnel (FSM 2150) and conducting efficient pesticide-use projects. 

FSM 2900 for Invasive Species Management. This 2012 directive provides foundational 

comprehensive guidance for managing invasive species on aquatic and terrestrial areas of the 

National Forest System. It replaces FSM 2080.

National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management. USDA 

Forest Service, FS-805 October 2004. This document describes the four invasive species 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

393

program elements: prevention, early detection and rapid response; control and management; and 

rehabilitation and restoration.

Regional Strategy

Rocky Mountain Region Invasive Species Management Strategy, 2005. This document 

describes the overall management strategy for invasive species in Region 2 of the Forest Service. 

Forest action plans are developed from this document.

Rocky Mountain Region Invasive Species Management Strategy, Aquatic Nuisance Species, 

2009.This document describes the overall management strategy for aquatic nuisance species in 

Region 2 of the Forest Service. Forest action plans are developed from this document.

Wyoming State Laws and Strategies

Wyoming State and County Declared Noxious Weeds. List of weeds declared as noxious in 

the State of Wyoming.

Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act of 1973 and Weed and Pest Control Act Rules and 

Regulations. This act governs the use of pesticides in the State of Wyoming, establishes weed 

and pest districts, and is the basis for weed and pest control in the State.

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan, 2010. 

Wyoming’s overall invasive species management plan.

Shoshone National Forest

Shoshone National Forest Noxious Weed Environmental Assessment, 1999. This 

environmental assessment outlines Shoshone National Forest noxious weed control.

Shoshone National Forest Invasive Plant Action Plan, 2007. This plan outlines Shoshone 

National Forest noxious weed control operations.

Certified weed-free products special orders. R2-2013-03; Order no. 02-97-02; Order no. 04-

00-059. Special orders that help prevent the spread of noxious weed seeds in hay, straw, mulch, 

or forage products.

Shoshone National Forest Aquatic Nuisance Species Action Plan, 2011. The overall Shoshone 

action plan for managing aquatic nuisance species. 

2010 Wyoming Aquatic Invasive Species Act (Enrolled Act 62).This is a comprehensive law 

which provides for prohibition of aquatic invasive species, inspection and decontamination of 

watercraft, and authority for the WGFD and Wyoming State Parks and Cultural Resources to 

develop rules and regulations.

Invasive Plant Species

Resource Protection Measures 

Many invasive plants (such as smooth brome or Kentucky bluegrass), though not necessarily 

considered noxious, can replace native vegetation. The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use an integrated weed management approach to 

control and contain the spread of noxious weeds on NFS and adjacent lands. Through that act, 

the Forest Service has an obligation to work cooperatively in identifying noxious weed problems 

and to develop cooperative education and control programs in areas where NFS lands are 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

394

located. Current Forest Service direction for revegetation is to use genetically local (at the 

ecological subsection level) native species and desirable non-native species where technically 

and economically feasible. Revised plan standards and guidelines are intended to direct 

management to maintain and improve natural vegetative conditions and native plant and animal 

communities and habitats. The Shoshone will continue to conduct a noxious weed management 

program that will minimize the spread of State-listed species, and that implements an integrated 

program focusing on prevention, early detection, and timely treatment of priority species. 

Methodology 

We used noxious weed inventory data for the Shoshone and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

area to assess the potential threat of invasive plant spread across revised Forest Plan alternatives.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The primary spatial context used for invasive plant analysis is the area within the Shoshone 

National Forest boundary. Noxious weed location information from the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem is used to analyze potential spread on the Shoshone. The timeframe of the analysis is 

15 years or the life of the revised Forest Plan.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

The Shoshone has not conducted a weed risk assessment. This is planned for when the Shoshone 

completes an invasive plant analysis.

The size and difficulty of access of the Shoshone can make updating and collecting new 

information on weed spread difficult. This may lead to under estimating and over estimating 

some populations.

Affected Environment 

Invasive plants are defined as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health” (FSM 2900).

Noxious weeds are defined as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or 

cause damage to crops, livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, 

the natural resources of the United States, the public health or the environment” (FSM 2900). 

The State of Wyoming designates and maintains a list of “noxious weeds.” Only species 

considered non-native on this list are emphasized for Shoshone control efforts. Noxious weeds 

and invasive plants are used synonymously in this document. 

Invasive plant infestations negatively affect forest and rangeland environments and wildlife 

habitat, can prevent managers from meeting objectives, may reduce native genetic diversity, 

disrupt recreational use, reduce resource production, degrade water quality, and cause economic 

loss. The threat to ecological systems from invasive plants is acute and expanding. Invasive 

plants can disrupt natural processes, impact native species and their plant communities. Invasive 

plants are a threat to forage capacity for big game, especially on winter ranges, and can reduce 

winter range carrying capacity. They also pose an economic threat to downstream and adjacent 

land owners and livestock operations. Potential forage reductions both on and off the Forest can 

threaten the viability of livestock operations. Large-scale treatments can be cost prohibitive to 

adjacent private land owners. Under climate change, more rapid expansion of invasive plants, 

especially cheatgrass, may impact native species and natural ecosystem processes. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

395

Prior to the 1986 Forest Plan as amended, Canada thistle was the most common invasive plant 

found on the Shoshone. This plant is now considered a lower threat across the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem and control efforts have been shifted to the more invasive and greater 

environmentally damaging plants such as leafy spurge, knapweed, toadflax, houndstongue, musk 

thistle, and oxeye daisy. These species have greatly increased in the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem in the last 26 years.

Several large plant infestations occur on the Shoshone. These include Dalmatian toadflax in the 

South Fork of the Shoshone River drainage; leafy spurge, cheatgrass, and musk thistle in the 

Sinks Canyon area; and oxeye daisy along U.S. Highway 212 and along the Wiggins Fork. 

Knapweed (spotted, diffuse, and Russian), yellow toadflax, common tansy, houndstongue, and 

whitetop occur as scattered populations mostly along trails, trailheads, and road corridors. 

The following summary of noxious weed species present on the Shoshone was taken from the 

Shoshone National Forest 2011 GIS layer. Table 95 shows 25 species infesting approximately 

8,420 acres of the Shoshone.

Table 95. Occurrence and acres of noxious weeds on the Shoshone

Common name Acres Notes

Absinth wormwood 1

Black henbane 11

Bull thistle 250

Canada thistle 1,290 Underestimated

Cheatgrass 2,220 Underestimated

Common mullein 40

Common tansy 7

Dalmatian toadflax 2,990 Underestimated

Diffuse knapweed 3

Dyers woad <1

Field bindweed 7

Houndstongue 470 Underestimated

Leafy spurge 130

Marsh sowthistle <1 Underestimated

Musk thistle 180

Oxeye daisy 310 Underestimated

Perennial pepperweed 4

Russian knapweed 20

Saltcedar 5 Off Forest

Scentless false mayweed <1

Scotch thistle 13 Overestimated

Spotted knapweed 290

Sulphur cinquefoil 3

Whitetop 1,707

Yellow toadflax 6

Total Acres 8,420
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

396

Climate change

Changing climate is a potential influence that may have dramatic future effects on the spread of 

invasive plant species. Rice et al. (2012) described potential climate change on the Shoshone. 

Predicted climatic shifts may result in changes in kind, amount, and distribution of precipitation. 

Subsequently, the type, distribution, and spread of invasive plants will also have the probability 

of changing. Lower-elevation grassland and shrubland habitat will become drier and habitat will 

shift upward in elevation.

Control efforts

An environmental assessment for management of invasive plants on the Shoshone, completed in 

1999, uses an integrated management approach: manual and mechanical treatments, herbicide 

application, and use of biological agents (USDA Forest Service 1999). Management and control 

efforts are conducted by Forest employees, as well as through cooperative efforts with Park, 

Fremont, and Hot Springs County Weed and Pest Control Districts. The Shoshone Invasive Plant 

Action Plan (2007) is a strategic document which quantifies program objectives and identifies 

annual priorities. 

Annually, the Shoshone treats approximately 2,000 acres in cooperation with local and State 

agencies. Most of the areas treated are small infestations of less than 0.1 acre. The actual areas 

surveyed for invasive plants during early detection rapid response26 activities are much greater. 

Control efforts focus on early detection rapid response programs for eliminating small 

infestations and containing the spread of larger populations of invasive plants. Small populations 

of invasive plant species have the potential to spread over thousands of acres and change native 

plant community composition and land productivity. The lands most threatened include the 

Shoshone’s big game winter ranges. 

Horse pack, backpack, utility terrain vehicle, and truck-mounted sprayers are used in chemical 

control efforts. Herbicides selected are appropriate for conditions and used following label 

direction.

Bio-control efforts are less intensive than early detection rapid response activities. The primary 

focus is on Dalmatian toadflax in the South Fork of the Shoshone River drainage and Canada 

thistle populations scattered across the Shoshone. 

Mechanical control efforts are used to prevent seed dispersal. Musk and bull thistle can be 

chopped down before seed maturity. Spotted knapweed (after flowering occurs) can be pulled, 

bagged, and burned to limit seed spread. Herbicide application is the major treatment option 

before the flowering time period.

Education and Prevention

The Shoshone National Forest is an active member of the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating 

Committee’s Noxious Weed subcommittee. This group is composed of national forests, national 

parks, wildlife refuges, BLM, County Weed and Pest districts, and local cooperative weed 

management areas. The group works together on invasive plant mapping efforts, educational 

publications, and best management practices across the Greater Yellowstone Area.

 26 Early detection rapid response is a weed program in the Forest Service that emphasizes the early 

detection and rapid treatment of weeds.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

397

For over a decade, the Shoshone has been involved with Park, Fremont, and Hot Springs

counties with the development of cooperative weed management areas. Six are currently active: 

Dubois/Crowheart, Popo Agie, South Fork Shoshone River, Clarks Fork, North Fork of 

Shoshone, and Grass Creek. Education efforts are focused through cooperative weed 

management area participation. Weed tours and spray days conducted by the various cooperative 

weed management areas occur on a regular basis. The Park County cooperative weed 

management area formed a volunteer early detection group to hike various Shoshone trails in 

search of new infestations.

The certified weed-free program has expanded in the last 10 years. Signs, brochures, hunter 

contacts, and law enforcement involvement in the program have dramatically increased. County 

weed and pest organizations are partners providing the inspections to certify weed-free forage 

products. Forest Service enforcement of weed-free regulations is an important part of our 

partnership with the counties.

Prevention practices

Prevention practices are paramount to a good weed management program. These include 

equipment cleaning; using weed-free forage, seeds, mulch, and gravels; and weed inventory for 

all ground-disturbing projects. Wildfire prevention practices include washing arriving vehicles, 

weed-free camp locations, and analyzing invasive plant fire-related issues. Invasive species 

expansion on the landscape will continue with climate change, wild or prescribed fire, livestock, 

wildlife, and forest recreation. These trends need to be addressed by increasing early detection 

rapid response programs. 

Desired Condition

Existing occurrences of terrestrial invasive species are declining. New populations of invasive 

plants are neither establishing nor spreading to adjacent lands. Shoshone goals include 

(1) reducing adverse impacts; (2) eradicating spotted knapweed; (3) reducing other weed species; 

and (4) preventing new establishments.

No new establishment of aquatic invasive species occurs on the Forest. As a result, native and 

selected non-native aquatic species are managed within their natural potential.

Environmental Consequences

Regarding the risk of weed invasions and/or expansion of populations, the alternatives vary in 

level of land disturbance. In general, the more emphasis the alternative has on active 

management or potential of disturbance, the greater the likelihood of weed spread. All 

alternatives contain a Forest-wide desired condition that states that new invasive plant species 

are treated and populations are contained or eradicated. Integrated pest management approaches 

are used, including best management practices that limit introduction, intensification, and spread 

due to management activities. Areas requiring re-vegetation use locally adapted, native plant 

species where feasible and appropriate. Agreements with cooperative weed management areas 

assist in noxious weed control across jurisdictional boundaries.

Direct and Indirect Effects

For each of the resource areas described below, the environmental consequences for invasive 

plants to forest resources are compared by alternative, based on key indicators of disturbance for 

each type of activity. The environmental consequences for aquatic resources including riparian 

and stream habitat and the biota that use them are also compared by alternative. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

398

In general, alternatives that include greater potential levels of ground-disturbance activities for 

various resource uses in shorter periods of time within a drainage tend to pose greater risks for 

increasing spread of aquatic invasive plant species.

Effects from Timber Harvesting: Activities associated with timber harvest create areas of 

disturbed or bare soil that provide conditions that can result in expansion or introduction of 

noxious weed populations. Skid trails, decking and landing sites, and areas treated with dozers or 

roller-choppers for reforestation efforts all create opportunities for noxious weed infestation or 

expansion. Motorized transportation is common, and potential for spread of invasive plants is 

great. Prevention measures can help reduce this effect. Timber sale contracts require cleansing of 

harvesting and construction equipment. Any reseeding efforts require the use of seed (and 

mulch) free of noxious weed seed. Effective implementation, administration, and compliance of 

watershed conservation practices and other project design criteria are critical in avoiding the 

spread or introduction of noxious weeds under any alternative.

Based on the overall amounts of projected estimated harvest, alternatives F and E, respectively, 

have the highest risk of spreading invasive plant species from timber harvesting and associated 

road activities. Alternatives C and D, respectively, would have the least possibility for spread of 

invasive plant species because there is more wilderness and non-motorized emphasis with fewer 

road activities anticipated. Alternatives B and G provide timber harvest and road levels similar to 

the existing levels under alternative A, and would be between the extremes and similar in their 

effects on the potential to spread invasive plant species.

Effects from Roads and Trails Management: Roads or trail use, maintenance, and construction 

can increase areas of soil disturbance that contribute to the spread of invasive plant species and 

provide a vector for introducing invasive plant species. The amount of road construction and 

stream crossings generally varies directly with the amount of suited land that has been allocated 

for vegetative management activities and overall allowable motorized use. 

In considering the alternatives, effects would be greatest in alternatives E and F, followed by 

alternatives A, B, D, and G, which would have similar impacts and somewhat less potential for 

spread of noxious weeds. Alternative C would have the least potential for spread of noxious 

weeds.

Effects from Disturbance Processes (fires/fuels management): Wildfire and prescribed fire 

have great potential to spread invasive plants because of the human activities, motorized 

transportation, potential for ground-disturbing activities, and large number of acres that can be 

affected. Wildfires, suppression activities, and prescribed burning can create areas of bare soil 

and areas of reduced vegetation cover, both of which provide ideal conditions for invasive plants 

to spread rapidly, especially if populations already exists in or adjacent to a burned area. 

Wildfire will likely continue to create new populations of Canada thistle because of the abundant 

Canada thistle seed in most landscapes. Where present in the landscape, Dalmatian toadflax has 

the potential to increase dramatically after both wild and prescribed fire. In areas of Basin and 

Wyoming big sagebrush and black sage, cheatgrass has the potential to establish and dominate 

the landscape. Where eradication is not possible, invasive plant spread may be minimized by 

managing for a healthy native plant community, and by carefully managing fire rehabilitation 

efforts. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

399

Fire suppression and support equipment and crew vehicles can carry weed seeds and plant parts. 

All alternatives include provisions for washing fire-related vehicles to reduce chances of 

carrying noxious weed seed. 

In considering the various alternatives, all are similar with relatively little difference. 

Alternatives F and E are expected to have more prescribed and wildfire management activities, 

and alternatives C and D, potentially the least. Alternatives A, B, and G would be between the 

extremes and be fairly similar in their effects on the spread and management of invasive plants.

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game, and Rangeland Vegetation Management: 

The majority of permitted livestock are cattle and horses. Livestock can introduce invasive plants 

by transporting seeds in their hooves, hair or wool, or digestive systems. Horses and sheep, in 

particular, are known to consume several species of invasive plants after plants are mature and 

have produced viable seed. Big game animals can also introduce and spread invasive plants in 

the same way that domestic livestock can. 

Livestock used by outfitters/guides and recreational users can also be a source of weed delivery 

from infested private lands. New populations can be started at their campsites, within their 

permitted area of operation, and along trails. Special use permit clauses require that operators 

comply with the regional weed-free hay closure order.

Rangeland vegetation projects that have potential to create areas of bare soil, such as prescribed 

fire in sagebrush habitats or mechanical treatment for conifer encroachment, create the 

possibility of introducing or expanding noxious weed populations. In such cases, design criteria 

are required to prevent or control weed populations.

Alternative C would reduce the total animal unit months of livestock grazing use compared to 

existing levels under alternative A, and would have the least potential to spread invasive species. 

Alternatives B, A, D, and G maintain similar levels of allotments and animal unit months of 

livestock grazing use; the same as the current forest plan allocation and would have similar 

effects. Alternative E would increase animal unit months of livestock grazing use compared to 

alternative A for the same number of allotments, and have the potential for increased livestock 

impacts to aquatic resources. Alternative F would include the highest number of allotments and 

animal unit months of livestock grazing use compared to current levels and have the most 

potential for introduction and spread of invasive plant species. 

Effects from Recreation: Recreational use is estimated to increase overall during the planning 

period. The balance between motorized and non-motorized recreational uses is anticipated to 

vary by alternative emphasis. 

Recreational activities may be responsible for the greatest spread of noxious weed populations 

because of the number of people with their vehicles, horses, and accessories that visit the 

Shoshone, and the wide area they cover. Noxious weed expansion is most likely to occur along 

roads and trails. Once established along the travelway, if left untreated, the populations begin to 

spread laterally from the travel corridor. Some expansion occurs at trailheads and popular horsecamping areas. Weed seeds and plant parts are brought in on vehicle undercarriages and tires, 

off-road vehicles, horse trailers, hay and feed products, boots and shoes, camping and fishing 

equipment, etc. Any activities that create bare or disturbed soil provide conditions for invasive 

species establishment and spread in areas including roads and roadsides, trails and trailheads, 

parking lots, developed and dispersed camping sites, popular fishing locations, heavy-use areas 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

400

around summer homes and lodges, ski runs, and construction areas. Off-road vehicle travel has 

high potential to introduce and spread invasive plants. 

The weed-free forage special order provides a mechanism for limiting spread of invasive plants 

by those using pack and saddle livestock. Since no such protection is in place for motorized 

vehicles, alternatives that allow for greater levels of motorized travel (in summer) are likely to 

provide greater opportunity for spread of invasive plants. 

All alternatives would limit motorized travel to designated routes, and as a result, help limit 

potential spread of invasive plants. In considering the various alternatives, alternatives F and E 

are expected to have the greatest amount of area available for motorized recreation, and 

alternatives C and D the least. Alternatives A, B, and G would be between the extremes and be 

similar in their effects on invasive plant species.

Overall, alternative F would have the highest risk for potential spread of invasive plant species 

with the most area allocated for motorized recreational use, followed by alternative E. 

Alternatives C and D would have the least potential for spread because these alternatives have 

the most areas allocated for non-motorized uses. Alternatives A, B, and G would be between the 

extremes and be similar in their effects on potential to spread invasive plant species.

Effects from Oil and Gas / Mineral and Energy Development: The largest current activity 

associated with mining on the Forest, is limited to gravel pits to extract mineral materials for 

road construction purposes or individual permits for landscaping use off-Forest. Additional 

mineral operations could result in exploration activity, and if sites go into production, it could 

result in increased travel. Production sites (including frequent presence of maintenance vehicles) 

often create areas of disturbed soil, providing areas for noxious weed infestations. Restoration of 

these areas following production would involve monitoring and treatment of invasive plants. The 

potential for these activities is very small based upon past activity levels on the Shoshone. There 

is nothing in this analysis that indicates an increase in future levels of development. Effects from 

oil and gas/mineral and energy development would be the same across all alternatives. 

Gravel pits are generally located in areas with minimal impacts to aquatic resources. The

development of mineral materials is not expected to be significant with any alternative. 

Existing mining operations, for locatable minerals, are typically small, limited in number, and 

regulated by revised Plan standards and guidelines. Increases in mining activity are not 

anticipated for the future, but cannot be ruled out. 

Mining effects could include land disturbances and processing activities that may affect surface 

and ground water quality, water quantity, and timing of release. For this analysis, aquatic 

resource effects from mining are assumed to be proportional to the amount of land available for 

locatable minerals. Potential impacts to aquatic habitats and populations are expected to be 

minor for all alternatives, as there are no expected proposals for large mineral development 

operations because of minimal, if not non-existent, potential for development of these resources. 

Alternatives A, B, E, F, and G have the same area available for locatable minerals exploration 

and have the greatest risk of adverse effects. Alternatives C and D have less land available 

because recommended wilderness areas may eventually have minerals withdrawn from 

development. These alternatives would have lower risk of adverse effects from this activity than 

the other alternatives. Forest standards, guidelines, and project design features with proper 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

401

implementation, administration, and compliance would minimize the effects to aquatic resources 

from mining activities, should they occur. 

Effects from Wildlife Habitat Management: Wildlife species can transport noxious weed 

seeds in the same ways livestock can. Wildlife or fisheries enhancement projects that disturb the 

soil surface (such as fish structures) can increase weed populations. Setting back of succession 

stages using fire and mechanical treatments in improving big game winter ranges has the 

potential effect of increasing cheatgrass, Dalmatian toadflax, musk thistle, and other weed 

species. 

The effects from wildlife management would be the same across all alternatives. 

Effects from Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Management: In general, the 

habitat requirements in and around each known or discovered threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species location will be protected, restored, or enhanced. Invasive plant control 

treatments may need to account for the presence of rare plant species and adjust timing and type 

of herbicide.

The effects from threatened, endangered, and sensitive species management would be the same 

across all alternatives.

Effects from Soil and Watershed Management: Soil and watershed restoration or 

improvement projects are intended to improve condition of the land, that is, to repair or restore 

areas of disturbed conditions. Road decommissioning (with monitoring) can reduce the areas 

populated by invasive plants. Restoration of cheatgrass infestations has the potential to improve 

long-term soil productivity and improve watershed condition class.

There could be a greater disturbance to the land in the short run as a project or treatment is 

implemented, which could also increase the possibility of noxious weed expansions. In the long 

run, however, there should be an overall reduction in areas of bare soil and the reestablishment 

of native plants. 

The effect from soil and watershed management would be the same across all alternatives.

Effects from Heritage Management: Effects from managing heritage resources are anticipated 

to be very minor in scope or acreage. If known sites are evaluated for possible nomination to the 

National Register (involving soil disturbance through pit evacuations, for example), noxious 

weed seed could be brought in, resulting in introduction or spread of invasive plants. Effects 

from managing heritage resources would be the same across all alternatives.

Effects from Land Use Authorizations and Adjustments: An individual land exchange could 

result in a potential loss or gain of noxious weed infestations on the Shoshone, depending upon 

the size and location of the exchange and whether either the offered or selected lands contained 

existing populations. If an exchange results in a subdivision, or development where human 

activity will be greatly increased, the likelihood of new infestations of invasive plants will also 

be greatly increased. The effects from possible land exchanges would be the same across all 

alternatives.

Utility corridors include installation of overhead voltage lines and buried electric, cable, 

telephone, or other utility system lines. Effects involve the creation of areas of bare soil. Utility 

corridors are subject to permit provisions that include monitoring and treatment for noxious 

weed infestation and spread. Effects of utility corridors would be the same across all alternatives.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

402

Wilderness and RNA Allocation: Wilderness areas have a positive effect to prevent the spread 

of invasive plants due to the potential of fewer disturbances. However, wilderness areas result in 

difficulty of access to treat invasive plants. In considering the alternatives, alternatives C and D 

have more emphasis on wilderness addition and alternatives A, B, E, F, and G have the least. 

Summary of Effects to Resource 

Alternative C would allow the least ground-disturbing activity and would result in the least risk 

of noxious weed spread, followed by alternatives D, A, B, G, E, and F, respectively. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects table (table 20), includes the list of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities that were considered with regard to cumulative effects to invasive 

species. This discussion considers effects of invasive species since their first appearance on the 

Shoshone through the next planning period (estimated at 10 to 15 years). 

For invasive plants, the analysis considers effects of invasive species on the Shoshone, and in the 

adjacent three-county area. The key indicators for invasive species analysis are amount (acres) of 

invasive species and the amount (acres) of treatment. 

On and off the Forest, invasive plants and invasive plant species often become established where 

ground-disturbing activities have created areas of bare soil, and where a seed source is present. 

Bare ground has resulted from past activities including livestock grazing, timber harvest, 

recreation, and road or trail development. Seed sources have included recreational livestock, 

permitted livestock, and motorized vehicles. Their populations have increased throughout the 

three counties. The county Weed and Pest Districts map noxious weed occurrences, and their 

maps show the amount and type of invasive species.

Invasive species on and off the Forest are expected to increase as the populations of local 

communities increase, “baby-boomers” retire, and more people nationwide continue to seek 

places like the Greater Yellowstone Area to recreate and retire. All-terrain vehicle use, in 

particular, has seen a dramatic increase recently, and that is expected to continue.

Noxious weed populations on the Shoshone can be directly influenced by activities on adjacent 

lands, and vice versa. For this reason, it is critical that cooperative efforts continue in these areas, 

and with county and State efforts at education and control. As more travelers come from out of 

state, certification and treatment becomes increasingly important in noxious weed management 

on-Forest. Urbanization is expected to continue to result in spread of invasive plant species off 

Forest. As new residents come to communities adjacent to the Shoshone, education and control 

become increasingly important. Watercourses are important vectors for invasive species, and 

since the NFS lands are at the head of the watersheds, Shoshone invasive species populations 

could spread to non-Forest land via this avenue. 

The Shoshone is expending weed control funding through county programs to control weed 

species on adjacent private lands (through authority in the Wyden Amendment). Management 

and control efforts are cooperative efforts with Fremont, Park, and Hot Springs County Weed 

and Pest Control Districts. The Weed and Pest Districts work closely with private land owners 

and other USDA agencies and County Conservation Districts to treat existing populations and to 

educate people on the topic of invasive species. Prevention and education efforts have increased 

for members of the public and Shoshone employees. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

403

Climate change

Rice et al. (2012) predicted climatic shifts may result in lower-elevation grassland and shrubland 

habitat becoming drier and invasive plant habitat will shift upward in elevation. This will create 

a greater potential for cheatgrass and other new noxious weed infestations to spread on the 

landscape where ground-disturbing management activities occur. 

Aquatic Invasive Species 

Resource Protection Measures 

A key strategy of the Forest is to treat all waters as if they have aquatic invasive species or the 

potential to be invaded by aquatic invasive species whether or not they have been confirmed. 

The primary vector for transportation and establishment is through water, mud, and fine 

sediments. As a result, our primary resource protection measure is to thoroughly clean, inspect, 

and dry all equipment being used and moved between streams or lakes both on and off forest to 

prevent establishment. With a more mobile society and increased use, the threat of aquatic 

invasive species establishment increases.

The Forest staff works closely and coordinates with the WGFD and the Greater Yellowstone 

Coordinating Committee on these efforts for information exchange and consistency in sampling 

and monitoring procedures. 

Methodology

For this integrated analysis, we incorporated historical information, current survey and 

monitoring data, relevant research, reports, and publications. We used this information to 

determine the aquatic invasive species that are currently found in and around the forest, their 

current distribution, and potential for spread. Information was compiled and obtained from the 

Shoshone National Forest Aquatic Nuisance Species Action Plan (USDA Forest Service 2013) 

that is updated annually. The action plan includes a strategy to periodically survey and monitor 

high use streams and lakes on the Forest. Known, confirmed occurrences on or near the Forest 

have been mapped but many waterbodies have not been sampled due to logistics and cost.

This analysis assumes that the amount of land management disturbance is generally proportional 

to aquatic resource effects. The actual risks and consequences are dependent on a variety of 

project-level factors, including the type of disturbance and location relative to water resources 

(e.g., type of timber harvest and amount and type of roads involved, including stream crossings).

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

To determine aquatic effects, we analyzed potential short-term impacts and long-term benefits to 

riparian, stream, and lake habitats and the aquatic biota that depends on them, addressing a 

variety of land management activities proposed in various alternatives over the planning period 

(about 15 years). We utilized information from the integrated Watershed Conservation 

Framework, which analyzes information at the 6th hydrologic unit code27 (HUC) level. 

 27 A hydrologic unit code (HUC) is a geographic area representing all or part of a surface drainage basin 

or distinct hydrologic feature. A 6th-level hydrologic unit boundary ranges in size from 10,000 to 

40,000 acres and is named and coded with 12 digits.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

404

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

The Shoshone has not completed a detailed survey for aquatic invasive species primarily because 

of logistics and costs. Instead, high-use areas are periodically sampled. Additionally, all waters 

are treated as if they contain aquatic invasive species. 

Affected Environment 

Aquatic invasive species were not known to be an issue and were not addressed in the 1986 

Forest Plan as amended. More recently, various aquatic invasive species have spread or have the 

potential to become established throughout the Rocky Mountain West and the Forest.

Aquatic invasive species known to occur in and around the Forest have been identified. Whirling 

disease has been confirmed in various streams on or near the Forest. Didymo has been confirmed 

on the Middle Popo Agie just off the Forest downstream through the town of Lander. New 

Zealand mudsnails have been found in two localized locations in connected drainages 

downstream off the Forest. Zebra and quagga mussels have not been found in the State, but have 

been found in various nearby reservoirs and lakes adjacent to Wyoming. They are of particular 

concern due to the high potential for spread from neighboring contaminated reservoirs and lakes 

facilitated primarily through watercraft and the significant adverse effects they can cause to 

water facilities and aquatic ecosystems if they become established.

Desired Condition

No new establishment of aquatic invasive species occurs on the Forest. As a result, native and 

selected non-native aquatic species are managed within their natural potential. 

Environmental Consequences

In general, alternatives that include greater potential levels of ground disturbance activities for 

various resource uses within a drainage, particularly access to watercourses, tend to pose greater 

risks for impacts to aquatic and riparian resources that may increase spread of aquatic invasive 

species.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Timber Harvesting: This analysis assumes the amount of timber harvest increases 

the potential effects to aquatic resource effects proportionally. The actual risks and consequences 

are dependent on a variety of project-level factors including: type of harvest and location relative 

to water resources, amount and type of roads, and stream crossings and types. 

Effective implementation, administration, and compliance with Forest Service Regional and 

National BMP Directives and project-specific design criteria are critical to avoiding or 

minimizing impacts to aquatic resources and potentially affected streams under any alternative. 

Actual areas harvested and harvest type in any given year varies depending on alternative and 

budget levels. Site-specific effects to aquatic and riparian resources would occur as a result of a 

variety of factors including harvest levels and type, location of harvest relative to aquatic 

resources, amount of roads and type, the number and type of stream crossings, the number and 

types of equipment used at the project level. 

Based on the overall amounts of projected estimated timber harvest, alternatives F and E, 

respectively, would have the highest risk of effects to aquatic resources and potential for aquatic 

invasive species establishment from timber harvesting and associated roads. Alternatives C and 

D, respectively, would have the least amount of impacts because there is more wilderness and
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

405

non-motorized emphasis with fewer open roads. Alternatives B and G provide timber harvest and 

road levels similar to the existing forest plan levels, which would generally maintain commodity 

production, motorized use, and species conservation, and help minimize establishment of aquatic 

invasive species.

Effects from Roads and Trails Management: The amount of road construction and stream 

crossings generally varies directly with the amount of suited land that has been allocated for 

vegetative management activities and overall allowable motorized use.

Alternatives F and E, respectively, would have the most road construction and overall motorized 

use of any of the alternatives considered, due to the larger amount of management area 5.1 and 

more anticipated vegetative management activity and motorized use. These alternatives would 

have the most potential for spread of aquatic invasive species. Alternatives C and D, 

respectively, would have the least amount of expected road-related impacts and spread of aquatic 

invasive species because there is more wilderness and non-motorized emphasis. Alternatives A, 

B, and G provide a road and trail system similar to the existing condition.

Effects from Disturbance Processes (fires/fuels management): Generally, the chances for 

wildfire are similar for all alternatives. Risk for wildfire may be reduced somewhat under 

alternatives F and E, which propose the most prescribed fire and timber harvest, but would also 

result in the most amounts of habitat disturbance. Alternatives C and D, respectively would result 

in the least amount of mechanized vegetative management for fuels treatments and prescribed 

fire activities. Alternatives B, G, and A would include activities to help prevent catastrophic fires 

helping to minimize short-term impacts to aquatic resources, while helping to prevent the 

establishment of aquatic invasive species. 

Generally, the chances for wildfire are similar for all alternatives. It would be reduced somewhat 

with the alternatives that propose the most prescribed fire and timber harvest, but would also 

result in the highest level of habitat disturbances (alternatives F and E, respectively). Alternatives 

C and D, respectively propose the least amount of prescribed fire and timber harvest. 

Alternatives G, B, and A propose direction and management area allocations to help prevent 

catastrophic fires while helping to minimize short-term impacts to aquatic resources, 

management indicator species, and sensitive fish species, while helping to prevent the 

establishment of aquatic invasive species.

Fire suppression activities can use large amounts of water. These activities have the potential to 

transport and move water and aquatic invasive species from various sources both on and off the 

Forest. Shoshone National Forest Fire Resource Protection Guidelines have been developed and 

are updated annually to minimize the potential spread of aquatic invasive species from fire 

suppression activities.

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game: Impacts for aquatic invasive species may 

occur when support vehicles cross streams. Alternatives G, B, A, C, and D maintain the same by 

number of allotments and AUMs as the current forest plan allocation and would have similar 

effects. Alternative C would reduce the total AUMs significantly, compared to alternatives A, B, 

and G, and would have the least impacts. Alternative E would increase AUMs substantially, 

compared to alternatives A, B, and G for the same number of allotments and have the potential 

for increased livestock impacts to aquatic resources. Alternative F would have the most increase 

in number of active allotments and permitted AUMs compared to current levels and have the 

most potential for aquatic resources impacts, although the allotments should be administered to 

standard. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

406

Effects from Recreation: Recreational use is estimated to increase overall during the planning 

period. The types of recreational uses would change under the various alternatives.

Summer Recreation: Most summer developed and dispersed recreation sites are located near 

streams, lakes or valley bottoms. The potential influence of developed and dispersed recreation 

sites on aquatic resources varies across the Shoshone. Some sites are located in riparian habitats 

and so corresponding influences would be anticipated there. Dispersed summer recreation sites 

are expected to have more negative impacts on aquatic resources, because they were not 

established with specific design criteria or standards and guidelines, and thus, do not provide the 

same level of resource protection as managed developed sites. 

Recreation impacts to water resources on the Shoshone are generally related to streamside 

recreation use including roads and trails, camping, water-based recreation, and indirect potential 

effects from upland recreation activities. Motorized off-road non-winter recreation travel can 

cause riparian area degradation and adverse water quality impacts. Horse, bike, and foot traffic 

generally have less impact but can cause localized effects, especially where trails parallel or 

cross streams. Lakes and streams, especially those with fish that attract anglers or provide good 

hunting opportunities in the area can receive significant impacts from recreational livestock and 

foot traffic, if not managed properly. Water-based recreation is increasing and degradation can 

occur if proper facilities are not in place and use is not managed. 

The direct impacts to fish populations and fishing experiences are expected to be proportional to 

overall summer use increases. The magnitude and extent of summer motorized recreation trends 

have a greater effect on aquatic resources and potential to introduce aquatic invasive species than 

non-motorized recreation. Increased recreation impacts on aquatic habitats are assumed to be 

proportional to the acres available to summer motorized recreation. 

Fishing is an activity that occurs on the Shoshone. Access to streams, lakes, and reservoirs 

provides a variety of angling opportunities in locales that range from easily accessible developed 

sites to remote subalpine wilderness areas. 

Fishing and associated equipment can contribute to the propagation and distribution of aquatic 

invasive species, which can damage aquatic biota and disrupt aquatic ecosystems.

Alternative F has the highest risk for potential adverse effects to aquatic resources from 

increased summer motorized recreation, followed in descending order by alternatives E, A, B, G, 

D, then C, with the least potential. Alternative G is about 40,000 acres less than alternative A.

Effects from Oil and Gas / Mineral and Energy Development: The potential for mineral and 

oil and gas development is low to very low under any alternative. Surface occupancy with 

stipulations is lowest for alternatives G, C, D, B, E, and A in ascending order. Alternative A is 

about six times greater than alternative G. Effects from minerals-related activities are anticipated 

to have little to no impact on spread or introduction of aquatic invasive species under all 

alternatives due to the current low probability of development.

Summary of Effects to Resource 

Alternative C would allow the least ground-disturbing activity and would result in the least risk 

of introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species, followed by alternatives D, A, B, G, E, 

and F, respectively. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

407

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects table (table 20) includes the list of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities that were considered with regard to cumulative effects to invasive 

species. This discussion considers effects of invasive species on the Shoshone through the next 

planning period (estimated at 10 to 15 years). The analysis for aquatic species is bounded by the 

6th-level hydrologic unit code watershed boundaries.

Alternative C is expected to have the least impact to aquatic and riparian resources, and 

alternative F would have the most effect on those resources. The effects are expected to be 

similar across the entire Forest, over the life of the revised Plan, with regard to cumulative 

effects on aquatic and riparian resources. 

Another effect would be the reconstruction of highways within the Forest boundary. There can 

be both short-term and long-term effects from these types of activities. Currently, there is 

reconstruction planned for a portion of the Beartooth Highway on the Beartooth Plateau and the 

Louis Lake Road on the Washakie District during the planning period. Although there would be 

short-term disturbances, through implementation, administration, and compliance of forest plan 

standards and guidelines, the Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives, and specific 

project design features, there would be long-term benefits to aquatic resource habitat conditions 

and aquatic passage through improved road and stream crossing design techniques.

As further development and human use is anticipated adjacent to the Shoshone, there is potential 

for aquatic invasive species to become established on the Shoshone primarily due to motorized 

equipment, boats, recreational equipment, livestock, and human use.

In addition to whirling disease, New Zealand mudsnails, zebra and quagga mussels, non-native 

fish species can displace native species through competition and/or hybridization, and threaten 

native species population viabilities in the aquatic ecosystems where they have been introduced. 

The effects from non-native fish species introductions are discussed in more detail in the 

fisheries section. 

Climate change

Climate change has the potential to reduce summer flows in streams, increase spring runoff 

events, and increase summer water temperature (Rice et al. 2012). Aquatic invasive species are a 

potential risk factor for stream trout populations.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

408

People and Communities − Goods and Services

Commercial Livestock Grazing

Introduction

Stockmen have been using the grasslands of this continent since the first Spanish settlers arrived 

in the early 1500s. Grazing by domestic livestock has occurred on rangelands of the Shoshone 

National Forest since the late 1800s. The industry has been an integral part of community 

economies, development, and lifestyles. For the livestock producer today, summer forage on the 

Shoshone National Forest often represents a vital part of their total program. Term grazing 

permits for livestock grazing, normally issued for 10-year periods, are in effect primarily on the 

eastern half of the Shoshone National Forest. Permittees pay a grazing fee for use of forage each 

year and are required to abide by the terms and conditions of their permit which address 

livestock and land ownership, maintenance of range improvements, resource concerns and 

livestock management practices, etc. Most permitted livestock spend about three to four months 

out of the year on the Forest, less time if allotments are at higher elevations. Implementation of 

required management practices and annual and long-term effects of livestock use on the 

environment are monitored. Through adaptive management adjustments are made, as needed, to 

assure compliance with permits, standards and guidelines and to address other resource concerns.

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws

These acts, along with other land use laws, executive orders, and policies guide management of 

rangeland resources and commercial livestock grazing on NFS lands. Other laws pertinent to 

rangeland management and livestock grazing on NFS lands can be found in Forest Service 

Manual (FSM) 2200.

Sustained-Yield Forest Management Act of 1944 and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act 

of 1960 allow for the production of multiple quality goods and resources at sustained levels over 

time, including rangeland forage for commercial livestock grazing. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973: Requires Federal agencies to conserve threatened and 

endangered species.

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974: Authorizes the Secretary to cooperate with other Federal 

and state agencies and individuals in carrying out measures to eradicate, suppress, control or 

prevent the spread of noxious weeds. 

Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974: Provides for 

maintenance of land productivity and the need to protect and improve the soil and water 

resources.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976: “It is the policy of the Congress that all 

forested lands in the NFS shall be maintained in appropriate forest cover with species of trees, 

degree of stocking, rate of growth, and conditions of stand designed to secure the maximum 

benefits of multiple use sustained yields. Plans developed shall provide for the diversity of plant 

and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order 

to meet the overall multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objective” This act 

identifies information and requirements concerning NFS grazing and browsing resources.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

409

Section 8 of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978 – this section allows 

for consultation and cooperation in the development and execution of allotment management 

plans for grazing permits.

Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 

1994 amended the 1987 Agricultural Credit Act to provide for mediation of grazing permit 

cancellation and suspension actions as a part of the existing administrative appeals process.

Section 504 of the Rescissions Act of 1995, Public Law 104-19, directs the Forest to complete 

site-specific National Environmental Policy Act analysis and decisions on allotments on a 

scheduled basis.

Regulation and Policies

Regulations and policies have been passed in support of these laws and require the following: 

• Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 36

○ 219 Planning

○ 222 Range Management

○ 241 Fish and Wildlife

• Forest Service Manual 2200 – this manual summarizes laws and regulations governing 

rangeland management and forest planning.

• Forest Service Manual 2600 – this manual summarizes laws and regulations governing 

fish and wildlife 

• Forest Service Handbook 2209.13 – Grazing Permit Administration Handbook

• Forest Service Handbook 2609.13 – Wildlife and Fisheries Program Management 

Handbook

• Region Two Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide

Other Agreements

Memoranda of Understanding for Forage Reserves: Forage reserves are allotments under a term 

grazing permit but may be utilized by other permittees that have been temporarily displaced due 

to wild or prescribed fire, drought, or other situations that have made forage unavailable. 

Non-use for Resource Protection Agreements: These agreements may be entered into to provide 

long-term non-use needed to address recovery of rangeland resource conditions, provide forage 

on a temporary basis to allow resource recovery on other area grazing units, provide temporary 

resolution of conflicts created by grizzly bear or wolf predation on livestock, or provide 

supplemental forage in times of drought to assist area livestock operators and lessen the resource 

impacts of grazing.

Allotment Management Plans: Developed through site-specific environmental analysis, an 

allotment management plan uses forest plan direction and current issues to determine desired 

conditions and a broad strategy on how to meet desired conditions. They describe site-specific 

grazing strategies, stocking, structural and non-structural range improvement needs, and 

coordination with other resources. The output, or animal unit months (AUMs), is a result of the 

allotment management plan requirements, range improvements, and the ability of the permit 

holder to manage forage and livestock.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

410

Resource Protection Measures 

Region 2 of the Forest Service developed the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 

2509.25), which provides direction for resource managers within the context of existing laws, 

regulations, and policies. The Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives lists 

standards and design criteria designed to protect, maintain, and enhance the integrity of soil and 

aquatic ecosystems. Standards and design criteria are referenced under a guideline in the revised 

Plan.

Methodology

The analysis area for rangelands and commercial livestock grazing is the NFS lands of the 

Shoshone National Forest, with particular focus on the existing commercial livestock grazing 

allotments.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires the identification of the suitability of 

lands for resource management. An analysis to determine lands capable of producing forage and 

suitable for grazing livestock was completed as part of the forest plan revision. Although an area 

may be deemed capable and suitable for use by livestock in the revised Forest Plan, a projectlevel analysis evaluating the site-specific impacts of the grazing activity, in conformance with 

NEPA, is required to authorize and dictate the management of livestock grazing on a specific 

allotment.

The assessment of capable and suitable rangelands was accomplished using GIS. This process is 

described in detail in appendix B. 

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

Although commercial livestock grazing historically occurred on nearly every area of the 

Shoshone, the special context for this analysis is limited to existing allotments, both vacant and 

active, inside and outside of wilderness and the grizzly bear primary conservation area. 

Additionally, the counties adjacent to the Shoshone were considered in respect to the associated

permit-holding ranch operations and potential impacts to open space. The timeframe considered 

accounts for historic livestock use (from 1900 on) but the primary focus is on the past 25 years 

since the 1986 Forest Plan as amended was implemented. 

Affected Environment 

Wild ungulates have grazed the lands within the Shoshone and the surrounding region for 

thousands of years (Knight 1994). As a result, the native plants and plant communities have 

evolved to tolerate various levels of intensity, timing, frequency, and duration of grazing and 

browsing. Domestic livestock grazing in the area probably began with the horse herds of the 

Americans Indians. By the mid-1800s, Euro-American settlers brought livestock with them as 

they settled in the valleys and plains surrounding the mountains (Knight 1994). Before the 

Yellowstone Timber Reserve was established, large herds of unregulated livestock were brought 

into and through what is now the Shoshone. During this time, heavy and improperly managed 

livestock grazing was the norm. Significant changes have occurred in the management and level 

of commercial livestock grazing activities on the Shoshone over the past 100 years and have 

accelerated in the past 20. From a high point in the early 1900s, commercial sheep grazing has 

been in a steady decline on the Shoshone (table 96). The initial decline in sheep numbers was 

primarily due to adjustments to stocking rates that reflected a more sustained use of the range 

resource. The decline in sheep animal unit months continued through the 1970s, and continued to 

decline in subsequent decades, though at a slower rate, reflecting declining demand and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

411

increased importation of wool and mutton from overseas. The last 10 years have seen the 

removal of all but one commercial sheep-grazing permit due to an increase in predator/livestock 

conflicts and concern over the potential for disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn 

sheep. In contrast to commercial sheep use, the levels of permitted cattle grazing and demand for 

allotments have changed little for many decades. Improved livestock management; consolidation 

of vacant sheep allotments with cattle allotments, where appropriate; and construction of fences 

and off-site water sources have led to improved livestock management and distribution.

Table 96. Changes in management and alignment of allotments, 1986 to present

Clarks Fork Ranger District

Allotment

1986 Forest Plan as 

amended 2012

Type of use Status Type of use Status

Bald Ridge Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Basin Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Face of the Mountain Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Little Rock Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Bench Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Table Mountain Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Non-Use for Res. 

Protection

Bennett Creek * Sheep and Goat Active Cattle and Horse Active

Little Rock 017 * Sheep and Goat Active Cattle and Horse Active

Deep Creek * Sheep and Goat Active Cattle and Horse Active

Line Creek * Sheep and Goat Active Cattle and Horse Active

Stockade * Sheep and Goat Active Cattle and Horse Active

Peat Beds Sheep and Goat Active Sheep and Goat Vacant

Burnt Mountain Sheep and Goat Active Sheep and Goat Vacant

Crandall Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Reef Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Ghost Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Lake Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Forage Reserve

Greybull Ranger District

Allotment

1986 Forest Plan as 

amended 2012

Type of use Status Type of use Status

Aspen Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Cottonwood Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Forage Reserve

Deer Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Gooseberry Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Forage Reserve

Guard Station Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Rennerberg Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Wood River Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Kirwin Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Dick Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Sunshine Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

412

Table 96. Changes in management and alignment of allotments, 1986 to present

Greybull Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Timber Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Francs Peak* Sheep and Goat Active Sheep and Goat Vacant

Meeteetse Creek Sheep and Goat Active Cattle and Horse Active (Meeteetse)

Carter Mountain Sheep and Goat Active Cattle and Horse Active (Meeteetse)

Pickett Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Piney Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Sage Creek (on-off) Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Sugarloaf Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Twin Peaks Sheep and Goat Active Sheep and Goat Vacant

East Fork* Sheep and Goat Active Cattle and Horse Active

Washakie Needles Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Yellow/Steer Sheep and Goat Active Sheep and Goat Vacant

Wapiti Ranger District

Allotment

1986 Forest Plan as 

amended 2012

Type of use Status Type of use Status

Belknap Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Hardpan/Table Mtn. Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Rock Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Bull Creek (on-off) New Allotment n/a Cattle and Horse Active

Carter Creek (on-off) New Allotment n/a Cattle and Horse Active

Big Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Jim Mountain Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse NF Winter Range Allot

Dunn Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse NF Winter Range Allot

Green Cr. Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active (Rand Cr.)

Pearson Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active (Robbers Roost)

Logan Mountain Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active (Robbers Roost)

Rattlesnake Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active (Robbers Roost)

Trout Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active (Robbers Roost)

Bobcat Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Community Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Hunter Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Ishawooa Hills Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Ishawooa Mesa Cattle and Horse Active n/a Closed (1987)

Valley-Boulder Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Washakie Ranger District

Allotment

1986 Forest Plan as amended 2012

Type of use Status Type of use Status

Bayer Mountain Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Ed Young Basin Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Maxon Basin Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Dickinson Park Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Horses active, cattle 

vacant
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

413

Table 96. Changes in management and alignment of allotments, 1986 to present

Frye Lake Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Hays Park Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Meadow Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Middle Fork Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Sawmill Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

South Pass Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Squaw Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Pine/Willow Sheep and Goat Active Sheep and Goat Active

Slate Creek Sheep and Goat Active Sheep and Goat Active

Beaver Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Atlantic Sheep and Goat Vacant Sheep and Goat Vacant

Atlantic City Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Wind River Ranger District

Allotment

1986 Forest Plan as amended 2012

Type of use Status Type of use Status

Dunoir Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Doby Cliff Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Fish Lake Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Horse Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Ramshorn Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Parque Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Red Creek Cattle and Horse Active n/a Closed (1987)

Union Pass Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Warm Springs Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Whiskey Mountain Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Wiggins Fork Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Wind River Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Bear Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

Salt Creek Cattle and Horse Active Cattle and Horse Active

*Indicates appropriate portions of the sheep and goat allotment were combined with an adjacent cattle and horse 

allotment. The remaining portions remain in vacant status as S&G Allotments.

An animal unit month (AUM) is the unit of measure used to report and compare the amount of 

commercial livestock grazing that takes place on the national forest. An AUM is the equivalent 

to the amount of dry forage consumed by a 1,000-pound non-lactating cow in one month 

(approximately 780 pounds or 28 pounds per day). See figure 25. Recreation visitor livestock 

and permitted outfitter and guide pack and saddle livestock are not included in this category. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

414

Figure 25. Historical permitted commercial livestock grazing, by decade

Figure 26 and figure 27 demonstrate the difference between authorized use levels and the 

permitted use levels. This gap is accounted for as non-use. Non-use, or partial non-use, of an 

allotment may occur for one of two reasons: the first is non-use for personal convenience, and 

the second is non-use for resource protection. Non-use for personal convenience indicates that 

grazing use was offered, but the permittee declined to use it. Non-use for resource protection is 

normally associated with non-use due to a prescribed or wildfire, during a period of severe 

drought, or implementation of a “forage reserve.” A forage reserve allotment is held through a 

term grazing permit, but is not typically stocked by the permit holder. It is stocked as needed 

when another allotment is unavailable due to resource conditions, predator conflicts, or rest 

following a vegetative treatment.

In response to localized drought conditions or predation problems, some allotments have 

sporadically been in non-use or partial non-use status resulting in actual grazing use being 

considerably lower than permitted use. In addition to the reduced numbers of livestock grazing, 

some grazing seasons were temporarily shortened. However, permitted animal unit months are 

not affected by this. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

415

Figure 26. Permitted versus actual use cattle AUMs, 1986 to present

Figure 27. Permitted versus actual use sheep AUMs, 1986 to present 

Permitted grazing use by commercial livestock has never reached the levels the existing forest 

plan projected to be available. Those projections were based on extensive implementation of 

both structural and vegetative range improvements. In addition, there was no accounting for the 

reduced demand for sheep grazing, disease transmission issues, or impacts from large predators. 

Presently, cattle grazing use is approximately 79 percent and sheep grazing use is approximately 

2 percent of projected levels. While demand for cattle grazing allotments has remained high, 

sheep allotments have been vacant due to a lack of interest resulting from a depressed market, 

predation problems, and conflicts with wildlife. Because of this lack of need, a decision notice 

from an environmental analysis determined that due to the potential for disease transmission 

between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep, no permits would be issued for domestic sheep 

grazing on the vacant sheep allotments located on the Clarks Fork and Greybull Ranger Districts.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

416

There are currently 88 commercial livestock grazing allotments on the Shoshone, most of which 

are permitted for cattle grazing. The few remaining sheep allotments that have not been partially 

or totally combined with adjacent cattle allotments are vacant (e.g., there is no permit currently 

in effect, but the allotment remains available for grazing upon appropriate NEPA analysis and 

decision). 

Livestock grazing (and in some instances, grazing by recreational livestock and large wild 

ungulates) tends to have the greatest influence on the following areas:

• Low-gradient riparian and wetland areas.

• Fine-textured soils with a minimal amount of rock, cobble, or boulders.

Table 97. Permitted and actual use livestock grazing, 1986 to present

Year

Cattle and Horse AUMs Sheep and Goat AUMs Total AUMs

Permitted Actual 

use

Actual use % of 

permitted Permitted Actual 

use

Actual use % 

of permitted Permitted Actual use

Actual use 

% of 

permitted

1986 46.3 54.6 118% 13.7 3.5 26% 60 58.1 97%

1987 46.5 58.6 126% 9.8 2 20% 56.3 60.6 108%

1988 47.6 56.4 118% 11.9 2.3 19% 59.5 58.7 99%

1989 43 57.9 135% 8.8 2.3 26% 51.8 60.2 116%

1990 45.9 64.3 140% 10.7 2.3 21% 56.6 66.6 118%

1991 39.3 57.7 147% 9 1.6 18% 48.3 59.3 123%

1992 47.1 49.1 104% 11 0.9 8% 58.1 50 86%

1993 39.2 56 143% 6.6 1.4 21% 45.8 57.4 125%

1994 27.4 53.6 196% 6.6 0.4 6% 34 54 159%

1995 42.2 56.8 135% 5.9 0.2 3% 48.1 57 119%

1996 56.8 56.8 100% 6.4 1.3 20% 63.2 58.1 92%

1997 54.2 54.2 100% 6.9 1.6 23% 61.1 55.8 91%

1998 58.2 58.2 100% 6.4 1.4 22% 64.6 59.6 92%

1999 55.7 56.5 101% 4.5 1.3 29% 60.2 57.8 96%

2000 58.2 56.5 97% 1.4 1.3 93% 59.6 57.8 97%

2001 58.4 48.2 83% 1.5 1 67% 59.9 49.2 82%

2002 61.6 36.7 60% 1.1 0.4 36% 62.7 37.1 59%

2003 62.1 36 58% 1 0 0% 63.1 36 57%

2004 46.5 45 97% 0.7 1 143% 47.2 46 97%

2005 60.1 44 73% 0.5 1 200% 60.6 45 74%

2006 65 27.4 42% 0.5 0.6 120% 65.5 28 43%

2007 65 36.8 57% 0.5 0.6 120% 65.5 37.4 57%

2008 67.6 40.3 60% 0.5 0.5 100% 68.1 40.8 60%

2009 64.8 43.1 67% 0.6 0.6 100% 65.4 43.7 67%

2010 61.6 38.7 63% 0.6 0.6 100% 62.2 39.3 63%

Avg. 52.8 49.7 5.1 1.2 57.9 50.9
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

417

• Open canopy or low shrub vegetation types.

• Areas with naturally available water (although there may be some avoidance of standing 

water areas).

• Areas of concentration due to natural or manmade obstacles, i.e., narrow drainages, 

fence lines, salting locations, and developed livestock water structures.

• Alpine soils 

The magnitude of the influence depends on the timing of use, the kind and class of livestock 

(sheep versus cattle: cow/calf versus yearlings), the intensity of grazing use, the duration and 

frequency of grazing, and the associated management practices, including the level of active 

permittee management and involvement. Most allotments are managed through a modifiedrotation grazing system, designed specifically for the allotment. These rotation systems are 

designed to use most or all of the pastures each year, but will generally avoid the use of an 

individual pasture at the same time in succeeding years. A few cattle allotments are grazed under 

a season-long system where livestock distribution is controlled with water, salt, and herding. Salt 

is located to help draw livestock away from riparian areas, and most permit holders regularly 

herd livestock out of riparian areas and into other areas of available forage. Site-specific NEPA 

analysis is completed during the allotment management planning process. The Shoshone 

National Forest has completed a 15-year schedule to update and revise allotment management 

plans as mandated by the 1995 Rescissions Act. Project-level allotment NEPA decisions were 

developed using the goals and objectives as well as the standards and guidelines of the approved 

forest plan. More specific grazing prescriptions can be developed during the allotment 

management planning process to address site-specific issues. Permitted livestock numbers and 

season of use are often based on past actual and permitted use levels. Allotment management 

plans establish site-specific goals and objectives, and management strategies to achieve them. 

Management strategies may include levels of grazing use, seasons of use, rotations, and a 

schedule for implementing range-improvement projects such as fences and water developments. 

Commercial livestock are generally authorized through issuance of a term grazing permit, 

typically for a 10-year period. These permits include numerous terms and conditions that 

describe responsibilities of the permit holder such as validation, payment of grazing fees, 

ownership requirements of livestock and base property, livestock management, range 

improvement maintenance and construction, and more. Once approved, the allotment 

management plan becomes a part of the permit. 

A rangeland capability and suitability analysis was completed for the revised Forest Plan and 

FEIS. The capability analysis provides basic information regarding the potential of the land to 

produce forage in a sustainable manner for livestock and wildlife without damage to the soil and 

water resources.

The analysis began with a review of the capability of the land to produce forage. Capability was 

based on vegetation and soil types capable of producing forage and its relative availability to 

livestock. Areas not capable of providing livestock grazing were identified, based on various 

resource concerns such as: rock outcropping, wetlands, slope greater than 40 percent, and 

accessibility to forage (e.g., fenced or isolated areas). Vegetation type was used to determine the 

most appropriate livestock kind, i.e., alpine vegetation types for sheep, upland vegetation types 

for cattle. Private land within allotments was not analyzed. 

The rangeland capability analysis identified 378,529 acres capable of supporting commercial 

livestock grazing on the Forest. This represents about 16 percent of the Shoshone.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

418

Acres of capable rangeland by allotment are displayed in table 98. All acres were generated by 

GIS and may not exactly match actual allotment acres. Even though some allotments contain 

small amounts of capable acres, grazing may still be occurring based on site-specific conditions 

not covered in this strategic analysis. Therefore, changes to rangeland capability and suitability 

may occur at the project scale, using site-specific data.

Table 98. Shoshone National Forest grazing allotments—existing condition

Allotment Name

Total 

Allotment 

Acres

Suitable 

Acres

Percent 

of total 

acres

2012 level 

of 

permitted 

livestock 

use in 

AUMs

2012 

stocking 

rate 

acres/AUM

Aspen 2,099 449 21% 201 2.2

Atlantic City 968 857 89% 48 17.8

Bald Ridge 24,609 8,526 35% 2,644 3.2

Basin 69,275 18,583 27% 1,422 13.1

Bayer Mountain 5,626 1,525 27% 190 8.0

Bear Creek 34,909 14,303 41% 2,475 5.8

Beartooth1 and 30,327 19,034 63%

1,366 18.9

Face of the Mountain 8,280 6,843 83%

Beaver Creek 1,031 666 65% 99 6.7

Belknap 10,885 2,597 22% 941 2.8

Bench 28,414 10,491 37% 1,197 8.8

Big Creek 18,730 4,770 25% 85 56.1

Bobcat 6,515 2,285 35% 133 17.2

Bull Creek 402 100 25% 33 3.0

Carter Creek 164 21 13% 20 1.0

Community 14,993 6,660 44% 523 12.7

Cottonwood 6,687 1,129 17% 195 5.8

Crandall and 17,478 4,763 27%

1,134 6.4

Reef Creek 11,244 2,500 22%

Deer Creek 4,416 1,126 26% 186 6.1

Dick Creek 10,622 3,571 34% 1,328 2.7

Dickinson Park 22,140 4,847 22% 896 5.4

Doby Cliff 801 568 71% 132 4.3

Dunoir 53,245 15,740 30% 1,406 11.2

Ed Young Basin 11,341 5,701 50% 906 6.3

Fish Lake 12,746 3,397 27% 1,098 3.1

Frye Lake 21,699 4,821 22% 498 9.7

Ghost Creek 10,744 5,705 53% 1,827 3.1

Gooseberry 10,730 1,549 14% 301 5.1

Greybull 34,619 20,912 60% 1,203 17.4
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

419

Table 98. Shoshone National Forest grazing allotments—existing condition

Allotment Name

Total 

Allotment 

Acres

Suitable 

Acres

Percent 

of total 

acres

2012 level 

of 

permitted 

livestock 

use in 

AUMs

2012 

stocking 

rate 

acres/AUM

Guard Station 13,230 1,847 14% 442 4.2

Hardpan 15,219 5,211 34% 1,883 2.8

Hays Park 8,670 4,777 55% 541 8.8

Horse Creek 28,240 8,033 28% 521 15.4

Hunter Creek 1,596 748 47% 143 5.2

Ishawooa Hills 1,129 890 79% 400 2.2

Kirwin and 17,589 3,946 22%

303 17.6

Wood River 4,050 1,396 34%

Lake Creek 18,873 7,000 37% 1,819 3.8

Little Rock 4,902 3,210 65% 260 12.3

Maxon Basin 3,794 1,509 40% 348 4.3

Meadow Creek 1,351 1,151 85% 81 14.2

Meeteetse3 5,822 3,247 56% 260 12.5

Middle Fork 26,469 9,545 36% 903 10.6

North Fork Winter Range5 4,528 2,073 46% 300 6.9

Parque Creek 13,426 3,613 27% 568 6.4

Pickett Creek 14,275 7,030 46% 1,569 4.5

Pine Willow S&G 18,301 9,753 53% 208 46.9

Piney 13,730 6,935 51% 566 12.3

Ramshorn 16,212 4,158 26% 613 6.8

Rand Creek 1,584 391 25% 158 2.5

Rennerberg 1,349 309 23% 87 3.6

Robbers Roost6 50,642 22,623 45% 3,893 5.8

Rock Creek 16,832 4,517 27% 1,648 2.7

Sage Creek 922 430 47% 69 6.2

Salt Creek 8,264 5,489 66% 2,162 2.5

Sawmill 9,392 4,028 43% 716 5.6

Slate Creek S&G 8,695 6,027 69% 200 30.1

South Pass 4,833 2,705 56% 120 22.5

Squaw Creek 6,302 2,018 32% 190 10.6

Sugarloaf & East Fork4 19,985 4,408 22% 607 7.3

Table Mountain 13,794 3,370 24% 2,006 1.7

Timber Creek2 10,009 2,329 23% 507 4.6

Union Pass 39,777 14,133 36% 2,672 5.3

Valley Boulder 3,376 1,504 45% 138 10.9
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

420

Table 98. Shoshone National Forest grazing allotments—existing condition

Allotment Name

Total 

Allotment 

Acres

Suitable 

Acres

Percent 

of total 

acres

2012 level 

of 

permitted 

livestock 

use in 

AUMs

2012 

stocking 

rate 

acres/AUM

Warm Springs and 16,877 5,183 31%

3,194 6.4

Wind River 45,297 15,205 34%

Washakie Needles 7,753 3,627 47% 542 6.7

Whiskey Mountain 12,423 5,003 40% 133 37.6

Wiggins Fork 44,550 11,955 27% 2,673 4.5

Totals and Averages 1,039,800 375,368 40% 55,930 9.7

1 The Beartooth C&H Allotment includes the former Stockade, Little Rock, Line Creek, Bennett Creek and Deep Creek 

S&G Allotments. 2 The Timber Creek C&H Allotment includes portions of the former Francs Peak S&G Allotment.

3 The Meeteetse C&H Allotment is comprised of the former Meeteetse Creek and Carter Mountain S&G Allotments.

4 The Sugarloaf C&H Allotment includes the former East Fork S&G Allotment. 5 North Fork Winter Range Allotment is comprised of the former Dunn Creek and Jim Mountain C&H Allotments. 

Livestock are managed to maximize wildlife winter range forage quality and quantity.

6 The Robbers Roost C&H Allotment is comprised of the Pearson, Rattlesnake, Logan Mountain and Trout Creek C&H 

Allotments.

Climate Change

Climate change is another effect on all vegetation groups, and thus, by default, on commercial 

livestock grazing. Although outside the control of the Shoshone, the potential effects are 

described in Rice et al. (2012). These potential effects include, but are not limited to, changes in 

kind, amount, and distribution of precipitation. Alpine vegetation is predicted to decrease in 

extent and increase in fragmentation. Lower-elevation grassland and shrubland habitat will 

become drier and habitat will shift upward in elevation (Rice et al. 2012). The result of these 

potential changes could be an increase in suitable cattle forage and decrease in alpine sheep 

forage. Another consideration is that, relative to the timeframe of a warming climate change, 

there have been periods of decreased temperature and increased precipitation more in line with 

the 15- to 20-year planning period. Commercial livestock grazing is able to quickly adapt to 

annual and long-term changes in resource conditions through stocking adjustments and 

management practices. 

Desired Condition

Provide a reliable and consistent level of native rangeland forage for permitted commercial 

livestock production. This resource helps local ranches maintain an economical operation that, in 

turn, maintains open space adjacent to the Forest, which is integral to meeting desired resource 

conditions and maintaining the economic and social sustainability of local communities. 

Environmental Consequences

The most significant environmental consequence to livestock grazing from any alternative is the 

effect it would have on the availability of suitable livestock grazing acres and AUMs. Table 99
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

421

summarizes the Forest-wide totals by alternative. Lands generally suitable for livestock grazing 

are displayed on maps 21−23. Commercial livestock grazing allotments are displayed on maps 

24 and 26. See appendix F for more detailed alternative information by allotment.

Table 99. Livestock summary effects by alternative for the Shoshone National Forest

Alts A, B, D, G Alt. C Alt. E Alt. F

Acres within 

allotments 1,039,800 1,039,800 1,039,800 1,302,815

Capable acres within 

allotments 891,751 891,751 891,751 992,751

Suitable acres within 

allotments 375,368 216,847 375,368 415,370

AUMs 55,930 31,406 58,382 61,549

Table Note: 

Alternative F includes new allotments or additions to existing allotments created from capable rangeland outside 

wilderness and not already within an existing allotment. AUMs by alternative are based on the current, most recent or 

adjacent allotment stocking rate to establish an estimate of suitable acres per AUM. Capable and suitable acres are 

generated by computer model and GIS for analysis and alternative comparison purposes. They are not intended to 

establish or set specific use or stocking rates. Those decisions are made during allotment-level NEPA analysis and are 

based on utilization monitoring and resource trend data.

The standards and guidelines in alternatives A through D and G are identical; alternatives E and 

F do not include the guideline of allocating forage for big game on crucial winter range. Any 

other changes from those in the1986 Forest Plan as amended are primarily for clarification and 

update, and in most cases, reflect changes that are currently implemented. There are some 

differences in standards and guidelines between revised management prescriptions. The mix of 

these prescriptions is different among alternatives, and this difference in the mix is the main 

reason for any difference in effects among alternatives. On a Forest-wide basis, differences are 

usually small, often subtle, and difficult to quantify.

The total number of permitted livestock AUMs on the Shoshone has decreased significantly 

since the early 1940s, almost exclusively in domestic sheep grazing. At the same time, incidence 

of significant areas of overgrazing are no longer reported to occur. Range management practices 

are much improved from those at the turn of the century and these changes are reflected in the 

current rangeland conditions (2210 Allotment Files).

Competition for limited national forest resources and a permittee’ s ability to manage livestock to 

meet standards and guidelines, goals, and management area direction all affect the feasibility of 

maintaining permitted AUMs and the viability of a livestock operation. Permitted grazing levels 

(AUMs) are an objective of the revised Forest Plan to display an appropriate use of the national 

forest. Actual grazing use levels are not an objective, but rather a product of livestock grazing 

while applying management to meet standards, guidelines, and management area direction. 

Permittee involvement and commitment are critical to sustaining current AUMs under term 

permit. At today’s stocking levels, across all alternatives, it is possible for all permittees to 

succeed in managing livestock within these parameters. It is possible that some permittees may 

be able to manage in a manner that would allow for an increase in AUMs on their allotment. 

Likewise, consistent failure to meet standards and objectives or the inability to properly manage 

livestock could result in temporary or permanent reductions in permitted numbers (and AUMs 

under permit) or significant changes in management. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

422

Direct and Indirect Effects

For each resource area or activity described below, the environmental consequences to 

commercial livestock grazing are compared by alternative, based on key indicators of 

disturbance and impact. 

Effects from Timber Harvesting: Timber harvest can provide increased forage (transitory 

range) that would be available for livestock and wildlife grazing. Any increase in stocking to use 

this additional forage would only be permitted on a short-term basis. Transitional range forage 

capacity decreases over time as the over story grows back and shades out the grass understory, 

eventually reducing it to a level that does not provide enough grazing to be accounted for. 

Generally, transitory range will be managed to provide a temporary alternative to traditionally 

grazed areas on the allotment, thus reducing grazing pressure throughout the area. As timber is 

harvested, it may also open up areas to livestock that were not previously available. These newly 

accessible areas would be used in the same way as transitory range because over time, access 

will gradually be lost. These newly created access routes may also cause livestock control and 

management problems if the previously unharvested timber stands were used as natural barriers 

between pastures or allotments. In this case, there would be increased operating costs to the 

Forest Service and permittee in the form of additional fence construction and maintenance. In 

part, because of all the variables, both positive and negative, on livestock grazing from timber 

harvesting activities and the limited areas impacted, there is little difference in the level of 

effects among the alternatives. 

Effects from Roads and Trails Management: The primary impact to livestock grazing from 

roads and trails management is focused on the level of motorized access to and on an allotment. 

Generally, the greater ease and availability of motorized access into and throughout the 

allotment, the more efficient and cost effective the management of livestock and maintenance of 

structural improvements can be performed. Livestock are trailed or trucked to and from grazing 

allotments along roads, and permittees access cow camps and various pastures using Shoshone 

travelways. Many existing roads and trails follow historically established livestock trails.

In areas of limited access, the line officer may allow a permittee motorized use for such things as 

transportation of fence and/or water development materials, noxious weed control, and salt 

distribution, but these decisions are discretionary and are made on a case-by-case review of the 

proposal and circumstances. In addition to providing more convenient and cost-effective 

allotment access to the permittee, the availability of motorized use can also affect the ability, 

method, efficiency, and speed with which the USFWS and/or WGFD personnel are able to 

respond to incidences of large predators killing livestock.

Motorized recreational opportunities and use on allotments can increase the difficulty of 

maintaining positive control of livestock, i.e., gates may be left open and livestock are 

inadvertently or purposely moved, which complicates allotment management and increases 

management costs. Structural range improvements generally receive less disturbance and 

vandalism with recreational vehicles restricted to designated roads and trails; however, permit 

holders would need more time to obtain prior authorization to travel off roads or trails in their 

allotment. 

Of the action alternatives, alternative F would allow for the most motor vehicle access to and 

through allotments, followed by alternative E. Both of these alternatives would result in an 

increase of the current level of vehicular access. Conversely, alternative D would be a reduction 

in the amount of motorized use and alternative C would result in the greatest reduction of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

423

motorized vehicle access. However, none of the alternatives, including A, B, and G, would have 

a significant enough impact to make the use of any existing allotment economically prohibitive. 

Motorized winter recreation has no effect on livestock grazing, as no permitted grazing takes 

place during winter. 

Effects from Disturbance Processes (fires and fuels management and insect and disease 

mortality): Fires and fuels management can have very differing short-term and long-term effects 

on livestock grazing. Effects depend upon the burning conditions and controlled burning versus a 

wildfire, because the results and timing of a wildfire are much less predictable. 

In the case of prescribed fire, livestock are managed so that the area to be burned is not grazed in 

advance, to assure adequate fine fuels (residual grass) to carry a fire. Pastures are often rested or 

use deferred following the burn to allow for vegetative recovery. This “resting” requires that the 

permittee be flexible in management, and involved in considerable advance planning and 

coordination, especially if it requires livestock to use other allotments or forage sources. If the 

planned prescribed fire does not take place on schedule, arrangements need to be made again in 

successive attempts, and can accrue additional costs. 

Grazing is often deferred for up to two growing seasons following a fire to allow vegetation to 

reestablish. Deferment time can be decreased or increased depending upon the amount and 

timing of precipitation events following the burn. 

Recent fire effects studies (Perryman and Laycock 2000) indicate that the amount of deferment 

needed is dependent on the post-fire vegetation condition desired; for example, if more forbs are 

a component of the desired condition (for wildlife habitat needs, for example), then grazing 

immediately after green-up will increase the amount of forbs by reducing competition with 

grasses (versus two years of rest, which would reduce the forb component in the plant 

community). 

By managing sagebrush density and structure on rangelands, prescribed burning often results in 

an increase in forage production (grass/forb) and availability, and a shrub community more 

compatible with a variety of wildlife species. A reduction in brush density can accelerate the 

recycling of nutrients, and result in making water more available across the landscape, in 

springs, seeps, and intermittent streams. This can have the effect of simplifying livestock 

management, improving livestock or wildlife distribution, and increasing available AUMs. A 

significant effect often results from under-burns in conifers or other types of burns that can 

increase forage production and accessibility. Alternatives using more prescribed fire would result 

in increases in the impacts described above. 

A wildfire can have similar effects as prescribed fire, but is likely to have unplanned effects as 

well. It may result in entire pastures or allotment being burned. Livestock may have to be 

completely removed from an allotment or pasture (sometimes even to avoid being caught in the 

fire). Fences and stockwater pipelines may be destroyed. A permittee may be forced to alter 

planned grazing management of other lands in their operation (private, state, and BLM). If 

fences are burned, grazing systems must be modified until the fences can be replaced, which can 

add expense to the grazing permittee, as well as the Forest Service.

Wildfire may remove sagebrush and remnant grasses and forbs; it can recycle nutrients, and may 

result in many of the same benefits that prescribed fire provides. Since timing, location, and burn 

conditions are not in the control of management; however, these benefits are less likely to be 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

424

realized. Wildfire may remove trees and open the understory of timber types to a flush of grass 

and forb production for many years. Similar to prescribed fire in sagebrush types, this can have 

the effect of recycling nutrients and improving the quality and quantity of forage for livestock 

and wildlife. 

Based on the estimated acres of wildfire, the effects of alternatives B through E and G would be 

similar to those in the existing plan (alternative A). Alternative F would have a reduced 

occurrence of wildfire due to a reduction in wildfire acres and an increased emphasis on 

suppressing fires outside of wilderness to meet protection objectives. 

In many ways, timber stands, heavily impacted from insect and disease, have the same effect on 

livestock forage availability as fire. As trees succumb to infestation and die, the understory 

receives additional sunlight and precipitation, greatly increasing forage production. This 

additional forage is available until seedlings mature enough to shade out the understory and/or 

dead trees fall, preventing access. There is also an increase in nutrient cycling from the dead 

trees, only at a much slower rate than through fire.

Effects from Big Game Grazing: Big game grazing and browsing is generally compatible with 

livestock grazing and browsing. There is a large dietary overlap (40 to 80 percent) between elk 

and cattle (Kufeld 1973) and a similar though smaller dietary overlap between sheep and deer 

(Kufeld 1973, Wallmo et al. 1973). Elk grazing patterns have been shown to be strongly 

influenced by livestock grazing, as they seek areas of forage regrowth following grazing by 

livestock (Crane et al. 2001). 

Forage demands of big game can exceed the capability of the land and can cause detrimental 

impacts to vegetative and soil resources, particularly where elk numbers exceed herd unit 

population objectives. Conflicts over the allocation of forage resources will occur and increase as 

certain big game populations continue to expand, and forage on grazing allotments that is 

allocated to permitted cattle or sheep can be removed by wildlife when this occurs. In certain 

cases, limitations may be placed on forage use by permitted livestock to assure adequate forage 

for the wild ungulate populations, particularly on crucial winter range. 

The planned management or improvement of rangelands can be complicated by heavy utilization 

from wild ungulates, and heavy browsing of willows by deer, elk, and moose can restrict plant 

community development. Barking of aspen by moose and elk can be detrimental to a stand, and 

browsing of young aspen can limit attempts at stand regeneration. Effects from big game 

management are the same for alternatives A, B, D, and G. Alternative C does not permit 

commercial livestock grazing on crucial big game winter range. Alternatives E and F do not 

allocate forage for crucial big game winter range, allowing more forage for commercial 

livestock.

Effects from Recreation: Recreation management can alter livestock grazing in several ways. 

One common effect from recreation use occurs when Forest visitors open gates along system 

roads and trails to pass through and then do not close them. This frequent occurrence allows 

livestock to drift into pastures, allotments, roadways, or other areas where they are not intended 

to be, which often results in unplanned livestock use and disruption of planned management. 

Grazing permits require that stockmen keep livestock in designated areas. To comply, and to 

minimize the task of gathering and returning livestock, a rapid response is necessary, and can 

incur considerable expense. In some cases, cattleguards can replace gates, but materials, 

installation, and maintenance are costly. Recreation can add expense to livestock operators who, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

425

in springtime, must repair fences that are cut or otherwise damaged by wintertime snow-goers or 

horseback riders that do not want to detour their route to a gate. 

Achieving reasonably uniform livestock distribution across a landscape is one objective of 

livestock management, since it allows the optimal use of available forage resources. Areas with 

campers, pet dogs, all-terrain vehicles, and other concentrated human activity are generally 

avoided by livestock. Concentrated or frequent recreation use along roads and near popular areas 

can cause livestock to avoid grazing or passing through an area, and work directly against a 

permittee’s attempts to distribute livestock evenly. Cattle trailing along roadways can cause 

traffic congestion and a hazard to motorists and livestock. This congestion may be caused by the 

physical barrier of the livestock or motorists stopping to photograph the cowboys herding the 

cattle. Cattle are occasionally shot by mistake or otherwise during hunting seasons, or struck and 

injured or killed by vehicles, resulting in a direct economic loss. Summer-home and property 

inholding owners sometimes become concerned with livestock in and around their cabin permit 

areas and private land. This is also true of people using camping and picnic sites on the Forest. 

Fences are a common solution, but require installation and maintenance that can be costly. 

Fencing of roadways may result in a safer travelway for motorists and livestock, but also a loss 

of forage available to permitted livestock. Right-of-way fence can either disrupt planned grazing 

management or it can increase the management flexibility by creating additional pastures. Some 

ranchers use guard dogs to protect livestock, particularly sheep. The recreating public can 

distract dogs away from their sheep, resulting in reduced effectiveness in protecting sheep and 

time lost to the task of locating a guard dog. The dogs can also intimidate recreationists, and may 

contribute to conflicts between recreation and livestock grazing. Use of the Forest for recreation 

is likely to continue to increase over time. Higher levels of summer recreation create increased 

levels of potential conflicts with livestock use. Those alternatives that allow more areas of 

motorized and dispersed recreation are likely to impact livestock grazing the greatest. 

Alternative F would account for the most motorized recreational activity, as it allows for the 

most motor vehicle access to and through allotments, followed by alternative E. Both of these 

alternatives would result in an increase of the current level of motorized recreation. Conversely, 

alternative D would be a reduction in the amount of motorized recreational use and alternative C 

would result in the greatest reduction. Alternatives A, B, and G would fall between E and D. 

None of the alternatives would have a significant enough impact to make the use of any existing 

allotment economically prohibitive to use. 

Winter recreation does not affect livestock grazing, as no permitted grazing takes place during 

the winter.

Effects from Noxious and Invasive Species: Infestations of noxious weeds can significantly 

impact livestock grazing if they are extensive enough to reduce the amount of available forage. 

Once established, noxious weeds and other invasive plant species have the ability to out-compete 

native vegetation for nutrients and precipitation. In addition to being undesirable from a forage 

standpoint, single specie plant communities are usually less dense with more bare soil exposed 

and a higher erosion potential. Over time, less water is stored, soil erosion occurs and reestablishment of a native plant community becomes more difficult and expensive to accomplish. 

Any ground-disturbing activity has the potential to expose a site to noxious and invasive plant 

introduction, particularly when motor vehicles are involved. Likewise, established motorized 

access can make noxious and invasive plant treatment much easier and cost effective.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

426

Alternatives E and F would have the greatest potential to introduce new infestations of noxious 

weeds and impact livestock grazing. The other alternatives would be similar to no change from 

the present level.

Effects from Mineral and Energy Development and Oil and Gas Development: Increased 

mineral development can add to road systems, increase travel, and increase potential for the 

introduction of noxious weeds. Increased oil and gas development can add to road systems, 

increase travel, and increase potential for the introduction of noxious weeds; which could result 

in localized forage effects on livestock grazing.

Alternatives A, B, E, F, and G have the same area available for locatable minerals exploration 

and have the greatest risk of adverse effects. Alternatives C and D have lower amounts of land 

available because recommended wilderness areas may eventually have minerals withdrawn from 

development. These alternatives would have lower risk of adverse effects from this activity than 

the other alternatives. Given the low likelihood of development, there are no effects predicted on 

livestock grazing.

The possibility of oil and gas development in the planning period is low or very low under all 

alternatives. The amount of development is likely similar among the alternatives, though some 

alternatives such A, F, E, and B allow oil and gas development with surface occupancy on more 

acres than alternatives C, D, and G. Given the low likelihood of development, there are no 

effects predicted on livestock grazing. 

Effects from Riparian and Wetland Management: Management and protection of riparian and 

wetland resources are emphasized under all alternatives. The objectives and standards for 

protecting riparian and wetland resources have some of the greatest influence relative to the 

forest grazing program achieving desired conditions. Over the last 10 to 15 years, many changes 

have been made in grazing management and practices to protect riparian and wetland resources, 

which are reflected in current resource conditions. Effects of riparian and wetland management 

would be similar across all alternatives. 

Effects from Wildlife Habitat Management: These effects would be similar as those discussed 

in the Disturbance Processes section above.

Effects from Soil and Watershed Management: Management and protection of soil and water 

are emphasized under all alternatives. The objectives and standards for protecting soil and water 

resources have some of the greatest influence relative to the forest grazing program achieving 

desired conditions. Over the last 10 to 15 years, many changes have been made in grazing 

management and practices to protect soil and water resources. Effects of soil and watershed 

management would be similar across all alternatives. 

Effects from Heritage Management: Livestock can contribute to the deterioration of heritage 

resources through physical contact (e.g., hoof action, rubbing on structures) or by contributing 

organic matter to a site. They can remove or alter vegetation that serves to protect sites from 

erosion and make heritage resources more visible for unauthorized collection. In cases where the 

level of impact is determined to be unacceptable, the impacts can be mitigated with fencing, 

which can be costly, or with changes in management (intensity or timing). If livestock are 

excluded from a site or forage use levels are reduced, total available forage (AUMs) on an 

allotment is reduced. Federal law requires that effects of livestock grazing be evaluated and 

mitigated Forest-wide. This takes place during site-specific analysis (allotment level) and is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

427

implemented through the allotment management plan. Effects of heritage management are 

identical across all alternatives.

Wilderness Recommendation: Livestock grazing “and activities and the necessary facilities to 

support a livestock grazing program, will be permitted to continue in National Forest wilderness 

areas, when such grazing was established prior to classification of an area as wilderness” in 

accordance with Congressional Grazing Guidelines (WO Amendment 2300-90- 2, FSM 2323.2, 

pp. 19-26). There is to be “no curtailment of grazing permits or privileges in an area simply 

because it is designated wilderness...Wilderness designation should not prevent the maintenance 

of existing fences or other livestock improvements, nor the construction and maintenance of new 

fences or improvements which are consistent with allotment management plans and/or which are 

necessary for the protection of the range.” 

Management of permitted livestock in these areas can be made more difficult and costly than in 

other areas of the Shoshone due to (1) restricted motorized travel for access, (2) restricted use of 

motorized equipment such as chainsaws, and (3) restrictions on other management activities 

such as design of new range improvements. The restriction of travel for access, however, can 

also be viewed as a benefit. Since areas without motorized use contain a lesser diversity of uses 

(i.e., only non-motorized recreation), fewer conflicts between users with different expectations of 

their recreation experience are likely to occur. Indirect effects from wilderness management 

include (1) an increased expectation of no livestock presence by forest visitors and associated 

complaints, (2) a need to manage around a recreational “wilderness” experience to minimize 

conflicts, with a potential increase in people and horse use (and associated conflicts) over levels 

prior to this designation, (3) a need to manage for wilderness character and plant communities, 

and (4) a potential loss of opportunity for issuance of off-road travel permits for construction and 

maintenance of range improvements. 

Taking all these impacts into account, on average, the greater the amount of wilderness acreage 

within an allotment, the greater the cost and increased difficulty of managing livestock. As such, 

alternative C would have the most impact, followed by alternative D. Alternatives A, B, E, F, and 

G would have no change from the existing condition. See table 100.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

428

Table 100. Affected existing commercial livestock allotments and acreage from wilderness, by 

alternative 

Allotment name Status Allotment 

acres

Alternatives Alternative C Alternative D

A, B, E, F, and G

Acres % Acres % Acres %

Aspen Active 2,100 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Atlantic Vacant S&G 19,510 0 0% 7,820 40% 0 0%

Atlantic City Active 970 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Bald Ridge Active 24,610 3,190 13% 5,170 21% 3,190 13%

Basin Active 69,300 10,700 15% 54,300 78% 10,700 15%

Bayer Mountain Active 5,630 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Bear Creek Active 34,900 12,700 37% 25,100 72% 12,700 37%

Beartooth & Face of 

the Mtn.

Active 38,600 0 0% 32,600 84% 0 0%

Beaver Creek Active 1,030 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Belknap Active 10,900 0 0% 10 0% 0 0%

Bench Active 28,400 0 0% 24,100 85% 0 0%

Big Creek Active 18,700 12,400 66% 16,500 88% 16,300 87%

Bobcat Active 6,520 0 0% 3,760 58% 0 0%

Bull Creek Active 400 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Burnt Mountain Vacant S&G 4,190 0 0% 2,960 71% 0 0%

Carter Creek Active 160 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Community Active 15,000 0 0% 12.000 80% 0 0%

Cottonwood Forage Reserve 6,690 0 0% 5,220 78% 5,220 78%

Crandall Active 28,700 10,500 37% 14,000 49% 10,500 37%

Deer Creek Active 4,420 0 0% 3,750 85% 3,420 77%

Dick Creek Active 10,600 0 0% 6,690 63% 2,820 27%

Dickinson Park active/ vacant 22,140 7,940 36% 17,500 79% 7,940 36%

Doby Cliff Active 800 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Dunoir Active 53,200 4,250 8% 38,800 73% 38,800 73%

Ed Young Basin Active 11,300 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Fish Lake Active 12,700 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Francs Peak Vacant S&G 14,100 0 0% 14,000 100% 14,000 100%

Frye Lake Active 21,700 1,100 5% 7,870 36% 1,100 5%

Ghost Creek Active 10,700 0 0% 4,130 38% 0 0%

Gooseberry Forage Reserve 10,730 0 0% 8,770 82% 4,890 46%

Greybull Active 34,600 11,700 34% 30,600 88% 30,500 88%

Guard Station Active 13,200 0 0% 12,500 94% 11,000 83%

Hardpan/Table Mtn. Active 32,100 6,500 20% 13,700 43% 13,700 43%

Hays Park Active 8,670 8,670 100% 8,670 100% 8,670 100%

Horse Creek Active 28,240 18,500 65% 18,500 65% 18,500 65%

Hunter Creek Active 1,600 670 42% 670 42% 670 42%
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

429

Table 100. Affected existing commercial livestock allotments and acreage from wilderness, by 

alternative 

Allotment name Status Allotment 

acres

Alternatives Alternative C Alternative D

A, B, E, F, and G

Acres % Acres % Acres %

Ishawooa Hills Active 1,130 280 25% 2,880 255% 280 25%

Kirwin and Wood 

River

Active 21,640 0 0% 17,260 80% 14,747 68%

Lake Creek Forage Reserve 18,900 7,490 40% 7,490 40% 7,490 40%

Little Rock Active 4,900 0 0% 3,310 67% 0 0%

Maxon Basin Active 3,790 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Meadow Creek Active 1,350 1,350 100% 1,350 100% 1,350 100%

Meeteetse Active 5,820 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Middle Fork Active 26,500 12,900 49% 20,800 79% 12,900 49%

North Fork Winter 

Range

Forage Reserve 4,530 0 0% 4,530 100% 4,530 100%

Parque Creek Active 13,400 4,110 31% 5,250 39% 5,250 39%

Peat Beds Vacant S&G 5,830 0 0% 5,100 88% 0 0%

Pickett Creek Active 14,300 0 0% 12,700 89% 0 0%

Pine/Willow Active S&G 18,300 0 0% 14,200 77% 0 0%

Piney Active 13,700 13,700 100% 13,700 100% 13,700 100%

Ramshorn Active 16,200 3,420 21% 8,290 51% 9,450 58%

Rand Creek Active 1,580 1,100 69% 4,220 266% 1,100 69%

Rennerberg Active 1,350 0 0% 1,060 79% 0 0%

Robbers Roost Active 50,600 3,660 7% 26,200 52% 33,800 67%

Sage Creek Active 920 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Salt Creek Active 8,260 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Sawmill Creek Active 9,400 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Slate Creek Active 8,700 0 0% 900 10% 0 0%

South Pass Active 4,830 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Squaw Creek Active 6,300 0 0% 2,930 46% 0 0%

Sugarloaf & East Fork Active 20,000 10,200 51% 20,000 100% 20,000 100%

Table Mountain Resource 

Protection NonUse

13,800 0 0% 13,600 99% 0 0%

Timber Creek Active 10,000 0 0% 7,360 74% 6,290 63%

Twin Peaks S&G Vacant S&G 4,700 4,700 100% 4,700 100% 4,700 100%

Union Pass Active 39,800 2,870 7% 9,100 23% 2,870 7%

Valley-Boulder Active 3,380 2,460 73% 2,460 73% 2,460 73%

Warm Springs & Wind 

River

Active 62,200 0 0% 3,750 6% 3,160 5%

Washakie Needles Active 7,760 7,780 100% 7,780 100% 7,780 100%

Whiskey Mountain Active 12,400 12,000 97% 12,000 97% 12,000 97%

Wiggins Fork Active 44,600 5,990 13% 23,800 53% 5,990 13%
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

430

Table 100. Affected existing commercial livestock allotments and acreage from wilderness, by 

alternative 

Allotment name Status Allotment 

acres

Alternatives Alternative C Alternative D

A, B, E, F, and G

Acres % Acres % Acres %

Yellow/Steer Vacant S&G 19,299 14,100 74% 19,200 100% 19,200 100%

Forest-wide Summary 1,107,000 217,000 20% 665,600 60% 403,900 36%

Effects from potential research natural area or special interest area: Designation generally 

precludes commercial livestock grazing, although incidental use may occur. None of the 

potential research natural area or special interest areas contain significant acreage of suitable 

livestock range within any active commercial allotment. Table 101 displays the allotments and 

suitable acres impacted for each potential research natural area or special interest area by 

alternative. 

Table 101. Research natural area/special interest area (RNA/SIA) acres in active allotments

Allotment 

name

Allotment 

acres in 

RNA/SIA

RNA/SIA name Alternative

Suitable 

allotment 

acres in 

RNA/SIA

Stocking 

rate

AUMs 

impacted by 

RNA/SIA

Beartooth and 

Face of the 

Mtn.a 1,090 Line Creek RNA ALL 380 8.6 22

Crandall I & IIb 30 Swamp Lake SIA ALL 30 6.3 2.5

Bench 1,900 Bald Ridge RNA C 1 6.9 0

Basin 1,570 Pat O’Hara RNA C 5 13.1 0

Bald Ridge 410 Bald Ridge RNA C 93 3.2 17

Bald Ridge 1,800 Pat O’Hara RNA C 72 3.2 12

Robber Roostb 1,690 Pat O’Hara RNA C 670 4.9 70

Kirwin and 

Wood Riverc 480 Kirwin SIA B, C, D & E 120 7.7 8

Maxson Basin 420 Little Popo Agie 

Moraine SIA B, C & D 6 4.3 1

Ghost Creekb 550 Swamp Lake ALL 220 3.1 36

TOTALS 9,890 1,600 169

a High elevation that presently receives only incidental livestock use.

b Area of standing water, high water table or soft ground that livestock avoid except during persistent drought.

c Due to limited access livestock do not typically use this part of the allotment.

Establishment of potential research natural areas or special interest areas would have no 

significant effect on existing livestock operations across all alternatives. 

Summary of Effects to Resource 

Alternative C would eliminate term permits for commercial livestock grazing on elk and big 

horn sheep crucial winter ranges that occur on active allotments. This alternative has the greatest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

431

potential adverse impact on livestock grazing. Alternatives A, B, D, and G are similar, and would 

essentially maintain the existing level of use. Alternative E would remove the allowable forage 

utilization restriction on big game crucial winter range, and in addition to that, alternative F 

would add any suitable and capable areas outside wilderness areas. Alternative F would provide 

the most opportunities for livestock grazing.

Cumulative Effects 

This discussion considers effects to commercial livestock grazing since it began on the 

Shoshone, through the next planning period. It considers effects to the Shoshone and the 

adjoining counties. The impacts from historic livestock use of the Shoshone continue to be 

evident, and to a certain degree, influence livestock management today. For example, some areas 

are continuing to recover from the impacts of heavy or improperly managed livestock grazing in 

the early 1900s. Riparian areas altered by both commercial and recreational livestock use and/or 

tie hacking activities also continue to recover. Livestock management in these areas has been 

tailored to enhance and continue recovery. Fire suppression activities in the past have resulted in 

conifer encroachment in areas, which, in turn, can limit forage production and availability today, 

and affect livestock use and distribution patterns. More recently, large areas of beetle-killed 

timber have reversed some of these impacts and increased the acreage of transitory range.

Based on increased use by the public over the past 10 years, it is expected that the impact of 

recreational uses on the Shoshone will increase as the population of local communities increases, 

and as more people nationwide continue to seek places to recreate. All-terrain vehicle use, in 

particular, has seen a dramatic increase recently that is expected to continue, although the rate of 

growth is not likely to be as dramatic as it has been in the recent past. Vegetation management 

and the use of prescribed fire will likely increase in coming years to address vegetative health, 

fuel loads, and public safety. This can result in short-term expenses and long-term benefits to 

livestock grazing.

Commercial livestock grazing on the Shoshone today is influenced by the litany of effects 

described in the section above that include the allocation of forage resources between livestock 

and wildlife; limitations introduced by wilderness and research natural area or special interest 

area designation; predation and disease transmission; management adjustments to protect 

heritage resources; fisheries; threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants and animals; and water 

quality; considerations necessary due to wildfire and prescribed fire management, and recreation 

activities that result in gates being left open, livestock harassed, or impacts to resources being 

inaccurately attributed to livestock. All of these factors add to the complexity and expense for the 

ranching operations that are permitted to graze livestock on the Forest (Rimbey and Torell 2011). 

Despite all these factors, continued demand and the need for livestock grazing is likely to remain 

fairly consistent with current levels. Livestock management is generally considered more 

difficult on NFS lands than on private lands for the reasons described above. In addition, the 

business of livestock management is subject to factors most often not under the control of 

livestock operators, such as tourism, land values, and potential subdivision of base ranches, labor 

prices and availability, foreign markets and lamb/calf prices, USDA budgets and farm programs, 

fuel prices, predator control, social values, and Federal policy.

Because of, and in many cases despite of, the effects described above, livestock grazing is 

expected to continue on the Shoshone at or near the currently permitted level through this next 

planning period. Management of livestock grazing to deal with cumulative effects will be 

consistent across all alternatives.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

432

Monitoring

Two types of monitoring are most applicable to commercial livestock grazing and the rangeland 

resource.

Implementation Monitoring: Determines whether standards and management practices are 

implemented as detailed in the forest plan and allotment management plan. The question asked 

with this type of monitoring is: “Did we do what we said we were going to do?” Implementation 

monitoring is short-term and includes allotment inspections and utilization estimates. Examples 

of implementation monitoring specified in the forest plan are allowable forage utilization levels 

for livestock grazing, residual forage requirements for big game winter range or streambank 

stability, and livestock counts to validate permitted stocking.

Effectiveness Monitoring: Determines whether management practices are effective in moving 

the resource toward the desired condition as described in the forest plan and allotment 

management plan objective. The question asked is: “Did the management practices do what we 

wanted them to do; did they meet the objectives?” An example of effectiveness monitoring is 

trend studies that determine whether vegetation is moving toward the desired condition and plant 

community. Effectiveness monitoring is long-term monitoring. Examples of effectiveness 

monitoring relative to the forest plan are vegetative composition transects to determine plant 

community or ecological site description, photo point transects to determine site changes toward 

or away from the desired condition.

In summary, implementation monitoring will tell if we are meeting the standards and guidelines, 

and effectiveness monitoring will reveal if management within the standards and guidelines is 

achieving the desired resource condition.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

433

Forest Products

Timber Resources

Introduction

The Shoshone contains valuable timber resources. They are important for providing habitat for 

plants and animals and products that are in demand by the American public. These products 

include, but are not limited to lumber, house logs, posts and poles, and firewood. Because of the 

value of the timber resource, commercial timber harvest is used to move vegetation toward their 

desired conditions, improve watershed condition, improve wildlife habitat, and reduce wildfire 

risk through reduced fuel loads. Timber harvest also provides jobs and income in logging and 

manufacturing of wood products.

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 – these acts set forth the requirements for land and 

resource management plans for the National Forest System. 36 CFR 219 regulations require the 

Forest Service to identify areas suitable and available for timber harvest and the allowable sale 

quantity (ASQ) from those lands. In addition, regulations require us to analyze the supply and 

demand for resource commodities.

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 – “It is the policy of the Congress that the national 

forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed 

and wildlife and fish purposes...The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to 

develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the National Forests for multiple-use 

and sustained yield of several products and services obtained there from...the achievement and 

maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various 

renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land.”

Organic Administration Act of 1897 − Forests are established “to improve and protect the 

forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, 

and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United 

States.”

Regulation and Policies

1982 Planning Rule Procedures: The procedures of the 1982 NFS Land and Resource 

Management Planning Rule require the identification of areas suitable for timber production and 

the allowable sale quantity from those lands. In addition, the procedures require the analysis of 

the supply and demand situation for resource commodities.

Key Indicators 

• Number of suitable acres available for timber production; 

• Associated allowable sale quantity; 

• Acres of predicted harvest; and 

• Long-term sustained yield capacity. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

434

Methodology and Analysis Process 

Timber suitability was determined using various resource data and GIS to apply criteria and 

identify lands suitable for timber production. Criteria for suitability are defined in the 1982 

Planning Rule procedures at 36 CFR 219.14. Data were developed using the latest data sources 

and requirements to match the criteria defined by resource specialists. 

Timber harvest was modeled using Spectrum, a software modeling system designed to assist 

decision makers in exploring and evaluating multiple resource management choices and 

objectives. Models constructed with Spectrum apply management actions to landscapes through 

a time horizon and display resulting outcomes. Management actions are selected to achieve 

desired goals while complying with all identified management objectives. One of the goals for 

all action alternatives was the objective to move vegetation toward desired condition. Other 

goals that were applied for some alternatives included maximizing timber output and present net 

value. The Spectrum model was used to determine allowable sale quantity, predicted timber 

volume sold, and acres treated by decade for each alternative. 

Analysis Area 

The analysis area for timber suitability is composed of the NFS lands administered by the 

Shoshone. The analysis area for timber demand consists of three counties comprising the timber 

impact zone. The analysis area for timber production is the lands suitable for timber production.

Affected Environment 

The 1986 Forest Plan as amended set an average annual allowable sale quantity volume28 of 

22,400 hundred cubic feet (Ccf). The Forest Plan set this amount as the maximum allowable 

harvest of timber from the suitable timber land base of approximately 86,000 acres. In the early 

1990s, monitoring indicated that timber data and assumptions used in the Forest Plan analysis 

had overestimated the amount of timber the Shoshone could produce. This, combined with the 

1988 fires that burned over 9,000 acres of suitable timber land, resulted in the need to amend the 

forest plan. The 1986 Forest Plan as amended was amended in August 1994, with a recalculated 

allowable sale quantity (USDA Forest Service 1994). The amendment changed the annual 

average volume to 9,000 Ccf of sawtimber and products other than logs. The 9,000 Ccf includes 

2,000 Ccf of standing dead trees that are cut for personal use firewood from suitable lands. 

Volume in addition to the allowable sale quantity is obtained from the unsuited base; including 

approximately 2,000 Ccf of personal use firewood and 2,000 Ccf of volume cut for other 

vegetation management purposes. Other reasons include wildlife habitat improvement, 

enhancement of scenic views, hazard tree removal, or other ecosystem management reasons. The 

amendment directed that all salvage volumes offered for sale would count toward allowable sale 

quantity. 

Total average annual volume harvested fell steadily through the1990s, until an increase in 2004. 

The volume of products other than logs sold since 1986 has averaged slightly over 6,000 Ccf per 

year. Volume for products other than logs remained relatively stable during that period. 

Sawtimber volume sold has fluctuated greatly since 1986. Sawtimber volume sold has averaged 

11,000 Ccf since 1986. Since 1997, sawtimber volume sold has averaged 8,400 Ccf. During the 

late 1990s and early 2000s, sawtimber volume sold was as low as 200 Ccf (see table 102).

 28 Per NFMA the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is a per decade number. For the 1986 plan the ASQ would 

have been 22,400 thousand cubic feet (Mcf) in the first decade. The numbers are displayed here as average 

annual volumes for discussion purposes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

435

The large fluctuations in total sawtimber volumes were driven by salvage sales in response to 

large disturbance events such as the 1988 wildfires and the recent insect epidemic.

Table 102. Volume sold and harvested, by product, in hundred cubic feet (Ccf)

Fiscal 

year

Sawtimber 

sold

Products 

other than 

logs sold

Total Sawtimber 

harvested

Products 

other than 

logs 

harvested

Total

1981 15,800 2,430 18,200 21,300 3,150 24,500

1982 16,900 5,770 22,700 7,250 4,830 12,100

1983 18,200 8,350 26,500 10,700 3,500 14,200

1984 13,950 8,840 22,800 13,000 8,100 21,100

1985 9,940 10,200 20,100 23,100 8,690 31,800

1986 9,490 7,610 17,100 17,600 8,720 26,300

1987 30,800 6,520 37,300 29,300 9,650 39,000

1988 24,100 4,540 28,600 24,700 7,180 32,000

1989 27,200 4,210 31,500 12,000 4,220 16,000

1990 21,000 4,870 25,900 29,400 4,720 34,000

1991 14,200 6,580 20,800 20,100 4,980 25,100

1992 2,650 6,340 8,990 13,900 6,600 20,500

1993 5,460 6,880 12,300 8,400 5,950 15,000

1994 4,510 10,400 14,900 7,900 7,580 15,500

1995 570 6,840 7,410 2,280 7,590 9,870

1996 5,700 7,570 13,300 4,470 7,250 11,700

1997 4,480 5,940 10,400 3,460 7,950 11,400

1998 4,630 6,720 11,400 770 10,400 11,200

1999 2,320 8,500 10,800 2,580 8,180 10,800

2000 800 4,400 5,200 4,040 3,220 7,260

2001 220 5,850 6,070 2,140 5,790 7,930

2002 8 4,930 4,940 1,260 5,240 6,500

2003 2,820 4,920 7,740 2,090 5,180 7,270

2004 42,700 5,080 47,800 11,500 4,930 16,400

2005 8,740 5,190 13,900 23,900 5,460 29,400

2006 6,700 5,180 11,900 15,800 5,830 21,600

2007 21,400 4,290 25,700 7,450 4,540 12,000

2008 8,350 4,650 13,000 13,100 3,950 17,100

2009 12,000 7,500 19,500 15,000 5,730 20,700

2010 1,390 4,680 6,070 9,380 5,480 14,900

2011 24,530 5,110 29,600 6,300 4,960 11,300

Timber growth and mortality was assessed by Menlove (2008) using Forest Inventory and 

Analsysis data (FIA). Net annual growth is the difference between gross annual growth and 

losses due to mortality. Gross annual growth of live trees on all forest land on the Shoshone 

National Forest was estimated to be 40 million cubic feet, and net annual growth was 3.4 million 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

436

cubic feet (Menlove 2008). Most of this data are from before the current insect epidemic. It is 

highly likely that during the height of the insect epidemic mortality exceeded growth. It is 

anticipated that with the waning of the epidemic and the regeneration of a new age class of trees 

that growth will again exceed mortality going forward.

Clearcutting is the one treatment that garners the most attention from some visitors or local 

residents. Clearcutting is not a significant component of the treatments on the Shoshone (table 

103). 

Table 103. Clearcut acres on the Shoshone National Forest, 1986 to 2012

Fiscal Year Acres

1986 0

1987 26

1988 2

1989 0

1990 0

1991 0

1992 56

1993 0

1994 0

1995 0

1996 9

1997 22

1998 35

1999 34

2000 9

2001 9

2002 5

2003 0

2004 72

2005 2

2006 44

2007 0

2008 0

2009 72

2010 60

2011 137

2012 57
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

437

Economics

The following economic information is from An Economic Profile of the Shoshone National 

Forest (Taylor et al. 2012). It is included in the Plan Set of Documents. Additional information 

on the timber industry in Wyoming is found in The Dynamic Wyoming Timber Economy (Rideout 

2003).

The lumber and wood products industry in the three-county area has declined. After peaking in 

1978, labor earnings from lumber and wood products declined steadily from $14.3 million to 

$2.0 million in 2000. With the closure of Cody Lumber Sawmill in Cody, labor earnings from 

lumber and wood products in the region may have declined further. Most of the decline in labor 

earnings for the lumber and wood products sector in the three-county region occurred in Fremont

County when a major sawmill closed in Dubois. In Fremont County, labor earnings from the 

lumber and wood products sector peaked at $13.4 million in 1978, and had declined to less than 

$1 million in 2000. As of 2001, county-level information specifically for lumber and the wood 

products industry was no longer available. An IMPLAN (input/output model) done in 2011 

estimated the economic impacts of harvesting 4.5 million board feet (MMBF) of timber in the 

three-county region. The IMPLAN model estimated labor earnings of $1.9 million (2009 dollars) 

for harvesting 4.5 MMBF of timber and 2.5 MMBF of wood products other than lumber 

(University of Montana, IMPLAN Model of three-county region, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

2008, Taylor et. al. 2012).

The 1986 Forest Plan as amended as amended established an allowable sale quantity of 9,000 

Ccf of timber. The volumes have fluctuated greatly since 1986 and have recently been 

increasing; the average for that period is near the 1986 Forest Plan as amended allowable sale 

quantity amount. For purposes of an average economic projection, calculations were based on a 

sawtimber harvest of 9,000 Ccf and products other than logs harvest of 5,000 Ccf. This is 

slightly above the amounts in the allowable sale quantity amendment, but in line with recent 

harvest levels. 

Because there is no major timber processor in the three-county region, the majority of sawtimber 

harvest on the Shoshone is exported outside the area for processing. As a result, the major 

economic impact to the region’s economy from the harvest of sawtimber on the Shoshone is 

logging. For the three-county region, the economic impact of the combined timber harvest is 

estimated (per IMPLAN model) at 9,083 jobs and $21.9 million in labor earnings, including 

direct logging jobs and additional jobs that are generated as a result of the direct jobs(Taylor 

et al. 2012).

Evaluation

Due to the bark beetle insect epidemic, harvest levels have been temporarily higher than average 

until the epidemic subsides, fuel levels are reduced, and the volume of damaged timber is 

salvaged. The increased harvest levels should continue until areas of wildland-urban interface 

can be protected and as long as there is some value in standing dead timber. It is anticipated the 

demand for products other than logs will continue at or above the current levels of 5,000 Ccf. 

Once the salvage effort is completed, it is anticipated the Shoshone will return to a harvest level 

near 9,000 Ccf of sawtimber and 5,000 Ccf of products other than logs. In the near term, the 

slightly higher volumes will result in proportionally higher economic benefits to the three-county 

region. In the long term, these levels of harvest may be difficult to maintain since 26 percent of 

the suitable base falls with inventoried roadless areas where timber cutting is restricted.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

438

Desired Condition

The removal of wood products (sawtimber, small-diameter roundwood, chips, pulp, firewood, 

etc.) and other forest products (mushrooms, Christmas trees, pine cones, plants, greenery, etc.) 

contributes to ecological, social, and/or economic sustainability (including local communities) 

and associated desired conditions. A sustainable mix of timber products responsive to market 

demand, including that of local industry, is provided.

Provide a reliable supply of forest products over time that (1) is consistent with achieving 

desired conditions on NFS lands, and (2) helps maintain or create processing capacity and 

infrastructure in local communities.

Suitable timber lands are managed to produce a sustainable supply of commercial timber 

products.

Environmental Consequences

Lands generally suitable for timber production vary slightly across the alternatives. These are 

lands that are physically capable and have not been administratively withdrawn (such as 

wilderness) for timber harvest. Analysis identified a range of 86,300 acres in alternative A to 

251,200 acres in alternative F as generally suitable, see table 104 and maps 27−32.

Table 104. Suitability acres for timber harvest and production by alternative 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Lands generally not suited for timber harvest

Wilderness, 

Dunoir, High 

Lakes, wild river, 

RNA

1,419,000 1,430,000 2,001,000 1,598,000 1,417,000 1,417,000 1,430,000

Rock, steep 

slopes, 

Restocking not 

assured

339,900 339,000 78,600 245,400 346,300 346,300 339,000

Total lands 

generally not 

suited for timber 

harvest

1,759,000 1,769,000 2,080,000 1,844,000 1,764,000 1,764,000 1,769,000

Lands generally not suited for timber production

Grass, shrub, 

noncommercial 

species, soil type

312,000 399,500 162,000 282,400 324,200 324,200 399,500

Management area 

direction 281,000 220,900 73,500 187,500 170,400 98,800 220,900

Total lands 

generally not 

suited for timber 

production

593,100 542,300 235,500 469,900 494,600 423,000 542,300

Lands generally suitable for timber production

Total lands 

generally suitable 

for timber 

production

86,300 127,000 122,100 124,500 179,700 251,200 127,000

Total Forest Acres 2,438,000 2,438,000 2,438,000 2,438,000 2,438,000 2,438,000 2,438,000
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

439

Timber suitability is also affected by management area allocations. Lands in management areas 

5.1, 5.2, and 5.4 are suitable for timber production. All other management areas preclude timber 

production as an objective. Timber harvest may be allowed in other management areas (2.2A, 

2.3, 3.1B, 3.3A, 3.3B, 3.3C, 3.6, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5A, 8.1, 8.2, and 8.6), but only to meet other resource 

objectives. These acres are not suitable for timber production. 

Alternative A is the current forest plan as amended and implemented. Timber suitability has been 

updated to reflect forest plan amendments and current conditions. Acres suitable for timber 

production are lower in this alternative than found in the action alternatives. 

As the revised Forest Plan is implemented on the ground, timber suitability may change based on 

site-specific analysis. Broad-scale information is used in determining lands suitable for timber 

production in the revised Forest Plan. As a result, changes may occur at the project-scale level 

using site-specific data. Changes to timber suitability will be monitored during implementation 

of the revised Forest Plan.

Allowable Sale Quantity and Predicted Volume Sold

The allowable sale quantity for each alternative was formulated by considering the lands suitable 

for timber production, vegetation desired condition, other multiple-use objectives, and the 

management requirements set forth in NFMA. To develop a predicted volume sold, a budget 

constraint reflecting current budgets was included for each alternative. 

The allowable sale quantity is considered a ceiling for harvest from the lands suitable for timber 

production, and certain conditions may arise where standards and guidelines may limit what 

volume is actually available during site-specific project implementation. Examples are water 

quality guidelines or wildlife and heritage resources protection measures. Where possible, the 

effect of these standards and guidelines has been taken into account in the calculation of the 

allowable sale quantity. See appendix B for a description of modeling analysis.

Products in the allowable sale quantity volume include traditional sawlogs and products other 

than logs (POL) harvested from lands identified as suited for timber production. POL includes 

posts, poles, chips, firewood, etc. POL does contribute toward the allowable sale quantity if 

removed from suited lands.

Timber harvest levels for the alternatives were calculated using Spectrum (see appendix B). The 

alternatives included constraints to distribute activities across the forest and among timber types 

to mimic feasible harvest patterns. Within these constraints, an objective function was applied to 

produce timber products from suitable timber lands. All solutions were finally run with an 

objective to maximize present net value to ensure economic efficiency in vegetation treatments. 

Table 105 and table 106 display the predicted volume sold and allowable sale quantity for each 

alternative. The allowable sale quantity is a decadal number. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

440

Table 105. Predicted volume sold for each alternative 

Timber volume (Ccf) Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Saw timber 14,600 14,200 12,500 13,600 18,800 25,800 14,200

POL 800 760 720 740 1,030 1,400 760

Salvage 1,560 1,580 1,630 450 2,330 3,260 1,580

Total 17,000 16,550 14,900 15,900 22,100 30,500 16,550

Table 106. Allowable sale quantity for each alternative (per decade)

Timber volume (Mcf) Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Allowable sale quantity 19,800 22,800 21,900 22,400 32,800 46,600 22,800

Other factors including budgets and changes in executive and congressional direction or natural 

events like wind, wildfires, insects, and disease could cause actual harvest levels to be different 

than projected. For example, the Shoshone has not been budgeted recently at levels to fully 

implement harvest levels to keep ahead of the current bark beetle epidemic. The experienced 

budget level limits the amount of timber that can be prepared and offered. 

Timber harvest may be allowed on unsuited lands and in other management area prescriptions 

but only to meet the resource objectives compatible with that management area. An example of 

this could be fuel reduction treatments within management area 4.5A Potential Kirwin Historical 

Area. Harvest in these areas is called other vegetation management (OVM) and would not 

contribute toward the allowable sale quantity. Historically, other vegetation management volume 

is fairly minor. Table 107 displays the acres by alternative harvesting from allowable sale 

quantity versus other vegetation management ground. 

Table 107. Harvesting acres by alternative from allowable sale quantity versus other vegetation 

management ground (per decade)

ASQ/OVM 

Acres Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

ASQ 5,350 5,220 5,400 5,210 7,560 11,000 5,220

OVM 1,720 1,660 630 1,390 1,480 1,190 1,660

Total acres 7,080 6,880 6,030 6,600 9,040 12,200 6,880

Total sale program quantity includes all the volume expected to be offered from the Shoshone, 

given experienced budget levels for timber sale offerings from lands suitable for timber 

production that contributes toward allowable sale quantity and from other vegetation 

management on unsuited lands. Total sale program quantity includes volume from sawtimber, 

POL, personal use firewood, and post and poles from all sales and permits. The allowable sale 

quantity portion is calculated based on experience budget levels and the other vegetation 

management portion was based on estimates of anticipated acres of treatment prorated at the 

average volume per acre for suited lands. Personal use firewood is based on past recent history.

No attempt was made to estimate the amount or type of salvage that may occur from natural 

events such as wildfire, blowdown, insects, and disease.

Table 108 displays the revenue by product and alternative, and table 109 displays the road costs 

by alternative to implement the allowable sale quantity.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

441

Table 108. Revenue by product and alternative (per decade)

Timber revenue (M$) Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Saw timber 4,670 4,530 4,000 4,330 5,990 8,250 4,530

POL 60 57 54 55 77 110 57

Salvage 270 270 280 270 400 560 270

Total 5,000 4,860 4,330 4,650 6,460 8,900 4,860

Total timber cost (M$) 7,170 6,950 6,650 6,650 9,170 12,580 6,950

Table 109. Road costs to implement the allowable sale quantity by alternative (per decade)

Roads Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Reconstruction miles 28 28 24 26 36 49 28

Construction miles 2 2 2 2 2 3 2

Temporary roads miles 22 21 19 20 28 38 21

Road costs (M$) 640 620 550 590 820 1,110 620

Reforestation

Reforestation is the re-establishment of forest cover either naturally (by natural seeding, coppice, 

or root suckers) or artificially (by direct seeding or planting) (Helms 1998). The implementing 

regulations for the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) state:

“When trees are cut to achieve timber production objectives, the cutting shall be made in such a 

way as to assure that the technology and knowledge exists to adequately restock the lands within 

five years after final harvest. Research and experience shall be the basis for determining whether 

the harvest and regeneration practices planned can be expected to result in adequate restocking.” 

Further, “Five years after final harvest means five years after clearcutting, five years after 

overstory removal cut in seed tree cutting, or five years after selection cutting” (36 CFR 219.27)

Generally, harvests from suitable timber lands, described above, are used to achieve timber 

production objectives. Harvests from lands not suitable for timber production are not addressed 

above; however, they are generally restocked except where permanent openings are created for 

wildlife, habitat improvement, vistas, recreation uses and similar practices (36 CFR 219.27). 

Natural disturbances, such as wildfire or blowdown may also create a reforestation need; 

however, decisions to artificially reforest these areas are made on a site-specific basis. The 

Shoshone relies primarily on natural regeneration. Final harvest cuts on the Shoshone are 

generally successful using natural regeneration following harvest. Where regeneration is not 

expected to occur naturally, planting has been the preferred method for artificial regeneration. 

Table 110 displays the expected acres that will need to be planted by alternative and the 

associated costs.

Table 110. Acres expected to be planted and associated costs by alternative (per decade)

Timber regeneration Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Planting acres 2,320 2,280 1,930 2,200 2,920 3,790 2,280

Planting costs ($M) 510 510 360 490 610 780 510
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

442

Timber Stand Improvement

Timber stand improvement is generally non-commercial or precommercial thinning of trees to 

meet density-level objectives for stand health, growth, vigor, and other resource objectives such 

as wildlife hiding cover. 

There are some tradeoffs between thinning conifer stands that provide habitat for Canada lynx 

prey species (snowshoe hare) and thinning stands to produce more timber volume. The action 

alternatives include 2,130 acres of precommercial thinning in lynx habitat during the planning 

period. This thinning allows the opportunity to manage for timber in lynx habitat while limiting 

the number of acres of lynx habitat that will be impacted. The effects of this small amount of 

thinning are not expected to adversely affect Canada lynx.

The precommercial thinning acres will remain the same, approximately 450 acres a year across 

all alternatives for the next 10 years. The alternatives with higher suitable acres—E and F—will 

have higher numbers of acres to thin, about 15 years out. Thus, alternatives with less suitable 

acres—A and C—will have fewer precommercial thinning acres about 10 years out. 

The cost of thinning on the Shoshone in recent years has been $450 per acre. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Fire and Fuels: Fire and fuels management includes mechanical and prescribed 

fire treatments, and generally has a positive effect on timber management. The objectives for 

fuel reduction are consistent with commercial timber harvest. Timber harvest is often the tool for 

reducing fire risk through a reduction in fuel loading. Timber harvest also moves vegetation 

toward desired conditions that are more resilient and less fire-prone. Alternative F would include 

the most fire treatments with 41,200 acres and result in the most positive impact on timber 

harvest. Alternatives A through D include from 36,100 to 35,000 acres of fire treatment and 

would result in similar positive impacts on timber harvest. Effects for alternative E with 

37,400 acres of fire treatment would fall between alternative F and the balance of the 

alternatives. 

Effects from Aquatic Habitat, Riparian, Watershed, and Wildlife: Design criteria to protect 

aquatic habitat, riparian areas, watersheds, and wildlife can impact the timing and extent of 

timber harvested in a given area and at a given time. These measures can increase the costs 

associated with harvesting timber in some cases. None of these design criteria impacts will 

change the annual amount of timber that is being harvested on the Shoshone. The only effect is 

on the particular timing and location of some harvest. These impacts are similar across all 

alternatives and do not affect the timber output projections presented for the alternatives.

Effects from Insects and Wildfire: Insects, disease, and wildfire can affect the production of 

timber by killing and damaging trees. This reduces the value of the timber and lowers that value 

to the point where it is no longer economical to harvest the timber for commercial products. This 

can also lower the amount of timber that is available during a particular time period; though as 

long as stands are regenerated, this will not have a long-term impact on available timber volume. 

Acres of suitable timber that are projected to be impacted by wildfire range from 8,151 in 

alternative C to 16,630 in alternative F. This increase across the alternatives is a function of the 

fact that the acres of suitable timber increase across the alternatives. Total projections of wildfire 

acres on the Forest actually decrease as the acres of suitable timber land increases, because of the 

emphasis on suppressing fire on suitable timber lands. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

443

Under all alternatives, there exists potential for salvage/sanitation cuts to harvest dead and 

damaged timber and to attempt to slow or impede insect infestations from spreading or to 

salvage the value of timber killed by wildfire. The degree to which these harvests are undertaken 

will largely depend upon the risks associated with wildfire potential, insect infestation spread 

into healthy stands, public safety, the presence of high value resources, access to the timber, and 

the plan management direction of the area and adjoining areas.

Acres of salvage/sanitation harvest will continue to be a portion of total timber harvested. 

Differences across the alternatives will be similar to the differences shown for total harvest. 

Given the direction for management of suitable land is similar across the alternatives, the portion 

of salvage/sanitation harvest from those lands would generally be similar across the alternatives. 

There is some chance that the more extreme alternatives will have some differences. There could 

be less salvage in alternative F, where there are more managed lands and less wildfire, and more 

salvage harvest in alternative C, where there are less managed lands and more wildfire. The 

relative differences between the other alternatives are unlikely to show any significant 

differences in the proportion that salvage harvest is of the total harvest on the forest. 

Cumulative Effects 

Many factors influence and affect timber harvest. The demand for timber products, supply from 

other sources, laws, and regulations all affect the amount of timber that may be harvested from 

the Shoshone. Budgets and court decisions also impact timber supply potential. Following is a 

brief description of some items that are changing or may change in the future, adding to the 

effects on timber harvest from the alternatives. Through the life of this revised Forest Plan, 

climate change is not expected to impact the amount of timber harvest.

Demand and Future Timber Products 

The demand for timber products is a driver in the amount of wood fiber supplied from the 

Shoshone. Diversification of wood product manufacturing has historically allowed Montana 

mills to be more resilient in changing markets (Montana DNRC 2010). This diversification leads 

to new products and new processing techniques, and affects the demand for wood fiber. If 

markets improve and demand for wood products increases, there will be the desire for more 

wood fiber from the Shoshone. If demand decreases and mills close, there may be less desire for 

wood fiber from the Shoshone. A decrease in demand may reduce the amount of timber sold 

from the Shoshone under all alternatives. 

Alternative Sources for Wood Fiber 

The supply of wood fiber from private and State lands and adjacent national forests impacts 

Shoshone demand. If wood fiber supplies decrease from private and State lands and adjacent 

national forests, there will be an increasing demand for wood fiber from the Shoshone. If 

supplies increase from private and State lands and adjacent national forests, there may be a 

decrease in demand for wood fiber from the Shoshone. A decrease in demand may reduce the 

amount of timber sold from the Shoshone under all alternatives. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

444

Special Forest Products

Introduction

Special forest products are mainly plant and fungal material that are gathered from forested lands 

or rangelands for personal use, for barter, for commercial resale, or for sale as a craft product. 

They can generally be categorized under five general areas: residential comfort and use, food, 

herbs and medicinal, decorative, and specialty items. Special forest products can play a role in 

sustainable development and are thought to provide links to sustaining rural economies and 

contributing to economic diversification. As demand for these special products increases and 

new markets are created, harvest pressure may increase, but has remained fairly constant over 

the years.

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Sustained Yield Forest Management Act of 1944 and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act 

of 1960: Allow for the production of multiple quality goods and resources at sustained levels 

over time, including forest products. 

36 CFR 223.1: Trees, portions of trees, and other forest products on NFS lands may be sold for 

the purpose of achieving the policies set forth in the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act as 

amended and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended 

and the Program there under.

36 CFR 261.6(a): Cutting or otherwise damaging a forest product except as authorized by a 

permit or Federal law. 

36 CFR 261.6(e): Loading, removing, or hauling a forest product acquired under any permit 

unless such product is identified as required in such permit. 

36 CFR 261.10(c): Selling or offering for sale any merchandise or conducting any kind of work 

activity or service unless authorized by a Federal law, regulation, or permit.

36 CFR 261.10(l): Violating any condition or term of a permit. 

FSM 2467: Sales of special forest products

FSM 2467.01: Authority: Forest officers may sell other forest products under provisions set out 

at 36 CFR 223.1.

FSM 2467.02: Objective: To sell other forest products where it would serve local needs and 

meet land management objectives.

FSM 2467.03: Policy: Use management measures that perpetuate or increase the production of 

miscellaneous forest products within applicable objectives, standards, and guidelines of the 

Shoshone National Forest land and resource management plan. Recover the fair market value of 

such products when it is practical to do so.

FSM 2467.04: Responsibility: See FSM 2404.2 for delegations of authority and assignments of 

responsibility to agency officials by organizational level. Regional Foresters shall develop 

appraisal and sale procedures, including defining the conditions of sale for forest products.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

445

FSM 2467.1: Conditions of Use for Miscellaneous Forest Products: Conditions for use of 

miscellaneous forest products are set forth in FSH 2409.18, section 87.

FSM R2 Supplement No. 2400-96-2: 2431.3: Minimum and Standard Rates.

2431.31a: Standard Rates. “Standard rates may be used for sale of all nonconvertible products 

and Special Forest Products. Forest Supervisors may establish higher standard rates when 

supported by an appraisal specialized for that product. Limit standard rates for convertible 

products to less than 4,000 CCF.”

Permits are generally required for harvest of special forest product resources, as well as for 

research collections. The permit regulates the manner in which forest product resources are 

harvested and provides information for monitoring the amount harvested. Collections that 

qualify as non-commercial research, educational use, or incidental personal use can be 

authorized through an administrative use permit or a free use permit.

Methodology

The analysis included a review of rules and regulations for special forest and botanical products 

and effects based on management area allocation for each alternative. Management areas with 

more access allow for increased availability of special forest products. 

Affected Environment 

Special forest and botanical products are plant and fungal material that may be collected from 

NFS lands. Special forest and botanical products include, but are not limited to, mosses, fungi 

(including mushrooms), bryophytes, liverworts, roots, bulbs, berries, seeds, wildflowers, forbs, 

sedges, grasses, nuts, ferns, tree sap, boughs, bark, cones, burls, transplants, pine straw, 

Christmas trees, firewood, posts and poles, shingle and shake bolts, mine props, rails, vigas, bow 

staves, and fence material. These products are available through commercial harvest, personal 

use, and through free use. Historically, the Shoshone has granted commercial and or free use of 

special forest and botanical products to individuals and tribes with treaty and other reserved 

rights.

Special forest and botanical products may be collected Forest-wide, unless an area has been 

closed for a specific reason. Existing uses are often tied to historical knowledge and patterns of 

use. The most popular special forest and botanical products on the Shoshone include firewood, 

Christmas trees, transplants, teepee poles, and boughs. Mushroom picking can be a popular 

activity following wildfires. In recent years, requests from the general public for commercial and 

free use collection of special forest and botanical products have remained about the same.

Special forest and botanical products have importance to the tribes as traditional and cultural 

uses. As per current handbook direction (2409.18, section 87.13), the Shoshone considers “treaty 

rights, customary and traditional uses (including subsistence and other historical uses of plant 

material by Tribes), the Federal trust responsibility to Tribes, and competitive market demands in 

determining which products would be excluded from or allowed for sale to commercial 

harvesters. When there is a shortage of any particular special forest product for tribal use, 

commercial permits will be issued only to the extent that the tribal use can be accommodated.”

The Shoshone consults and coordinates with tribal governments prior to issuing any permits, 

contracts, or other authorized instrument when there is a possible impact to tribal treaty and other 

rights and interests in the permitted or contracted area (handbook direction 2409.18, 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

446

section 87.18). The Shoshone honors the unique legal relationship, including the trust 

relationship, between the Federal Government and Indian Tribal governments.

In addition, the Forest Service has the responsibility to honor Indian Tribes’ reserved rights 

(handbook direction 2409.18, section 87.2). The gathering of forest products by the 

11 recognized tribes is a reserved right on the Shoshone. The 11 recognized tribes may remove 

special forest and botanical products without charge or permit (36 CFR 223.239(e)).

The supply of desired products is dependent on ecological conditions and existing distributions 

of potential habitat (see table 111). Forest management can increase the supply of certain 

products. Thinning and regeneration harvest can also increase production of Christmas trees. 

Firewood is often a by-product of a commercial timber harvest. With the recent bark beetle 

epidemics within the forest, there is no shortage of firewood, although accessibility may become 

an issue in areas closer to the population centers around the Shoshone. 

Table 111. Association of special forest product with cover types 

Special forest product Cover type

Christmas trees Lodgepole pine, spruce/fir, Douglas-fir

Moss Montane riparian within lodgepole pine, spruce/fir

Burls Lodgepole pine, spruce/fir

Cones Lodgepole pine, spruce/fir, Douglas-fir 

Mushrooms Lodgepole pine, spruce/fir

Boughs Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, spruce/fir

Wildflowers and seed All cover types

Cuttings Willow and cottonwood

Transplants Lodgepole pine, spruce/fir, aspen, Douglas-fir

Firewood All forest cover types

Posts and poles Lodgepole pine, spruce/fir

Permits for collection will generally be required. Care has to be taken to assure that native and 

desired non-native plant populations are not adversely affected due to over-harvesting and that 

conflicts with other uses are minimized.

Environmental Consequences 

Special forest and botanical products may be collected for personal use Forest-wide except in 

some special areas (botanical and historical special areas) and research natural areas. 

Commercial use of special forest and botanical products is not allowed in designated wilderness; 

recommended wilderness; wilderness study area; wild, scenic, and recreational rivers; special 

areas; or research natural areas.

Table 112 displays the acres by management area where commercial use of special forest and 

botanical products is not allowed. Alternatives C and D have the most acres and alternatives A, 

B, E, F, and G have the least acres where commercial use of these products is not allowed. Acres 

not allowed for personal use remain constant for all action alternatives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

447

Table 112. Acres of management areas where commercial use of special forest and botanical 

products is not allowed, by alternative 

Management 

area

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

MA 1.1 Wilderness 1,359,000 1,359,000 1,359,000 1,359,000 1,359,000 1,359,000 1,359,000

MA 1.1A Wilderness

Glacier addition 6,560 6,560 6,560 6,560 6,560 6,560 6,560

MA 1.2, 1.2A, 

1.2B

Recommended 

wilderness 628,800 194,500

MA 1.6A Wilderness 

study areas 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200

MA 1.5A Wild and scenic 

rivers 6,920 6,920 3,350 6,920 6,920 6,920 6,920

MA 3.1A, 3.1B, 

3.1C

Botanical, 

geological (1) 580 2,940 2,940 2,940 580 580 2,700

MA 8.1, 8.2, 

8.6

Administrative 

sites, 

developed 

recreational 

sites, recreation 

resident sites, 

ski resort (1) (2)

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

Requests for and use of special forest and botanical products are expected to slowly increase 

over the life of this revised Forest Plan; regardless of the alternative, the allowable collection of 

them, access to them, and how habitat conditions may vary. Alternative F provides the most 

areas with allowable use, the most access, and the most management activities to improve habitat 

conditions for special forest and botanical products.

Effects from Access: The opportunity for collecting special forest and botanical products is 

affected by the amount of motorized access to the Shoshone. Areas with no motorized access 

limit opportunities and reduce the ability to collect products. Alternative C has the most nonmotorized access; thus, reduced opportunities for use. Alternative F has the most motorized 

access; thus, the best opportunities for use.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Roads and Trails Management: The existence of road access has the potential to 

impact the accessibility and viability of collection of forest products. This is undoubtedly true for 

firewood and may be true for other products. Alternative C decreases the miles of roads open to 

the public. Collection of special forest products under alternatives A through G would be similar, 

with more motorized access than alternative C. 

Effects from Disturbance Processes (fires/fuels management): Wildfire and prescribed fire 

activities have the potential to increase populations of some fungi. Alternatives F and E allow 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

448

more fire and fuels management activities and could increase the collection of some special 

forest products. Alternatives A, B, C, D, and G would allow for the most acres to be managed by 

wildfire and or prescribed fire activities; therefore, the potential for increased populations of 

fungi is higher. Alternatives E and F have more acres that can be managed, but other criteria 

limit the use of wildfire within the managed acres. 

Effects from Timber Harvest: Timber harvest increases the potential availability of some 

special forest products, such as firewood. Harvest operations improve access and in some cases 

consolidate the firewood to piles, making gathering easier. The amount of timber harvest is the 

highest under alternative F, providing for more firewood cutting. Collection of special forest 

products under all other alternatives would be similar.

Cumulative Effects 

The West has been the fastest growing region in the country, and this trend is expected to 

continue for the next 20 years (U.S. Census 2000 data and projections). With this increased 

growth rate comes an increased use of special forest and botanical resources. The sustainable use 

of these resources may become increasingly vulnerable, requiring permitting and limitation of 

use. 

The specific effects that climate change will have on special forest products, particularly those 

that are botanical, are unknown. It is likely that many of the effects on overall vegetation will 

impact individual species in some way. The potential effects (and uncertainties) that climate 

change may have on forest vegetation on the Shoshone are summarized in Climate Change on 

the Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming (USDA Forest Service 2012). See the Vegetation 

Cumulative Effects discussion for further information.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

449

Land (Special Uses)

Introduction

This section addresses those aspects of Forest Service management relating to land ownership 

adjustment (purchases, exchanges, sales, and rights-of-way acquisition) and non-recreation 

special uses (e.g., communication sites, utility corridors, and right-of-way authorizations). The 

type and number of these types of uses do not change through the alternatives. 

Demand for the use and occupancy of the Shoshone continues to grow, with accompanying 

challenges. If it is determined to be in the public interest, land special use permits may be issued 

that authorize use and occupancy. 

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws

Lands Adjustments

Weeks Act of March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 515). This act, as amended, authorizes the Secretary of 

Agriculture to purchase lands within the watersheds of navigable streams to promote regulation 

of the flow of navigable streams or for timber production. It also allows for the exchange of NFS 

land with acquired land status.

General Exchange Act of March 20, 1922 (16 U.S.C. 485, et seq.). This act authorizes the 

exchange of land or timber that was reserved from the public domain for National Forest System 

purposes.

Act of March 3, 1925 (16 U.S.C. 555). This act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to 

purchase land for national forest headquarters, ranger stations, dwellings, or other sites required 

for the effective performance of the authorized activities of the Forest Service.

Clarke-McNary Act (Act of June 7, 1924) (16 U.S.C. 569). This act authorizes the acceptance 

of donations of land that is chiefly valuable for growing timber crops. Tracts wholly or largely 

composed of arable or rangelands, barren, permanent brush or shrub types, or lands characterized 

as urban or developed are not acceptable under the act.

Department of Agriculture Organic Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 428a). This act provides 

that the Department of Agriculture can purchase land or interests therein, as necessary, to carry 

out its authorized work. However, there can be no purchases under this authority, unless 

provision is made therefore in the applicable appropriation or other law. The act serves as the 

primary authority for administrative-site acquisitions and Land and Water Conservation Fund 

purchases where the Weeks Law or specific authorities do not apply. The act may also be used to 

accept donations under its terms.

Act of September 21, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 526). This act authorizes appropriation for the purchase 

of lands where such action is necessary or beneficial for administration and public use of the 

national forests. The act is general legislation, and an appropriation is necessary to make it 

effective.

Forest Service Omnibus Act of October 23, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 555a). This act authorizes the 

exchange of NFS lands having acquired status when no other exchange authority applies to the 

disposal of those specific lands.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

450

Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1134). This act authorizes acquisition by 

purchase, exchange, gift or bequest, of lands within the perimeter of any area designated as 

wilderness.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of September 3, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 460l-9). This act is 

primarily a funding authority for land acquisition. Purchases using funds appropriated under this 

act must be primarily of value for outdoor recreation purposes or to conserve habitat for fish, 

wildlife, and plants, including those listed as endangered or threatened species.

National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 532-538). This act 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire, construct, and maintain forest development 

roads and to obtain and grant easements under a cooperative program.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 2, 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1277). This act authorizes the 

acquisition of lands within the authorized boundaries of any component of the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System by purchase, exchange, gift, or bequest.

National Trails System Act of October 2, 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1246). This act authorizes the 

acquisition of lands or interests in lands by written cooperative agreement, donation, purchase, 

and exchange, where applicable, within the exterior boundaries of areas designated under the act.

Endangered Species Act of December 28, 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1534). This act directs the Secretary 

of Agriculture to establish and implement a program under the National Forest System to 

conserve fish, wildlife, and plants, including those listed as endangered or threatened species. To 

carry out this program, the Secretary has the authority to acquire lands, waters, or interests 

therein by purchase, donation, or otherwise.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701). This act is 

the primary authority for the Forest Service to acquire and grant easements. Section 205 of the 

act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire access (lands or interest therein) over nonFederal lands to units of the National Forest System by purchase, exchange, donation, or eminent 

domain.

Acceptance of Gifts Act of October 10, 1978 (7 U.S.C. 2269). The act authorizes the Secretary 

of Agriculture, on behalf of the United States, to accept, receive, hold, utilize, and administer 

bequests or devises of real and personal property made for the benefit of the Department of 

Agriculture or for the accomplishment of any of its functions.

Small Tracts Act of January 12, 1983 (16 U.S.C. 521c-i). This act authorizes the sale, 

exchange, or interchange of certain limited categories of NFS lands.

Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005 (16 U.S.C. 580d). This 

act provides for sale, lease, or exchange of administrative lands and facilities which are excess to 

the needs of the Forest Service. 

Special Uses

Act of July 26, 1866, (30 U.S.C. 51) (Revised Statute (RS) 2477; 43 U.S.C. 932). This act 

granted rights-of-way for the construction of ditches and canals for water to be used for mining, 

agriculture, manufacturing, or other purposes. It also provided for the creation of rights-of-way 

for public highways and county roads constructed across public domain before the lands 

received national forest status. Although the act was repealed by the Federal Land Policy and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

451

Management Act in 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1715), rights preexisting the establishment of the Shoshone 

National Forest, are preserved.

Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897, (16 U.S.C. 477-482, 551). This act authorizes 

issuance of rules and regulations for the occupancy and use of the national forests. This is the 

basic authority for authorizing use of NFS lands for other than rights-of-way.

Preservation of American Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906, (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.). This act 

authorizes permits for archeological and paleontological exploration involving excavation, 

removal, and storage of objects of antiquity or permits necessary for investigative work requiring 

site disturbance or sampling which results in the collection of such objects.

Act of March 4, 1915, as amended July 28, 1956, (16 U.S.C. 497). This act authorizes term 

permits for structures or facilities on NFS land, and sets maximum limits of 80 acres and 30 

years.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of July 22, 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1010-1012). This 

act authorizes the development of programs of land conservation and use to protect, improve, 

develop, and administer the land acquired and to construct structures thereon needed to adapt the 

land to beneficial use. Under the act, the Department of Agriculture may issue leases, licenses, 

permits, term permits, or easements for most uses, except rights-of-way.

Granger-Thye Act of April 24, 1950, (16 U.S.C. 490, 504, 504a, 555, 557, 571c, 572, 579a, 

580c-5801, 581i-1). This act authorizes special-use permits not to exceed 30 years duration for 

the use of structures or improvements under the administrative control of the Forest Service and 

for the use of land in connection therewith, without acreage limitation.

Act of September 3, 1954, (68 Stat. 1146; 43 U.S.C. 931c, 931d). This act authorizes permits, 

term permits, leases, or easements at the fair market value, not to exceed 30-years duration, to 

states, counties, cities, municipalities, or other public agencies without acreage limitation for the 

construction and operation of public buildings or other public works, exclusive of rights-of-way.

Highway Act of August 27, 1958, (23 U.S.C. 317), supplemented by the Act of October 15, 

1966 (49 U.S.C. 1651). This act authorizes the Federal Highway Administration to grant 

easements to states for highways that are part of the Federal-aid system or that are constructed 

under the provision of chapter 2 of the Highway Act. The Forest Service consents to the grant of 

these easements in a form agreed upon by the two agencies and upon the state highway agency's 

execution of stipulations. 

Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). This act establishes requirements 

for special-use authorizations in designated wilderness areas for temporary structures, 

commercial public services and access to valid mining claims and lands of other ownership. 

Under this act, presidential approval is necessary for establishing new water facilities, power 

projects, and transmission lines.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of September 3, 1964, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

4601-6a(c)). Section 4(c) of this act authorizes permits for recreation, such as group activities, 

organized events, motorized recreational vehicle use, and other specialized recreation activities 

of limited duration.

National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 532-38). This act 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary or permanent easements to land 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

452

owners who join the Forest Service in providing a permanent road system that serves lands 

administered by the Forest Service and lands or resources of the land owner. It also authorizes 

the grant of easements to public road agencies for public roads that are not a part of the Federalaid system.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976, (43 U.S.C. 1761-1771). This 

act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits, leases, or easements to occupy, use, 

or traverse NFS lands. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of August 11, 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996). This act states 

the policy of the United States to preserve and protect the rights of Native Americans to 

reasonable access and use of NFS lands for exercising their traditional cultural religious beliefs 

and practices. This act does not grant authority to issue authorizations.

Archeological Resources Protection Act of October 31, 1979, (16 U.S.C. 470aa). This act 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits for archeological research, 

investigations, studies, and excavations.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, (16 U.S.C 3210). Section 1323(a) 

of this act provides that, subject to terms and conditions established by the Secretary of 

Agriculture, the owners of non-Federal land within the National Forest System shall be provided 

adequate access to their land. 

Federal Timber Contract Payment Modification Act of 1984, (16 U.S.C. 618). Section 3 of 

this act authorizes a waiver of all or part of a land use fee for an organizational camp operated by 

the Boy Scouts of America or other nonprofit organizations when they provide services the 

authorized officer determines are a valuable benefit to the public or programs of the Secretary of 

Agriculture.

National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986, (16 U.S.C. 497b). This act authorizes use for up 

to 40 years and acreage size deemed appropriate by the authorized officer for nordic and alpine 

ski areas and facilities.

Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, (16 U.S.C. 497c). Section 701 

of this act revises and amends the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 regarding fee 

calculations, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and mineral use.

Act of May 26, 2000, (16 U.S.C. 406l-6d). This act supplements the authority of the Secretary 

of Agriculture to regulate commercial filming and still photography on NFS lands. It also 

authorizes the Secretary to retain and spend land use fees collected for commercial filming and 

still photography without further appropriation, and provides for recovery of administrative and 

personnel costs in addition to the collection of the land use fee.

Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000, (16 U.S.C. 6201-6213) as set out in title VI of the 

appropriations act for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies for Fiscal Year 2001. 

This act establishes procedures for appraising recreation residence lots and determining fees for 

recreation residence lots located on NFS lands. 

National Forest Organizational Camp Fee Improvement Act of 2003, (16 U.S.C. 6231 et 

seq.). This act establishes a land use fee system for organizational camps located on NFS lands 

and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to retain and spend these fees without further 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

453

appropriation. The act also exempts certain ministerial actions from the provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act.

Executive Orders

Executive Order 11990. The intent of this order is to help avoid the long- and short-term 

adverse effects associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or 

indirect support of new construction in the wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative. 

Executive Order 11988. The intent of this order is to help avoid the long- and short-term 

adverse impact associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid 

direct and indirect support of flood development whenever there is a practicable alternative.

Regulations and Policies

Regulations and policies have been passed in support of these laws and include the following:

USDA Departmental Regulation 9500-3. This regulation discourages the unwarranted 

conversion to other uses of prime and unique farmlands, farmlands of statewide or local 

importance, and prime rangelands; the unwarranted alteration of wetlands or flood plains; or the 

unwarranted expansion of the peripheral boundaries of existing settlements.

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2700 (Special Uses Management), Chapters 2700-2790. Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11 (Special Uses Handbook), Chapters 00-90. FSH 2709.12 

(Road Rights-of-Way Handbook), Chapters 00-70. 

− These directives pertain to the management of the special uses program.

FSM 5400 (Land ownership), Chapters 5400-5480. FSH 5409.12 (Appraisal Handbook), 

Chapters 00-70. FSH 5409.13 (Land Acquisition Handbook), Chapters 00-70. FSH 5409.17 

(Rights-of-Way Acquisition Handbook).

− These directives pertain to land purchases, donations, exchanges, land valuation, and 

right-of-way acquisition.

FSM 5500 (Landownership Title Management), Chapters 5500-5590. FSH 5509.11 (Title 

Claims, Sales, and Grants Handbook), Chapters 00-60.

− These directives pertain to trespass resolution and to land sales.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The area of consideration is the Shoshone National Forest and adjoining lands within the threecounty area. The next 15 years was considered the time span for reasonably foreseeable future 

cumulative effects.

Affected Environment 

Land Ownership Adjustments

Approximately 99.8 percent of all lands within the boundary of the Shoshone are federally 

owned and managed by the Forest Service. Where they occur, private inholdings tend to be 

relatively consolidated. For these reasons, land ownership adjustments are not as common as on 

other units of the National Forest System, where land ownership is more fractured. Nevertheless, 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

454

land ownership adjustment through purchase, exchange, and sale is a useful tool for improving 

land management efficiency and meeting resource management objectives. 

Exchanges and sales are pursued to consolidate ownership patterns (simplifying management), to 

resolve encroachments on NFS lands, and to eliminate unneeded administrative facilities. Most 

funding for future acquisitions would come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is 

a competitive national fund and is not a reliable source for funding of purchases, so it is expected 

that most adjustments will be land exchanges.

The Shoshone uses the Small Tracts Act (P.L. 97-465) to resolve land disputes and management 

problems by conveying through sale, exchange, or interchange, three categories of tracts of land: 

parcels encroached upon, road rights-of-way, and mineral survey fractions. All applicants must 

qualify under the guidelines of the Small Tracts Act.

Road and trail right-of-way easements are acquired from willing parties. Because many 

easements have already been acquired, and given the high level of Federal land ownership within 

the Shoshone, the rights-of-way program is not as active as on other units of the National Forest 

System. In recent years, private land owners have been observed to be less willing to convey full 

public easements, offering instead only limited administrative easements. 

Within the last 20 years, the most significant acquisition has been of a large number of mineralentry inholdings on the Greybull Ranger District. This acquisition has returned virtually the 

entire historic Kirwin mining district to Federal ownership and serves to simplify achievement of 

resource management objectives. Acquisition of other inholdings is desired, but limited by other 

Shoshone priorities, the willingness of sellers, and the ability to obtain funding for acquiring 

high-priority parcels. (See table 113, table 114, and table 115.)

Table 113. Shoshone National Forest acreage for 1986, 1991, 2005, and 2009 to 2011

Year Acres

1986 2,433,125

1991 2,432,990

2005 2,437,218

2009 2,437,217

2010 2,437,731

2011 2,437,731

Table 114. Acres of land acquired 1986 to 2011

Year Transaction Acres

1986 Wyoming Game and Fish Exchange 160

1991 Deer Creek Trailhead Purchase 1

1992 Kirwin Donation 3,843

1996 South Fork Exchange 103

1998 TE Ranch Exchange 365

2002 Dunrud Purchase 589

2010 Cross Donation 514

Total 5,061
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

455

Table 115. Acres of land disposed of 1986 to 2011

Year Transaction Acres

1986 Wyoming Game and Fish Exchange 161

1988 Goodyear Small Tracts Act Sale 3

1989 Julien Small Tracts Act Sale 1

1991 Stuart Small Tracts Act Sale 3

1996 B4 Ranch Small Tracts Act Sale 1

1996 South Fork Exchange 157

1997 Les Terry Small Tracts Act Sale < 1

1998 TE Ranch Exchange 55

2008 Meeteetse Administrative Site Sale < 1

2009 Cody Dwelling Administrative Site Sale < 1

2010 Estes Small Tracts Act Sale < 1

Total 382

Non-recreation Special Uses

The Forest Service issues special-use authorizations (permits, easements and leases) to allow 

private or government entities to occupy, traverse, or use NFS lands. Special-use authorizations 

are most often granted for specified periods, generally not exceeding 20 years, but often with 

provisions for renewal (for example, for facilities with substantial financial investment such as 

resorts). Shorter-term and one-time authorizations are also issued (for example, for scientific 

studies and recreation events that are anticipated to occur within a limited and clearly defined 

timeframe). Special-use authorizations fall into two broad categories—recreational special uses 

and non-recreational special uses. Non-recreational special uses include such uses as roads, 

ditches, pipelines, communication sites, and utility lines (see table 116). Non-recreational 

special-use authorizations have generally increased over time.

Table 116. Non-recreational special use authorizations in 2011

Special use type Number of authorizations 

Agriculture and range 10

Religious facilities 2

Sanitary systems 1

Service uses 3

Research 26

Industry camps and storage 12

Arts 17

Oil and gas development 1

Power lines 5

Aircraft facilities 2

Road rights-of-way 46

Telecommunications uses 41

Water and water transmission 91

Total 257
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

456

Utility Corridors

There are no existing utility corridors on the Shoshone. The 1992 Western Regional Corridor 

Study by the Western Utility Group describes two potential east/west utility corridors—one along 

U.S. Highway 14/16/20 and one along U.S. Highway 26/287. Development of these corridors, 

however, would prove challenging, as those routes are also scenic byways (respectively, the 

Buffalo Bill Cody Scenic Byway and the Wyoming Centennial Scenic Byway) and carry both 

National Forest System and Wyoming State scenic byway designations. In this regard, the 

corridors have corridor management plans, the visual resources components of which tend to 

limit the development of visually conspicuous utility corridors. Additionally, development of the 

proposed corridors would necessarily include construction along popular recreational corridors 

within Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. For all of these reasons, development of the 

corridors appears unlikely. Development of utility corridors in other locations is also not 

expected because of the large areas of wilderness that block east-west corridors and rugged 

terrain on the Shoshone that make north-south corridors less attractive than lower-elevation 

public and private properties. Local distribution lines and smaller pipelines (power lines less than 

69 kilovolts and pipelines less than 10 inches in diameter) have not been identified as corridors 

and are normally located in conjunction with an existing road system or other previously 

disturbed area.

Designated Communication Sites

Designated special-use communication sites are identified in table 117. Any additional sites 

require site-specific environmental analysis, amendment of the forest plan, and a site 

management plan approved by the regional forester.

Table 117. Special use communication sites in 2011

Site name Site location 

Dead Indian Hill Communications Site T. 55 N., R. 104 S., secs. 10, 15

Togwotee Pass Communications Site T. 44 N., R. 110 S., sec. 28

Lava Mountain Communications Site T. 43 N., R. 110 S., sec. 23

Windy Ridge Communications Site T. 41 N., R. 107 S., sec. 22

Sheep Ridge Communications Site T. 41 N., R. 107 S., sec. 26

Limestone Mountain Communications Site T. 30 N., R. 99 S., secs. 7, 18

South Pass Communications Site T. 30 N., R. 101 S., sec. 25

Roundtop Mountain Communications Site T. 30 N., R. 99 S., secs. 30, 31

Desired Condition

The land ownership pattern of the Shoshone provides for efficient and effective resource 

management within the proclaimed boundaries of the Shoshone. Rights-of-way are pursued 

where there is a high-priority identified need and a willing land owner. Non-recreational specialuse authorizations are issued for those uses that are determined to be in the public interest. 

Communication uses are accommodated where possible within existing communication sites, 

with designation of new sites as an option of last resort. 

Environmental Consequences 

Across all alternatives, the issuance and administration of lands special-use authorizations will 

continue to provide authorization for use and occupancy of NFS lands where in the public 

interest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

457

Direct and Indirect Effects

Land Ownership Adjustments

There are approximately 29,180 acres of lands of other ownership located within the boundary of 

the Shoshone. The Shoshone’s land exchange program is very limited and will not change across 

the alternatives. All alternatives emphasize cooperation with land owners and improving land 

ownership patterns. Opportunities for right-of-way acquisition also do not change across 

alternatives. Most readily available rights-of-way have already been acquired. Remaining rightsof-way considered are not anticipated to be acquired in the planning period of 10 to 15 years. 

The amount and potential opportunity for land adjustments are limited and do not vary across 

alternatives. Land ownership adjustments are discretionary and are not generally pursued where 

they may have net negative environmental consequences. No change in effects is anticipated and 

the revised Forest Plan is not anticipated to have direct or indirect effects on these uses. No 

cumulative effects are anticipated. 

Special Uses Generally

The number of special-use authorizations since 200629 is depicted in figure 28 and table 118.

Figure 28. Number of special-use authorizations issued since 2006

 29 Detailed special use information is available in the Natural Resource Manager database from 2006

forward.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

458

Table 118. Special-use authorizations by type, 2006 to 2011

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Water development and transmission 90 90 90 91 91 90

Road rights-of-way 40 39 43 44 47 46

Telecommunications 38 38 38 39 40 40

Research 14 13 18 24 28 26

Arts 12 16 9 18 11 16

Industrial camps and storage 13 13 13 12 12 12

Agriculture and range 11 11 11 10 10 9

Power lines 5 5 5 5 5 5

Religious facilities 2 2 2 2 2 2

Service uses 3 2 3 2 3 2

Aircraft facilities 2 2 2 2 2 2

Sanitary systems 1 1 1 1 1 1

Oil and gas development 1 1 1 1 1 1

Non-commercial group use 4 3 4 5 7 0

Grand Total 236 236 240 256 260 252

Authorization rates among uses involving long-lasting improvements (i.e., water development 

and transmission, roads, telecommunications infrastructure, industrial camps and storage, 

agriculture and range, power lines, religious facilities, service uses, aircraft facilities, sanitary 

systems, and oil and gas development) has been relatively static over time, with a very gradual 

increase. The uses themselves are also relatively static (e.g., a telephone line, once constructed, 

tends to change very little from year to year). These uses are not expected to vary across 

alternatives. No change in effects is anticipated and the revised Forest Plan is not anticipated to 

have direct or indirect effects on these uses. No cumulative effects are anticipated. 

Authorization rates among uses not involving such improvements (i.e., research, arts, and 

noncommercial group use) are relatively variable. These uses tend to be short-term with minimal 

or no measurable impact on natural resources. These uses are not expected to vary across 

alternatives. No change in effects is anticipated and the revised Forest Plan is not anticipated to 

have direct or indirect effects on these uses. No cumulative effects are anticipated

Utility Corridors

Utility corridors are not expected to vary by alternative. There are no existing or reasonably 

foreseeable utility corridors on the Shoshone, so there are no direct or indirect effects on these 

resources. No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Communication Sites

The number and location of communication sites does not vary by alternative, so there are no 

direct or indirect effects on these resources. No cumulative effects are anticipated. 

Monitoring

Monitoring will include tracking the number and types of land use authorizations annually. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

459

Effects from Management Area Prescriptions: Some management area (MA) allocations, such 

as NFS lands which have not been statutorily designated for a specific use (e.g., MA 1.2–

Recommended Wilderness, 2.3 Potential Research Natural Areas, etc.) or lands that have been 

administratively designated for a specific use (e.g., MA 3.1A – Swamp Lake Special Interest 

Area, MA 2.2A – Line Creek Research Natural Area, etc.) are less likely to be considered for 

disposal or exchange. Based on management area allocations, alternative C would have the 

fewest acres likely to be considered for disposal or exchange, followed by alternatives D, G and 

B, and A. Alternatives E and F are similar and would have more acres available and likely to be 

considered for disposal or exchange.

Cumulative Effects

Past land ownership adjustments and non-recreational special use are discussed under the 

affected environment and provide the existing condition for this analysis. Non-recreational 

special uses listed in table 116 include access roads, ditches, pipelines, communication sites, and 

utility lines. These uses are anticipated to remain, and non-recreational special use authorizations 

have generally increased over time. Applications are received and processed on a site-specific 

basis. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

460

Minerals

Introduction

The Forest Service manages mineral-related activities consistent with multiple-use management 

principles. The agency integrates the exploration, development, and production of mineral and 

energy resources with the use, conservation, and protection of other resources

In the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Congress declared that it is the continuing policy 

of the Federal Government, in the national interest, to foster and encourage private enterprise in 

(among other goals) the development of domestic mineral resources and the reclamation of 

mined land. This Federal policy applies to National Forest System (NFS) lands.

The Forest Service recognizes the importance of NFS mineral resources to the well-being of the 

Nation, and encourages bona-fide mineral exploration and development. But, it also recognizes 

its responsibility to protect the surface resources of the lands under its care. Thus, the Forest 

Service is faced with a double task: to make minerals from NFS lands available to the national 

economy; and, at the same time, minimize the adverse impacts of mining activities on other 

resources.

Individuals operating under United States mining laws have a statutory right to enter NFS lands 

to locate and develop mineral resources. Mineral resource activity on the Shoshone National 

Forest has occurred, but sporadically. Mineral activity is presently limited to a few scattered 

areas. Activity has fluctuated with demand, and current low prices for many minerals make 

exploration and development uneconomical.

Minerals management on NFS lands requires interagency coordination and cooperation. 

Although the Forest Service is responsible for managing surface resources of NFS lands, the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the U.S. Department of Interior (USDI) is primarily 

responsible for managing government-owned minerals. Since it is not possible to separate 

mineral operations from surface management, the agencies have developed cooperative 

procedures to accommodate their respective responsibilities.

Lands currently available for oil and gas leasing under 36 CFR 228.102(d) were identified in the 

Shoshone Oil and Gas Leasing Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 1995). The decision 

that will be made in connection with this FEIS will not change the current leasing decision. A 

future leasing decision may need to be made to address any consistency issues that arise with the 

suitability decisions made in the Plan.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11, as amended; 16 U.S.C. § 473 et 

seq.): This act provides the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to regulate the occupancy and 

use of NFS lands. It provides for the continuing right to conduct mining activities under the 

general mining laws if the rules and regulations covering NFS lands are complied with. This act 

recognizes the rights of miners and prospectors to access NFS lands for all proper and lawful 

purposes, including prospecting for, locating, and developing mineral resources.

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (P.L. 86-517, 74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 528 

et seq.): This act requires that NFS lands be administered in a manner that considers the values 

of the various resources when making management decisions and specifically provides that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

461

nothing in the act be construed to affect the use or administration of the mineral resources on 

NFS lands.

U.S. Mining Laws Act of May 10, 1872 (17 Stat. 91, as amended, 30 U.S.C. § 22 et seq.): 

This act (often referred to as the General Mining Act of 1872) sets forth the principles of 

discovery, right of possession, assessment work, and patent for hard-rock minerals on lands 

reserved from the public domain. The law applies to lode, placer, mill-site claims, and tunnel 

sites. Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits, and the lands in which they 

are found, are free and open to exploration, occupation, and purchase under regulations 

prescribed by law.

Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920 (P.L. 66-146, 41 Stat. 437 as amended, 30 U.S.C. 

§ 181 et seq.): This act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue leases for the disposal of 

certain minerals (coal, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil, oil shale, gilsonite, and gas). The act 

applies to NFS lands reserved from the public domain, including lands received in exchange for 

timber or other public domain lands, and lands with minerals reserved under special authority.

Mineral Materials Act of July 31, 1947 (P.L. 80-291, 61 Stat. 681, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 

§ 601 et seq.): This act provides for the disposal of mineral materials on the public lands through 

bidding, negotiated contracts, and free use.

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of August 7, 1947 (P.L. 80-382, 61 Stat. 913, as 

amended, 30 U.S.C. § 351 et seq.): This act extends the provisions of the mineral leasing laws 

to federally owned mineral deposits on acquired NFS lands and requires the consent of the 

Secretary of Agriculture prior to leasing.

Multiple Use Mining Act of July 23, 1955 (P.L. 84-167, 69 Stat. 368, as amended, 30 U.S.C 

§ 601 et seq.): This act requires the disposal of common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, 

pumicite, and cinders under the provisions of the Materials Act of July 31, 1947, and gives to the 

Secretary of Agriculture the authority to dispose of these materials. It also provides that rights 

under any mining claim located under the mining laws are subject to the right of the United 

States to manage and dispose of surface resources.

Mining and Minerals Policy Act of December 31, 1970 (P.L. 91-631, 84 Stat.1876, 30 U.S.C. 

§ 21a): This act states that the continuing policy of the Federal Government is to foster and 

encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable domestic 

mining and minerals industries and the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral 

resources.

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of August 4, 1976 (90 Stat. 1083; 30 U.S.C. § 201 et 

seq.): This act amended the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of February 25, 1920 (para. 3) by 

specifying that coal leases on NFS lands may be issued only after the consent of the Secretary of 

Agriculture and adherence to conditions the Secretary may prescribe. The act also provides that 

no lease shall be issued unless the lands involved in the lease have been included in a 

comprehensive forest land and resource management plan and the sale is compatible with the 

revised Forest Plan. The act authorizes the issuance of a license to conduct exploration for coal.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (P.L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2713, 

43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., 7 U.S.C. § 1212a, 16 U.S.C. § 478a, 1338a): This act defines 

procedures for the withdrawal of lands from mineral entry. It reserves to the United States the 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

462

rights to prospect for, mine, and remove the minerals in lands conveyed to others and requires 

the recordation of claims with the BLM.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of August 3, 1977 (P.L. 95-87, 91 Stat. 445, 30 

U.S.C. § 1201-1328): This act provides for cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior and 

states in the regulation of surface coal mining. It also restricts or prohibits surface coal mining 

operations on NFS lands, subject to valid existing rights and compatibility determinations.

Energy Security Act of June 30, 1980 (P.L. 96-294, 94 Stat. 611, 42 U.S.C. § 8855): This act 

directs the Secretary of Agriculture to process applications for leases and permits to explore, 

drill, and develop resources on NFS lands, notwithstanding the current status of the forest land 

and resource management plan.

National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of October 2, 1980 

(94 Stat. 2305; 30 U.S.C. §1601-1605): This act restates congressional intent to promote 

policies that provide for an adequate and stable supply of materials while considering long-term 

needs, a healthy environment, and natural resource conservation. The act also requires the 

Secretary of the Interior to improve the availability and analysis of mineral data in Federal land 

use decision making.

Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4093, 

16 U.S.C. § 497c): This act automatically withdraws from all forms of appropriation under the 

mining laws and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing all 

lands located within the boundaries of ski area permits.

Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq.): This act 

expands the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture in the management of oil and gas resources 

on NFS lands. The BLM cannot issue leases for oil and gas on NFS lands over the objection of 

the Forest Service. The Forest Service must approve all surface-disturbing activities on NFS 

lands before operations commence.

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4546; 16 U.S.C. § 4301-4309): 

Provides for protection and preservation of caves on Federal lands.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (PL 109-58): Directs Federal agencies to undertake efforts to ensure 

energy efficiency, and the production of secure, affordable, and reliable domestic energy.

Executive Orders

Executive Order 13212 issued May 18, 2001: This executive order titled “Actions to Expedite 

Energy-Related Projects” requires Federal agencies to take actions, to the extent consistent with 

applicable law, to expedite projects that will increase the production, transmission, or 

conservation of energy.

Resource Protection Measures 

For locatable minerals, 36 CFR 228 requires a claimant to file an operating plan or notice of 

intent for proposed mining activities. The plan must include the name and address of operators, a 

sketch or map of the location, descriptions of operations, access timing, operating period, and 

environmental protection measures. The Shoshone coordinates with the claimant to assure that 

standards and guidelines outlined in the revised Forest Plan are met. The operating plan requires 

an environmental analysis and decision before it is approved.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

463

For minerals that are leased and mineral materials that are sold, there are Forest-wide and 

management area prescription standards and guidelines that apply. All alternatives provide for 

protecting forest resources including soil and water resources.

In addition, appropriate leasing stipulations are applied to all oil and gas leases to protect forest 

resources.

Methodology

Lands which are legally unavailable for leasing are:

• Lands withdrawn from mineral leasing by an act of Congress or by an order of the 

Secretary of the Interior;

• Lands recommended for wilderness allocation by the Secretary of Agriculture;

• Lands designated by statute as wilderness study areas, unless oil and gas leasing is 

specifically allowed by the statute designating the study area

The following terms are used for classifying oil and gas (occurrence) potential (USDI Bureau of 

Land Management 2009, 2010):

• HIGH: Inclusion in an oil and gas play as defined by the [United States Geological 

Survey] national assessment, or, in the absence of play designation by the [United States 

Geological Survey], the demonstrated existence of: source rock, thermal maturation, and 

reservoir strata possessing permeability and/or porosity, and traps. Demonstrated 

existence is defined by physical evidence or documentation in the literature. 

• MEDIUM: Geophysical or geological indications that the following may be present: 

source rock, thermal maturation, and reservoir strata possessing permeability and/or 

porosity, and traps. Geologic indication is defined by geological inference based on 

indirect evidence. 

• LOW: Specific indications that one or more of the following may not be present: source 

rock, thermal maturation, reservoir strata possessing permeability and/or porosity, and 

traps. 

• NONE: Demonstrated absence of (1) source rock, (2) thermal maturation, or 

(3) reservoir rock that precludes the occurrence of oil and/or gas. Demonstrated absence 

is defined by physical evidence or documentation in the literature."

Oil and gas development potential is based on the following categories:

• High potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas where the average well 

density is anticipated to be more than 100 wells per township.

• Moderate potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas where the average well 

density is anticipated to be between 20 and 100 wells per township.

• Low potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas where the average well 

density is anticipated to be 2 to fewer than 20 wells per township.

• Very low potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas where the average well 

density is anticipated to be fewer than 2 wells per township.

• No potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas where no wells are 

anticipated.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

464

Directional drilling viability and offset distance varies with the target formation, the top depth of 

the target formation, and formation productivity. Directional drilling distances of 0.25 mile are 

assumed to be standard practice in most formations with current technology. 

In the DEIS analysis there was an effort to evaluate the number of acres of land that was not 

suitable for surface development but could be accessed from lands suitable for surface 

development using directional drilling. In that analysis, it was assumed that directional drilling 

could access lands up to 1 mile away. In reality the actual distance over which resources could be 

recovered would be dependent on the formation being accessed and the technology being used 

and could be far less than 1 mile. Public comment on the analysis indicated that it was confusing 

and made it difficult to compare the alternatives. For the FEIS, it was decided to drop that 

portion of the analysis and only focus on the impacts to the surface resources on the acres 

available for surface development. Areas outside of the areas suitable for surface development 

can still be accessed through directional drilling.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

The affected area for direct and indirect effects to minerals is the lands administered by the 

Shoshone. This area represents the NFS lands where mineral activity may occur under direction 

of the forest plan.

The affected area for cumulative effects to minerals includes the lands administered by the 

Shoshone, as well as the lands of other ownership both within and adjacent to the Shoshone 

boundaries.

The timeframe addressed is the 15 years for the anticipated life of the plan.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

The full extent of the existence and availability of mineral resources on the Shoshone is 

unknown. The best information available based upon past exploration and future projections is 

used in the analysis.

Affected Environment 

Mineral resources on federally owned lands are separated into three categories—locatable, 

leasable, and mineral materials—by statutory and regulatory direction. Currently, 58 percent of 

the Shoshone (wilderness, wild river, High Lakes Wilderness Study Area, and Dunoir Special 

Management Unit) is legally withdrawn from mineral development.

Locatable minerals

Locatable minerals30 such as gold, silver, copper, and other uncommon varieties are subject to 

the 1872 General Mining Law, as amended. The Mining Law grants a statutory right to explore 

for and develop these minerals unless the land has been formally withdrawn from mineral entry. 

Locatable mineral extraction is a process that starts with notices of intent to operate, plans of 

operations, and bonding. On NFS lands, locatable mineral activities that reach a level of 

significant surface resource disturbance require a plan of operation that is used to determine 

adverse impacts to the environment and surface resources (36 CFR 228.4).

 30 Hardrock minerals that are found on lands acquired by the Forest Service (as opposed to public domain 

lands) are leasable and not locatable.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

465

The Forest Service manages impacts to other resources related to the exploration, development, 

and production of locatable minerals on its land via regulations at 36 CFR 228, Subpart A. The 

Forest Service may not deny proposed operations or make them impossible by imposing 

unreasonably restrictive management requirements or conditions. The Forest Service may 

require mitigation and requirements to minimize adverse effects. Forest Service regulations state 

that mining operations should minimize adverse environmental impacts to surface resources. 

The Shoshone has a history of locatable hardrock minerals activity. Geology is favorable for the 

occurrence of mineral deposits. Within the northern half of the Shoshone, there are numerous 

mineralized intrusives. The larger complexes at Stinkingwater, Kirwin, and Meadow Creek are 

“...characterized by a central copper-molybdenum zone surround by a halo of silver, gold, lead, 

zinc, and mercury in peripherals veins” (Fisher 1981 cited in Dersch 1982).

Mining has waned since the late 1800s; none of the historic sites operates today. 

Small-scale panning and dredging for gold have increased in the past several years. Most of 

these activities do not require an operating plan because of the lack of significant impacts.

Leasable minerals

Leasable minerals are federally owned fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal, oil shale, etc.), geothermal 

resources, sulfur, phosphates, and uranium that are subject to exploration and development under 

leases, permits, or licenses issued by the Secretary of the Interior, with Forest Service input. The 

Bureau of Land Management is the agency responsible for issuing the leases. The 1920 Mineral 

Leasing Act, as amended, together with the 1989 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform 

Act, provide the authority and management direction for leasable minerals on Federal lands. In 

1970, the Geothermal Steam Act added steam to the list of minerals that could be leased on NFS 

lands.

Coal potential exists on the Shoshone, but is limited to a subbituminous variety with impurities 

such as shale (Dersch 1982). There has been no demand for leases. Geothermal is similar to coal; 

there is some potential, but little interest in leasing. Potential is limited to two areas west of 

Dubois near Warm Spring Creek and Little Warm Spring Creek (Decker 1976 cited in Dersch 

1982). The energy potential of the springs is limited. Phosphate deposits are found along the east 

flank of the Wind River Range in Baldwin Creek, Burroughs Creek, and Beaver Creek (Hausel 

and Holden 1978 cited in Dersch 1982). At this time, only oil and gas resources are being leased 

on the Shoshone. 

The Shoshone borders on oil- and gas-producing basins in Wyoming (see map 33). Twenty-five 

percent of those lands (255,000 acres) have a high potential for oil and gas occurrence (USDI 

Bureau of Land Management 2009, 2010). The remaining acres have a low potential for oil and 

gas occurrence. Though there is potential for oil and gas in high potential areas, that does not 

mean it will be developed. Factors such as accessibility of the formations, demand, prices, and 

quality influence future development (see map 34). Lands on the Shoshone generally have a low 

or very low potential for oil and gas development (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2009, 

2010).

Between 1956 and 1986, 20 oil and gas fields were discovered within 10 miles of the Shoshone’s 

boundary. Exploratory drilling is occurring off the Shoshone and seismic activity was conducted 

on the Shoshone near Clark, Wyoming, in 2006. Of the 34 wells drilled on the Shoshone in the 

past, 31 have not produced and three have been plugged due to low production. In the last three 

years, there were two applications to drill exploratory wells on the Shoshone, one in the Line 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

466

Creek area and the other north of Dubois. Drilling of the Line Creek well is no longer being 

pursued.

Lands currently available for oil and gas leasing under 36 CFR 228.102(d) were identified in the 

Oil and Gas Leasing Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 1995). That decision may need 

to be amended or replaced depending on the decision made in the revised Plan. Currently, 

8,570 acres of the Shoshone are leased for oil and gas (see table 119 and map 80). Other acres 

are in the process of being evaluated for possible leasing.

In March 2006, the Governor of Wyoming, Under Secretary of Agriculture, and regional 

foresters from the Rocky Mountain and Intermountain Regions signed a memorandum of 

understanding on oil and gas leasing in inventoried roadless areas on the Shoshone and BridgerTeton National Forests. The parties agreed that new oil and gas leases would not be issued in 

inventoried roadless areas until new leasing availability decisions are completed. The 

memorandum of understanding applies to the roadless inventory that was in effect at the time of 

the agreement. For the Shoshone, that is the inventoried roadless areas established by the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Table 119. Acres of oil and gas leased on the Shoshone National Forest per year, 1970, 1973 

through 2003, 2005, and 2007 

Year Acres leased Year Acres leased Year Acres leased

1970 6,720 1981 111,400 1990 2,120

1973 33,900 1982 129,600 1998 2,780

1974 6,380 1983 94,100 1999 0

1975 5,170 1984 37,000 2000 1,950

1976 16,610 1985 6,330 2000−2003 0

1977 11,300 1986 27,700 2005 8,800

1978 6,860 1987 28,000 2006 8,600

1979 3,090 1988 70,900 2007 8,570

1980 34,900 1989 56,500 No change since 2007

Mineral materials

Mineral materials are common materials such as stone, sand, gravel, clay cinders, and decorative 

rock. Disposal is authorized under the Materials Act of 1947. This act provides for disposing of 

mineral materials on public lands through bidding, negotiated contracts, or free use.

The Forest Service may sell these mineral materials or issue free-use permits to state and county 

governments for public projects such as highway construction or maintenance. All contracts 

contain requirements for reclaiming sites to pre-mining conditions as much as possible. The 

Forest Service uses mineral materials from its lands for building and surfacing system roads.

The Forest Service has full authority to make decisions about disposing of mineral materials on 

lands where the surface is federally owned.

Sites throughout the Shoshone range from gravel pits to areas where material is gathered for 

decorative rock or landscaping boulders. Small sales for decorative rock, boulders, or aggregate 

occur in small numbers, but mainly on the south half of the Shoshone. Typically, sites are small. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

467

Most are near or next to roads. Use of gravel pits is sporadic and usually associated with road 

work on or near the Shoshone. 

Desired Condition

Mineral resources provide commodities for current and future generations commensurate with 

the need to protect other resources. Mineral materials are available to support resource 

management, e.g., road surfacing; personal use, e.g., landscape rock; and some commercial uses. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under all alternatives, management that allows mineral activity, allows activity with constraints, 

or prohibits activity would respectively allow, limit, or prohibit exploration and development in 

certain areas. This management would result in direct impacts to mineral development. The 

extent of these impacts would vary by alternative, based on amount of acreage and associated 

development potential. Protective measures for other resources, including limiting or prohibiting 

access and development or controlling the timing or nature of development, would result in 

impacts to development. Under all alternatives, operators must use best management practices in 

the exploration, development, production, and abandonment of mineral resources.

Under all alternatives, areas administratively open to oil and gas leasing would be open to 

geophysical exploration. Requiring geophysical exploration to be performed within the 

constraints necessary to protect other resources may impact oil and gas exploration, but could 

benefit other resources. Impacts to exploration would include increased costs to the operator 

from the use of more expensive, but less surface-disturbing techniques (e.g., small, portable footor helicopter-transported surveying equipment in areas with surface use restrictions). If surfaceuse restrictions prevent an operator from effectively surveying/exploring oil and gas resources, 

development could be sited based on incomplete information, affecting the potential success of a 

future well. This also could result in increased costs to the operator and in nonproductive 

disturbances to land and surface resources.

Special designations (e.g., recommended wilderness, proposed research natural areas) and other 

management areas (e.g., back country non-motorized areas, big game areas) may limit oil and 

gas exploration and development, depending on their location in relation to oil and gas 

development potential. These lands may be subject to a variety of restrictions related to oil and 

gas exploration or development, or require certain best management practices or mitigation to 

preserve resource and management objectives in these areas. In general, constraints on 

exploration, development, production, and abandonment of oil and gas resources would increase 

project timeframes and costs, and may limit the number of well pads and amount of surface 

disturbance on a lease. However, such constraints may result in beneficial impacts to other 

resources in a given area.

Under all alternatives, the extent of impacts to oil and gas development from constraints and 

limitations on exploration and development relates directly to oil and gas development potential 

in an area. Management action that constrains development of oil and gas areas with a highpotential for oil and gas occurrence generally would result in more impacts to development than 

similar management action that constrains development in areas with a low potential for oil and 

gas occurrence. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

468

Locatable minerals

All alternatives have similar effects on individual mineral activities, in that they all include 

standards and guidelines that operating plans must incorporate. Specific effects will be related to 

the actual location of the mineral activity in relationship to management area designations. None 

of the restrictions will prevent the activity from taking place, but they could result in restrictions 

on timing and location of activities. In general, the alternatives with more area open to 

vegetation management and motorized activity will have more area where the restrictions will be 

less impacting on mineral development. Alternatives listed in order of greatest area with less 

restrictions to greatest area with more restrictions are F, E, A, B, G, D, and C.

Under the 1872 mining law, the Forest Service is required to provide for locatable mineral 

exploration and development, unless the area has been withdrawn from mineral development. 

Some alternatives make management area designations that recommend or propose designations 

that may lead to withdrawal from mineral development. These withdrawals would reduce the 

area available for mineral activities. This effect is greatest in alternatives C and D, which 

recommend 584,700 and 165,600 acres, respectively, for wilderness designation on lands that are 

not currently withdrawn from mineral development. Other allocations that could lead to 

withdrawal are those for potential research natural areas and special interest areas. These 

designations add an additional 6,490 and 18,000 acres to alternatives C and D in addition to the 

recommended wilderness that may be withdrawn. For the remaining alternatives, management 

area allocations that may lead to a mineral withdrawal in order of most to least are

G (20,560 acres), B (14,970 acres), A (1,870 acres), E (480 acres), and F (0 acres).

Other management area designations that may result in mineral withdrawal are those for 

developed recreation areas (8.1), ski-based resorts (8.2), and administrative sites (8.6). Those 

allocations are the same in all alternatives. 

Mineral materials

All operations would have to meet standards and guidelines. Standards and guidelines could 

restrict the location and timing of mineral activity. In some situations, standards and guidelines 

could prevent mineral development. In general, the alternatives with more area open to 

vegetation management and motorized activity will have more area where the restrictions will be 

less impacting on mineral development. Alternatives listed in order of greatest area with less 

restrictions to greatest area with more restrictions are F, E, A, B, G, D, and C.

The availability of mineral materials would vary by alternative in that some management area 

designations are not suitable with the development of mineral materials. The acreages impacted 

are the same as those described under locatable minerals above and the reduction in area 

available would be the same. The one difference is that the areas would not have to be formally 

withdrawn. The areas will be unavailable strictly upon forest plan direction for each management 

area.

Leasable minerals

The acres available for oil and gas leasing on the Shoshone are set by the Oil and Gas Leasing

Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 1995). The alternatives do not make changes to the 

acres available for leasing. The alternatives do identify areas where surface occupancy for oil 

and gas development is not compatible with management area desired conditions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

469

Table 120 identifies acres that are suitable for oil and gas development based upon allocation. 

Lands where allocations allow surface occupancy for oil and gas development are displayed on 

maps 35−40 and 75. 

Alternative A represents the direction in the current leasing decision. Alternatives B through F 

assigned acres of surface development suitability based upon the compatibility between oil and 

gas development and management area desired conditions. Generally management areas that 

were outside of special areas and travel corridors that allow summer motorized recreation where 

considered compatible with oil and gas development. An additional criterion was included in 

alternatives B, D, and E to address grizzly bear. In those alternatives, any land within the primary 

conservation area for the grizzly bear was identified as not suitable for surface development. 

This criterion was designed to maintain the acres of secure habitat within the primary 

conservation area. This criterion was not used in alternative C, because all primary conservation 

area acres were assigned to management areas that we designated as not suitable for surface 

development.

In an effort to respond to public comment, a different tact was taken in alternative G for 

identifying lands suitable for surface development for oil and gas. Three criteria were used to 

screen for areas that would not allow for oil and gas surface development. The first was to 

remove the primary conservation area for the grizzly bear. The second was to remove the most 

critical crucial big game winter range as identified by Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

And the third was to look at allocations made on adjoining BLM lands. In looking at what areas 

to focus on that allow surface development in alternative G, we used three interrelated criteria to 

identify areas. The three criteria are (1) areas with a high potential for occurrence of oil and gas 

resources; (2) areas with some potential for development of those resources; and (3) areas with 

existing oil and gas leases. We combined these two sets of criteria to develop a final allocation 

showing what areas are suitable for surface oil and gas development in alternative G.

In addition to the allocation criteria considered in the alternatives, acres may not be suitable for 

surface occupancy because they are too steep or are riparian acres. The acres of steep slopes and 

riparian do not change by alternative. These acres are displayed in table 120. Steep slopes and 

riparian acres do not generally result in oil and gas resources being unavailable for development, 

because they are generally not contiguous and there will be nearby areas that allow surface 

occupancy that can be used to access oil and gas resources. The following discussion does not 

consider acres that are steep or within riparian areas.

Table 120. Oil and gas surface occupancy suitability by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Legally withdrawn 1,416,000 1,416,00 1,416,000 1,416,000 1,416,000 1,416,000 1,416,000

Administratively 

withdrawn 52,600

Allocation does 

not allow surface 

occupancy

171,100 619,000 858,250 796,400 544,400 313,800 892,800

Allocation allows 

surface occupancy 798,100 402,800 163,600 225,400 477,500 708,000 129,100
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

470

Table 121. Acres open to oil and gas surface occupancy where suitability is restricted by steep 

slopes and riparian areas by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Allocation allows surface 

occupancy (see table 120) 798,100 402,800 163,600 225,400 477,500 708,000 129,100

Steep slopes and riparian do 

not allow surface occupancy 270,800 89,200 23,700 35,100 115,100 199,000 32,900

Areas allowing surface 

occupancy once steep slopes 

and riparian are removed.

527,300 313,500 139,900 190,400 362,400 509,000 96,200

The extent of impact alternative allocations will have on oil and gas development is based upon 

the allocation and how it is associated with potential occurrence of oil and gas resources and the 

likelihood for future development. In response to public comment and the issues, we conducted 

additional analysis focusing on those lands with a high potential for oil and gas occurrence. 

Outside of the area legally withdrawn from mineral development there are 255,000 acres with a 

high potential for oil and gas occurrence. Table 122 displays by alternative the percentage of the 

255,000 acres that allow surface occupancy.

Table 122. Percentage of acres with high potential for oil and gas occurrence that would allow 

surface development by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Percentage of high potential lands 

with an allocation that allows surface 

occupancy

91 71 32 47 74 87 38

On the lands with high potential for oil and gas occurrence, alternatives A and F provide the 

greatest percentage of acres that allow surface occupancy for development. Alternative C 

provides the lowest percentage, alternative G provides the next lowest amount, and alternative E, 

B, and D provide similar amounts.

Any direct impact on oil and gas development would be dependent upon the actual discovery 

and development of an oil and gas field. The reasonably foreseeable development projections for 

the 255,000 acres with high potential for oil and gas occurrence identify 17,400 acres with a low 

potential for development and 190,200 with a very low potential for development. Table 123

displays by alternative the percentage of the acres that have some potential for development that 

allow surface occupancy. 

Table 123. Percentage of acres with high potential for oil and gas occurrence and some potential for 

development that would allow surface development by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Percentage of high potential lands 

with some potential for development 

where allocation allows surface 

occupancy

89 67 31 45 69 86 46
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

471

Similar to the comparisons above, alternatives A and F provide the greatest percentage of acres 

that allow surface development where there is some potential for surface development and high 

potential of occurrence. Unlike the previous comparisons, alternative G provides more lands than 

alternatives C and D. This is reflective of the design emphasis used in creating alternative G that 

tried to feature lands with high occurrence potential, some potential for development, and current 

lease activity while still excluding big game crucial winter range. The remaining alternatives of 

B and E rank similar to the previous comparisons.

The overall estimates for low development on the Shoshone are similar to those made 25 years 

ago (USDA Forest Service 1992). Given these projections and the lack of activity in the last 

25 years, the potential for any oil and gas development in the planning period is very low and the 

same for all alternatives. Despite the difference in the acres available for surface development, it 

is unlikely that any of the alternatives will impact oil and gas development.

Effects from Riparian and Wetland Management: Surface occupancy associated with leasable 

minerals and mineral materials would not be allowed in riparian or wetland areas and would be 

restricted for locatable mineral activity. Unless there is no other option for location, activity 

would not be affected by this direction. This limitation on surface occupancy for leasable and 

mineral material activity does not vary among alternatives since riparian and wetland areas do 

not vary among alternatives. Because of the low development potential, there is likely to be little 

to no effect to leasable minerals. Because of the likely ability in most cases to access mineral 

resources from outside the riparian and wetland areas, there would be little effect to mineral 

materials or locatable mineral activities.

Effects from Scenic Resource Management: Surface occupancy associated with minerals 

activity would be restricted in visually sensitive areas. Unless there is no other option for 

location or mitigation, mineral activity would not be affected by this direction. Restrictions are 

tied to sensitive visual areas which vary little among alternatives. There is likely to be little to no 

effect on mineral activity during the planning period.

Effects from Wildlife Habitat Management: Habitat security requirements for grizzly bear can 

be expected to affect locatable mineral exploration and development. Where roads, and the 

access they provide, are necessary, limitations on road construction and operating seasons can be 

expected to have the effect of prolonging exploration or development work. 

Habitat security requirements for grizzly bear can be expected to affect mineral material 

development. Where roads, and the access they provide, are necessary, limitations on road 

construction and operating seasons can be expected to have the effect of impacting development 

work.

Habitat security requirements for grizzly bear can be expected to affect leasable mineral 

exploration and development. Where roads, and the access they provide, are necessary, 

limitations on road construction and operating seasons can be expected to have the effect of 

prolonging exploration or development work. In alternatives B, C, D, E, and G, direction does 

not allow surface occupancy for oil and gas development within the grizzly bear primary 

conservation area. This has no effect on oil and gas in alternative C, because the acres assigned 

to no surface occupancy are already excluded based upon management area suitability. For 

alternatives B, D, E, and G, the additional acres excluded from development are 41,700, 24,700, 

57,700, and 32,100, respectively. In alternatives A and F, surface occupancy is allowed within 

the primary conservation area, but the direction on development within the primary conservation 

area still needs to be met. In those alternatives, oil and gas would be limited by access and 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

472

operating season restrictions. The acres affected are 135,100 in alternative A and 153,900 in 

alternative F.

Despite the limitations in these alternatives, grizzly bear primary conservation area restrictions 

are likely to have little effect on oil and gas development, because of the low likelihood of oil 

and gas development and the fact that very little of the lands with a high potential for oil and gas 

occurrence fall within the primary conservation area.

Mineral and energy exploration and development is likely to be affected in lynx analysis units in 

occupied habitat. Guidelines give direction that winter access should be limited to designated 

routes or designated over-the-snow routes. The direction will create some timing and location 

restrictions on development. The effect would be the same in all alternatives.

Crucial winter range places timing restrictions on mineral activity. This is likely to increase oil 

and gas development time and costs to apply the restrictions. The effect is the same in all 

alternatives, except alternatives C and G. In alternative C, direction was applied that does not 

allow surface occupancy within crucial winter range. This resulted in an additional 58,000 acres 

of no surface occupancy in alternative C, beyond what was excluded as the result of management 

area allocations. In alternative G, some of the crucial winter range was excluded from surface 

occupancy, resulting in an additional 60,000 acres of no surface occupancy.

Effects from Soil and Watershed Management: Surface occupancy associated with leasable 

minerals would not be allowed on steep slopes, restricting locatable mineral and mineral 

materials activity. Unless there is no other option for location, activity would not be affected by 

this direction. This limitation on surface occupancy for leasable activity does not vary among 

alternatives since steep slopes do not vary among alternatives. Because of the low development 

potential, there is likely to be little to no effect to leasable minerals. Because of the likely ability 

in most cases to access mineral resources from outside the steep areas, there would be little effect 

to mineral material or locatable mineral activities.

Effects from Heritage Management: Surface occupancy associated with minerals activity 

would be restricted in areas with heritage resources. Unless there is no other option for location 

or mitigation, mineral activity would not be affected by this direction. This restriction on mineral 

activity does not vary among alternatives since heritage resources do not vary among 

alternatives. There is likely to be little to no effect on mineral activity during the planning period.

Summary of Effects to Resource 

All alternatives would allow mineral activity in some areas with constraints to protect other 

resources. These constraints would include limiting or prohibiting access and development or 

controlling the timing or nature of development. All alternatives also have some areas where 

mineral activity would be prohibited. For mineral materials and locatable minerals, alternatives 

ordered such that the ones providing the most area open and the least restrictions in open areas to 

those with the least area open and most restriction in open areas are: F, A, E, B, G, D, and C. 

This basically illustrates how the alternatives impact the opportunity for mineral materials and 

locatable mineral development. For oil and gas surface development, alternative G is different. 

From an overall acres available standpoint, alternative G has the fewest acres available of all the 

alternatives. If the focus is on the acres with the highest potential of oil and gas occurrence, 

alternative G ranks between alternatives B and D.

The actual effects on mineral development are tied to the demand associated with leases, claims, 

and materials, and are based on whether that activity is impacted by plan direction. Based on the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

473

last 20 years of activity, the demand for minerals, oil, and gas on the Shoshone is low. That could 

change in the future as demand and technology change, but for the near term, there is no 

evidence of a change in demand for mineral resources on the Shoshone. Based on the prospect of 

low demand, the impact on mineral development during the planning period is low and is similar 

for all alternatives.

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects evaluate the potential impacts to mineral resources from the proposed action 

when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The lands within the 

Shoshone boundary form the geographic scope for cumulative effects since this is the scope for 

the revised Forest Plan. The temporal bound would be the life of the revised Forest Plan, which 

is estimated to be a 10- to 15-year time span.

To integrate the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and 

alternatives, existing conditions are used as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is 

because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior actions that have affected 

access and might contribute to cumulative effects.

There currently are no mineral operations for locatable minerals on the Shoshone, and there are 

no known plans for such operations. Some small-scale gold panning and dredging is occurring 

on a sporadic basis, but it has not lead to any sustained operations or interest.

There is currently one drilling application on the Shoshone north of Dubois. If that drilling 

results in a find that encourages further exploration, the development of a full field on the 

Shoshone is possible. The area would be associated with areas off the Shoshone, so it is likely 

that only part of the development would occur on NFS lands. In past analysis done for the 

Shoshone, a full field development was projected at 500 acres (USDA Forest Service 1992, 

appendix A). The drilling application is in an area where development potential has been 

classified as very low. Any development would be accompanied by a project-specific 

environmental analysis.

Mineral material use can be expected to continue for in-service needs (e.g., road maintenance 

and watershed improvement activities) and as a salable commodity, and would result in the 

further depletion of that non-renewable mineral resource from NFS lands.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

474

Roads

Introduction

National Forest System roads (referred to as system roads) provide motorized access to and 

through the Shoshone. They provide access and a means of transport for activities such as 

commercial uses, a wide range of recreation uses, resource protection, and administration of NFS 

lands.

System roads serve an identified purpose or need, whether it is for resource management, 

recreational use, or administration. These roads range from paved to aggregate-surfaced to 

native-surfaced, from single-lane to double-lane, from free-flowing to congested, from smooth to 

rough. They may be managed for passenger car use or for use by high-clearance vehicles.

There are four designated Scenic Byways and three Forest Highways on the Shoshone. The 

Scenic Byways are Beartooth National Scenic Highway (US 212), Chief Joseph Scenic Byway 

(WY 296), Buffalo Bill Scenic Byway (US 14/16/20), and Wyoming Centennial Scenic Byway 

(US 26/287). These routes are paved highways under the jurisdiction of other agencies. They are 

integral to enjoying the scenic quality of the Shoshone and they provide primary access through 

the Forest on major travel corridors. The Forest Highways are Beartooth Highway (U.S. 212), 

Chief Joseph Highway (WY 296) and Louis Lake Road (NFS Road 300). They are primary 

routes accessing large portions of the Shoshone. Part of Louis Lake Road is under Forest Service 

jurisdiction. The remainder is under the jurisdiction of other agencies. 

Unauthorized, or non-system, routes are present. They may be routes that have developed over 

time by off-road use or through use of temporary roads that were inadequately closed or reopened by a user, or they may be system roads that were closed or decommissioned and 

reopened by casual use. Though this document will not make travel management 

recommendations or decisions, it is relevant to note that non-system routes exist on the 

Shoshone. This section discusses effects to the current road system in response to actions by 

management area allocation and alternative. Decommissioning or other actions that restrict use 

or access are not addressed. Unauthorized routes will be addressed in a separate travel 

management planning effort.

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws

National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964 (P.L. 88-657, 78 Stat. 1089, as 

amended): This act declared that an adequate system of roads and trails be constructed and 

maintained to meet the increasing demand for recreation and other uses. The act authorizes road 

and trail systems for the national forests. It also authorizes granting of easements across NFS 

lands, construction and financing of maximum economy roads (FSM 7705), and imposition of 

requirements on road users for maintaining and reconstructing roads, including cooperative 

deposits for that work.

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (P.L.86-517, 74 Stat.215): This act directs 

that access and recreation opportunities to NFS lands be provided. 

Highway Safety Act of September 9, 1966 (P.L. 89-564, 80 Stat. 731, as amended): This act 

authorizes state and local governments and participating Federal agencies to identify and survey 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

475

accident locations; to design, construct, and maintain roads in accordance with safety standards; 

to apply sound traffic control principles and standards; and to promote pedestrian safety. 

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968, as amended (23 U.S.C. 109(a) and (h), 144, 151, 319, and 

351): Establishes the National Bridge Inspection Standards (23 CFR Part 650, Subpart C) and 

the requirement that each state have a current inventory of bridges on all public roads, including 

system roads open to public travel (FSM 1535.11). 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 1974 (P.L. 93-378, 

88 Stat. 476, as amended): This act declares (per Sec. 10) that “...the installation of a proper 

system of transportation to service the NFS ....shall be carried forward in time to meet 

anticipated needs on an economical and environmentally sound basis...” 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (P.L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2742, 

as amended): This act declares (per Sec. 102) that “...the public lands be managed in a manner 

that...will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.”

Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-599, as amended). Supersedes the 

Forest Highway Act of 1958: Authorizes appropriations for forest highways and public lands 

highways. Establishes criteria for forest highways; defines forest roads, forest development roads 

and forest development trails (referred to as “system roads” and “system trails” in Forest Service 

regulations and directives); and limits the size of projects performed by Forest Service 

employees on forest roads. Establishes the Federal Lands Highway Program. 

36 CFR Part 212, Subparts A and B Travel Management Rule

36 CFR Part 212.51 Travel analysis as a part of all planning activities.

Title 23 United States Code – Addresses highways.

Executive Orders

Executive Order 11644 (as amended): Establishes policy and procedure “...that will ensure that 

the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the 

resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize 

conflicts among the various uses of those lands.” 

Regulation and Policies

• Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7700 Travel Management (all chapters).

• Forest Service Handbooks (FSH) 7709.55, 7709.56 and 7709.59 state policy and direction 

regarding travel planning, road preconstruction, and transportation system operations.

Agreements

Memorandum of Understanding between the Wyoming Department of Transportation, the 

Federal Highway Administration and the USDA, Forest Service Rocky Mountain and 

Intermountain Regions, signed 2010—for the development of highway projects on NFS lands.

Cooperative Forest Road Agreement between the Wyoming Department of Transportation and 

the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain and Intermountain Regions, signed 2010—to permit the 

Wyoming Department of Transportation to work on system roads.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

476

Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, and the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 

signed 1998—for transfers of easement for highway purposes

Resource Protection Measures 

The Forest Service Regional and National BMP Directives contain standards and design criteria 

including best management practices, designed to protect, maintain, and enhance the integrity of 

soil and aquatic ecosystems. There are Forest-wide and management area standards and 

guidelines that apply to roads, including stream crossings. Road design, maintenance, and 

management criteria are referenced under a guideline in the 1986 Forest Plan and referenced in 

the revised Plan under management approach.

Methodology 

Analysis is based on the current road system. Infrastructure (INFRA) and geographic 

information system (GIS) databases were used for this analysis. 

Effects of the alternatives on roads are compared based upon acres of land available for roads 

and for road construction. 

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

The affected area for direct and indirect effects to system roads includes the lands administered 

by the Shoshone and roads outside of the Shoshone boundaries that may be under Forest Service 

jurisdiction due to transfer of easement or otherwise identified as important to management and 

administration of the Forest.

The affected area for cumulative effects to the system roads includes lands administered by the 

Shoshone, as well as lands of other ownership within and adjacent to the Shoshone’s boundaries. 

This analysis reflects the anticipated life of the Plan (15 years).

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Comprehensive travel management has not been completed. Additionally, travel analysis was not 

completed for the revised Plan as no road- or trail-specific decisions are being made. Travel 

analysis, per FSM 7712.2, is planned to be completed during comprehensive travel management 

planning following forest plan revision. It will be used to inform decisions related to 

identification of the minimum road system, as required by 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1).

Field verification of all system road constructed features and physical elements is ongoing. Some 

road lengths have not been physically verified.

Affected Environment 

System roads are an infrastructure capital investment necessary for support of long-term 

management, administration, and use of the Shoshone. There are currently approximately 1,130 

miles of system roads under Forest Service jurisdiction. Additional roads cross the Shoshone that 

are managed and administered by other jurisdictions, such as State, county, or private. 

Roads provide access for a wide range of activities and uses on the Shoshone. Timber harvest 

has been the primary driver of road construction throughout the history of the Forest, including 

during the tie-hack era and the timber production boom of the post-World War II years. By the 

1990s, most of the Shoshone’s roads had been constructed and were being managed. The advent 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

477

of all-terrain-type vehicles, increased availability of four-wheel drive vehicles, a change in 

demographics, and a trend upward in population helped to increase use of the Shoshone for 

motorized recreational activities.

Roads are characterized in a variety of categories, two of which are most prominent—

operational maintenance level and functional class. 

Operational maintenance level is a description of the current maintenance level of a road 

considering today’s needs, road condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. It 

defines the level to which a road is being maintained. Operational maintenance levels are 

described as follows:

Level 5 —Roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience.

Level 4 — Roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate 

travel speeds. 

Level 3 — Roads that are open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard 

passenger car. 

Level 2 — Roads that are open for use by high-clearance vehicles. 

Level 1 —Roads that have been placed in storage (for longer than one year) between intermittent 

uses. Basic custodial maintenance is performed. Road is closed to vehicular traffic. 

Table 124 shows miles of system road by operational maintenance level.

Table 124. Summary of Shoshone roads by operational maintenance level 

Operational maintenance level Miles

Level 5 3

Level 4 6

Level 3 193

Level 2 748

Level 1 182

Total 1,132

Generally, the higher the maintenance level, the more often a road receives maintenance and the 

better the condition of the road. The majority of the NFS road mileage on the Shoshone is in 

maintenance level 2. Roads meeting identified long-term, single-purpose needs but not constant 

need or use may be placed in the maintenance level 1 category. Level 1 roads are physically 

closed and not open for motor vehicle use until needed for management activity.

System roads are categorized into one of three functional classes—arterial, collector, or local. 

Functional class describes the way a road services land and resource management needs and the 

character of service it provides. The branching system of arterial, collector, and local roads is the 

network that provides access to NFS lands.

Arterials are the main travel corridors across the Shoshone. They provide access to large land 

areas, usually connect with other arterials or public highways, and are the primary travel 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

478

corridors for goods, services and access to and from the Forest. They connect main highways to 

collector and local roads, tend to be the longest in length, receive the highest traffic volumes, and 

are generally aggregate-surfaced. Arterials may be in maintenance level 3, 4, or 5. They are 

designed and maintained for passenger car use.

Collectors serve smaller land areas than arterials and usually connect arterials to local roads or 

terminal facilities. They tend to be moderate to long in length and receive moderate traffic 

volumes. Collectors may be aggregate-surfaced or native-surfaced. Collectors are generally in 

maintenance level 3 or 4, but may be in maintenance level 2.

Local roads provide access to specific locations and tend to be the shortest in length. They 

generally connect terminal facilities to collectors, arterials, or public roads. They often serve as 

access to specific points of use, such as timber harvest units, campgrounds, trailheads, physical 

features, etc. They may serve a single purpose or they may serve multiple uses. Local roads may 

be paved, aggregate-surfaced or native-surfaced. They generally serve lower volumes of traffic. 

Local roads may be in any of the maintenance levels. 

There is no direct correlation between functional class and maintenance level. Table 125 shows 

road miles by functional class. 

Table 125. Summary of Shoshone roads by functional class 

Functional class Miles

Arterial 48

Collector 207

Local 877

Total 1,132

Timber harvest continues to involve road maintenance, frequent road reconstruction, and 

occasional construction. The need to maintain and improve the road system for motorized 

recreation opportunities and other uses continues. It is anticipated that the trend for construction 

will remain low. Expectations are that increases in traffic volume related to higher levels of and 

demand for motorized activity will result in an upward trend in the need for road maintenance 

and reconstruction. Miles of reconstruction and maintenance accomplishment generally fluctuate 

on an annual basis, based upon prioritization of available funding and urgency and magnitude of 

need. Reconstruction and maintenance may occur on local, collector, and arterial roads, and on 

roads in all maintenance levels.

Open system road miles may fluctuate over time due to changes in resource management 

activities, wildlife habitat needs, resource damage, changing demands for access, and availability 

of funds for maintenance and improvement.

In the last decade, new construction averaged less than 0.5 mile per year. Timber harvest activity 

created the primary need for new road construction. New construction has occurred almost 

exclusively on local, maintenance level 1 or 2, roads in this time period.

In the last decade, road reconstruction averaged approximately 18 miles per year. Timber harvest 

and recreational use generated the need for most reconstruction on the Forest. Reconstruction is 

road-specific and has included activities, such as replacement of bridge and culvert structures, 

repair of flood damage, aggregate placement, road relocation, and restoration of road templates. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

479

Reconstruction has occurred on roads in nearly every maintenance level. Road reconstruction 

will continue to be necessary for managing and protecting resources, providing for increasing 

traffic volumes and recreational uses, and resolving safety concerns.

The term “decommission” encompasses varying types of activities meant to eliminate motorized 

use. Decommissioning activities may include: complete obliteration and rehabilitation; 

physically blocking, restoring natural drainage and revegetating; or scarification and seeding to 

return to natural production. A decommissioned route is not a system road. Much of the 

decommissioning that has been done has been related to watershed protection and improvement, 

changes in traffic patterns on highway reconstruction projects, elimination of multiple or braided 

tracks to the same area, and removal of user-created routes. In the last decade, decommissioning 

of system roads averaged approximately 1 mile per year. In that same timeframe, 

decommissioning of non-system routes averaged 3 miles per year. 

Road maintenance is accomplished by the Forest Service on an annual basis and through 

authorizations, permits, and cooperative agreements with other agencies, commercial operators, 

and private parties. Road maintenance is not static in location or amount of investment. 

Maintenance of roads is dependent upon a number of factors, including:

• Total miles of open roads;

• Allocated funding for road maintenance;

• Miles of road maintained through commercial activities, such as timber sale contracts, 

and by cooperators or other parties;

• Funding allocated for reconstruction and improvement projects to support emergency 

repairs, mitigation of safety concerns, and other management activities;

• Funding needed for large projects, such as bridge replacement;

• Resource protection needs;

• Assigned operational maintenance levels; and

• Traffic use levels and season of use.

Road maintenance budgets fluctuate from year to year. Traffic volumes on the Shoshone’s open 

road system have risen. Commercial user contributions are variable in location. Costs for 

equipment and materials increase over time. Repair of road damage caused by natural events 

such as flash flooding or intense storm and runoff events occurs. Occasional needs for high 

financial investment, such as bridge and major culvert replacement and aggregate placement, 

divert available maintenance funds. These factors affect the amount of road maintenance that is 

accomplished on an annual basis.

Funding is well below that needed to annually maintain the entire road system at operational 

maintenance level standards. On average, the Shoshone physically maintains approximately 20 

percent of the open road system on an annual basis. Generally, this includes surface blading most 

of the maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads, which receive the most use, once a year. As a result, 

roads are maintained on a priority basis, which includes user safety, resource protection, and 

resource management and administrative needs.

Road program funding is anticipated to remain static or decrease in the short term. Although not 

every road requires annual physical maintenance, roads in maintenance levels 3, 4, and 5 

generally receive a higher level of attention as they are the primary access routes through the 

Shoshone and receive higher volumes of traffic. The trend for the majority of the Shoshone’s 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

480

roads is toward declining condition and service level due to the reduction in overall funding and 

increases in traffic volume and use. 

Motor vehicle use maps have been created, per 36 CFR 212.51, which identify roads, trails, and 

areas that are open to wheeled motor vehicle use. The maps enforce the prohibition at 36 CFR 

261.13. Wheeled motor vehicle use on other than those roads, trails, and areas shown on the 

motor vehicle use maps is prohibited. Motor vehicle use maps are subject to annual review and 

re-issuance. All roads allow non-motorized use.

It is anticipated that demand for roads and access would remain high to meet the needs for 

administration of the public lands, management of resources, and public use. Public use is 

anticipated to increase. Use of roads for vegetation and hazardous fuels treatments is expected to 

increase, at least in the short term. Funding needed to maintain and reconstruct/construct roads to 

meet the demand for road uses would increase. Conversely, road program allocations are 

expected to remain stable or decrease in the short term. Competition for road funds is anticipated 

to remain high. Vegetation treatment activities would continue to support road work necessary 

for those activities to occur. 

Changes in climate anticipated include warmer average temperatures, receiving more 

precipitation as rain rather than snow, and projections for increased severity of thunderstorm 

events (Rice et al. 2012) may increase the impacts of runoff on roads. Increased severity of rain

events may trigger more intense debris flow and erosion capabilities, which affect roads by 

creating slumps and slides, depositing roadway materials and surfacing outside of the road 

template or into ditches or waterways, and exceeding capacity of drainage structures.

Desired Condition

System roads provide legal and reasonable access for a variety of recreation opportunities, 

resource management, authorized and permitted uses and administration. Resource impacts from 

roads are balanced with the benefits of having roads available for use. Many roads are open to 

motorized use, as identified on the motor vehicle use map. Some roads are closed except for 

administrative or authorized use or for intermittent, short-term resource management activities. 

Some roads are seasonally closed to motorized use. Temporary roads provide short-term access 

to areas of the Shoshone for meeting desired conditions and objectives for resource management. 

Unauthorized or unneeded routes are rehabilitated and returned to natural land settings.

System roads are of varying functional class, maintenance level, physical condition and features 

to provide a broad array of opportunities for wheeled motorized vehicle access.

The Beartooth All-American Road, Wyoming Centennial Scenic Byway, Chief Joseph Scenic 

Byway, and Buffalo Bill Cody Scenic Byway provide outstanding scenic, recreational, and 

educational opportunities. Forest travel corridors continue to provide access into the forest 

interior, and local roads provide access to terminal facilities. Coordination with the Federal 

Highway Administration strengthens services and improves conditions on forest highways. 

Coordination with other road agencies ensures continued access to and protection of national 

forest resources.

System roads needed for long-term access, management, and administration are maintained in a 

manner that provides for user safety and minimizes impacts to natural resources. All system 

roads are periodically assessed for condition, resource damage, and maintenance needs. Funds 

are planned and expended by prioritizing need based on factors such as safety, traffic volume, 

resource damage, and road condition. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

481

Road management is directed by travel management decisions based on travel analysis and 

environmental analysis. Roaded access is enhanced through easement and right-of-way 

acquisition and transfer, and easements necessary for legal administrative and public access are 

acquired.

Environmental Consequences

System roads are part of the infrastructure of the Shoshone. The road infrastructure is a tool to 

help manage, administer, and use the lands and resources on the Shoshone. Infrastructure is 

different than the many natural resources present on the Forest. While roads are not a natural 

resource, the physical presence of roads is useful and necessary for managing and enjoying the 

national forest. Some resource management activities and uses affect roads and the road system, 

but most have little effect. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives with more acres allocated to management area category 5 provide increased 

opportunities for the motorized use of system roads. Alternative F, followed by E, allow for the 

greatest amount of road-related opportunities. Conversely, alternative C allows for the fewest 

road-related opportunities. Alternatives A, B, G, and D are similar, although alternatives B and G 

contain more acres in MA 5.1 (Managed Forests and Rangelands) than alternatives A or D. In 

general, alternatives with fewer stipulations or restrictions on roads and road construction and 

reconstruction provide greater opportunities for the presence of open roads.

Alternative F includes the most acres of management area category 5. The increased area 

available for vegetation management would increase costs for related road maintenance, 

reconstruction, and construction. Alternative C includes the fewest acres of management area 

category 5, and would result in decreased costs for reconstruction, maintenance, and road 

management. The other alternatives would result in similar effects on roads and road-related 

costs, which would be less than alternative F and greater than alternative C. Actions that may 

have the greatest effects on the Shoshone road system, and motorized uses of it, include road 

management decisions allowing, restricting, or prohibiting motorized access; natural events such 

as floods and landslides; and access needs for commodity production. 

Effects from Timber Harvesting: Commercial timber harvest activities would generally result 

in reconstruction, maintenance, and continued use of existing system roads and in application of 

best management practices on roads. New road construction is likely to be limited. Temporary 

road construction would be used as a common method for short-term access needs. Increased 

traffic volumes where timber harvesting occurs may create areas of congestion, slower traffic, 

noise, dust, potential conflicts with other users, and additional maintenance of signs and road 

features. New local roads constructed for timber harvest may be controlled to restrict use to that 

necessary for timber harvest activities, depending on management and resource concerns and 

opportunities. System roads that have been in a status of closed to motorized vehicle use 

(maintenance level 1) may be re-opened and reconstructed or maintained to access harvest units. 

Timber harvest may result in additions to the forest road system.

Administrative use of maintenance level 1 roads may occur when management activities such as 

precommercial thinning, invasive weed treatments, or other non-commercial silvicultural 

treatments are authorized.

It is anticipated that all alternatives would require construction, reconstruction, and maintenance 

of system and temporary roads to implement timber harvest. Effects to roads vary by alternative 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

482

and are estimated based on the number of acres allocated to management area (MA) 5.1

(Managed Forests and Rangelands), where most of the timber harvest activities would occur. 

System road construction is anticipated to occur on local roads only, while reconstruction and 

maintenance may occur on local, collector, or arterial roads. All alternatives have the potential to 

increase the number of miles of system roads open to motorized use, as determined during 

project planning. Temporary roads are planned to be obliterated following project completion.

Over the next decade, timber harvest activities may generate the need for approximately 2 miles 

of system road construction in alternatives A, B, C, D, and G; 3 miles of system road 

construction in alternative E; and 4 miles of system road construction in alternative F.

Alternative C allocates the fewest acres to management category 5 and is anticipated to result in

the fewest acres of timber harvest, resulting in fewer miles of system road construction, 

reconstruction, and maintenance, temporary road construction, and associated costs compared to 

the other alternatives. Reduced traffic volumes for commercial and administrative use may be 

expected, compared to the other alternatives. Road maintenance activities performed in 

conjunction with commercial timber harvest would occur less often than in other alternatives, 

since this work is only required commensurate with the commercial use. 

Alternative F allocates the most acres to management category 5. Miles of system road 

construction, reconstruction, maintenance, temporary road construction and associated costs 

related to timber harvest would be greater than all other alternatives. Effects to roads from timber 

harvesting is least in alternative C, and increases in the following order: alternatives D, B, G 

(alternatives B and G would be the same), A, E, and F. Overall effects of alternatives A, B, C , D, 

and G are similar. 

Road development in undeveloped areas increases the potential for greater frequency and 

volume of use, where access has been previously limited, and for greater disturbance to natural 

resources. It is anticipated that alternative F would increase road maintenance and management 

costs, as roads are added to the system, and increase motorized opportunities, as reflected on the 

motor vehicle use map. Increased traffic volumes and local congestion would be expected. Road 

maintenance activities done in conjunction with commercial use would occur more often, as 

commercial use would be more frequent and wider ranging. Providing access into more 

challenging terrain to reach significantly more acres for timber harvest might create the need for 

additional structures, such as bridges, and greater attention to increased frequency of 

maintenance to reduce soil and water concerns.

Short-term effects of each timber harvest project generally include: increased construction, 

reconstruction, and maintenance; traffic restrictions as required by project travel management 

decisions; increased use of haul routes; noise from equipment use; presence on roads of harvest, 

haul, and construction/maintenance equipment; and visible management activity. It is not 

anticipated that timber harvest activities would be a deterrent to other motorized users, although 

non-motorized users might avoid these areas.

Long-term effects generally include: maintenance and management of system roads and 

constructed features; maintenance of closures and restrictions; and maintenance and management 

of internal property and information databases.

Effects from Disturbance Processes (fires/fuels management and insect/disease mortality): 

Roads provide access for fire and fuels management. Traffic in support of wildfire suppression 

activities is generally temporary in nature. There may be both long-term and short-term impacts 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

483

to system roads from wildfire. Short-term impacts may include increased volume and frequency 

of traffic; traffic restrictions; potential for damage to road features; increased maintenance due to 

heavier traffic volumes; noise; dust; congestion; destruction of constructed features that are 

susceptible to fire; opening of closed roads to provide direct access to areas of a fire; and use of 

temporary access routes. Long-term effects from wildfire may include: increased erosion and 

sedimentation of roadbed materials due to runoff events such as floods; increased potential for 

mass movement of road cuts and fills on un-vegetated slopes; need for additional or larger 

drainage structures to handle flows from un-vegetated drainages; and increases in travel 

management costs.

Increases in traffic with respect to size, weight and volume, would result in the need for 

increased maintenance of the road surface and constructed features if damaged or overloaded 

during suppression activity. The need for access by suppression equipment sometimes creates 

user routes, such as bulldozer-created containment lines or cross-country travel by engines that 

may be perpetuated by other forest users following completion of suppression activity. This may 

create the need for greater attention to rehabilitation of these user-created routes.

Temporary gates or other closures may be installed on roads to protect the public and firefighters 

by reducing congestion and conflicts and keeping people out of active fire areas.

Road constructed features that may be damaged by fire and fire suppression activities include 

bridges, signs and posts, cattleguards, fences, ditches, and metal features that may be damaged 

by heat. Damage may occur when roads or features are used inappropriately, such as overloading 

a posted bridge, driving over the end of a culvert, or knocking down a ditch to improve ease of 

access to a destination. Damage from wildfire may also impact constructed features made of 

wood such as, signs, posts, and wooden bridges.

Prescribed fire activities generally use the existing road system. Usually, no impacts to the road 

system result from prescribed fire activities, although short-term authorizations for use of a 

closed road may be granted and temporary road closures may be necessary to mitigate smoke 

management and other safety concerns.

Impacts to the system roads occur indirectly from insects and disease. Insects and diseases kill 

trees, some of which are along system roads. Indirect impacts include the potential for dead trees 

to fall onto or across a system road, creating a safety hazard to users, and the potential need for 

additional road maintenance to clear trees before or after they fall. Additionally, diseasedamaged trees may be harvested or treated to reduce further disease effects and threat from 

wildfire. Harvest or vegetation treatment activities resulting from the effects of insects or disease 

on trees may result in impacts similar to those for timber harvest. 

In general, it is anticipated that alternatives with greater amount of areas available for active 

management and motorized use result in fewer impacts from large wildfires and insects and 

disease, but would receive more prescribed fire activity than those alternatives with less area 

available for active management. Effects from wildfire, insects, and disease on roads may then 

be greatest in alternative C, least in alternative F, and similar among the other alternatives.

Effects from livestock grazing: In areas of open range, livestock may be on or adjacent to 

roadways, which presents concerns for the safety of the traveling public. Management of 

allotments and pastures often creates the need for structures such as cattleguards and gates in 

roadways, requiring installation of required warning and safety signing and increased costs to 

maintain.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

484

Effects from Recreation: Roads provide access to and through the Shoshone. Wheeled 

motorized vehicles are the predominant use on open roads. Non-motorized uses may occur on 

any road and in the general forest area. The Motor Vehicle Use Map identifies roads open to 

designated non-winter uses. 

Direct effects to roads from recreation generally involve road maintenance related to the 

intensity and season of use. Reconstruction may occur in order to improve constructed features 

or roadway conditions for safety reasons and to accommodate recreation-related traffic, renovate 

developed recreation sites, provide parking areas, and repair resource damage. Seasonal closures 

may be used to protect roads during spring runoff when they are soft and saturated and most 

vulnerable to damage.

The more miles of road open to motorized uses, the greater the cost to maintain and manage 

them. It is not anticipated that new roads would be constructed for the single purpose of 

providing motorized recreation opportunities for highway-type vehicles. It is anticipated that 

roads constructed for other purposes, such as timber harvesting, may provide additional 

opportunities for those vehicles. New motorized trails and future travel management decisions 

may provide additional or different recreation opportunities for motorized recreational uses. 

Alternatives A, B, D, E, and G are similar in system miles and cost. 

Alternative C has the greatest amount of non-motorized area, followed by alternative D. It is 

anticipated that management area changes from current management might result in 

decommissioning approximately 15 percent of the current maintenance level 1 and 2 roads in 

alternative C. Open system road miles and costs to manage and maintain the road system would 

be reduced. 

Alternative F has the greatest amount of area available in management category 5 and the least 

potential non-motorized areas, followed by alternative E, which may increase the demand for 

additional system roads available for motorized uses and the cost for maintenance and 

management of them.

Effects from Oil and Gas Development and Minerals Development: The Shoshone road 

system provides general access for oil and gas development, and locatable, leasable, and mineral 

materials development on the Forest. Access and roads are often associated with oil and gas 

development. Site-specific analysis is required prior to approval of exploration or development 

activities. Additionally, oil and gas production requires separate analysis. 

The potential for oil and gas development in the planning period is low or very low under all 

alternatives. The amount of development would likely be similar among the alternatives. It is 

anticipated that any new roads needed for development would be minimal in number and 

mileage. Location of any new road would adhere to surface-occupancy and other restrictions in 

the affected management area. New roads needed for these activities would meet management 

area prescriptions and might restrict public use. Increases in traffic volume and weight might 

require additional improvements to the surface, drainage features, and structures of roads. Shortterm heavy use is anticipated during exploration and well development. Long-term effects might 

include additional and more frequent road and structure maintenance.

Road access necessary for activities associated with locatable and mineral materials is sitespecific. It is possible that new roads would be needed to access locatable and mineral materials. 

New roads needed for these activities would be minimal in number, would be at the minimum 

standard necessary to manage the activity, and would meet management area prescriptions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

485

Roads needed for these site-specific activities could restrict public use to protect the material 

property and investment and reduce safety concerns related to equipment usage and activity 

generally associated with these sites. It is anticipated that effects on roads of all alternatives are 

similar.

Effects from Wildlife Habitat Management: Since wildlife management does not vary among 

alternatives, the effects to roads are similar. Wildlife habitat management may directly affect 

motorized opportunities. Restrictions that limit types of access and seasonal closures during 

sensitive periods may temporarily displace motorized uses to other areas. The Shoshone’s Motor 

Vehicle Use Map(s) restrict wheeled motorized uses to designated routes year-round or 

seasonally, sometimes in response to wildlife habitat needs. Alternatives A, B, C, D, E, and G 

allow timing restrictions and opportunities for seasonal wildlife closures. 

Effects from Land Use Authorizations: Easements and permits issued to other parties would 

continue to be analyzed on an individual and site-specific basis and authorized based upon 

identified need and allowable motorized uses per management area, ensuring that appropriate 

access is granted for the intended activity or purpose. It is anticipated that construction, 

reconstruction, and maintenance activities would be allowed as authorized by permit, grant or 

easement. It is not expected that roads would be added to the Shoshone road system from 

authorizations granted to other parties. However, roads may be added to the Shoshone road 

system should the Forest Service receive easements across other lands to gain access for the 

public or to more efficiently manage NFS lands. Effects to the road system from all alternatives 

are similar.

Effects from Travel Management: Comprehensive travel management planning to identify the 

minimum road system and a list of routes to be decommissioned is likely to affect the Shoshone 

road system. Direct effects may include a wide range of activities, such as decommissioning, 

annual closures (putting roads into the maintenance level 1 category), seasonal closures, 

additions to the system, conversion of roads to trails, changes in operational maintenance level, 

and changes in the physical characteristics of roads. Travel management decisions are reflected 

on the Motor Vehicle Use Maps and on the ground. Project-level environmental analysis 

documents travel management decisions for resource management activities. It is anticipated that 

travel management costs would increase where there are more travel restrictions. Alternative C 

proposes the most non-motorized areas, while alternative F allows potential for more system 

roads and more open roads than the other alternatives. Alternatives A, B, D, E, and G are similar 

in the miles of system road and open road. Travel management per alternative is compatible with 

general suitability determinations for each management area.

Summary of Effects to Resource 

All alternatives impact roads to some degree. The greatest impacts to system road construction 

are associated with commercial uses, such as timber harvest and minerals extraction, which are 

highest in alternative F and lowest in alternative C. The greatest impacts to system roads in 

general are associated with activities that rely on motorized access, such as motorized recreation 

and commodity production, of which opportunities are highest in alternative F and lowest in 

alternative C, and those that rely on non-motorized activities and protection of resources, such as 

wilderness and wildlife habitat, of which opportunities are highest in alternative C and lowest in 

alternative F. Roads and motorized uses are also affected by travel management decisions. 

Table 126 displays the miles of road by functional class by alternative. Opportunities to reduce 

system road mileage in general and open road mileage in particular are greatest in alternative C. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

486

Opportunities to add system road mileage in general and open road mileage in particular are 

greatest in alternative F, yet also present, perhaps to a lesser degree, in alternatives A, B, D, E, 

and G.

Table 126. Roads by functional class in miles (based on management area allocation)

Functional class Alternatives A, B, D, E,F, G Alternative C

Arterial 49 49

Collector 204 200

Local 879 747

Total 1,132 995

Cumulative Effects 

Unauthorized routes: 

Unauthorized routes result in additional land disturbance. Often these routes are created on steep 

grades and in drainage areas, resulting in resource damage such as soil erosion, sedimentation in 

channels, rutting, compaction (impacts aquatic habitat and destroys vegetation), and causing 

disturbance to wildlife and non-motorized users. Effects of this use are costly to remedy. The 

presence of these routes directly affects personnel, time and funding available to maintain, 

reconstruct, and manage system roads and to manage resources, such as water and soils, for 

programs that reduce weeds and improve aquatic organism passage and habitat.

Highway and roads under other jurisdictions:

U.S. and State Highways crossing the Shoshone have been reconstructed over time. Highway 

maintenance and operations activities would continue. Occasional reconstruction to replace 

drainage structures, improve highway surfaces, or repair highway segments from slides, slumps, 

flooding or to eliminate safety concerns would occur. Effects of these activities on the Shoshone 

road system are generally minimal. Highway reconstruction projects offer opportunities to 

improve intersection access and signage for system roads and features and recreation 

opportunities. Highway segments not needed due to relocation and unauthorized or unneeded 

routes on NFS lands would be rehabilitated. Opportunities would be explored to improve user 

safety by limiting access points, consolidating parking areas, and discouraging unmanaged offroad use onto the general forest area. Potential changes to the designated forest highway system 

may include removal or addition of roads or road segments. Reconstruction of forest highways 

may occur on an occasional basis.

Some roads under county jurisdiction provide access to and cross NFS lands. They generally 

receive annual maintenance and may be reconstructed to improve alignment, grade, width, 

structures, surfacing, and eliminate safety concerns. The frequency of reconstruction is 

occasional. As more people move to areas near the Shoshone and on private lands within forest 

boundaries, it is anticipated that the service provided by county roads would increase. There may 

be additional roads created by the need for increased access near the Shoshone.

Effects of increasing population and additional roads on lands of other jurisdiction near or within 

the Shoshone boundaries may increase fragmentation of land, disturbance of wildlife species, 

and demand for recreational uses on the national forest. Activities on and uses of lands under 

jurisdiction other than the Forest Service are outside the administration of the Forest Service. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

487

These activities and uses may result in a reduction in the location and density of system roads in 

those boundary areas in order to maintain wildlife habitat objectives.

Climate Change:

Reductions in wetlands that may occur over time as a result of climate change would increase 

their importance and increase the need for additional buffer space between roads and could affect 

placement of new roads on the landscape. Potential changes in vegetation might influence where 

on the landscape roads are needed for vegetation management. For example, as forested 

vegetation and grasslands expand upward in elevation, fewer roads are necessary for vegetation 

management. However, higher elevations are not as conducive to building roads as they tend to 

be more extreme in terrain, and it is anticipated that much of the land in the higher elevations 

would provide refuge for displaced species and habitats. Should winters be shorter and summers 

longer, potential exists for increased wheeled motorized vehicle recreation and longer seasons of 

summer motorized use. However, recreation pressure related to water activities on the Shoshone 

may be reduced if climate change caused less water to be available.

Climate change is not anticipated to have major effects on the road system, especially within the 

planning period. Long-term effects may include a reduction in use related to timber harvest and 

wheeled motorized recreation activities related to water, but longer summer seasons may result 

in increased wheeled motorized use for other outdoor recreation activities. The presence of roads 

and highways may exacerbate landscape fragmentation that occurs on the Shoshone and on other 

jurisdictional lands surrounding and within forest boundaries or that may occur as a result of 

climate change. An increasing population interested in wheeled motorized use may increase the 

demand for more of those types of opportunities, although the demand may be better met 

through motorized trail opportunities rather than increases in the road system (Rice et al. 2012).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

488

Recreation

Introduction

This section examines the extent to which the no-action (alternative A) and the action 

alternatives (alternatives B through G) affect both access and recreation opportunities on the 

Shoshone National Forest. Large expanses of wilderness and back country characterize the 

Shoshone and provide opportunities for backpacking, hunting, fishing, and horseback riding and 

packing. Popular driving corridors provide infrastructure for sightseeing or for visitors traveling 

though the Shoshone on their way to other destinations. Within these corridors, visitors find 

opportunities for driving for pleasure, viewing scenery and wildlife, camping, picnicking, and 

hiking. The lands between the back country and travel corridors are transition areas where 

common opportunities include motorized access, off-road vehicle riding, snowmobiling, 

mountain biking, hiking, dispersed recreation, hunting, fishing, horseback riding and packing, 

and opportunities for gathering forest products. Expansive wilderness areas provide 

opportunities for people to experience solitude and adventure in a natural environment. 

Developed sites in highway corridors and in the front country complement the wilderness as part 

of the wide range of recreation opportunities. 

Participation rates and values placed on outdoor recreation seem to be increasing on a national, 

state, and local level. In 2010, almost 50 percent of all Americans participated in some type of 

outdoor recreation activity (The Outdoor Foundation 2011). Within the State of Wyoming, 

93.7 percent of Wyoming residents that completed a 2008 survey indicated that public parks and 

public recreation areas are “Very Important” in their daily lives (SCORP 2009). Recreation 

opportunities are an important service that the Shoshone provides. According to research 

completed by Clement and Cheng (2008), the second highest value placed on the Forest is 

recreation. Many people rely on and have come to expect the Shoshone to provide a diversity of 

experiences and opportunities. Others choose to reside near the Forest because of the available 

experiences and opportunities. According to the 2008 Wyoming Statewide Outdoor Recreation 

Plan (2009), 83 percent of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that “Having recreation 

areas close to my home improves my quality of life.” Regardless of where they are visiting from, 

these people provide important contributions to local communities, both as visitors and residents.

Visitors enjoy the full range of recreational activities, including hiking, backpacking, hunting, 

fishing, horseback riding and packing, snowshoeing, off-road vehicle riding, snowmobiling, 

camping and picnicking, viewing scenery and wildlife, dog sledding, mountain biking, crosscountry and downhill skiing, mountaineering, whitewater rafting, and ice and rock climbing. 

New types of recreational activities that did not exist 10 to 15 years ago are also increasing on 

the Forest. World-class ice climbing opportunities have been discovered on the Forest, making 

the Shoshone an internationally known destination for this type of recreational activity. The use 

of all-terrain vehicles has increased over the last 5 years. Goat packing (use of domestic goats for 

packing supplies into the back country) is also becoming more popular with organized groups 

promoting this type of recreation. The activity of horn hunting (seeking antler sheds from deer, 

elk, and moose) has seen a dramatic rise in participation. Finally, peak bagging (climbing to the 

top of high mountain peaks) has also been increasing in frequency by visitors to the Shoshone. 

Recreational use trends on the Shoshone have been affected by the increasing population in 

adjacent communities and changes in technology related to recreational activities. According to 

an interagency report conducted by the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee on the 

state of spring, summer, and fall recreation in this area, national forests that are part of this larger 

area “are more likely to see significant increases in recreation use, particularly in the fastest-
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

489

growing counties of the Greater Yellowstone Area. In these places, 10 to 15 percent annual 

increases in recreation use are possible (Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee 2006). All 

of these trends are causing an increase in outdoor recreational demands on NFS lands 

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws

These acts, along with other land use laws, executive orders, and policies guide management of 

recreation resources on NFS lands. Other laws pertinent to recreation management of NFS lands 

can be found in the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2300-Recreation, Wilderness, and Related 

Resource Management.

Term Permit Act of March 4, 1915 (P.L. 63-293, Ch. 144, 38 Stat. 1101, as amended; 

16 U.S.C. 497): This act provides direction to the NFS lands to authorize occupancy for a wide 

variety of uses through permits not exceeding 30 years. 

Rehabilitation Act of September 26, 1973 (P.L. 93-112, Title V, 87 Stat. 390, as amended; 

29 U.S.C. 791, 793-794, 794a, 794b): This act requires that programs and activities conducted 

by Federal agencies and by entities that receive funding from, or operate under a permit from 

Federal agencies to provide an equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities to participate in 

an integrated setting, as independently as possible. The only exception to the requirement is 

when the program would be fundamentally altered if changes were made solely for the purpose 

of accessibility. 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (P.L.86-517, 74 Stat.215): This act 

provides direction to the NFS lands to provide access and recreation opportunities. The act 

states, “The policy of Congress is that national forests are established and administered for 

outdoor recreation....” 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897 as amended; 

16 U.S.C. 460l-4(note); 460l-4 thru 6a, 460l-7 thru 460l-10, 460l-10a-d, 460l-11): “The 

purposes of this act are to assist in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to all 

citizens of the United States of America...such quality and quantity of outdoor recreation 

resources...providing funds for: 1. States for acquisition, planning, and development of 

recreation facilities and; 2. Federal acquisition and development of certain lands and other 

areas.”

Highway Safety Act of September 9, 1966 (P.L. 89-564, 80 Stat. 731, as amended): This act 

authorizes state and local governments and participating Federal agencies to identify and survey 

accident locations; to design, construct, and maintain roads in accordance with safety standards; 

to apply sound traffic control principles and standards; and to promote pedestrian safety. 

Architectural Barriers Act of August 12, 1968 (P.L. 90-480, 82 Stat. 718 51 U.S.C. 

4151-4154, 4154a, 4155-4157): This act establishes additional requirements to ensure that 

buildings, facilities, rail passenger cars, and vehicles are accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. It covers architecture and design, transportation, and communication elements of 

recreational site planning and development.

National Trails System Act of October 2, 1968 (P.L. 90-543, 82 Stat.919, as amended): This 

act establishes the National Trails System and authorizes planning, right-of-way acquisition, and 

construction of trails established by Congress or the Secretary of Agriculture. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

490

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (P.L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2742, 

as amended): This act declares (per Sec. 102) that “...the public lands be managed in a manner 

that...will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.” 

Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-599, as amended). Supersedes the 

Forest Highway Act of 1958: Authorizes appropriations for forest highways and public lands 

highways. Establishes criteria for forest highways; defines forest roads, forest development roads 

and forest development trails (referred to as “system roads” and “system trails” in Forest Service 

regulations and directives); and limits the size of projects performed by Forest Service 

employees on forest roads. Establishes the Federal Lands Highway Program. 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of December 8, 2004 (P.L. 108-447, as 

amended): This act gives the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior the authority to establish, 

modify, charge, and collect recreation fees at Federal recreational lands where a certain level of 

amenities have been developed. 

Ski Fees, Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of November 12, 1996 

(P.L. 104-333, div. I, Title VII, Sec. 701, 110 Stat. 4182; 16 U.S.C. 497c): Section 701 of this 

act:

• Establishes a system to calculate fees for ski area permits issued under the National 

Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b);

• Provides for holders of ski area permits issued under other authorities to elect this permit 

fee system (FSH 2709.11, sec. 38.03a);

• Includes provisions concerning compliance with NEPA when issuing permits for 

existing ski areas (FSM 2721.61f and FSH 2709.11, sec. 41.61b); and

• Withdraws leasable and locatable minerals, subject to valid existing rights (FSH 

2709.11, sec. 41.61c).

Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of November 7, 2011 (H.R. 765 ENR)

The purpose of this act is to amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 

(16 U.S.C. 497b):

• (1) to enable snow sports (other than Nordic and alpine skiing) to be permitted on NFS 

land subject to ski area permits issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 3 of 

the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b); and

• (2) to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to permit appropriate 

additional seasonal or year-round recreational activities and facilities on National Forest 

System land subject to ski area permits issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under 

section 3 of the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b)

Executive Orders

Executive Order 12862: Setting Customer Service Standards requires information about 

quantity and quality of recreation visits for national forest plans. 

Executive Order 13195: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178) 

aims to achieve the common goal of better establishing and operating America’s national system 

of trails.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

491

Regulation and Policies

Regulations and policies have been passed in support of these laws and require the following:

• Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15-Environmental Policy and Procedures 

Handbook

• Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2300-Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource 

Management

○ Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan

• Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11-Special Uses Handbook

• Shoshone National Forest supplement 2709.11 40 Special Uses Administration 

(Recreation Residence)

• Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7300-Buildings and Other Structures

• Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7700-Travel Management 

• Rocky Mountain Regional supplements

○ 2300-93-6 (2330 Publically Managed Recreation Areas)

○ 2300-95-5 (2340 Privately Provided Recreation Opportunities

○ 2300-94-3 (2360.1-2361.32d Special Interest Areas)

○ 2300-94-4 (2361.4-2363.5 Special Interest Areas)

○ 2300-NO. 111(2370 Areas Designated Administratively)

○ 2300-90-1 (2390 Interpretive Services)

Assumptions and Limitations 

• Access and travel management are a key aspect of providing recreational opportunities 

for the general public. Although the recreation analysis section discusses modes of travel 

and existing and potential areas for travel, forest plan revision is not intended to 

complete a formal travel management process nor designate specific routes for allowed 

travel. The designation of routes and trails for specific uses is not considered during plan 

revision, but will be addressed through subsequent travel management planning 

processes and decisions. The analysis in this document will consider effects of access 

and travel by management area.

• The Forest National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey (2009), Clement and 

Cheng (2006) Study of Preferences and Values on the Shoshone National Forest and 

Wyoming Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP 2009) identifies 

the most popular recreation activities for this analysis.

Key Measurement Indicators 

• Percent of the Shoshone and location of areas where roads and trails may be designated 

for wheeled motor vehicle use;

• Percent of the Shoshone and location of areas where over-snow vehicle use is allowed;

• Percent of the Shoshone and location of areas where mechanized use is allowed;

• Number of projected future miles of roads and motorized trails available for motor 

vehicle use;

• Percent of the Shoshone and location managed in the various recreation opportunity 

spectrum classes;
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

492

• Percent of total acres within 1-mile corridor of Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

(CDNST) managed for recreational opportunity spectrum classes primitive and semiprimitive non-motorized;

• Percent of total acres within 1-mile corridor of CDNST managed for scenic integrity 

objectives high and very high; and

• Percent of total acres within 1-mile corridor of Nez Perce National Historic Trail

(NPNHT) managed for scenic integrity objectives high and very high.

Methodology

For comparative purposes, each alternative is analyzed for the total number of acres, by 

management area allocation, where wheeled motor vehicle use may be designated, and oversnow vehicle use is allowed, or mechanized use is allowed.

Each management area is identified as to whether wheeled motor vehicle use, over-snow vehicle 

use, or mechanized use is allowed. Geographic information system information is then used to 

calculate the cumulative acres for that management area across the Shoshone. The cumulative 

acres for all of the management areas within each alternative are then calculated.

Likewise, each alternative is analyzed for the total number of acres and percentage of the 

Shoshone managed in various recreational opportunity spectrum classes and categories of scenic 

integrity objectives. Each management area includes direction for the recreational opportunity 

spectrum class and scenic integrity objectives that are most appropriate for managing that area of 

the Forest.

Projected future additional roads and motorized trails were estimated for each alternative. 

Comparative analysis of the differences in the total estimated miles is used to compare 

alternatives.

Unmapped management areas (MAs 3.2A and 3.2B) were created that are defined as 0.5 mile 

from the centerline of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and Nez Perce National 

Historic Trail. The direction for these management areas overrides other management area 

directions that overlap the corridors.

Effects to scenic and historic trails are calculated by identified management objectives related to 

recreational opportunity spectrum and scenic integrity objectives within a 1-mile-wide corridor.

Affected Environment 

Transportation System

System roads and trails provide both motorized and non-motorized access to areas off roads into 

the back country and wilderness areas. The motor vehicle use map, updated annually, displays 

the system roads and trails and other areas on the Shoshone designed for motorized use (per 36 

CFR 212.51). Motorized vehicles and operators are subject to State laws. 

The current status for motorized access on system roads is summarized in table 127. This table 

displays the miles of road and whether they are designated for motorized use, yearlong or 

seasonally. The Shoshone currently has about 874 miles of system roads open to the public and 

designated for either yearlong or seasonal motor vehicle use. These roads are available for use by 

highway-legal vehicles that meet State legal requirements as well as all-terrain vehicles that have 

a State-issued sticker.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

493

Table 127. Summary of Shoshone roads by travel management status

Total miles of roads open to 

the public

Miles of roads designated 

yearlong for motorized use 

Miles of roads designated 

seasonally for motorized use

909 667 242

Trails

Table 128 displays the miles of trails by season of use (summer or winter) and whether the trail 

is managed for motorized or non-motorized use.

Table 128. Summary of Shoshone trails by season and managed use 

Managed trails and roads (time of use and type) Miles

Summer trails − Motorized use 32

Summer trails − Non-motorized use 1,652

Winter trails − Motorized use 276

Winter trails − Non-motorized use 48

*Roads enrolled in State Off-Highway Vehicle Program 874

*Although these routes are not classified as motorized trails; they are heavily used by all-terrain vehicles.

The Shoshone’s trails system includes approximately 32 miles of motorized trails (managed for 

vehicles 50 inches or less in width), 1,652 miles of hiking and equestrian trails, 276 miles of 

snowmobile trails, and 48 miles of cross-country ski trails and 3 miles of single-track motorized 

(motorcycle) trails on the Forest. As mentioned in the introduction, one of the newest types of 

recreation taking place on the Shoshone is the use of all-terrain vehicles (sometimes called utility 

vehicles). Some of these vehicles are too wide for the existing motorized trails managed for 

vehicles 50 inches or less in width. Subsequently, many of the existing system level 2 and 3 

roads are used by this type of vehicle. Some roads are almost exclusively used by all-terrain 

vehicles. Approximately 874 miles of roads and trails are enrolled in the State Off-Highway 

Vehicle Program and available for all-terrain vehicle and motorcycle use.

Trail Maintenance

Trail maintenance is accomplished by the Forest Service in cooperation with partners and 

volunteers. Federal funding for motorized trails is sometimes supplemented by funding from the 

state of Wyoming through their off-highway vehicle sticker registration and grant program. 

The Shoshone’s ability to maintain the trail system is dependent on a number of factors, 

including:

• Total miles of open trails;

• Allocated funding for trail maintenance;

• Allocated funding for trail projects to support nationally designated trails (Nez Perce and 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trails);

• Assigned operational maintenance levels;

• Resource protection needs;

• Use levels and season of use; and

• Outfitter and guide special use fees.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

494

In general, trail maintenance budgets have historically decreased over the last 10 years. Similar 

to roads, funding for trails has been well below that needed to annually maintain the entire trail 

system at operational maintenance level standards. Annual accomplishment reports indicate that 

on average the Shoshone has been able to maintain, on an annual basis, approximately 

42 percent of the open trails on the Forest (table 129). This does not include maintaining these 

trails to standard: rather performing one maintenance item on each trail. With decreased trails 

budgets, the Shoshone staff anticipates their ability to accomplish this level of maintenance will 

decline. Trails are maintained on a priority basis where user safety, visitor demands, and resource 

protection are all used to prioritize trail maintenance.

Table 129. Average annual trail maintenance accomplished 

Miles of open trails (motorized 

and non-motorized) *Average miles maintained *Percent maintained

1,672 708 42

*Maintained is defined by completing at least one maintenance activity on each trail.

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 established the Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail (CDNST) (Pub. L. No. 95-625, 92 Stat. 3467), which amended the National Trails 

System Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1241-1251).The CDNST crosses Federal lands administered by 

the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and the United States Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service. The Regional Forester 

of the Rocky Mountain Region is the lead Forest Service official for coordinating matters 

concerning the study, planning, and operation of the congressionally designated CDNST (Forest 

Service Manual 2353.04). The trail generally follows the corridor described in the Bureau of 

Outdoor Recreation’s 1976 Study Report and the 1977 Final Environmental Statement. A 50-

mile corridor was identified on either side of the Continental Divide in which to locate the final 

route. The CDNST traverses portions of 25 national forests, 3 national parks, 4 Bureau of Land 

Management Districts, as well as various private lands in the states of Montana, Idaho,

Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. The total distance from the Canada-United States border 

on the north and the United States-Mexico border on the south is approximately 3,100 miles. Of 

this total distance, approximately 750 miles are located in Montana, 180 miles in Idaho, 

610 miles in Wyoming, 770 miles in Colorado, and 790 miles in New Mexico.

The Shoshone National Forest has approximately 31 miles of the CDNST located in the 

southwest section of the Forest (see map 41). On the Shoshone, the original and current route 

was established in a 1998 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. This decision 

recognized that the trail should be managed for pedestrian and horse traffic, but located some 

segments on existing roads to build as few new trails as possible and avoid sensitive wildlife 

habitat. Currently, the trail follows a mixture of non-motorized and motorized primitive 

roadways. Motorized use is allowed to the extent that occurred in 1998. As the trail location is 

refined, it is expected that the entire length of the trail will be located off roads. At the time of 

forest plan revision, there were two proposed re-routes that have had cultural resource and 

botanical surveys completed. Land and resource management plans provide for the development 

and management of the CDNST as an integrated part of the overall land and resource 

management direction for the land area through which the trail passes. 

Projects that may affect the CDNST, including forest plan revision must consider the following 

direction: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

495

FSM 2353.44b

• Use the Scenery Management System (FSM 2382.1; Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook 

for Scenery Management, Agricultural Handbook 701, 1995, http://www.fs.fed.us/cdt) in 

developing CDNST unit plans and managing scenery along the CDNST. The one-half 

mile foreground viewed from either side of the CDNST travel route must be a primary 

consideration in delineating the boundary of a CDNST management area (para. 2b). The 

CDNST is a concern level 1 route (Landscape Aesthetics, page 4-8), with a scenic 

integrity objective of high or very high, depending on the trail segment (Landscape 

Aesthetics, page 2-4).

FSM 2353.42

• Manage the CDNST to provide high-quality scenic, primitive hiking and pack and 

saddle livestock opportunities. Backpacking, nature walking, day hiking, horseback 

riding, nature photography, mountain climbing, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing 

are compatible with the nature and purposes of the CDNST (FSM 2353.42). Use the 

recreational opportunity spectrum and the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Users 

Guide in delineating and integrating recreation opportunities in CDNST unit plans and 

managing the CDNST (FSM 2311.1). Where possible, locate the CDNST in primitive 

and semi-primitive non-motorized recreational opportunity spectrum classes, 

recognizing that the CDNST may have to traverse intermittently through more 

developed recreational opportunity spectrum classes to provide for continuous travel 

between the Montana-Canada and New Mexico-Mexico borders. Locate a CDNST 

segment on a road only where it is primitive and offers recreational opportunities 

comparable to those provided by a trail with a Designed Use of Pack and Saddle Stock, 

recognizing that the CDNST may have to be located on or across designated routes 

because of the inability to locate the trail elsewhere (FSM 2353.44b, para. 11).

The management area emphasis of each of the alternatives may have effects to scenery 

management system as well as the recreational opportunity spectrum class that may affect the 

CDNST. Alternatives will be analyzed by the scenery management system and recreation 

opportunity spectrum proposed by each alternative as they relate to the CDNST.

Nez Perce National Historic Trail

The Nez Perce (Nimíipuu or Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail (NPNHT) was established by 

Congress through Public Law 99-445 in 1986, amending the National Trails Systems Act of 

1968 to designate the NPNHT as a component of the National Trails System. The NPNHT was 

designated to commemorate the 1877 flight of the non-treaty Nez Perce from their homelands in 

eastern Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Five Nez Perce bands, nearly 800 men, women, and 

children, struggled across almost 1,200 miles of rugged country. The course they chose on their 

epic journey has been memorialized in the NPNHT. In its entirety, the NPNHT covers 

1,170 miles, of which, 319 miles are designated high potential route segments. The trail, 

including associated sites and auto tours, crosses a mix of local, county, State, Federal, and tribal 

jurisdictions and agencies in four Forest Service regions, across Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, and 

Montana.

There are approximately 147 miles of the trail within the State of Wyoming, of which 36.7 miles 

are located on the Shoshone National Forest (see map 42). The trail’s current alignment generally 

follows the route identified in the “Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) Study Report” prepared by the 

Department of Agriculture in March 1982, and the Environmental Assessment and Decision 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

496

Notice signed by Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Peter C. Myers on July 1, 1985 

(16 U.S.C.1244 (a)(14)). Motorized use is allowed where the NPNHT overlaps an existing road 

and along the auto tour route. Where the NPNHT follows National System trails, the NPNHT is 

non-motorized. In the forest plan revision process, an unmapped management area was created 

that includes the corridor within 0.5 mile of the centerline of the NPNHT location. This 

management area overlies other management areas that it crosses. At the time of the 1986 Forest 

Plan as amended revision, the Forest Service was completing a Comprehensive Management 

Plan Revision for the entire NPNHT. Therefore, guidance related to management of this historic 

trail comes from the 1990 Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP), which is currently under 

revision. When the new Comprehensive Management Plan is finished, its direction is 

incorporated by reference into the revised Forest Plan. In general, the 1990 Comprehensive 

Management Plan provides the following guidance related to planning processes: “Development 

and management of each segment of the trail shall be designed to harmonize with and 

complement any established multiple-use plans for that specific area in order to ensure continued 

maximum benefits from the land” (NPNHT CMP 1990).

To analyze differences in alternatives as they related to the NPNHT, measurement indicators of 

the scenic management system will be compared by alternative. The desired scenic integrity 

objective for the NPNHT is high or very high due to the management objectives aimed at 

preserving the original setting at the time this route was originally used.

Access and Travel Management 

Access, using roads and trails, is associated with virtually every activity that takes place on the 

Shoshone. Roads and trails accommodate many purposes such as: outdoor recreation, fire 

suppression, wildlife management, transport of natural resources such as logs and minerals, 

firewood gathering, private in-holding access, electronic site and utility corridor maintenance, 

and managing and monitoring forest resources. Modes of vehicle travel on the Forest include: 

large commercial trucks, cars, pickups, four-wheel drive vehicles, over-snow vehicles, off-road 

vehicles (e.g., motorcycles, ATVs), mountain bikes, and wheelchairs. Non-vehicular travel 

modes include cross-country/back-country skiing, snowshoeing, dog sledding, horseback riding, 

and hiking. Roads and trails where wheeled motor vehicle use is currently allowed are identified 

on the Shoshone motor vehicle use map(s). A motor vehicle use map shows those roads, trails, 

and areas designated for motor vehicle use, under 36 CFR 212.51 for the purpose of enforcing 

the prohibition at 36 CFR 261.13. The motor vehicle use maps are subject to annual review and 

reissuance. Whether a road, trail, or an area is open to motorized use, and time of year when they 

are open, are important considerations regarding access on the Shoshone.

At this time, over-snow vehicle use is managed differently from wheeled motor vehicle use. 

There is no over-snow vehicle use map used to designate where and when over-snow vehicle use 

is allowed. Under the 1986 Forest Plan as amended, over-snow vehicle use (generally December 

1 to April 30) is allowed anywhere it is not expressly prohibited with a legal order (36 CFR 

261.50). Legal orders and management areas currently prohibit over-snow vehicle use on 

approximately 1,550,440 acres of NFS lands on the Shoshone. The areas where over-snow 

vehicle use is prohibited or restricted in some fashion are: designated wilderness, recommended 

wilderness, and other area closures for semi-primitive non-motorized recreation and big game 

crucial winter range. The Dunoir Management Area does not currently have a forest order 

prohibiting either snowmobile use or mechanized use. 

At this time, mechanized use is managed the same as over-snow vehicle use. There is no 

mechanized use map used to designate where and when mechanized use is allowed. Under the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

497

1986 Forest Plan as amended, mechanized use is allowed anywhere it is not expressly prohibited 

with a legal order (36 CFR 261.50). There are two management areas where mechanized use is 

prohibited. These include designated MA 1.1—Wilderness (e.g., Washakie Wilderness) and MA 

1.2—Glacier Addition to Fitzpatrick Wilderness. In addition, one area currently restricts 

mechanized use to system roads and trails (2.2A Line Creek). 

Motorized Use Trends

Off-road vehicle use continues to be a popular form of outdoor recreation on national forests 

nationwide. Close to “one in five Americans (19.2 percent) age 16 and older participated one or 

more times in off-highway vehicle recreation within the past year” (page 10, Cordell et al. 2008). 

Off-road vehicle users now account for 5 percent of the total number of visitors to national 

forests; on the Shoshone off-road vehicles are popularly defined as: (1) 4-wheel drive jeeps, 

automobiles, pickups, or sport utility vehicles; (2) motorcycles designed for cross-country use; 

(3) all-terrain vehicles, better known as ATVs; and (4) other specially designed or modified 

off-road motor vehicles (e.g., snowmobiles) used in a wide variety of ways (Cordell et al. 2008). 

Participation in off-road vehicle recreation steadily increased from 1999 to 2003 with a 

37 percent increase over this time period (Cordell et al. 2008). This trend shifted from increasing 

to decreasing numbers of participation during the time period of 2003 to 2007 (Cordell et al. 

2008). According to Cordell and others (2008), off-road vehicle participation decreased by 

14 percent during this time period.

From a regional perspective, the West (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New 

Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) has the largest portion of off-road vehicle users and Wyoming has 

the highest participation rate (34 percent) of all states (Cordell et al. 2008). Available State of 

Wyoming off-road vehicle permit registration numbers mirror this trend. In 2002, the State 

instituted a mandatory off-road vehicle permit program. Since then, the number of permits sold 

has climbed from 6,767 to 55,060 in 2009, the last year data were available. Some of this 

88 percent increase in permits sold is due to increased compliance since the mandatory program 

was initiated. Sales of permits in the Shoshone’s three-county area ranged from 1,196 in 2002 to 

6,970 in 2005. Counties with the highest permit sales are gateways to desirable public land 

recreation areas, such as Fremont County. 

A 2006 University of Wyoming Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics survey and 

economic assessment of off-road vehicle use in Wyoming estimated that 150,000 off-road 

vehicles were owned by Wyoming residents and approximately 36 percent of residents used an 

off-road vehicle for recreational purposes in the preceding 12 months. 

The 2009 Wyoming Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan surveyed residents for 

their top three issues or concerns for outdoor recreation in Wyoming. The responses identified 

that motorized recreation will be the most challenging land management issue for the foreseeable 

future. The most common concern was too much motorized use and the second most common 

was support for motorized use and expanding motorized opportunities. These two opposing 

concerns highlight the difficulty in managing motorized recreation.

Recreation

The Shoshone finalized its Recreation Site Facility Analysis Report in May of 2006, and 

developed a Recreation Niche Statement with public involvement. The niche serves as the vision 

for the Forest’s recreation program and to ensure unique attributes are maintained for future 

generations. The following is the Shoshone recreation niche:
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

498

All Paths Lead to Wildness

The Shoshone, America’s first National Forest, is rugged, remote and wild. Serving as a 

gateway to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, the Forest plays a key role in 

providing both locals and travelers an opportunity to connect with nature and experience 

wildlife. The rich western heritage has provided a trail-based infrastructure into and 

through the backcountry and continues to instill a sense of adventure and freedom. The 

Shoshone National Forest provides minimally developed facilities for overnight use and 

backcountry activities with the exception of facilities along travel corridors and/or near 

destination water sites, ranging from dispersed to highly developed sites. 

Outdoor recreation is the fastest growing use within the national forests and grasslands, a use 

expected to increase in the future. As mentioned in the introduction, nearly 50 percent of all 

Americans participated in outdoor recreation in 2010 (The Outdoor Foundation 2011). Outdoor 

recreation encompasses a myriad of types of activities. Several studies have been conducted to 

analyze recreational participation rates on a national scale, but similar studies have been 

conducted at the State and Forest scale. The latest Wyoming Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan 

(SCORP) analyzed user activities and found that the highest percentage (65 percent) of 

Wyoming residents participated in the activity described as “Driving for pleasure/sightseeing by 

auto” followed closely by “Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers, etc.,” at 

64 percent. The next two highest percentages of use, both at 61 percent, were for “Hiking or 

Walking” and “Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc.” (SCORP 2009). Table 130 lists the top six 

activities identified in the 2008 survey.

The latest National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Survey was completed in 2010 on the 

Shoshone (NVUM Summary Report May 2010). This monitoring program provides reliable 

information about recreation visitors to NFS-managed lands at the national, regional, and forest 

level. NVUM is a sampling system that provides statistics on recreation use.

Table 130. Total percentage of top six outdoor recreation activities in Wyoming*

Activity Percentage of visitors who participated in 

this activity

Driving for pleasure/sightseeing by auto 65

Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers, etc. 64

Hiking or walking 61

Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc. 61

General/other-relaxing, hanging out, escaping crowds, 

noise, etc. 60

Picnicking and family day gatherings 58 

*2009 Wyoming Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)

Visitation is estimated through surveys of exiting visitors and provides a snapshot of estimated 

use. According to the NVUM surveys completed in 2009, visitation estimates are between 

529,156 and 763,044 per year across the Shoshone. About 66 percent of these visits were from 

people who lived within 100 miles of the Forest. Those visitors participated in the activities 

shown in table 131 during their visit, and indicated their primary activity.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

499

Most of the visits to the Shoshone National Forest are day visits, yet the average visit to the 

Forest lasts about 13 hours. The vast majority of Shoshone visitors recreate at only one location. 

Only 8 percent of visitors recreate at more than one location on the Forest. About half of the 

visits are made by people who visit at most five times per year.

Nearly 54 percent of the visiting population participates in viewing the scenery in the Forest. 

Viewing natural features (23.9 percent) is the most common primary activity, followed by 

hiking/walking (15.5 percent) and snowmobiling (14 percent). Viewing natural features is an 

activity that is engaged in for more than half of all visits. Visitors participated in hiking and the 

two viewing activities in over 40 percent of visits. About one-third of the visits involved using a 

scenic byway while on the Shoshone (English 2010).

With increased use, recreationists are vying for quality recreation space, which may sometimes 

overlap in the same area at the same time. This can manifest itself in conflicts between 

recreationists that use non-motorized and those that use motorized modes of travel. Recreation 

conflicts occur when a user participating in one recreation activity negatively affects the 

recreation experience of another user.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

500

Table 131. Activity participation on the Shoshone National Forest (FY 2009)a

Activity

Percentage of 

visitors who 

participated in this 

activityb

Percentage of 

visitors who said it 

was their primary 

activityc

Average hours 

spent in primary 

activityd

Viewing natural features 53.5 24.5 4.5

Hiking/walking 39.9 15.5 2.4

Snowmobiling 14.3 14 5.1

Hunting 9.1 8 6.1

Some other activity 7.6 6.6 4.3

Driving for pleasure 23.3 5.7 2.2

Fishing 10.4 4.8 6.3

Horseback riding 3.7 2.9 6.8

Cross-country skiing 3 2.9 2.1

Viewing wildlife 24 2.3 2.4

Relaxing 32.1 1.9 26.5

Developed camping 4.1 1.7 43.4

Off-road use 4.2 1.5 3.3

Picnicking 12.7 1.2 1.9

Primitive camping 4.7 1.1 29.9

Motorized trail activity 5.2 0.7 4.1

Backpacking 1.9 0.6 55.4

Resort use 3.9 0.5 39.1

Bicycling 1.2 0.5 2.9

Non-motorized water 1.1 0.5 3.9

Gathering forest products 2.6 0.4 3.8

Other non-motorized 0.7 0.2 4

Nature center activities 1 0 6

Nature study 5.6 0

Visiting historic sites 3 0

Motorized water activities 0.8 0

Other motorized activity 0 0 5

Downhill skiing 0 0

No activity reported 0 0

a Participation data are from Forest National Visitor Use Monitoring results (2009).

b Survey respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than 100 percent.

c Respondents were asked to select one main activity; some selected more than one, so this column may total more than 

100 percent.

d Computed only for those who indicated the activity was the main activity on their visit.

Although conflicts occur, overall satisfaction results showed that almost 76 percent of the people 

who visited the Shoshone were very satisfied with the overall quality of their experience 

(English 2010). Table 132 shows the Percent Satisfaction Index from the 2009 NVUM Survey.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

501

Table 132. Percent Satisfaction Index* scores from recreation users 

Items rated

Satisfied survey respondents (percentage)

Developed 

sites**

Undeveloped 

areas (GFAs***) Wilderness

Developed facilities (includes restroom cleanliness 

and facility condition) 97.9 85.2 73.8

Access (includes parking availability, parking lot 

condition, road condition and trail condition) 80.9 92.8 76.1

Services (includes availability of information 

signage, employee helpfulness) 77.3 88 75.6

Perception of safety 97.1 98.7 85.6

* This is a composite rating. It is the proportion of satisfaction ratings scored by visitors as satisfied or very satisfied. It is 

computed as the percentage of all ratings for the elements within the grouping that are at or above the target level, and 

indicates the percent of all visits where the person was satisfied with agency performance. 

** This category includes both day use and overnight use developed sites. Data from National Visitor Use Monitoring

results (2009).

*** General Forest Areas, Data from National Visitor Use Monitoring results (2009).

Over half of visitors surveyed during the NVUM survey indicated they did not use special 

facilities and areas. Table 133 shows that the majority of visitors who did use special facilities 

and areas, used facilities designed for motorized travel. These include, scenic byways, forest 

roads, and motorized dual track trails.

Table 133. Visitors' self-reported use of selected facilities and areas, Shoshone National Forest (FY 

2009)

Facility/area Respondents who reported using this facility 

(percentage)

Developed swimming site 2.8

Scenic byway 30.0

Museum 3.4

Designated off-road vehicle area 13.3

Forest roads 26.9

Interpretive displays 2.4

Information sites 5.3

Developed fishing site 2.7

Motorized single-track trail 6.7

Motorized dual-track trail 17.5

None of these 48.2

Recreation Setting

The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) describes the setting in which recreation occurs. The 

Forest Service defines a recreation opportunity setting as the combination of physical, biological, 

social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place. Thus, an opportunity includes 

qualities provided by nature (vegetation, landscape, topography, scenery), qualities associated 

with recreational use (levels and types of use), and conditions provided by management 

(developments, roads, regulations). By combining variations of these qualities and conditions, 

management can provide a variety of opportunities for recreationists. The recreation opportunity 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

502

spectrum was specifically developed to enable the integration of outdoor recreation principles 

and guidelines into multiple use management. 

The Shoshone provides recreation activities that range from high adventure in the back country 

to driving scenic byways. Expansive wilderness areas provide opportunities for people to 

experience solitude and adventure in a natural environment. Developed sites in highway 

corridors and in the front country complement the wilderness as part of the range of recreation 

opportunities. 

The 1986 Forest Plan as amended identified recreational opportunity spectrum settings and 

associated acres. Remapping of settings was completed in 2008, following the national protocols 

on how to identify appropriate recreation opportunity spectrum classes. The acres and 

percentages remapped in 2008 are shown in table 134.

Table 134. Recreation opportunity spectrum class and associated acreages of the Shoshone 

National Forest 

ROS class Acres in 2008 Percentage of the Shoshone

Rural 1,378 1

Roaded natural 207,615 8

Semi-primitive motorized 291,560 12

Semi-primitive non-motorized 572,312 23

Primitive 1,365,154 56

The recreation opportunity spectrum provides a framework for analyzing changes to recreation 

settings as a result of potential management activities under each alternative. The recreation 

opportunity spectrum can be used to estimate changes to recreation settings and opportunities 

resulting from potential development activities. The potential effects of possible management 

actions on recreation settings and experiences are represented in the estimated recreation 

opportunity spectrum inventory shifts under each alternative.

Developed Recreation Sites 

Generally, developed recreation sites have kept pace with changing demands and expectations. 

Developed recreation facilities include a variety of distinctly defined areas, where facilities have 

been developed for concentrated public use either by the Forest Service or private parties. 

Redesign and reconstruction of developed sites has been ongoing with primary changes focused 

on updating campgrounds for recreational vehicle use and improving accessibility. Developed 

recreation facilities have been constructed to offer recreation experiences, protect resources, or 

otherwise manage concentrations of visitor use. These facilities range from a complete 

campground with water systems, toilets, and fully developed sites, to a simple bulletin board or 

parking barrier at a parking lot.

On the Forest, the majority of developed recreation facilities are in major travel corridors on or 

adjacent to the Buffalo Bill Scenic Highway, the Chief Joseph Scenic Highway, the Beartooth 

All-American Road, the Wyoming Centennial Scenic Byway, or other high use primary travel 

corridors that traverse the Forest. 

Table 135 displays the number of developed recreation sites in 1986 and 2010.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

503

Table 135. Developed recreation sites on the Shoshone, 1986 and 2010

Type of site 1986 2010 2010 Capacity PAOT*

Trailheads 20 28 1,956

Campgrounds 33 32 3,404

Picnic grounds 7 11 411

Observation sites 4 4 410

Boating sites 1 1 75

Fishing site 1 1 35

Interpretive sites 11 11 456

*Persons at one time (PAOT)

“Persons at one time” (PAOT) is a measure of the number of people that can occupy a developed 

recreation site, and is the basis for design of the site. The number of developed campgrounds has 

remained steady, yet the capacity at these sites has increased from 2,726 people at one time in 

1986 to 3,404 in 2006. Recent (2010) campground occupancy numbers from facilities along the 

North Fork of the Shoshone River corridor, which is a major access route to the east entrance of 

Yellowstone National Park, does not show a widespread capacity issue. During the months of 

May through September, campgrounds along the North Fork average approximately 45 percent 

occupancy (table 136). This percentage is highest during July (59 percent). Campgrounds tend to 

range in the 80 to 90 percent occupancy rates during holidays and weekends and then drop off 

during mid-week. 

Table 136. North Fork Corridor: 2010 campground occupancy rates 

Campground May June July Aug/Sept Total

Big Game n/a 37.0% 43.4% 28.4% 36.3%

Clearwater 40.9% 34.0% 58.0% 39.0% 43.0%

Eagle Creek 51.7% 38.0% 75.6% 61.0% 56.6%

Elk Fork 36.4% 27.2% 35.0% 48.0% 36.7%

Rex Hale n/a 34.0% 67.3% 36.0% 45.8%

Three Mile 55.0% 16.0% 62.7% 36.6% 42.6%

Wapiti 41.0% 42.9% 74.0% 55.0% 53.2%

Total 45.0% 32.7% 59.4% 43.4% 44.9%

Changes in visitor preferences have resulted in a shift from more traditional outfitted activities, 

such as multi-day back country horseback trips, to other activities such as climbing, mountain 

biking, rafting, fishing, and all-terrain vehicle and snowmobile riding to name a few.

Recreation Special Use Authorizations

National forests also offer recreational opportunities in partnership with commercial and noncommercial entities by granting special-use authorizations or entering into partnership 

agreements. These partnerships help provide recreational opportunities on national forests that 

the Forest Service does not directly provide. Recreational special uses include both commercial 

permits such as for lodges and outfitter and guides, and non-commercial activities such as the 

Forest’s recreation residence program. In 1986, the Shoshone issued approximately 351 special-
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

504

use permits. Of those, 229 (100 recreation residences, 110 outfitting and guiding permits and 19 

for resorts, lodges and ski areas) were for recreation special uses. Today the Forest administers 

over 200 recreation special-use permits. Table 137 displays the different types of recreation 

special-use permits administered by the Shoshone.

Table 137. Recreation special uses on the Shoshone National Forest 

Type of special-use permit Number of permits or 

agreements 

Groomed cross-country ski area 3

Groomed snowmobile area/shelter 2

Organization camp 3

Outfitter and guide 83

Recreation events (may vary from year to year) 6

Ski area 2

Target range 1

Non-commercial group use 4

Recreation residences 100

Resorts 17

TOTAL special-use permits 221

Scenic Byways

Scenic byways provide for the most popular recreation activity, “driving for pleasure/sightseeing 

by auto” on the Shoshone National Forest. As mentioned previously, 65 percent of people 

visiting the Forest participated in this activity, the highest participation rate among all 

respondents (SCORP 2009). Confirming this preference, the 2008 National Visitor Use 

Monitoring report found that the highest percentage of respondents that used forest facilities or 

areas used scenic byways (table 133). 

There are three scenic byways and one All American Road crossing the Shoshone National 

Forest: Chief Joseph Scenic Byway (U.S. Highway 296), Buffalo Bill Scenic Byway 

(U.S. Highway 14-16-20), Wyoming Centennial Scenic Byway (U.S. Highway 26-287), and the 

Beartooth All-American Road (U.S. Highway 212) (see map 43). Each road provides a unique 

and different view of the Shoshone because they vary by viewshed, vegetation, geologic 

features, and historic uses. They provide opportunities for approximately 306 miles of scenic 

travel on the Shoshone and adjacent national forests. These roads provide forest access for the 

majority of tourists and local visitors.

Environmental Consequences 

The environmental consequences for recreation resource opportunities are compared by 

alternative, based on key indicators of disturbance for each type of activity. In general, 

alternatives that contain management areas that allow for more acres available for motorized 

recreation (summer and winter) provide for increased quality and quantity of this type of 

recreation. Alternative F followed by E, allow for the largest amount of motorized recreation 

opportunities of all action alternatives. Conversely, alternative C followed by alternative D, 

provide for the least amount of motorized recreation. Alternatives that increase levels of nonmotorized recreational opportunities will generally increase the quality and quantity of nonmotorized recreation.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

505

Direct and Indirect Effects

Motorized recreation

During the 1986 Forest Plan as amended development, approximately 23 percent of the entire 

Shoshone was open to summer motorized use and 36 percent was open to winter motorized use 

(table 138).

Table 138. Total acres allowable for motor vehicles use by alternative 

Season and 

use allowed 

Alternatives (acres/total percentage)

A

(No 

action)

B C D E F G

Over snow 

motor allowed

887,600

36%

481,200

20%

103,000

4%

323,800

13%

526,400

22%

825,200

34%

592,400

24%

Over snow 

motor not 

allowed 

1,550,400

64%

1,956,800

80%

2,335,000

96%

2,114,300

87%

1,911,600

78%

1,613,000

66%

1,845,600

76%

Summer 

motor allowed 

570,000 

23%

570,200 

23%

321,800

13%

350,000

14%

656,000

27%

823,300

34%

529,000

22%

Summer 

motor not 

allowed 

1,868,000

77%

1,867,800

77%

2,116,200

87%

2,088,000

86%

1,782,200

73%

1,614,700

66%

1,909,000

78%

Table 138 also shows the total acres and percentage of Forest available for motorized use by 

season (summer and winter). Summer motorized acres were calculated using the total acres 

available for this type of use and were based on the following four criteria:

• Total management area acre allowance for summer motorized use by alternative;

• Slopes less than 40 percent;

• Acres available in the grizzly bear primary conservation area; and 

Maps 44−49 and 76 display the allocations that allow summer motorized use by alternative.

Winter motorized acres were calculated using the total acres available for this type of use and 

were based on the following criteria: 

• Total management area acre allowance for winter motorized use by alternative;

• Areas (acres) available in winter range with no restrictions 

• Areas (acres) where new groomed trails are allowed

• Areas (acres) available in winter range where no new groomed trails are allowed 

Maps 50−55 and 77 display the allocations that allow winter motorized use by alternative.

Cross-country Travel: Currently, the Shoshone does not allow cross-country wheeled motor 

vehicle use in any area. Wheeled motor vehicle use is only allowed on those roads and trails as 

designated on the Forest motor vehicle use maps. None of the seven alternatives allow crosscountry wheeled motor vehicle use since there are no proposed changes to current management.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

506

Cross-country Over-snow Vehicle Use: The 1986 Forest Plan as amended generally allowed 

over-snow motorized vehicle use in management areas allocated to non-motorized recreation, 

including the Dunoir Special Management Unit (MA 1.6B). Only summer motorized use was 

specifically restricted in these areas. Though current plan allocation permits the use, over-snow 

motorized vehicle use is not occurring in all acres that are open to that use.

When considering the number of acres where wheeled motor vehicle use would be allowed, it 

must be remembered that this refers only to those acres in management areas where roads and 

trails may exist and be designated for such use. Those acres are not open to off-trail or off-road 

use. As shown in table 138, alternative C and D would result in fewer acres available where trails 

could be designated for wheeled motor vehicle use; whereas alternative E and F have the highest 

acres available where motorized trails could be designated for this use. Alternatives A and B are 

relatively the same in the number of acres where trails could be designated for wheeled motor 

vehicle use (about a 270-acre difference between the two). Alternative G is slightly below those 

alternatives.

Table 139 and table 140 show the differences between existing and projected additional 

motorized trails and roads for the various alternatives. Approximately 907 miles of road are 

currently open and would remain open under all alternatives but alternative C. Alternative C is 

the only alternative that would include closing system roads and trails currently open to the 

public on the most recent motor vehicle use map. None of the other alternatives propose any 

changes to the existing system. All the alternatives project an increase of 2 to 3 miles of new 

road construction associated with timber management activities. Depending on site specific 

issues those roads may be open for public use. Alternatives B, D, E, F, and G project an increase 

in the total miles of motorized trails. The increase range from 8 miles in alternative D to 60 miles 

in alternative F. Alternatives B and G project 23 new miles. Open roads would generally not be 

permitted in management areas 1.1, 1.1A, 1.5A, 1.6A, 1.6B, 2.2A, 2.3, 3.1A and 3.1C. 

Table 139. Existing and projected additional motorized trail miles by alternative 

Motorized trails Alternatives (miles)

A B C D E F G

Existing trails 32 32 32 32 32 32 32

Projected motorized trails 

additions 0 23 0 8 30 60 23

Total motorized trails 32 55 21 40 62 92 55

Miles open seasonally 32 48 14 37 53 92 48

Table 140. Existing and projected additional road miles by alternative 

Roads open to public Alternatives (miles)

A B C D E F G

Existing roads 907 907 800 907 907 907 907

Projected road additions 2 2 2 2 2 3 2

Total roads open to public 909 909 802 909 909 910 909

Miles open seasonally 667 667 218 667 667 668 667
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

507

Table 141 displays the miles of roads open for public use by operational maintenance level per 

alternative. 

Table 141. Summary of system roads by operational maintenance level 

Operational 

maintenance 

level

Alternatives A, B, D, E, F, G

(Alt. F has no seasonal closures) Alternative C

Total 

miles

Miles open 

to public

Miles open 

to public in 

winter

Total 

miles

Miles open to 

public

Miles open 

to public in 

winter

Level 5 3 3 1 3 3 1

Level 4 6 6 4 6 6 4

Level 3 193 169 127 193 169 74

Level 2 748 697 506 632 590 136

Level 1 182 0 0 162 0 0

Total 1,132 874 638 995 767 215

Alternative A provides the most acres available for over-snow motorized use when compared to 

all alternatives (887,600). Alternative A allows over-snow motorized use with the Dunoir Special 

Management Unit. Non-of the action alternative allow over-snow motorized use within the 

Dunoir Special Management Unit. This change from alternative A was made to make 

management of the Dunoir area more consistent with its enabling legislation. 

Of the action alternatives, Alternative F provides for the largest amount of acres available for 

over-snow vehicle use. In alternative F, most of the areas on the forest that are capable for oversnow use are open to that use. Alt. G provides the second most acres available of all the action 

alternatives. Alternative E is similar to alternative G. For the remaining alternatives, their 

ranking in order of most to least acres available is B, D, and C. Alternative C prohibits any 

winter motorized use in all inventoried roadless areas. 

Table 142 shows the total miles of existing and projected trails open to over-snow vehicle use. 

All action alternatives, except alternative C, would continue to allow all existing over-snow 

motorize trails to be used as they are under the current forest plan (alternative A). Alternative C 

would decrease the total miles of trail allowing over-snow vehicle use (approximately a 113-mile 

reduction). Alternative F projects an increase of 90 miles in over-snow motorized trails. 

Table 142. Snowmobile trail miles by alternative 

Snowmobile trails Alternatives (miles)

A B C D E F G

Existing trails 276 276 163 276 276 276 276

Projected motorized trails additions 0 0 0 0 0 91 0

Total motorized trails 276 276 163 276 276 367 276

Much of the discussion thus far in this section pertains to motorized recreation. That does not 

mean that non-motorized recreation does not have effects. However, the ease of access and the 

greater distance that can be covered by a motorized recreationist and, as a result, the potential for 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

508

disturbance and conflict with other Forest users is greater. In addition, the comments received 

during pre-revision meetings as well as during the public comment period on the draft revised 

Forest Plan reflected a greater concern over existing motorized use compared to non-motorized 

use.

Mechanized Use: Under the 1986 Forest Plan as amended, mechanized use is allowed 

everywhere on the Forest except for designated wilderness. Table 143 shows the total acres 

where mechanized use is allowed, by alternative. Mechanized acres were calculated using the 

total acres available for this type of use and were based on the following criteria: 

• Total management area acre allowance for mechanized use by alternative;

• Management area objectives that restrict mechanized use to system roads and trails. 

Table 143. Total acres allowable for mechanized use by alternative 

Alternatives (acres/total percentage)

A

(No action) B C D E F G

Mechanized use 

allowed1 1,072,00044%

1,015,400

42%

439,500

18%

846,700

35%

1,027,500

42%

1,042,700

43%

1,013,700 

42%

Mechanized use not 

allowed 

1,365,000

56%

1,394,000

57%

1,409,300

58%

1,394,000

57%

1,394,000

57%

1,394,000

57%

1,365,000 

56%

Mechanized use 

restricted to roads 

and trails 

1,280

0.05%

28,630

1%

589,200

24%

197,300

8%

16,500

1%

1,300

0%

59,212

2%

Alternatives vary with regard to the level of restrictions on mechanized use. The acres where all 

mechanized use is prohibited in similar across all the alternatives and varies strictly based upon 

how the alternative handle the Dunoir Special Management Unit and the High Lakes Wilderness 

Study Area. Alternative A permits mechanized use in each of those areas. All the action 

alternatives prohibit mechanized use in the Dunoir Special Management Unit except for 

alternative G, which allow use only on designated trails. In the High Lakes WSA all action 

alternatives, except for C and F allow mechanized use on designated roads and trails. In 

alternative C no mechanized use is allowed in the High Lakes WSA and in alternative F 

mechanized use is allowed in the High Lakes WSA.

Other than what is described above the allocations that impact the area where mechanized use is 

restricted to designated roads and trails are recommended wilderness and proposed research 

natural areas. These allocations result in variations across the alternatives with the largest acres 

occurring as a result of the recommended wilderness allocations in alternatives C and D. 

Alternative C has the greatest number of acres where mechanized use would be restricted to 

roads and trails. In this alternative, approximately 25 percent of the Forest would be restricted to 

roads and trails (table 144). In comparison, alternatives B, E, F, and G restrict mechanized use to 

system roads and trails on roughly 1 percent or less (0.05 percent in alternative F) of all acres on 

the Forest. Alternative D restricts more acres of mechanized use to system roads and trails than 

alternatives B, E, F, and G, but much less than alternative C. Management areas that restrict 

mechanized use to system roads and trails include: 1.2, 1.2A, 1.2B, 1.6A, 2.2A, 2.3, 3.1A, 3.1B, 

and 3.1C in alternatives C and D. Alternative A restricts mechanized use to system roads and 

trails in only one management area: 2.2A. Alternative B restricts mechanized use in management 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

509

areas 1.6A, 2.2A, 2.3, 3.1A, 3.1B, and 3.1C. Alternatives E and F restrict mechanized use in 

management areas 1.6 and 2.2A, while alternative E also restricts mechanized use to system 

roads and trails in management area 2.3.

Table 144. Summary of access availability (acres) by alternative based on management area 

prescriptions and currently closed areas that will remain closed in all alternatives (acres/percentage 

of forest)

Alternative Allow wheeled motor 

vehicle use 

Allow over-snow 

vehicle use 

Allow mechanized 

use*

A 570,000 (23%) 887,600 1 (36%) 1,073,000 (44%)

B 570,300 (23%) 481,200 (20%) 1,044,000 (43%)

C 321,800 (13%) 103,000 (4%) 1,028,800 (42%)

D 350,000 (14%) 323,800 (13%) 1,044,000 (43%)

E 655,900 (27%) 526,400 (22%) 1,044,000 (43%)

F 823,300 (34%) 825,200 (34%) 1,044,000 (43%)

G 529,000 (22%) 592,400 (24%) 1,044,000 (43%)

* Over-snow vehicle use does not currently occur on all accessible acres in alternative A. Use occurs on approximately 

the same number of acres that are accessible in alternative B.

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

Scenic Integrity Objectives: As mentioned in the Affected Environment section, the 

management area emphasis of each of the alternatives may have effects to the CDNST because 

of the scenery management system and recreation opportunity spectrum identified within the 

trail corridor (0.5 mile on either side of the center line). Alternatives are analyzed by the scenery 

management system and recreation opportunity spectrum proposed by each alternative, as 

displayed in table 145.

Table 145. Scenic integrity objectives within 1 mile corridor of existing Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail 

Scenic integrity 

objective 

Percentage of acreage by alternative

A B C D E F G

Very High 0 0 6 0 0 0 0

High 18 45 44 47 43 24 100

Moderate 73 54 49 52 56 71 0

Low 9 1 1 1 1 5 0

The desired scenic integrity objective for the CDNST is high or very high depending on the trail 

segment. The following effects analysis and table 146 describe the varying degree to which each 

alternative accomplishes this objective. One alternative, G, would have all acres within the 

0.5-mile corridor managed for high scenic integrity objective. Alternatives B, C, D, and E are 

somewhat similar in total percent for these two scenic integrity objectives and vary from 

43 percent (alternative E) to 50 percent (alternative C). Alternatives A and F, however, have 

significantly fewer acres in these two scenic integrity objectives, 18 percent and 24 percent, 

respectively, when compared to the rest of the alternatives. 

Alternative A: Alternative A has the least amount of acres within the CDNST corridor managed 

for scenic integrity objectives high and very high, when compared to all other alternatives. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

510

Therefore, this alternative would have the greatest negative effect to the CDNST for this 

measurement indicator.

Alternative B: Alternative B has 45 percent of acres within the CDNST corridor managed for 

the scenic integrity objectives high and very high. When compared to the other alternatives, 

alternative B has more acres for these scenic integrity objectives than alternatives A, E, and F, 

but less than alternatives C, D, and G.

Alternative C: Alternative C has the second most acres (50 percent) within the CDNST corridor 

managed for the scenic integrity objectives high and very high, when compared to all other 

alternatives. Therefore, this alternative would have the second least negative effect to the 

CDNST for this measurement indicator.

Alternative D: Alternative D has fewer acres (47 percent) than alternative C (50 percent) and 

alternative G (100 percent) within the CDNST corridor managed for the scenic integrity 

objectives high and very high. However, this alternative has more acres managed for these two 

scenic integrity objectives when compared to all other alternatives (alternatives A, B, E, and F).

Alternative E: Alternative E has fewer acres (43 percent) than alternative B (45 percent), C 

(50 percent), D (47 percent), and G (100 percent) within the CDNST corridor managed for the 

scenic integrity objectives high and very high. However, this alternative has more acres managed 

for these two scenic integrity objectives when compared to alternatives A and F.

Alternative F: Alternative F has the fewest acres (24 percent) within the CDNST corridor 

managed for the scenic integrity objectives high and very high when compared to the rest of the 

action alternatives. However, this alternative has more acres managed for these two scenic 

integrity objectives when compared to alternative A.

Alternative G: All the acres within the CDNST corridor in this alternative are managed for a 

high scenic integrity objective, representing the most acres in the high and/or very high category 

of all the alternatives analyzed.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: Where possible, the CDNST should be in recreation 

opportunity spectrum classes primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized. The following effects 

analysis describes the varying degree to which each alternative accomplishes this objective. 

None of the alternatives would have all acres within the 1-mile corridor managed for recreation 

opportunity spectrum classes of primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized. Alternatives A, B,

E, and G are somewhat similar in total percentage for these two recreation opportunity spectrum 

classes and vary from 23 percent (alternative E) to 25 percent (alternatives A, B, and G). 

Alternatives C and D have the greatest number of acres managed for these two classes, 

32 percent and 31 percent, respectively. These two alternatives best meet the objective of 

locating the CDNST in primitive and semi-primitive. Alternative F does not have any acres 

within these two recreation opportunity spectrum classes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

511

Table 146. Recreation opportunity spectrum classes within 1-mile corridor of existing Continental 

Divide National Scenic Trail 

Recreation opportunity 

spectrum class

Percentage of acreage by alternative

A B C D E F G

Rural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Roaded natural 34 24 24 24 24 24 24

Semi-primitive motorized 42 51 45 45 53 76 51

Semi-primitive non-motorized 25 25 26 31 23 0 25

Primitive 0 0 6 0 0 0 0

Nez Perce National Historic Trail

The desired scenic integrity objective for the NPNHT is high or very high due to the 

management objectives aimed at preserving the original scenic integrity at the time this route 

was originally utilized by the Nez Perce. Table 147 and the following effects analysis describe 

the varying degree to which each alternative accomplishes this objective. 

The preferred alternative, G, would have all acres within the 1-mile corridor managed for scenic 

integrity objectives of high and very high. Alternatives A, B, E, and F are somewhat similar in 

total percentage for these two scenic integrity objectives and vary from 87 percent (alternative F) 

to 89 percent (alternatives B and E). Alternatives C, D, and G have the most acres in these two 

scenic integrity objectives, ranging from 97 percent in alternative D to 100 percent in alternative 

G. Alternative G best meets the objective of preserving the historic scenic integrity of the Nez 

Perce trail, followed by alternatives C and D.

Table 147. Scenic integrity objectives within the 1-mile corridor of Nez Perce National Historic Trail

Scenic integrity 

objective 

Percentage of acreage by alternative

A B C D E F G

Very high 34 48 51 50 48 48 50

High 54 41 47 47 41 39 50

Moderate 12 11 2 3 11 13 0

Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Recreation Setting

Management area allocations will affect recreation visitation and use, to some extent, in each 

alternative. The quantity, quality, and distribution of recreation opportunities depend on the mix 

of recreation opportunity spectrum classes available and the objectives they are attempting to 

achieve. Management area desired conditions for recreation opportunity spectrum classifications 

are displayed in table 148 by alternative. 

Recreation may affect the natural setting (depending on facilities), site mitigations, user 

behaviors, user densities, site capability, design, and many other elements. Visitor use is 

expected to continue increasing, regardless of alternative selected. Management actions, which 

might include restrictions or limitations on use, such as seasonal or yearlong closures, can be 

taken to maintain a mix of recreation opportunity spectrum settings. The motor vehicle use maps 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

512

designate routes open to wheeled motor vehicle use. Additional site-specific travel planning will 

determine specific routes where motorized use is allowed within the recreation opportunity 

spectrum.

Table 148. Percentage of recreation opportunity spectrum by alternative

Recreation opportunity 

spectrum class

Percentage of forest acreage by alternative

A B C D E F G

Rural 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Roaded natural 9 7 5 6 7 6 7

Semi-primitive motorized 12 17 8 9 20 27 16

Semi-primitive non-motorized 23 21 5 21 17 10 21

Primitive 56 56 82 64 56 56 56

The recreation opportunity spectrum classifications reflect the overall theme and character 

expressed by the mix of management area allocations in each alternative; as such, the setting, 

facilities, and character of recreation vary by alternative. Alternatives C and D reflect additional 

wilderness and non-motorized back country settings. Alternatives E and F reflect more emphasis 

on development, active management, and motorized recreation. Alternatives B and G include 

less wilderness and non-motorized back country settings when compared to alternatives C and D, 

but more of these settings when compared to alternatives E and F. 

Alternative C has the highest percentage of the forest managed for the recreation opportunity 

spectrum class of primitive (82 percent) followed by alternative D (64 percent). This would have 

a direct positive effect on the quality and quantity of primitive recreational opportunities 

available to visitors of the Shoshone National Forest when compared to the no-action alternative 

(alternative A). Conversely, these two alternatives would have a direct negative effect on the 

quality and quantity of semi-primitive motorized recreational opportunities available due to the 

low percentage of the forest managed for these types of recreation. Alternative F has the highest 

percentage of area managed for the recreation opportunity spectrum class of semi-primitive 

motorized (27 percent). This has a direct positive effect on the quality and quantity of semiprimitive motorized and an equal and opposite (negative) direct effect on the recreation 

opportunity spectrum class of semi-primitive non-motorized recreational opportunity when 

compared to the no-action alternative (alternative A). All alternatives have roughly the same 

amount of forest managed for both recreation opportunity spectrum classes, rural and roaded 

natural, when compared to the no-action alternative (alternative A). Cumulatively, alternatives B 

and G have the least amount of change from the no-action alternative (alternative A) across all

recreation opportunity spectrum classes when compared to the other action alternatives.

Developed Recreation Sites

There are no anticipated direct or indirect effects to developed recreation sites from any 

alternatives. As mentioned in the Recreation affected environment section, persons at one time 

(PAOTs) have increased over the years due to increases in capacity of individual sites. This trend 

may continue into the future, but will not be contingent on what alternative is selected.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

513

Dispersed Recreation 

Effects to dispersed recreation are indirectly covered under the travel management section, and 

described by the difference in acres available for wheeled motorized use, over-snow vehicle use, 

and mechanized use. The number of miles of roads and motorized trails available for wheeled 

motor vehicle use would change based on the projected future motorized trail and road additions. 

Because alternative F provides the largest amount of projected future trail and road additions, 

there would be the largest increase in motorized dispersed recreation under this alternative. 

Alternative C would have the least amount of motorized dispersed recreation of all alternatives 

because of the reduction in miles of existing motorized trails and road systems (table 139 and 

table 140). The number of acres available for cross-country wheeled motor vehicle use is the 

same for the seven alternatives since there are no proposed changes to the prohibition of crosscountry travel in any of the management areas. 

Where wheeled motor vehicle use may be allowed (where roads or trails may exist and be 

designated for such use) in any given alternative affects where potential dispersed use could 

occur. Alternative F provides the most area (34 percent), followed by E (27 percent), B (23 

percent), G (22 percent), D (14 percent), and C with the least area (13 percent).

Similarly, where over-snow motor vehicle use may be allowed in any given alternative affects 

where potential winter dispersed use could occur. Alternative F provides the most area 

(34 percent), followed by G (24 percent), E (22 percent), B (20 percent), D (13 percent), and C 

with the least area (4 percent).

Recreation Special Use Authorizations

In general, new outfitting and guiding activities that are not suitable within a management area 

allocation would not be allowed. Some outfitting and guiding activities would not be suitable in 

designated wilderness. In addition, within the pristine wilderness setting commercial outfitting 

and guiding services are prohibited. The pristine wilderness setting would increase in alternatives 

C and D. Outfitting and guiding services that are tied to designated wilderness could increase in 

alternatives C and D, which have additional recommended wilderness. 

Scenic Byways

None of the alternatives propose changes to the existing scenic byways or All American Road. In 

addition, none of the alternatives propose new scenic byways or the removal of these 

designations. There would be no direct or indirect effects to scenic byways from all alternatives.

Summary of Effects 

As described above, the alternatives result in varying degrees of effects to access and recreation. 

Alternatives F and E would, respectively, would provide the most opportunities for summer and 

winter motorized recreational opportunities. This is a direct result of the combined increase in 

allowable acres for summer and winter travel as well as the increase in projected future miles of 

motorized trails and roads within these two alternatives. Alternatives C and D would, 

respectively, would provide the least opportunities for summer and winter motorized recreational 

opportunities of all alternatives. Alternatives B and G would provide a lesser degree of these 

opportunities than both alternatives E and F, but more than alternatives C and D. There is 

essentially no change in opportunities for mechanized use across all alternatives. However, 

alternatives C and D restrict mechanized use to system roads and trails on the largest number of 

total acres, affecting to the greatest extent of all alternatives, where this type of recreation can 

take place.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

514

Overall, alternatives C and D would have very minimal effects to both the CDNST and the 

NPNHT. Alternative B is somewhat similar to alternative A and would have slightly more 

impacts to these two trails when compared to alternatives C, D, and G, yet less than alternatives 

E and F.

Recreational settings and objectives would shift as a result of changed recreation opportunity 

spectrum objectives identified for each alternative. Alternatives F and E have objectives aiming 

to provide a more developed recreational setting compared to the other alternatives. This is a 

direct result in the total percentage of the forest managed for recreation opportunity spectrum 

class semi-primitive motorized. Alternatives C and D have objectives aiming to provide a less 

developed recreational setting compared to the other alternatives. These two have the highest 

percentage of acres managed for the recreation opportunity spectrum class of primitive. This is a 

direct result of both of these alternatives proposing recommended wilderness. As mentioned 

previously, alternative B and G has the least amount of change from the no-action alternative 

(alternative A) across all recreation opportunity spectrum classes when compared to all the other 

action alternatives. Alternative B and G provide for less developed recreational settings than 

alternatives E and F, but more than alternatives C and D.

Effects to Access and Recreation from Forest Plan Components Associated with Other 

Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Timber Harvesting: Commercial timber harvest activities will generally result in 

road reconstruction and continued application of best management practices on existing system 

roads. New road construction is likely to be limited with temporary road construction used as a 

more common method for short-term access needs.

Administrative use of gated roads that normally prohibit public motor vehicle use is likely when 

management activities such as precommercial thinning, invasive weed treatments, or other noncommercial silvicultural treatments are planned.

Because managed land (management area category 4, 5, and 8) allocations are lowest in 

alternative C compared to other action alternatives, it would generally be expected to result in 

the least amount of vegetation management activities and hence a lower amount of road use 

compared to alternatives B, D, E, F, and G. Consequently, reduced traffic (i.e., number of 

vehicles on roads), both commercial and administrative, can be expected. Associated with 

reduced commercial use is the reduction of road reconstruction. Road maintenance activities 

performed in conjunction with commercial use would also occur less often since this work is 

only required commensurate with use.

Timber harvest has the potential to affect recreation experiences and opportunities in several 

ways. Short-term effects may include increased noise and dust levels; temporary road and trail 

closures due to harvesting activity; the sight of landscapes altered by differing types of 

harvesting; the presence of slash piles, burned areas, and roads constructed for timber sales; 

conflicts with logging trucks on roads used by other drivers or by bicyclists; and the removal of 

snow for winter log hauling from roads frequented by snowmobilers, cross-country skiers, and 

snowshoers. Users may be temporarily displaced to other locations because of log truck traffic 

and the noise from harvest activities. Visitors may experience prolonged displacement the longer 

a project or series of projects continue in the same vicinity.

Alternative F has the highest number of acres generally suitable for timber production 

(251,200 acres) where most of the timber harvest and other vegetation management activities 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

515

will take place, followed by alternatives E, B, and G (same number of acres), D, C, and A, 

respectively. Timber harvest and road building can create changes to the landscape, resulting in 

changes to recreation opportunity spectrum classifications. Alternative F has the greatest 

potential to convert semi-primitive settings to roaded natural settings, followed by alternatives E, 

B and G, D, C, and A in descending order. Partial cutting could lessen the effects to 

recreationists. Road development for timber management purposes in undeveloped areas has the 

potential to attract more visitors to the interior of the Forest where motorized access previously 

has been limited. As use increases, visitors to these areas would experience less solitude and 

remoteness. Primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized settings could change to semi-primitive 

motorized and roaded natural settings. This change would only occur after a travel management 

analysis and decision, and would be reflected in changes to the motor vehicle use map in 

conjunction with vegetation management activities. Recreational benefits from vegetation 

management can include new roads and trails and the opportunity to gather firewood. In some 

cases, roads built for logging operations are then used by recreationists, although these roads 

typically are closed and/or decommissioned after completion of the timber harvest activity. 

Depending on resource objectives, some roads may be left open to the general public, causing an 

increase in the quantity of dispersed recreation opportunities.

Effects from Fires/Fuels Management: Fuels management activities (e.g., prescribed burning) 

are likely to continue. Administrative use of gated roads that normally prohibit motor vehicle use 

year-round is likely when these management activities occur.

Fire suppression actions are also likely to continue and could result in the use of gated roads as 

described above. In some cases, roads that are impassible to motor vehicles (due to re-vegetation 

or other restrictive condition) may be opened to facilitate suppression actions. These roads would 

probably be used for the duration of the suppression efforts and post-fire work and then returned 

to their previous status.

Estimated wildfire acres for the alternatives range from a low of 161,400 acres for alternative F 

to a high of 185,200 acres for alternative A. Some of the acres burned may be based on the 

decision to allow fire to accomplish resource objectives related to wilderness and/or ecosystem 

restoration. In some situations, the fire may be unwanted, but consideration of firefighter safety 

could warrant less aggressive suppression actions. In both cases, the potential for long-duration 

fire and its associated effects is likely. Potential effects to recreation include the following:

• Area closures that displace recreationists;

• Loss of opportunity to fill a hunting tag due to an area closure or recent fire impacts;

• Threats and/or loss of revenue to permitted uses such as recreation residences, resorts, 

and outfitter and guides;

• Damage to trails and trail structures; and

• Loss and damage to developed recreation infrastructure.

Alternatives A through D and G have similar effects. Alternatives E and F have fewer estimated 

acres burned due to the emphasis on protecting more acres of suitable timber production lands, 

and thus, would have less potential effects from wildfire on recreation than A, B, C, D, and G.

All alternatives emphasize fuels reduction within and adjacent to the wildland-urban interface, 

which includes most of the developed recreation sites. Alternatives A, B, C, D, and G would 

result in similar effects. Alternatives E and F would have more acreage available for potential 

fuels reduction. Insects and disease affect recreation primarily through increased threats to public 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

516

health and safety from the presence of hazard trees or increased loss of access to trails due to 

more downfall. These effects are similar across alternatives A, B, C, D, and G, and somewhat 

less under alternatives E and F because more acres are assigned to active management.

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game: Recreation would be affected by livestock 

grazing in much the same way in all alternatives. Effects of livestock management include: 

presence of riders and herders, cattle or sheep, fences, livestock driveways, cow camp cabins, 

corrals, pastures, livestock tanks, ponds, and cropped forage. Other effects such as trampled 

vegetation, manure, and concentrations of insects may adversely affect the recreational 

experience. 

Conflicts can occur between visitors, their dogs, cattle herds, bands of sheep, and the dogs used 

to control herds. These concerns are most often expressed by recreationists who prefer a 

livestock-free experience. 

Effects from Mineral and Energy Development: The Forest Service does not initiate 

exploration or development of mineral or energy resources. Proposals for exploration and 

development are driven by external parties and market forces and regulated by existing mining 

law. Access resulting from road development (long-term or temporary) is often associated with 

mineral exploration and development, but a site-specific analysis is required prior to any 

approval for exploration or development activities.

Any mine reclamation activities would likely use existing roads. These may be roads that are not 

currently designated for motor vehicle use. These roads would probably be used for the duration 

of the reclamation work and then returned to their previous status.

Recreation could be affected by mineral exploration and extraction in all alternatives. Nonmotorized settings could potentially change to motorized settings. Short-term effects may 

include noise and visual effects from open-pit or underground mining operations. In the long 

term, effects may include: development resulting in a less natural-appearing landscape; new 

permanent underground or open pit mines and physical structures; and new roads and road 

corridors constructed for mining or drilling operations that may change the recreation setting. 

The potential for oil and gas development on the Shoshone is low to very low. Well sites and 

other facilities would affect national forest visitors depending on the location of development 

and the setting affected.

Effects from Wildlife Habitat Management: All alternatives include direction contained in 

both the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 2007) and the 

final conservation strategy for the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area (Interagency 

Conservation Strategy Team 2007). In alternatives A through E and G, those decisions affect 

locations where wheeled motorized vehicle use will be allowed and limit additional opportunities 

for over-snow vehicle use.

Forest-wide wildlife management direction can directly affect motorized recreation 

opportunities. Restrictions that limit types of access and seasonal closures during sensitive 

periods, such as mating, calving, and when animals emerge from dens, can temporarily displace 

recreationists to other areas. The Shoshone’s motor vehicle use map limits wheeled, motorized 

uses to designated routes yearlong or seasonally, often in response to wildlife needs. Alternative 

C is the only alternative that would reduce the miles of motorized roads and trails open for 

public motorized use. This is, in part, due to forest plan management direction in alternative C to 

prohibit public motorized use in inventoried roadless areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

517

Restrictions to winter motorized use based on management area allocation vary slightly by 

alternative. Several management areas prohibit winter motorized recreation, including 

snowmobiles. 

Total percentages of national forest open to over-snow vehicles and motorized winter recreation 

by alternative are shown in table 144 and range from 4 percent in alternative C, to 36 percent in 

alternative A. Alternatives D (13 percent), B (20 percent), E (22 percent), and G (24 percent) fall 

within the range.

Big game crucial winter range (as mapped by the WGFD) is found in numerous areas on the 

Shoshone. In some cases, these areas prohibit winter motorized travel or limit new groomed 

trails. This varies by alternative, with alternative F allowing the most acres of crucial winter 

range open for winter motorized use and alternative C allowing no winter motorized use on 

crucial winter range. 

Recreational benefits from wildlife management could include increased hunter and wildlife 

viewer satisfaction, as well as maintaining angler satisfaction. The effect on recreation from 

wildlife management is generally the same for all alternatives.

Effects from Aquatic Management: Recreational benefits from aquatic management could 

include increased satisfaction by water recreation users as well as those utilizing lakes and 

streams for fishing. The effect on recreation from aquatic management is the same for all 

alternatives.

Effects from Land Use Authorizations: Various laws provide for rights-of-way over public 

lands. The Forest Service is responsible for all existing permits located on NFS lands, including 

their administration, amendment, and renewal when authorized and appropriate. The effect on 

recreation from land use authorizations is generally the same for all alternatives.

Effects from Wilderness Areas: Wilderness areas (as well as recommended wilderness areas) 

provide opportunities for primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized recreation. Motorized use 

is not allowed within wilderness or recommended wilderness. One effect of additional 

wilderness designation in Wyoming would be a reduction of areas where nonresidents can hunt 

big-game unguided, since State law requires a licensed guide within designated wilderness for 

nonresidents.

As illustrated in table 149, alternative C has the most acres (628,800 acres) of recommended 

wilderness; it places essentially all of the inventoried roadless areas into recommended 

wilderness. Alternative D is the only other alternative that proposes wilderness recommendation 

(194,400 acres). Alternatives A, B, E, F, and G do not recommend any additional wilderness.

Table 149. Recommended wilderness acres by alternative 

Wilderness 

recommendations

Alternatives

A B C D E F G

Acres 0 0 628,800 194,400 0 0 0

Effects from Research Natural Area Allocation: Research natural area (RNA) designation can 

affect the scope of available recreation opportunities. RNA designation prohibits motorized 

recreation aside from over-snow vehicle travel on designated trails. It also prohibits the 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

518

construction of new roads and trails, except when they are necessary to correct resource damage 

occurring from existing travelways or unless needed for administrative purposes consistent with 

RNA establishment objectives. Potential impacts to recreation opportunities are discussed by 

potential RNAs below:

• Beartooth Butte − Approximately half of this potential RNA lies within the North 

Absaroka Wilderness and half outside of the wilderness. No system trails or roads lie 

within this proposed area. Approximately 1 mile of a system trail is located along the 

west boundary and sections of system trail parallel portions of the proposed boundary on 

the northeast and southeast. No outfitter and guide assigned sites are located within the 

area and no assigned sites are located adjacent to or near the area. Beartooth Butte is 

immediately adjacent to the popular Beartooth Lakes Campground and the Clay Butte 

Lookout tower and includes popular areas for snow play by snowmobilers. There would 

be little or no impact to the recreation resource from allocating this area as an RNA. 

• Lake Creek − All of this potential RNA lies within the North Absaroka Wilderness. 

There are no system trails or roads within this area. Approximately 1 mile of a system 

trail is located along the west boundary and sections of system trail parallel portions of 

proposed boundary on the northwest and the northern border. No outfitter and guide 

assigned sites are located within the area and no assigned sites are located adjacent to or 

near the area. This potential RNA is just to the north of the Lilly Lake campground. 

There would be little or no impact to the recreation resource from designating this area 

as an RNA.

• Pat O’Hara − All but roughly one-sixth of this potential RNA lies within the North 

Absaroka Wilderness. A little over 2 miles of a system trail, Dead Indian, occurs within 

the wilderness portion of the area. No outfitter and guide assigned sites occur within the 

area and the closest assigned site outside of the area is approximately 1 mile west; there 

would be no effects to existing special use permittees. Use and maintenance of system 

trails would continue as currently administered. There would be little or no impact to the 

recreation resource from designating this area as an RNA.

• Bald Ridge − All of this potential RNA occurs outside of designated wilderness. No 

system trails or roads lie within this area, but one system trail borders it for 

approximately 1 mile on the southwest. This area is adjacent to the Clarks Fork Wild and 

Scenic River corridor. No outfitter and guide assigned sites are located within the area 

and no assigned sites are located adjacent to or near the area. There would be little or no 

impact to the recreation resource from designating this area as an RNA.

• Grizzly Creek − Approximately two-thirds of this potential RNA lies within the North 

Absaroka Wilderness and one-third lies outside of the wilderness. A little over 2 miles of 

a system trail (Horse Creek Trail) occurs in the area with about half inside wilderness 

and half outside the wilderness portion. No outfitter and guide assigned sites are located 

within the area and no assigned sites are located adjacent to or near the area. Use and 

maintenance of system trails would continue as currently administered. There would be 

little or no impacts to the recreation resource from designating this area as an RNA.

• Sheep Mesa − Approximately half of this potential RNA lies within the Washakie 

Wilderness and half outside of the wilderness. A little over 3 miles of a system trail 

(Natural Bridge Trail) occurs in the non-wilderness portion and no system trails occur in 

the wilderness portion. The Sheep Mesa outfitter and guide assigned site is located at the 

end of the system trail, outside of the wilderness. A sheep spike camp is also located in 

the area approximately 0.5 mile from the assigned site. Use and maintenance of system 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

519

trails would continue as currently administered. There would be little or no impact to the 

recreation resource from designating this area as an RNA.

• Arrow Mountain − All of this potential RNA lies within the Popo Agie Wilderness area. 

A short (approximately 1 mile) non-system access trail authorized for use by an outfitter 

or guide is present that provides access to one assigned site located within the proposed 

area. Use and maintenance of system trails would continue as currently administered. 

There would be little or no impact to the recreation resource from designating this area 

as an RNA.

• Roaring Fork − All of this potential RNA lies within the Popo Agie Wilderness. 

Approximately 1 mile of system trail is within this area that provides access to Stough 

Creek Lakes. Use and maintenance of this trail would continue as currently 

administered. No outfitter and guide assigned sites occur within the proposed area. The 

closest assigned site is approximately 2 miles northwest of the potential RNA. No effects 

to existing special use permittees are anticipated. There would be little or no impact to 

the recreation resource from designating this area as an RNA.

In summary, outside of winter motorized recreation, there would be no effects from RNA 

allocation to the recreation resource by any of the action alternatives when compared to 

alternative A. Existing roads and trails contained within any new RNA would continue to be 

open to the public for recreational purposes. A minor negative effect on winter motorized 

recreation would result from the cross-country prohibition of winter motorized use currently 

occurring in the Beartooth Butte RNA proposed in alternatives C and D. In these two 

alternatives, winter motorized use would be allowed only on system trails. 

Effects from SIA Allocation: Special interest area (SIA) designations would have very little 

effect on recreation. Restrictions to certain types of recreation opportunities in these areas are the 

result of management for reasons other than potential SIA designation. For example, the majority 

of the Little Popo Agie Moraine and all of Sawtooth Peatbeds lie within inventoried roadless 

areas, thus limiting motorized recreation opportunities. On the other hand, back country nonmotorized recreation opportunities exist. For the most part, current management would continue 

on the following proposed SIAs.

• Kirwin Historical Site – The potential SIA comprises approximately 480 acres under 

alternatives B, C, D, and E. Under alternatives A and F, Kirwin would not be designated 

as an SIA. Under alternative G, the area is expanded to roughly 4,500 acres, 

encompassing the historical mining district. The 53-acre Double D Ranch Historical site 

would also be added to this SIA under alternative G. The Double D Ranch is less than 4 

miles northeast of the Kirwin site; the two areas are not adjacent to each other. Both 

areas can be accessed via NFS Road 200 (Wood River). Portions of three system trails 

run through the potential SIA. Use and maintenance of system roads and trails would 

continue as currently administered. There would be few to no impacts to the recreation 

resource from designating this area as an SIA. 

• Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological Area – Approximately two-thirds of the potential 

SIA lies in an inventoried roadless area. Approximately 1.8 miles of the Maxon Basin 

Road (NFS Road 354) runs through the portion outside of an inventoried roadless area 

and just under 2 miles of the Louis Lake Road (NFS Road 300) borders the southwest 

boundary of the potential SIA. Use and maintenance of these roads would continue as

currently administered. There would be few to no impacts to the recreation resource 

from designating this area as an SIA.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

520

• Sawtooth Peatbeds Geological Area – This potential SIA lies entirely within an 

inventoried roadless area. It is bisected by 1.2 miles of the Morrison Jeep Road (NFS 

Road 120), which is seasonally closed. Use and maintenance of this road would continue 

as currently administered. There would be few to no impacts to the recreation resource 

from designating this area as an SIA.

Considering the various alternatives, B, C, D and G would establish the three SIAs listed above. 

Under alternative G, the Kirwin Historical Site would be much larger than in alternatives B, C, 

and D, and would include the Double D Ranch Historical Site. Under alternative E, only the 

Kirwin Historical Site would be established as an SIA at the same size as in alternatives B, C, 

and D and without the Double D Ranch property. Under alternatives A and F, no SIAs would be 

established. There would be no effects from SIA designation to the recreation resource by any of 

the action alternatives when compared to alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreational access across the Shoshone is likely to be influenced by a variety of factors. Given 

the mixed land ownership (State lands, private, BLM) in and around the Forest and the 

continuing management actions taken on these lands, there may be options for new access 

opportunities through cooperative and cost-share agreements. Future travel management 

decisions may include changes to individual roads and trails open to motorized use. 

A slight rise in population is a general trend in the region, and this often leads to increased use of 

forest roads and trails. The degree of change in traffic will likely vary due to economic 

conditions (e.g., energy costs) and other demographics.

Commercial traffic (timber hauling) can be expected to fluctuate to some degree, relative to 

vegetation management activities. Market conditions and other external factors can often 

influence activity levels. These traffic conditions are usually limited to relatively small 

geographic areas and short periods of time. Hauling occurs more often during the summer 

months, but is not uncommon during the winter months, as well.

Change in ownership of private lands can result in continued requests for road access across NFS 

lands. Depending on the circumstances, these may be requests for Forest or Private Road Special 

Use Authorizations. Depending on the terms and conditions written into any new authorizations, 

opportunities for access to NFS lands may be created.

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail: Currently there are two potential proposed re-routes 

that have had cultural resource and botanical surveys completed. Because the CDNST relocation 

planning processes are ongoing, they were considered a reasonably foreseeable future action. 

The location of the proposed re-routes is designed to improve the intended management 

objectives related to recreation opportunity spectrum and scenic integrity objective. Alternatives 

C and D would have the least impacts to any of the proposed routes. These alternatives 

emphasize minimal development and contain management area allocation more consistent with 

the general management plan for the CDNST. Alternatives E and F would, respectively, have the 

most impacts to the alternative locations for the proposed CDNST re-routes because of the 

management area emphasis of more development. Alternatives B and G would have more 

impacts in terms of recreation opportunity spectrum, than alternatives C and D, but fewer 

impacts than alternatives E and F. In terms of the scenic integrity objective, alternative G most 

closely meets it because 78 percent of the area in the alternate route corridor is in the high 

category. Alternative A would have the greatest impacts to the proposed CDNST re-routes when 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

521

using the two measurement indicators of recreation opportunity spectrum and scenic integrity 

objective.

Recreation: The Shoshone has experienced many changes in recreation since the Forest was 

established, and even over the life of the 1986 Forest Plan as amended. Initially, recreation was 

light and concentrated in just several popular areas, with few campgrounds or other site 

development. Another major boom in recreation occurred after World War II through the early to 

mid-1960s, as post-war populations started heading to the national forests, demanding more and 

better recreation facilities.

Since the 1970s, interest in and appreciation of the environment has increased national forest 

recreation visitation and has shifted activities and expectations. As temperatures increase during 

the summer and a majority of the Shoshone is free from snow cover, many people venture out to 

the national forests for relief from the heat and to pursue traditional outdoor recreational 

opportunities.

Technical advancements in motorized vehicles (all-terrain vehicles, motorcycles, snowmobiles, 

side-by-sides, rock-crawlers, etc.) allow these types of vehicles to travel many places where they 

were unable to travel as recently as 5 years ago. The invention and advancement of the mountain 

bike has added a summer non-motorized use that was not considered when the 1986 Forest Plan 

as amended was written. All of these issues, along with several others, have led to more crowded 

recreation experiences during peak use times, increasing levels and range of demands on natural 

resources and resource managers, and more conflicts among the users themselves.

Continuing changes in equipment technology used for recreational purposes on the Forest will 

have effects as new or existing uses change the ease with which or areas where people recreate. 

These changes in uses may alter the recreational experience in some areas. Those who pursue 

non-motorized recreation opportunities, such as hiking or back-country skiing, in remote settings 

will be more affected than other users.

All alternatives emphasize a mix of recreation opportunities providing today’s recreationists with 

reasonable assurances of future motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities. 

Alternatives E and F may provide more recreation opportunities toward the developed end of the 

recreation opportunity spectrum classes by accelerating development of the Shoshone with a 

variety of management actions. Some values such as remoteness, solitude, and wildlife-related 

recreation opportunities may be reduced in alternatives E and F. Alternatives C and D propose 

the least amount of forest management, thereby, emphasizing the primitive and semi-primitive 

classes of recreational opportunities. In comparison, alternative A, B, and G provide a mix of 

both.

Climate Change

Rice et al. (2012) synthesized past climate, climate projections, and ecosystem implications 

resulting from climate change as they relate to the Shoshone. In their findings they predict the 

following potential consequences related to recreation as a result of documented climate trends: 

• Potential increase in summer recreation and tourism opportunities, but decreased winter 

recreation opportunities;

• Potential reductions of snow recreation opportunities for skiing, snowshoeing, and 

snowmobiling, especially at lower elevations;

• Altered timing of recreational opportunities—potentially earlier and shorter for fishing, 

rafting, and kayaking;
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

522

• Potential reduction of up to half the annual water supply for recreational opportunities 

during drought;

• Potential reduction or loss of recreational opportunities for fishing native cold water 

species with the reduction in habitat quality and area; and

• Potential decrease in recreational fishing opportunities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

523

Special Areas

Designated Wilderness and Recommended Wilderness

Introduction

This section examines the extent to which the no-action (alternative A) and the action 

alternatives (alternatives B through G) affect designated wilderness on the Shoshone National 

Forest. The 1964 Wilderness Act defines wilderness as an area of undeveloped Federal land 

retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human 

habitation. Currently, effects to wilderness are measured by how any particular project or 

planning effort modifies the wilderness character of a wilderness area. Since the passing of the 

1964 Wilderness Act, Forest Service and wilderness scholars have attempted to describe 

wilderness character. Landres et al. (2011) writes: 

Based on Section 2c, “Definition of Wilderness,” in the 1964 Wilderness Act and 

building on the writing of Howard Zahniser (Zahniser 1956; Harvey 2007), wilderness 

scholars (Rohlf and Honnold 1988; McCloskey 1999; Scott 2002), and earlier work to 

describe and use wilderness character (Landres et al. 2005; Landres et al. 2008b), an 

interagency team published Keeping It Wild (Landres et al. 2008a), which identified five 

distinct and necessary “qualities” of wilderness character. These qualities were selected 

to be tangible, link local conditions and management directly to the statutory language 

of the 1964 Wilderness Act, and apply throughout the entire area of a wilderness. They 

apply to every wilderness regardless of size, location, agency administration, or any 

other attribute.

These five distinct qualities used to define wilderness character include:

Natural: Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern 

civilization. This quality is degraded by many things, such as loss of indigenous species, 

occurrence of nonindigenous species, alteration of ecological processes such as water flow and 

fire regimes, effects of climate change, loss of dark skies, and occurrence of artificial sounds. It 

is preserved or improved, for example, by controlling or removing nonindigenous species or 

restoring ecological processes

Solitude or a pristine and unconfined type of recreation: Wilderness provides outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. This quality is primarily about 

the opportunity for people to experience wilderness, and is influenced by settings that affect this 

opportunity. It is preserved or improved by management actions that reduce visitor encounters 

and signs of modern civilization inside the wilderness. In contrast, this quality is degraded by 

agency-provided recreation facilities, management restrictions on visitor behavior, and actions 

that increase visitor encounters.

Undeveloped: Wilderness retains its primeval character and influence and is essentially without 

permanent improvement or modern human occupation. This quality is influenced by what are 

commonly called the “Section 4c prohibited uses,” that is, the presence of modern structures, 

installations, habitations, and use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical 

transport. The removal of structures and not conducting these prohibited uses preserve or 

improve this quality. In contrast, the presence of structures and prohibited uses degrades this 

quality, whether by the agency for administrative purposes, by others authorized by the agency, 

or when there are unauthorized uses.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

524

Untrammeled: Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from the actions of modern human 

control or manipulation. This quality is influenced by any activity or action that controls or 

manipulates the components or processes of ecological systems inside the wilderness. 

Management actions that are not taken support or preserve the untrammeled quality, while 

actions that are taken degrade this quality, even when these actions are taken to protect 

resources, such as spraying herbicides to eradicate or control nonindigenous species or reducing 

fuels accumulated from decades of fire exclusion.

Other Features: “In addition to these four qualities, there may be a fifth quality, called other 

features, based on the last clause of Section 2c in the 1964 Wilderness Act, that a wilderness 

‘may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historical value.’ Unlike the preceding four qualities that apply to every wilderness, this fifth 

quality is unique to an individual wilderness based on the features that are inside that wilderness. 

These features typically occur only in specific locations within a wilderness and include cultural 

resources, historical sites, paleontological sites, or any feature not in one of the other four 

qualities that has scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. While many different types 

of features could be included, the intent is to include those that are significant or integral to the 

park and wilderness. Features mentioned in park or wilderness enabling legislation would likely 

qualify, such as the historic sites in Death Valley Wilderness and volcanoes in Katmai 

Wilderness. Likewise, significant cultural sites, whether mentioned in enabling legislation or not, 

occur in most wildernesses and have scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” (page 44 

Landres et al. 2012).

In addition, the forest planning process requires that unless otherwise provided by law, all 

roadless, undeveloped areas that satisfy the definition of wilderness found in section 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 should be evaluated and considered for recommendation as potential 

wilderness areas during plan development. To satisfy this requirement, an evaluation of areas for 

potential wilderness was completed in 2008, and edited in 2012. Thirty-four areas were 

evaluated for capability, and availability, using the process identified in Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, chapter 70.

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws

These acts, along with other land use laws, executive orders, and policies guide management of 

designated wilderness on NFS lands. Other laws pertinent to wilderness management of NFS 

lands can be found in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2320 - Wilderness Management.

Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136): This act provides the statutory 

definition of wilderness and management requirements for these congressionally designated 

areas. This act established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be administered in such 

a manner as to leave these areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The act 

also designated the North Absaroka Wilderness as part of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System.

Public Law 92-476, October 9, 1972: Added the Stratified Primitive Area as Part to the South 

Absaroka Wilderness and renamed both to the Washakie Wilderness. The law also provided 

direction on management of the Dunoir Special Management Unit.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

525

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1600): Provides 

that management direction for wilderness be incorporated into forest plans and sets minimum 

standards for the content of the plans. 

Public Law 94-557, October 19, 1976: Designated the “Glacier Wilderness Proposed” as the 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness, a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Public Law 98-550, October 30, 1984 Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984: Designated portions 

of the Forest as the Popo Agie Wilderness, added the Glacier Addition to the Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness, added the South Fork addition to the Washakie Wilderness, added the High Lakes 

Addition to the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, and designated the High Lakes Wilderness 

Study Area.

Regulation and Policies

Regulations and policies have been adopted in support of these laws and are documented in the 

following:

• Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2320 Wilderness Management

• Rocky Mountain Regional supplements

○ 2300-94-1 (2320.1-2323.26b Wilderness Implementation Schedules)

○ 2300-94-2 (2323.3-2328.04 Management of Other Resources in Wilderness)

Other Agreements

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management, which established policies 

and guidelines for cooperative management of fish and wildlife in congressionally designated 

wilderness areas. 

An MOU between the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the Forest Service on fish, 

wildlife, and habitat management within National Forest Wilderness in Wyoming. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• 36 CFR 293: Wilderness–Primitive Areas

Key Indicators 

• Acres of recommended wilderness

• Miles of wilderness boundary adjacent to areas available for motorized use.

Methodology

Additional areas recommended for wilderness designation would have the effect on existing 

wilderness of reducing recreation pressure on current wilderness and dispersing it over a larger 

land base. Total acres recommended for wilderness is used to compare alternatives.

Availability of areas to motorized use, particularly winter motorized use, adjacent to wilderness 

boundaries can also be considered when comparing effects among alternatives. The more miles 

of wilderness boundary adjacent to areas allocated to motorized travel, the higher the potential 

impacts to wilderness characteristics. Conversely, fewer miles of wilderness boundary adjacent

to motorized activities lower the likelihood of impacts to existing wilderness. Differences in the 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

526

total miles of wilderness boundary adjacent to motorized opportunities are used to compare 

alternatives.

In 2008 (updated in 2012), 34 areas on the Shoshone were evaluated for potential wilderness. 

This process included three tests—capability, availability, and need. Capability is defined as the 

degree to which the area contains the basic characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness 

designation without regard to its availability for or need as wilderness. The availability 

determination is conditioned on the value of and need for the wilderness resource compared to 

the value of and need for the area for other resources. Need is the determination that the area 

should be designated as wilderness through an analysis of the degree the area contributes to the 

local and national distribution of wilderness.

Resource Protection Methods

Designated wilderness is governed largely by the terms of the Wilderness Act, which limits 

human uses and activities. These limitations are designed to retain wilderness in a natural and 

wild state. As mentioned in the Introduction, effects to wilderness are measured by how any 

particular project or planning effort modifies wilderness character. Project proposals within these 

areas are evaluated for compliance with wilderness values and how well they maintain the five 

qualities of wilderness character. Commercial use in wilderness is controlled by special-use 

permits and the operation plans that are required under the special use permits.

Affected Environment

Since the Wilderness Act of 1964, the National Wilderness Preservation System has grown 

dramatically. As of 2004, Congress had designated more than 106 million acres of Federal public 

land as wilderness. Numerous bills are pending in Congress that would create millions of acres 

of new wilderness areas in national forests, national parks, national wildlife refuges, and land 

administered by the BLM. However, there are no pending bills for wilderness designation in the 

State of Wyoming. The wilderness system has been built through subsequent legislation of 

approximately 104 wilderness bills, typically establishing wilderness areas in a particular state.

Nationally in the National Wilderness Preservation System, there are 757 wilderness areas 

encompassing approximately 109 million acres. This is approximately 5 percent of the total 

United States land mass. The Forest Service manages approximately 36 million acres in 

439 wilderness areas. This is about 19 percent of all NFS land. In Wyoming, a total of 3.1 

million acres is designated wilderness in 15 national forest wilderness areas. Wilderness covers 

approximately 5 percent of the State’s area. Wyoming wilderness areas administered by the 

Forest Service represent about 3 percent of the area in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System.

Designated wilderness on the Shoshone National Forest includes 1,365,154 acres in five 

congressionally designated areas administered as wilderness unimpaired for future use and 

enjoyment. The following five wilderness areas are managed either solely by the Shoshone or 

jointly with neighboring forests:

Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness: The Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, designated in 1978, 

covers 943,622 acres in Montana and Wyoming (23,672 acres on the Shoshone). The area is 

dominated by the high granite plateaus of the Beartooth Mountains cut by deep canyons and 

large expanses of tundra habitats, which are rare in the lower 48 states. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

527

Fitzpatrick Wilderness: The Fitzpatrick Wilderness was designated in 1976. The 198,819-acre 

area contains 44 active glaciers and many rugged mountain peaks in the northern half of the 

Wind River Mountains, including Wyoming’s highest point, Gannett Peak. 

North Absaroka Wilderness: The North Absaroka Wilderness was designated in 1964. Rugged 

volcanic mountains dissected by numerous creeks forming huge drainages are typical scenes in 

the 346,082-acre North Absaroka Wilderness. 

Popo Agie Wilderness: Designated in 1984, the 102,539-acre Popo Agie Wilderness contains 

many high granite peaks and alpine and subalpine lakes in the southern portion of the Wind 

River Mountains.

Washakie Wilderness: At 694,341 acres, the Washakie Wilderness, designated in 1964, is 

Wyoming’s largest wilderness area. The area is characterized by broad, flat-topped mountains 

and plateaus separated by narrow valleys and unusual geological formations.

Wilderness Setting

Congressionally designated wilderness areas on the Shoshone are further divided into three 

wilderness recreation opportunity spectrum settings that provide differing levels of solitude and 

isolation. Table 150 displays the existing wilderness recreation opportunity spectrum setting 

breakdown (see map 69).

Pristine: The pristine settings provide natural biophysical conditions and a high degree of 

solitude for both wildlife and humans with no perceptible evidence of human use. Pristine 

wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for solitude and isolation. Opportunities for 

unconfined recreation are maximized. Evidence of human uses is not noticeable and does not 

affect natural biological processes. Encounters with small groups or individuals are infrequent. 

All travel is cross country. No system trails are identified or managed in the pristine recreation 

opportunity spectrum setting.

Primitive: The primitive settings provide substantially natural biophysical conditions. Primitive 

wilderness provides opportunities for solitude. On-site regulation of recreation use is minimal. 

Campsites are dispersed; usually one would neither hear, nor see visitors at adjacent campsites. 

Encounters with small groups and individuals are limited. System trails are available for travel 

within a low-density constructed trail system. Human influences on biophysical conditions and 

natural biological processes are minimal. Human uses and activities may be evident in the areas 

of highest visitor use. 

Semi-Primitive: Semi-primitive settings provide essentially natural biophysical conditions. In 

semi-primitive wilderness, trails concentrate use and provide access to popular destinations and 

travel routes. Encounters with other users can be frequent. Campsites are either dispersed or 

clustered around destinations and show evidence of repeated but acceptable levels of use. 

Management actions and regulations to mitigate visitor use effects may be noticeable. Human 

uses and activities may be evident in the areas of highest visitor use, for example trail corridors. 

Human activities may influence biophysical conditions and natural biological processes.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

528

Table 150. Total acres of wilderness recreation opportunity spectrum setting 

Wilderness recreation opportunity spectrum setting Acres

Pristine 265,300

Primitive 971,500

Semi-Primitive 128,300

Total 1,365,000

Environmental Consequences

Because direction for wilderness management is detailed in law, regulation, agency policy and in 

specific management plans; management of existing wilderness does not vary by alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The following discussion of general effects on wilderness addresses effects from adding 

additional recommended wilderness. Alternatives A, B, E, F and G do not propose any new areas 

for wilderness recommendation. Alternatives C and D, propose 20 and 7 new wilderness 

additions, respectively. Table 151 displays the total number of acres proposed for wilderness 

recommendation by alternative.

Table 151. Total acres of existing and recommended wilderness by alternative

Wilderness ROS 

setting Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Existing 

wilderness 1,365,000 1,365,000 1,365,000 1,365,000 1,365,000 1,365,000 1,365,000

Recommended 

wilderness 0 0 628,800 194,500 0 0 0

Total 1,365,000 1,365,000 1,994,000 1,560,000 1,365,000 1,365,000 1,365,000

Recommended wilderness can affect existing wilderness. Designation of new wilderness may 

change patterns of recreation use, create larger contiguous areas and reduce pressure within 

existing wilderness areas. Summer and winter motorized use would be prohibited in areas 

recommended for wilderness designation, therefore, motorcycle, snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, 

utility vehicle, and full-size vehicle use would be displaced. Mechanized use would be restricted 

to system roads and trails. In the event of congressional designation, use would be prohibited. 

Recommended wilderness does, however, provide larger areas with wilderness character.

New areas considered for recommendation for wilderness designation in alternatives C and D, 

would potentially protect wilderness resources on 628,800 and 194,500 acres, respectively. In 

addition, these areas preserve wilderness character through management efforts to maintain the 

five wilderness qualities that define wilderness character. These additional wilderness acres will 

also be assigned to a wilderness setting. Table displays the acres of wilderness setting across the 

alternatives (maps 70 and 71).
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

529

Table 152. Total acres of wilderness recreation opportunity spectrum setting by alternative 

Wilderness recreation opportunity 

spectrum setting Alts. A, B, E, F, G Alt. C Alt. D

Pristine 265,300 287,800 275,900

Primitive 971,500 1,368,000 1,407,000

Semi-Primitive 128,300 338,000 177.000

Total 1,365,000 1,994,000 1,560,000

Only Congress can pass legislation to create wilderness, therefore, management area (MA) 

allocation for recommended wilderness (management categories 1.2) does not create designated 

wilderness. Management area categories 1.2 protect the values that make the area suitable for 

wilderness designation. Management strategies for these areas may affect recreation 

opportunities and experiences.

Areas Evaluated for Potential Wilderness

Areas evaluated for potential wilderness but not recommended are allocated to management 

areas with other management prescriptions. Management area prescriptions may or may not be 

compatible with wilderness principles and may thus impact the wilderness potential of these 

areas. The effects of the various alternatives can be compared by looking at numbers of acres 

allocated to management prescriptions by alternative. 

An offshoot of management area allocation that would also have an impact on wilderness 

potential is the amount of land available for motorized use within these areas. Acres available for 

motorized use are used here for comparing potential effects by alternative. 

Alternative F allocates the most acreage, roughly 322,000 acres, of potential wilderness to 

management prescriptions that allow more active management not consistent with wilderness 

character. Those management areas are 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.4 (see table 153). Alternatives A and 

E are similar and allocate the second highest number of acres, approximately 157,000 and 

146,000 acres, respectively, to these management areas. Alternatives B, D, and G follow with 

between 59,000 and 71,000 acres allocated to MAs with more active management. Finally 

alternative C allocates the fewest number of acres—roughly 38,000—to those MAs resulting in 

the lowest potential for impacts to wilderness characteristics.

Table 154 displays the total acres of areas evaluated for potential wilderness available to summer 

and winter motorized use. Alternative F allocates the greatest number of acres available to 

summer and winter motorized use of all the action alternatives and therefore the highest potential 

for effects to wilderness characteristics. In alternative F, 67 percent of potential wilderness acres 

are available for summer and winter motorized use. Only alternative A (no action) allocates more 

acres, 14 percent more, to winter motorized use. Alternative E allocates the second most acres to 

summer motorized use of the action alternatives at 45 percent, but the third most acres to winter 

motorized at 36 percent. Alternative G allocates more acres to winter motorized use than 

alternative E.

Alternatives B and G are similar in total acres available for summer motorized at 33 and 

30 percent, respectively. Impacts from summer motorized use would be similar in these two 

alternatives. However, alternative G makes 15 percent more acres of potential wilderness 

available for winter motorized use, so the effects on wilderness characteristics from this activity 

would be greater in G. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

530

As mentioned earlier, alternatives C and D are the only two that recommend areas evaluated for 

potential wilderness be designated as such. They in turn would have the least effects on potential 

for wilderness. Alternative C recommends 20 areas for wilderness recommendation and 

alternative D recommends 7. Alternative C offers the most protection to the wilderness character 

of potential wilderness areas followed by D.

Table 153. Wilderness evaluation acres by management area and alternative

MA Description Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

1.2 Recommended 

Wilderness 558,924 164,921

1.2A Recommended High

Lakes Wilderness 15,224

1.2B Recommended Dunoir 

Wilderness 28,879 28,879

1.3 Back Country NonMotorized 426,701 353,341 86,595 367,950 324,317 202,266 261,859

1.5A Clarks Fork Wild River

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 1,276 1,276 184 1,276 1,276 1,276 1,276

2.3 Potential RNA 1,143 11,361 3,537 14,422 13,065

3.1B Potential Little Popo Agie 

Moraine SIA 801 801 801 801

3.1C Potential Sawtooth 

Peatbeds SIA 563 563 391

3.3A Back Country Motorized 115,007 62,766 4,947 8,288 89,870 170,765 78,715

3.3B Back Country Winter 

Motorized 86,372 3,157 71,555 43,430 185,175

3.3C Back Country Summer 

Motorized 72,091 4,188 10,494 93,927 4,563 45,896

3.5 Back Country Recreation 

& Restoration 41,458

4.2 Travel Corridor 61,337 36,181 20,424 36,181 38,153 38,326 38,326

4.3 Back Country Access 

Corridor 1,612 424 1,609 1,347 156 1,613

4.5A Proposed Kirwin SIA 173 173 173 173 173 3,782

5.1 Managed Forests & 

Rangelands 59,578 18,583 7,665 14,142 78,789 283,385 18,583

5.2 Public Water Supply 7,420 1,534 2,645 7,420 7,420

5.4 Managed Big Game 

Crucial Winter Range 36,321 6,739 8,184 5,717 22,036 6,712

8.2 Ski-based Resort 798 798 798 798 798 798

Grand 

Total 745,640 745,639 745,639 745,639 745,639 745,639 745,639

Management Area 3.6A, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail is a linear feature that overlaps with the above 

management areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

531

Table 154. Wilderness evaluation acres available for motorized use by alternative

Motorized use 

acres (%) Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Summer 272,416 

(37)

249,186 

(33)

43,781 

(6)

59,745 

(8)

332,513 

(45)

498,488 

(67)

222,459 

(30)

Winter 607,454 

(81)

234,700 

(31)

20,582 

(3)

132,419 

(18)

265,071 

(36)

503,052 

(67)

344,470 

(46)

Total Acres 746,134 746,134 746,134 746,134 746,134 746,134 746,134

Looking at the combined effects to areas evaluated for potential wilderness (but not 

recommended) from MA prescriptions and availability for motorized use, alternative C provides 

the highest likelihood that wilderness characteristics would be protected. Alternative F, provides 

the least protection for the wilderness character of these areas. All other alternatives fall 

somewhere in between.

Effects on Existing Wilderness: Additional recommended wilderness would affect existing 

wilderness by providing larger areas with wilderness character.

Non-wilderness uses adjacent to wilderness may have a negative effect on the quality of 

wilderness recreation experiences. Where roads and motorized activities occur along the 

wilderness boundary, the incidence of illegal use of motorized and mechanized vehicles in 

wilderness may increase. High standard roads close to the boundary provide easy recreation 

access to wilderness and tend to increase use. As motorized use increases there is a greater effect 

on physical, biological, and social conditions in the wilderness.

Areas bordering the wilderness allocated to management areas providing motorized 

opportunities are more likely to affect wilderness condition and uses. Potential effects could 

include noise, modified landscapes, and motorized trespass.

The more miles of wilderness boundary adjacent to areas available for motorized use, the greater 

the potential for impacts to and incursions into wilderness. Conversely, fewer miles of 

wilderness boundary adjacent to these areas would lower the potential for impacts and 

incursions. 

Motorized use occurs during both winter and summer seasons. Because summer motorized use is 

limited to roads and trails, it represents less of a potential impact to wilderness than winter 

motorized use. Though it occurs over snow it may be allowed on roads, trails and cross country 

increasing the potential for trespass into wilderness areas. 

Table 155 displays the total miles of wilderness boundary adjacent to areas available for winter 

motorized use by alternative. Percentages are also included (parentheses) and were calculated on 

the total miles of wilderness boundary adjacent to areas with non-wilderness management 

prescriptions.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

532

Table 155. Miles of wilderness boundary adjacent to areas available for winter motorized use by 

alternative

Alt. A 

Existing Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G 

Winter motorized 

miles (%) 350 (81) 77 (18) 17 (4) 57 (13) 83 (19) 222 (51) 147 (34)

Total miles 

wilderness 

boundary adjacent 

to other MAs

431 431 431 431 431 431 431

Alternative A (no action): The no-action alternative is used to provide a measure for 

comparison. In this alternative, all five existing wilderness areas would continue to be managed 

according to the 1964 Wilderness Act. There is no recommended wilderness in this alternative. 

Alternative A has 350 miles of existing wilderness boundary adjacent to areas available for 

winter motorized use. This represents 81 percent of 431 miles, more than any of the action 

alternatives.

Alternative B (proposed action): Alternative B does not contain any recommended wilderness. 

Fewer miles of existing wilderness boundary are adjacent to areas available for winter motorized 

use in this alternative compared to alternative A. The 77 miles of wilderness boundary adjacent 

to areas available for winter motorized use represent a 63 percent reduction from the no action 

alternative making it much less likely to result in impacts to wilderness character from this 

activity than alternative A.

Alternative C: Alternative C proposes 20 new areas totaling 628,800 acres for wilderness 

recommendation. Subsequently only 17 miles or 4 percent of the wilderness boundary would be 

exposed to winter motorized use areas. This alternative is least likely to impact existing 

wilderness due to the restriction of motorized activities along the existing wilderness boundary.

Alternative D: Alternative D likewise proposes 7 new areas for wilderness designation 

(194,500 acres). This is more than the no-action alternative (alternative A), but less than 

alternative C. In this alternative, 57 miles (13 percent) of wilderness boundary are adjacent to 

areas available for motorized use. The 7 new wilderness areas provide additional boundary along 

which motorized activity is restricted..

Alternative E: Alternative E is similar to alternative B in terms of amount of wilderness 

boundary exposed to winter motorized use—83 miles or 19 percent—and would have similar 

impacts. Like alternatives A and B, this alternative proposes no new recommended wilderness 

areas.

Alternative F: Alternative F provides for the highest level of motorized use and also does not 

recommend any areas for potential wilderness. In this alternative, 222 miles of wilderness 

boundary are adjacent to areas available for motorized use, the most of all the action alternatives 

and second only to alternative A. It poses the greatest potential of all the action alternatives for 

impacts to the wilderness character of these areas. 

Alternative G: At 147 miles (34 percent) of wilderness boundary exposed to adjacent areas 

available for winter motorized use, alternative G would be less likely to result in impacts to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

533

wilderness character in existing wilderness than alternatives A and F. It also recommends no 

potential wilderness.

Summary of Effects

As described above, the alternatives result in varying degrees of effects to designated wilderness 

on the Shoshone. Alternatives F and E would, respectively, have the greatest potential for 

impacts to wilderness and wilderness character. These two alternatives, like alternatives A, B, 

and G do not propose any new recommended wilderness. In addition, these two alternatives 

would have the largest amount of acreage in recreation opportunity spectrum settings rural, 

roaded-natural, and semi-primitive motorized adjacent to the wilderness boundary. Alternatives 

C and D would, respectively, have the least potential for impacts to wilderness and wilderness 

character of all alternatives. These two alternatives are the only alternatives that propose any new 

recommended wilderness and they also have the least amount of recreation opportunity spectrum 

settings of rural, roaded-natural, and semi-primitive motorized acres adjacent to the wilderness 

boundary. Alternatives B and G would provide a lesser degree of potential for impacts when 

compared to alternatives E and F, but more potential than alternatives C and D.

Effects from Resource Areas

Effects from Other Management Areas: Adjacent management activities can have a direct 

effect on Wilderness. Although the law forbids buffering wilderness, management along the 

boundaries can affect both management and use of the area inside the boundary. Areas managed 

for non-motorized use are usually more compatible with wilderness.

Illegal use of ATVs (all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles) in designated wilderness is a 

management concern. Where there are no natural barriers, from trees or terrain, monitoring for 

unauthorized use is especially important. Monitoring and law enforcement, including aerial 

surveillance, are continuing efforts.

As mentioned previously, management areas bordering the wilderness and providing motorized 

use are more likely to affect wilderness condition and uses. The most highly developed areas (for 

commodity production or recreation use) are generally management areas 3, 4, 5 and 8. If new 

development occurs adjacent to any of the existing five wilderness areas, effects could include 

noise, modified landscapes, and motorized trespass. In terms of negative effects from adjacent 

land uses, alternative A and F could have the greatest effect on existing wilderness, followed by 

alternatives B, E and G, and then alternatives C and D.

Effects from Invasive Species: Invasive species may include invasive plants, pathogens, insects, 

birds, mammals, fish and invertebrates. Invasive species can threaten the integrity of wilderness 

ecosystems. While introduced fish species are the most ubiquitous, non-native plants found in 

the wilderness, including Dalmatian toadflax, ox-eye daisy, spotted knapweed, and Canada 

thistle, have the most potential to disrupt native ecosystems. 

Visitors’ vehicles and livestock from outside wilderness are most likely to introduce non-native, 

invasive plants. Certified weed-free forage products are required if used for feed, bedding, mulch 

or any other purpose. The Shoshone currently monitors for the presence of non-native plant 

species and uses mechanical controls (e.g., hand-pulling, hand tools) where effective and 

feasible. Chemical controls are approved if necessary. Non-native, invasive plant control is a 

joint effort between the Shoshone and the county weed and pest control districts. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

534

Effects from invasive species in wilderness may vary by alternative with larger landscapes in 

alternatives C and D having less probability of vectors getting into existing wilderness.

Effects from Fire and Fuels Management: While all human-caused fires within wilderness 

have a management objective of suppression, current and past agency direction allows naturally 

ignited fires within wilderness to be used to accomplish resource benefit objectives such as 

restoring the natural role of fire in wilderness areas. The Shoshone has been actively managing 

naturally ignited fires within wilderness to achieve resource benefit for years but not all are 

managed as such. Some are suppressed to meet protection objectives for values at risk outside of 

wilderness.

The trend to allow naturally ignited fires to accomplish resource benefits in wilderness is 

expected to continue in the future. All alternatives have desired conditions and objectives that 

include allowing fire to play its natural role in the wilderness ecosystem. These objectives 

pertain to both designated and any recommended wilderness. The beneficial effects to wilderness 

from fire would be similar in alternatives A, B, C, D, and G. There would be fewer beneficial 

effects to wilderness in alternatives E and F because more acres outside of wilderness would 

require a suppression response to meet protection objectives.

Impacts from suppression activities within wilderness in alternatives B and G would be similar 

and would not change from what is currently happening under alternative A. Impacts include 

possible use of mechanized equipment such as chainsaws for fireline construction, use of 

motorized equipment such as helicopters, and application of retardant. Minimum impact 

suppression tactics are used and they minimize these impacts to the extent possible while 

meeting the suppression objective. Impacts would be higher in alternatives C and D, because 

these alternatives recommend more acres of wilderness. In addition, impacts are higher in 

alternatives E and F because more acres outside of designated wilderness would require a 

suppression response to meet protection objectives.

Effects from Livestock Grazing and Big Game: Commercial livestock grazing is permitted in 

wilderness, where it was established prior to wilderness designation in accordance with 

congressional grazing guidelines. Livestock can affect both resource and wilderness values. 

Recreational livestock grazing activities are not directly regulated by a permitting process; only 

livestock used by commercial outfitters and guides is under permit. Guidelines and monitoring 

included in the revised Forest Plan provide a framework for monitoring effects of recreational 

livestock grazing and determining the appropriate management response. Monitoring levels of 

commercial and recreational livestock is also used to determine impacts to wilderness values.

Effects from Minerals Management: With the relatively small number of mining claims on the 

Shoshone, mineral management is expected to have little to no effect on designated wilderness.

Cumulative Effects

Wilderness management in accordance with the standards and guidelines in the revised Forest 

Plan is designed to maintain or improve wilderness character in all five wilderness areas on the 

Shoshone. Current monitoring indicates that effects of concentrated recreational use exceed 

guidelines in some areas and management actions may be needed to improve conditions. 

Management options include restoration activities, visitor information and education, limits on 

use, recommendation of additional areas or some combination of options.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

535

Our relationship to wilderness and wild lands is changing in response to societal changes 

including technological advances, environmental attitudes, knowledge of natural processes and 

disturbance factors, and the diversification of the economy. Balancing environmental protection 

with the maintenance of existing lifestyles is a continuing public debate. Awareness of natural 

disturbances (fire, insects, and disease, wind) is heightened where they threaten homes or 

economies based on timber or tourism. These issues will influence the public’s knowledge and 

understanding of wilderness in the future.

The seven alternatives do not change the amount of existing wilderness designated on the 

Shoshone, in Wyoming, or in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Climate Change

Climate change has the potential to have widespread negative effects on wilderness and 

wilderness character (Stevenson and Millar 2012). Predicted species migration, patterns of 

precipitation, and vegetative shifts due to temperature increase would have impacts on all 

wilderness areas and wilderness character (Millar et al. 2007). Rice et al. (2012) highlighted the 

following conclusions related to climate change that may affect the five wilderness qualities that 

define wilderness character for each wilderness on the Shoshone. 

• Potential increase in summer recreation and tourism opportunities, but decreased winter 

recreation opportunities.

• Micro-climate conditions in the high elevations of the Shoshone have, and will likely 

continue to provide refugia for unique and sometimes rare ecologic components.

• Water resources are vulnerable as warmer temperatures are projected to reduce 

snowpack, increase evaporation, lengthen summer seasons, and start spring runoff 

earlier.

• Shoshone landscapes may be more vulnerable to increased fire occurrence, magnitude, 

and severity as warmer temperatures cause drier conditions and longer fire seasons.

• Shoshone habitats and wildlife that are particularly vulnerable to climate change are 

alpine ecosystems, wetlands, and species that are stressed, with lower adaptive ability to 

higher temperatures, or existing at the edge of an environmental tolerance.

• Potential reduction or loss of recreational opportunities for fishing native cold water 

species with the reduction in habitat quality and area.

• Potential decrease in recreational fishing opportunities.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

536

Designated and Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

Introduction

This section examines the extent to which the no-action (alternative A) and the action 

alternatives (alternatives B through G) affect designated and eligible wild and scenic rivers on 

the Shoshone National Forest. Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 to 

preserve select river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable 

values. The most important provision of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is protecting rivers from 

the harmful effects of water resources projects. 

The Shoshone National Forest has one designated wild and scenic river. In 1990, the Clarks Fork 

Wild and Scenic River Designation Act designated a 20.5-mile segment of the Clarks Fork of the 

Yellowstone River to be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System with a 

classification of wild. Wild rivers are those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of 

impoundments, protect the outstandingly remarkable values and water quality of the rivers, and 

have essentially primitive shorelines. 

In addition, the forest planning process requires a comprehensive evaluation of the Forest’s 

rivers to identify those that have the potential to be included in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. Sixteen river segments were found to be eligible, their outstandingly remarkable 

values were identified, and a classification of wild, scenic, or recreational was identified.

The next step is a suitability determination, which is done through a suitability study, and 

provides the basis for determining whether to recommend a river as part of the national system. 

No suitability studies are being conducted in this forest plan revision. Suitability determinations 

of the 16 eligible river segments are being deferred, pending: 

• Public interest or support of wild and scenic river study. 

• Congress expressing interest in a specific river for wild and scenic river designation.

• A proposed project that would alter the free-flowing character of a stream, such as 

impoundment, or adversely affect outstandingly remarkable values, or the river's 

inventoried classification. 

Rivers identified as eligible are managed to maintain eligibility until suitability is determined. 

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws

These acts, along with other land use laws, executive orders, and policies guide management of 

both designated and potential wild and scenic rivers on NFS lands. Other laws pertinent to wild 

and scenic river management of NFS lands can be found in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2354, 

River Management.

Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11, as amended; 16 U.S.C. § 473 et 

seq.): This act provides the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to regulate the occupancy and 

use of NFS lands.

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (P.L. 86-517, 74 Stat. 215): This act 

provides direction to provide access and recreation opportunities on NFS lands. The act states, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

537

“The policy of Congress is that national forests are established and administered for outdoor 

recreation....” 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 2, 1968 (P.L. 90-542, Stat. 906, as amended; 16 

U.S.C. § 1271(note), 1271-1287): This act established a policy for preserving selected rivers or 

sections thereof in a free-flowing condition. The intent was to protect water quality of such rivers 

and to fulfill other vital national conservation measures that would balance the development of 

water, power, and other resources for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future 

generations.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (P.L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2742, 

as amended): This act declares (per Sec. 102) that “...the public lands be managed in a manner 

that...will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.” 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of October 22, 1976 (P.L. 94-588, 90 Stat. 2949; 

16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq.): The act requires the Forest Service to establish a comprehensive 

system of land and resource planning, including the development and maintenance of a 

comprehensive and detailed inventory of lands and resources. The act also specifies the use of a 

systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of the physical sciences 

into planning for the management and use of NFS lands and resources. 

Regulation and Policies

Regulations and policies have been put into effect in support of these laws and direction is 

documented in the following:

• Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2354 River Management 

• 36 CFR 297 — Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Resource Protection Measures 

Comprehensive River Management Plan for the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone Wild and Scenic 

River

Key Indicators 

• Miles of designated wild, scenic or recreational rivers

• Miles of eligible, wild, and scenic or recreational rivers

Methodology

As per the Wild and Scenic River Act at 5(d) (1) and Forest Service Manual policy (FSM 

1924.03) a systematic inventory of named streams and rivers was completed for the Shoshone 

National Forest (see appendix D). The wild and scenic river process requires a determination to 

be made regarding a river’s eligibility, classification, and suitability. Eligibility and classification 

represent an inventory of existing conditions. Eligibility is an evaluation of whether a river is 

free-flowing (without major dams, diversions, or channel modifications) and possesses one or 

more outstandingly remarkable values. These values should be a unique or exceptional 

representation for the area studied and must be related to the river or its immediate environment. 

First, the Shoshone National Forest planning team reviewed the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, 

the American Rivers list, and input from the public, non-governmental organizations, and 

employees to determine a list of potential eligible rivers. This process identified 35 potential 

eligible rivers for further analysis. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

538

The next step of the process was to determine if the potential eligible rivers were free flowing. 

Forest Service specialists identified impoundments or other structures that would disqualify 

these rivers as free flowing. The act defines free flow as 

. . . existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, 

straightening, riprapping, or other modifications of the waterways. The existence of low 

dams, diversions, works, and other minor structures at the time any river is proposed for 

inclusion in the National System shall not automatically bar its consideration for such 

inclusion: Provided, that this shall not be construed to authorize, intend, or encourage 

future construction of such structures within components of the national wild and scenic 

rivers system.

It was determined that 34 river segments had no significant impoundments or other structures 

and were free flowing. The remaining river segment, Little Popo Agie River, was found to have a 

significant impoundment and was disqualified. 

The next step was to use eligibility criteria to consider whether each of the 34 potentially eligible 

rivers had an outstandingly remarkable value (or values). To help identify outstandingly 

remarkable values, the planning team used the criteria in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, 

82.14a and identified additional factors to make it meaningful for application on the Shoshone 

National Forest, which served as the area of consideration for the comparative analysis.

Outstandingly remarkable values are unique, rare, or exemplary features that are significant at a 

comparative regional or national scale. Outstandingly remarkable values must be related to the 

river or its immediate environment. The seven outstandingly remarkable values and their 

attributes are:

Scenery: The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color, and related 

factors that result in notable or exemplary visual features and/or attraction within the 

Nation or region. Seasonal variations in vegetation, scale of cultural modifications, and 

the length of time negative intrusions are viewed may also be considered. 

Recreation: The amount of time the river corridor is used or available for recreation 

purposes, the number and variety of recreation uses, the number of similar experiences 

available in the region, availability of private and public access points, and the ability to 

attract visitors from outside the region. Rivers with the longest season of use are of 

higher value. Rivers that provide for the largest number and diversity of recreation uses 

are of higher value. Rivers that provide the most unique opportunities are of higher 

value. Rivers or corridors highly used by anglers, hunters, and wildlife viewers are 

usually of higher value.

Geology: The river or corridor contains an example of a geologic or hydrologic feature, 

process, or phenomenon that is rare or unique to the region, or an outstanding example 

of a commonly occurring feature. The feature may represent a textbook example.

Fish: The presence, extent, and carrying capacity of spawning areas, rearing areas, and 

adult habitat; the number and variety of species present; and the value of these species. 

Rivers highly used by anglers or that offer unusual recreation experiences for the region 

are of higher value.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

539

Wildlife: The presence, extent, and carrying capacity of a variety of wildlife habitats, 

including winter range, summer range, transition zones, travel corridors, and calving 

areas; the number and variety of species present; and the value of these species. River 

corridors with the greatest and best habitat and habitat for rare species are of higher 

values. River corridors with the greatest diversity of species or the greatest number of 

wildlife are of higher value.

Prehistory: The river, or area within the corridor, contains a site or sites where there is 

evidence of occupation or use by Native Americans.

History: The river, or area within the corridor, contains a site or feature associated with 

a significant event, an important person, or a cultural activity of the past that was a rare 

or one-of-a-kind in the region.

Forest Service specialists reviewed the 34 potential eligible rivers to assess whether the segments 

had one or more of these seven outstandingly remarkable values. 

The planning team then evaluated each of the potentially eligible rivers with identified 

outstandingly remarkable values to determine whether one or more value was regionally or 

nationally significant:

• Regional importance—the value is important in the Greater Yellowstone Area

• National importance—the value is important nationally

As a result of this process, 16 rivers were found to possess one or more outstandingly remarkable 

value of regional or national importance, and are therefore, eligible for the national system. 

Finally, each of the 16 eligible river segments was classified into a category. The potential 

classification of a river found to be eligible is based on the condition of the river and the adjacent 

lands as they currently exist. Section 2(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968) specifies and 

defines these terms as follows: 

• Wild Rivers: Rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and 

waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. 

• Scenic Rivers: Rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments, with shorelines or 

watersheds still largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. 

• Recreational Rivers: Rivers or sections of rivers readily accessible by roads or railroad, 

which may have some development along their shoreline and which may have 

undergone some impoundments or diversions in the past. 

Affected Environment

Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers

Congress authorized the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River (Clarks Fork) for study in 1975. 

The Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone Wild and Scenic River Study (River Study) and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement were completed in 1979 and recommended inclusion of a 21.5-

mile segment of the Clarks Fork into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System as a wild river.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

540

Although the recommendation went to Congress soon thereafter, it was not until November 28, 

1990, that the Clarks Fork Wild and Scenic River Designation Act (Designation Act) of 1990 

added a 20.5-mile segment of the Clarks Fork to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

The legislation classified the river as wild and specified a river corridor of 0.25 mile on each side 

of the river’s ordinary high water mark. 

In the 1979 River Study and Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Clarks Fork River was 

divided into three segments based on the physical characteristics of the canyon. These 

descriptions provide a helpful overview of the landscape character.

Upper Canyon. This approximately 8-mile segment begins at the upper terminus of the 

designated river downstream of the Crandall Bridge and flows to Canyon Creek. It is 

characterized by slopes of 40 to 90 percent covered by stands of Douglas-fir with some 

Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine. Most of this segment has a well-developed floodplain, 

which supports stands of Englemann spruce.

Most of the Upper Canyon has a gentle gradient. In the central portion of the Upper Canyon the 

river is contained within a shallow, narrow canyon. The river gradient increases here, resulting in 

several waterfalls, cascades, and rapids; most are impassable by boat or raft. In places, 500-foot 

granite cliffs contain the river and its immediate environment. 

Middle Canyon. This segment runs downstream from the confluence of the Clarks Fork River 

and Canyon Creek for approximately 8 miles. Douglas-fir with limited shrub understory is 

confined to benches or narrow floodplains where some soil development has occurred. The 

segment is deeply incised into granite, with walls towering to 1,200 feet vertically from the 

water’s edge. The river drops very fast throughout the entire segment, forming several rapids, 

plunge pools, and waterfalls that preclude raft or boat use, and most kayakers. This middle 

canyon contains the section known as the “box,” which is an extremely technical kayak run with 

numerous portages.

Lower Canyon. In the eastern segment of about 7 miles, the river character changes 

dramatically. The canyon opens to a 0.5-mile wide u-shaped glacial valley with canyon walls 

towering up to 4,000 feet above the river. A combination of granite and overlying sedimentary 

rock form a very interesting and scenic geological display. There are a few rapids and, generally, 

the river gradient is nearly flat in this segment.

Vegetation on the canyon walls is limited to widely scattered Douglas-fir, grasses, and forbs. 

Vegetation in the canyon is typical of extremely dry sites, which is unusual for mountain valleys 

in the Absaroka-Beartooth area. Yucca and common junipers are the most noticeable species. 

Prolonged periods of high wind have prohibited the junipers from growing as trees, resulting in 

dense mats and mounds known as krummholz.

There has been very little development within the designated river corridor because of the 

rugged terrain. Lands in the corridor are part of the National Forest System, except for 136 acres 

of private land in Section 6, Township 56 North, Range 105 West, known in the past as the 

Wright Place (now part of the Switchback Ranch). This inholding is located on the river below 

Reef Creek, about 3.5 miles downstream from the west end of the river corridor. The land is 

occupied by a house and several barns and sheds, and is used for the irrigated production of hay. 

Access is by a 4WD road (Road 174) that crosses NFS lands. Road 174 is not open for public 

use; a special use permit (easement) is in place to provide authorized private land access. A 

bridge provides access across the river. An electricity transmission line parallels some of the wild 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

541

river corridor on the south side, from about the box to Crandall Creek in the middle and upper 

segments. A transmission line also crosses the river canyon in the Middle Canyon section, 

providing electricity to the Switchback Ranch (private land) on the Dillworth Bench. 

Past and present use includes a minor amount of commercial livestock grazing. In the Lower 

Canyon, it consists primarily of trailing activities along a livestock driveway and limited amount 

of use on the benches above the canyon but within the 0.5-mile wild and scenic corridor. 

Portions of four grazing allotments (Bench, Table Mountain, Ghost Creek, and Crandall I) 

overlap the 0.5-mile river corridor. Overall, grazing use is minimal throughout the corridor.

Opportunities for vegetation management are limited due to the steepness and lack of 

accessibility.

There are no known valid mining claims in the wild river corridor. Limitations on mineral entry 

and development on public lands are specified in section 9 of the Wild and Scenic River Act. 

Fires have occurred very infrequently, although some evidence in the form of vegetation patterns 

suggests past wildfires, the most evident being the Dano Fire of 1996. 

Three outstandingly remarkable values were identified in the River Study and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement.

Scenic value: The River Study identified the scenic qualities of the landforms and waterforms 

that are of a tumultuous whitewater nature, broken occasionally by deep, slick water pools. Deep 

chasms, soaring cliffs, and whitewater combine to provide outstanding scenery in the canyon. 

The overall setting has stunning vistas of mountain scenery and magnificent geologic features 

and landforms, and outstanding opportunities for wildlife viewing (bears, wolves, mountain 

goats, and other big game). The geology, vegetation, and wildlife combine to create the scenic 

beauty of the area. Scenic vistas are in a relatively wild and natural state; the Chief Joseph 

Scenic Byway parallels the wild river corridor for about 20 miles.

Recreational value: The Clarks Fork Wild and Scenic River was identified as having an 

outstandingly remarkable recreational value in the River Study. Although traditional forms of 

water-based recreation are limited, the canyon provides high potential for challenging and superb 

whitewater kayaking. The Middle Canyon of the Clarks Fork (the box) is recognized as one of 

the ultimate whitewater challenges in the Northern Rockies because of its spectacular scenery, 

challenging rapids, arduous portages, and long length. The “honeymoon section” just upstream 

offers less challenging rapids that appeal to a broader range of the paddling community. The 

lower Clarks Fork features yet another great whitewater run, a relatively popular road-accessible 

Class IV/V section. Recreation and tourism based on natural beauty, relative solitude, and the 

opportunity to view natural settings and wildlife abound in the river corridor. The canyon 

provides opportunities for viewing spectacular scenery and enjoying a unique and unusual 

environment, including numerous waterfalls and cascades, wet microenvironments, deep and 

narrow canyon walls, boulder floodplains, sand dunes, and wind-blown juniper krummholz. It is 

a rugged and primitive mountainous/canyon area that is home to populations of special species 

of wildlife including elk, bighorn sheep, black and grizzly bears, wolves, cougars, moose, 

coyote, bobcat, pine marten, beaver, golden and bald eagles, osprey, and peregrine falcons.

Historical value: The Clarks Fork Wild and Scenic River was identified as having an 

outstandingly remarkable historical value in the River Study because of an event of nationwide 

interest. In 1877, Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce eluded the U.S. Cavalry in a 1,300-mile chase 

from Oregon to Montana. Although their exact route is unknown, they are said to have escaped 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

542

through the mouth of the lower canyon, thus avoiding a cavalry detachment waiting on the plains 

to the east. In addition, the Clarks Fork is named after William Clark of the Lewis and Clark 

Expedition. The Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) Trail, a designated National Historic Trail, roughly 

follows the scenic byway and is an important historic resource in the greater Clarks Fork River 

area. Historically, the greater Clarks Fork River area has served as an important transportation 

artery. Native Americans indigenous to the area west of the Continental Divide were using this 

area as a route to reach the buffalo hunting grounds of the Great Plains. The nearby Dead Indian 

Pass may have been in use as early as 1700 B.C. and is only about 2 to 3 miles south of the river 

corridor. In 1869, gold was discovered along the upper Clarks Fork River and a mining camp 

was established, later to become Cooke City, Montana.

Potentially Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

Through the interdisciplinary process, 16 segments totaling approximately 286.1 miles were 

identified as potentially eligible for protection. These segments are identified in table 156. 

Map 56 displays the existing and potentially eligible wild and scenic river segments.

Table 156. River segments having outstandingly remarkable values of regional or national 

importance

River Segment Outstandingly remarkable 

value(s) rating Classification

Bear Creek South of wilderness boundary 

to Forest boundary

Prehistory high national scenic

Clarks Fork Montana state line to Clarks 

Fork Wild and Scenic River

Scenery high national

Recreation high national recreational

Crandall Creek Headwaters to Clarks Fork 

Wild and Scenic River

History high national wild/ 

recreational

Dinwoody Creek Headwaters to Forest 

boundary

Scenery high regional

Geology high national

Wildlife high regional

wild

Greybull River Headwaters to ~0.5 mile past 

wilderness boundary Fish high regional wild

Middle Popo Agie 

River

Wilderness boundary to 

trailhead

Geology high regional

Recreation high regional

wild/

recreational

North Fork Popo 

Agie River

Headwaters to wilderness 

boundary

Scenery high national

Geology high regional

wild

North Fork 

Shoshone River

Wilderness boundary to 

Forest boundary

Scenery high national

Recreation high national

Wildlife high national

Fish high regional

Prehistory high regional

History high national

recreational

South Fork Little 

Wind River

Headwaters to Forest 

boundary Scenery high regionally wild

South Fork 

Shoshone River

Headwaters to wilderness 

boundary

Scenery high regional

Fish high regional 

Wildlife high national

wild
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

543

Table 156. River segments having outstandingly remarkable values of regional or national 

importance

River Segment Outstandingly remarkable 

value(s) rating Classification

Sunlight Creek

Wilderness boundary to 

confluence with Clarks Fork 

of the Yellowstone River

Geology high national

History high regional recreational

Torrey Creek and 

tributaries

Headwaters of East and West 

Torrey Creeks to Forest 

boundary

Scenery high national

Wildlife high regional wild

West Fork DuNoir 

Creek

Headwaters to ~1.5 miles 

from Forest boundary History high national wild

Wiggins Fork Trailhead to Forest boundary

Recreation high regional

Fish high regional

prehistory high national

wild, 

recreational

Wind River Headwaters to Forest 

boundary

Fish high regional

History high regional recreational

Wood River Kirwin to Forest boundary Geology high regional

History high regional recreational 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

The no-action alternative is used to provide a measure for comparison. In this alternative, the 

existing designated wild and scenic river corridor (Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone) would 

continue to be managed according to the 2009 Comprehensive River Management Plan which 

protects the free flowing status and outstandingly remarkable values. Management of the 

16 eligible wild and scenic segments would be dictated by the 1986 Forest Plan. Under the 1986 

Forest Plan as amended all sections of eligible rivers classified as wild are within designated 

wilderness and as such are protected under this alternative. Eligible rivers classified as scenic 

occur mostly in management areas that also protect their eligibility, such as MA 2A semiprimitive motorized, but some short sections fall within MA 2B rural and roaded natural 

recreation and MA 7E wood fiber production, which may allow some activities that may impact 

the scenic values. Eligible rivers in the recreation classification fall primarily under the MA 2B 

rural and roaded natural recreation and the 5A big game winter range (non-forested) 

management areas, both of which maintain the recreational values.

Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G: All action alternatives protect the 20.5-mile segment of the 

Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River and eligibility of the 16 potentially suitable river segments 

totaling 286.1 miles until such time as a suitability determination is needed.

Effects from Other Management Areas: The more active management there is in an 

alternative, the more potential that those management activities may need to be modified or 

mitigated to protect the free-flowing status and outstandingly remarkable values of the eligibility 

of the 16 potentially suitable river segments. Of the action alternatives, alternative F has the most 

potential followed by E, B and G, D, and finally C.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

544

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Introduction

This section discusses the inventoried roadless areas as identified in the 2001 Roadless Rule

(36 CFR 294). These areas are different than the wilderness evaluation areas that are discussed 

elsewhere in this document. Inventoried roadless areas are distributed across the Shoshone 

comprising approximately 684,800 acres.

In 1970, the Forest Service evaluated all roadless and undeveloped areas in the National Forest 

System greater than 5,000 acres for the purpose of prioritizing areas with strong wilderness 

characteristics. This study, known as the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE), was 

halted after a legal challenge. In 1977, the Forest Service embarked on another nationwide 

Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) to identify roadless and undeveloped areas that 

were suitable for inclusion in the National Forest Wilderness Preservation System. The RARE II 

inventory was completed in 1979, consisting of the 684,000 acres described above. 

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

amended) and Final Environmental Impact Statement were completed and released with a 

Record of Decision dated February 27, 1986. The Wyoming Wilderness Act was recognized in 

the final 1986 Forest Plan as amended, and all roadless areas outside of wilderness were 

allocated for non-wilderness management areas. Of the 684,800 roadless acres allocated in the 

1986 Forest Plan as amended, all but 50,000 acres were included in management areas allowing 

some road construction and reconstruction

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 295) was published January 12, 2001. The 

Final EIS for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule published in November 2000, included a map 

of inventoried roadless areas based on the 1979 RARE II inventory. The Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) prohibits road construction and road reconstruction in 

inventoried roadless areas with some exceptions. The rule also prohibits cutting, sale, and 

removal of timber in inventoried roadless areas with some exceptions.

The roadless rule defined inventoried roadless areas as areas identified in a set of inventoried 

roadless area maps, contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, and any subsequent update 

or revision of those maps.31

Public opinions regarding the use of these areas vary greatly, and future management of roadless 

areas is a controversial and polarized issue. Management direction for inventoried roadless areas 

has been proposed in the revised Forest Plan and for each alternative. Not all proposed direction 

in the plan revision is consistent with the Roadless Rule. Reasonable alternatives, which may 

require a change in existing law or policy to implement, can be formulated if necessary to 

address a major public issue, management concern, or resource opportunity identified during the 

planning process (1982 rule at 36 CFR 219.12 (f)(5)). Inventoried roadless areas are currently 

managed under the 2001 Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294). While a management allocation may 

allow development activities such as vegetation management in a roadless area, it does not 

require it. Such activities may be proposed, but must be further evaluated in site-specific NEPA 

prior to approval and implementation.

 31 Currently, there is no procedure for updating inventory roadless area maps, so the original maps are still 

in effect.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

545

In this analysis, inventoried roadless areas are not the base used to evaluate and determine what 

areas should be recommended for wilderness. The wilderness evaluation areas are used for that 

purpose. This approach is used because the 1986 Forest Plan as amended allowed activities to 

occur in inventoried roadless areas that changed their roadless characteristics and made some 

areas no longer suitable for wilderness evaluation. The evaluation of wilderness areas is included 

in appendix C. 

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws

The 1984 Wyoming Wilderness Act (PL-98-550) designated the Cloud Peak Wilderness on the 

Bighorn National Forest. Section 401 of the act releases areas, not designated wilderness or 

wilderness study, for multiple-use management, and says the areas need not be managed to 

protect their suitability for wilderness designation prior to or during revision of the initial land 

management plans. The same section requires the Department of Agriculture to review 

wilderness options for the NFS lands again, when the forest management plans are revised. If 

areas are recommended for wilderness, during the revision of management plans, those areas are 

to be managed to protect their wilderness suitability. Areas not recommended need not be 

managed to protect their suitability for wilderness designation.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

36 CFR Part 294 Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation: this final rule established 

prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in inventoried 

roadless areas on NFS lands. 

Methodology

The inventoried roadless areas are identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained 

in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Volume 2, dated November 2000. For the purposes of analysis, small changes were made to the 

maps to edge match them with existing designated wilderness and the latest ownership layer.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The affected area for direct and indirect effects to inventoried roadless areas is the mapped areas 

as described above. The timeframe addressed is the 15 years for the anticipated life of the revised 

Forest Plan. 

Affected Environment 

The Shoshone has 684,800 acres of inventoried roadless areas (see map 57). These acres are 

currently being managed according to the Roadless Rule. 

On many national forests, including the Shoshone, roadless area management has been a major 

concern for land management planning and program development. Roadless areas are valued for 

many resource benefits including their undeveloped fisheries and wildlife habitat, biological 

diversity, and non-motorized recreation. The same areas are also valued for their development 

potential, particularly for wood products and motorized recreation. Controversy continues to 

accompany most proposals to harvest timber, build roads, or otherwise develop inventoried 

roadless areas.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

546

The roadless inventory areas for the Shoshone have not been updated since 1978. As a result, 

they contain areas that no longer meet roadless characteristics (43,000 acres). Inventoried 

roadless areas may contain improvements such as motorized trails, roads, unauthorized routes, 

fences, outfitter camps, cow camps, evidence of historic logging activities, more recent timber 

harvest areas, utility corridors, and ski areas. Because of this, the inventoried roadless areas were 

not used to start the wilderness evaluation process. A new inventory was done to start that 

process. Many of the inventoried roadless areas fall within those areas, but not all of them. The 

areas evaluated for wilderness potential are discussed in appendix C.

The inventoried roadless areas include two special designated areas. One is the 15,000-acre High 

Lakes Wilderness Study Area. It is currently being managed as directed under the 

1984 Wyoming Wilderness Act that established the area. The second area is the 29,000-acre 

Dunoir Special Management Unit. The Dunoir Special Management Unit was established as part 

of the act that designated the Washakie Wilderness in 1972. The designation requires that the 

wilderness characteristics of the area be protected.

Desired Condition

The desired conditions for inventoried roadless areas are to manage the areas consistent with the 

management areas’ designations and the Roadless Rule. Where management area direction and 

Roadless Rule direction conflict, the most restrictive direction applies.

Environmental Consequences 

General Effects

This analysis evaluates the effects of the revised Forest Plan and alternatives and whether they 

are consistent with the Roadless Rule. 

Management areas (MA) are grouped into broad categories. Some categories are more consistent 

with the Roadless Rule than other categories. Management categories 1 and 2 (except for 

MA 1.3) include direction that generally does not allow road building or timber harvest and that 

direction is integral to the desired condition. Management areas from this category are generally 

consistent with the Roadless Rule direction. 

Management categories 3 and 4 (and MA 1.3) include direction that allows limited road building 

and timber harvest that is incidental to the management area desired conditions. Management 

areas in this category can generally be managed in a manner that is consistent with Roadless 

Rule direction and still meet management area desired conditions. 

Management categories 5 and 8 include direction that emphasizes road building and timber 

harvest activities that are integral to meeting desired conditions. Management areas from this 

category generally cannot meet the Roadless Rule direction and management area desired 

conditions at the same time. Management area allocations will not directly result in actions that 

are consistent or inconsistent with the Roadless Rule until management activities are planned 

and implemented. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives B, C, D, and G are designed to be consistent with the Roadless Rule direction. 

Alternatives E and F were developed to address managing roadless areas in a manner that is 

supported by some public groups and some local government officials. The 1986 Forest Plan as 

amended direction, as displayed and analyzed in this EIS as the no-action alternative, is not 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

547

consistent with the Roadless Rule direction. The 1986 Forest Plan as amended is being 

implemented consistent with the Roadless Rule, but it has not been amended to adjust plan 

direction to be consistent with the Roadless Rule. For the purposes of this analysis, it is being 

analyzed as it currently exists. If the no-action alternative is selected as the preferred alternative 

in the final EIS, it would need to be adjusted to be consistent with the Roadless Rule.

Alternative B contains a management area designation (MA 3.5) that includes areas that some 

people feel should be removed from inventoried roadless designation because of past timber 

management activity, the existence of established roads, the proximity of infrastructure, or 

overriding management need. Currently, there are no established procedures for modifying 

inventoried roadless area boundaries. In lieu of making a change, the desired condition for these 

areas is, to the maximum degree possible, to actively manage the area while remaining consistent 

with the Roadless Rule direction. In alternative B, there is a portion of MA 5.2 that falls within 

an inventoried roadless area. That portion of MA 5.2 will be managed similar to MA 3.5, 

consistent with the Roadless Rule, while allowing the maximum amount of activity necessary to 

meet the 5.2 management area direction.

Table 157 summarizes the management areas allocated to inventoried roadless areas for each 

alternative. All of the acres shown are included in the roadless inventory conducted for forest 

plan revision. Shoshone acres outside of inventoried roadless areas are not included in this table.

Alternative C allocates the most area to management areas that are the most consistent with the 

Roadless Rule direction. Alternatives D, B, and G manage consistently with the Roadless Rule 

direction, but have the portions of management areas where allowed activities need to be 

modified. These alternatives are still generally able to meet management area desired conditions 

as allocated. Alternatives A and E, and alternative F to a greater degree, allocate inventoried 

roadless areas to management areas where it is not possible to meet management area direction 

and the Roadless Rule direction over the long term.

Indirect effects were not evaluated for this topic. The consistency with Roadless Rule direction 

can be fully evaluated by addressing the direct effects from management area allocation. The 

indirect effects to roadless area characteristics are addressed in conjunction with analysis of 

wilderness evaluation areas elsewhere in this document.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

548

Table 157. Inventoried roadless area management area acre allocation by alternative 

MA Description Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

1.2 Recommended 

wilderness 534,700 152,100

1.2A Recommended High 

Lakes Wilderness 15,200

1.2B Recommended 

DunoirWilderness 28,900 28,900

1.3 Back country nonmotorized 409,700 333,400 94,500 367,800 310,600 194,500 246,300

1.5A Clarks Fork Wild River 5,050 5,050 1,480 5,050 5,050 5,050 5,050

1.6A High Lakes WSA 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200 15,200

1.6B Dunoir SMU 28,900 28,900 28,900 28,900 28,900

2.2A Line Creek RNA 1,090 1,090 1,090 1,090 1,090 1,090

2.3 Potential RNA 1,070 10,400 2,920 13,300 12,600

3.1B Potential Little Popo 

Agie Moraine SIA 1,140 1,140 1,140 1,140

3.1C Potential Sawtooth 

Peatbeds SIA 650 650 400

3.3A Back country motorized 95,500 51,900 79,600 152,200 67,300

3.3B Back country winter 

motorized 78,300 68,900 35,900 168,700

3.3C Back country summer 

motorized 56,900 76,600 4,562 36,500

3.5 Back country recreation 

and restoration 66,300

3.5A

Back country recreation 

and restoration ( winter 

motorized)

29,100

3.5B

Back country recreation 

and restoration (summer 

motorized)

8,030

3.5C

Back country recreation 

and restoration (nonmotorized)13,300

3.5D

Back country recreation 

and restoration 

(motorized)

14,600

4.2 Travel corridor 41,000 23,100 4,900 23,100 24,700 24,700 23,000

4.3 Back country access 

corridor 6,650 70 6,620 2,370 480 6,720

4.5A Potential Kirwin SIA 850

5.1 Managed forests and 

rangelands 53,000 78,800 257,100

5.2 Public water supply 4,920 4,920 4,920

5.4 Managed big game 

crucial winter range 34,300 23,600

8.2 Ski-based resort 1,010 1,010 1,010 1,010 1,010 1,010

Total 684,800 684,800 684,800 684,800 684,800 684,800 684,800
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

549

Summary of Effects to Resource 

Alternatives B, C, D, and G management direction is consistent with the Roadless Rule. Desired 

conditions for those alternatives can be met in conjunction with meeting Roadless Rule direction. 

Alternatives A, E, and F include management direction that is not consistent with the Roadless 

Rule. This means that alternatives A and E, and alternative F to a greater degree, cannot meet 

desired conditions and Roadless Rule direction over the long term.

Cumulative Effects 

There are no cumulative effects to address for this topic which deals with an analysis of whether 

the direct effects from management area allocation are consistent with the Roadless Rule

direction.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

550

Research Natural Areas

Introduction

On July 19, 1993, the Chief of the Forest Service issued a national strategy for recognizing the 

expanding role of research natural areas (RNAs) in ecosystem management. Giving regional 

foresters the authority to designate RNAs and outlining expectations the regions would work to 

build a representative network of RNAs were important parts of this strategy. On November 1, 

1993, the Rocky Mountain Regional Forester and the Director of the Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station directed national forests in the region to expand the RNA system. The 

Regional Forester and the Director asked the forests to make a concentrated effort to identify 

potential RNAs in their forest plan revision processes. Selection of potential RNAs was done 

jointly by the Shoshone National Forest and Rocky Mountain Station, under the guidance of the 

Regional RNA Steering Committee to meet national and regional RNA objectives. Eight 

potential RNAs were selected to provide a spectrum of relatively undisturbed areas representing 

important natural ecosystems and environments of the Rocky Mountain Region that are best 

represented on the Shoshone. 

RNAs are selected to provide a spectrum of relatively undisturbed areas representing important 

natural ecosystems and environments: for example, forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, aquatic, 

and geologic environments. They are also selected to represent areas with special or unique 

scientifically important characteristics. RNAs serve the following important functions nationally, 

regionally, and locally:

• Reference areas − The Forest Service intends to have a wide spectrum of high quality 

areas that represent the major forms of variability found in forest, shrubland grassland, 

and alpine ecosystems. These RNAs serve as benchmarks for monitoring and evaluating 

the sustainability, effectiveness, and impacts of land management practices on lands with 

similar ecosystems. To determine the impact of management on an area, it is useful to 

have, as a control, a similar area maintained in natural condition for comparison. These 

control areas protect against human-caused environmental disruptions and RNAs 

contribute to ecosystem management by providing these controls. In addition, RNAs 

serve as baseline areas for measuring long-term ecological changes associated with other 

potential ecosystem stressors such as climate change.

• Biological diversity − RNAs provide protection for representative and key elements of 

biological diversity at the genetic, species, population, community, and/or landscape 

levels. A representative RNA system provides some degree of assurance that a wide 

array of plant and animal species will be afforded a high degree of protection in the 

future by protecting against human-caused environmental disruptions. This protection 

may be most important for soil microorganisms, fungi, insects, and other forms of 

biological diversity on which ecosystems often depend the most, but about which we 

know the least. RNAs also can be selected to help protect specific populations of 

threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive species.

• Research and education − RNAs provide representative sites for research into how 

ecosystems function, particularly in areas in which ecological and evolutionary 

processes are functioning in a relatively natural state. They serve as control areas for 

comparing results from manipulative research. They serve as sites for monitoring longterm change in ecosystems such as global climate change and shifting patterns in the 

landscape that result from such disturbances as fire, floods, insect epidemics, and natural 

succession. Research projects in an identified RNA can greatly increase our 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

551

understanding of particular ecosystems and improve the quality of ecosystem 

management. RNAs also serve an important educational function by providing excellent 

examples of ecosystems in a relatively natural condition, with functioning ecological 

processes.

In addition the Shoshone’s RNA designations are important considerations in evaluating the 

status of rare plant species, as recognized by the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), or Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) program. RNAs are among the 

“regulatory factors” considered in determining global and State ranks of rare plants. 

Establishment of RNAs and special interest areas (SIAs) in regard to rare plant habitat can help 

avert threats to their habitat. They are a proactive approach to reduce the risk of species being 

listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws

36 CFR 219.25 (1982 regulations) − “Forest planning shall provide for the establishment of 

Research Natural Areas (RNAs). Planning shall make provision for the identification of 

important forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, aquatic and geologic types that have special or 

unique characteristics of scientific interest and importance that are needed to complete the 

national network of RNAs.”

Forest Service Manual, Title 4063 − Provides specific direction concerning establishment and 

management of RNAs.

Region 2 Guidance-Research Natural Area Guide for the Rocky Mountain Region USDA 

Forest Service, 1993, 1997, 2005 − A principal purpose of the Research Natural Area System is 

to provide a representative range of relatively undisturbed sites for research, monitoring, 

biodiversity protection and as reference areas for management activities throughout the NFS 

lands. The RNA matrix in the RNA Guide includes plant series elements targeted for inclusion in 

the Region 2 RNA system and plant associations and community types known to occur on NFS 

lands. The matrix targets specific series for each forest or grassland in the Region. This helps 

assure that the RNA system will represent the broad range of natural variability that occurs from 

the northern to the southern ends of the Region.

Methodology

Forest resource specialists, along with the Rocky Mountain Research Station, identified NFS 

lands on the Shoshone that possess ecological characteristics that make them desirable for RNA 

establishment. 

The following criteria were used in selecting potential RNAs:

• Quality: How well a site represents the targeted ecosystem type or protected biodiversity 

elements.

• Condition: How much the site has been degraded or altered from natural or optimal 

conditions.

• Viability: The likelihood of long-term survival for the ecosystem and its protected 

biodiversity.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

552

• Defensibility: Extent to which the ecosystem and biodiversity elements can be protected 

from extrinsic human factors.

Each proposed RNA was reviewed to minimize conflicts of past or current activities, such as 

roads, logging or active grazing allotments. Vacant allotments, or areas outside allotment 

boundaries, were favored for consideration of RNA designation to lessen the impacts on the 

Shoshone grazing program. Potential RNA boundaries were designed at the landscape level to 

maintain ecosystem processes and allow management flexibility. 

After the regional RNA steering committee review and approval process, the Shoshone 

contracted with the WYNDD to inventory the eight potential RNA candidates. The WYNDD 

inventories include: detailed descriptions, RNA criteria evaluations, distinguishing features, 

acreage by vegetation cover type, and the compatibility of past and present human use with the 

RNA criteria. These reports are found in the project records.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

Spatial context used for Forest-wide RNA analysis is the area within the Shoshone boundary. 

The spatial context for the regional RNA steering committee was the Region 2 boundary. The 

timeframe of the analysis is 15 years or the life of the revised Forest Plan.

Affected Environment 

Five potential RNAs were identified in the 1986 Forest Plan as amended to be considered for 

future RNA establishment. These were all recognized as important areas of biodiversity in the 

Greater Yellowstone Area (Clark 1989). The following changes occurred with these potential 

1986 Forest Plan as amended RNAs by an evaluation process that occurred in the mid-1990s:

• Pickett’s Knob was dropped because vegetation types were better represented elsewhere;

• Pat O’Hara was modified to include more vegetation types and sensitive plant habitat;

• Bald Ridge was modified to include more vegetation types and sensitive plant habitat;

• Twin Lakes became part of Line Creek RNA; and

• Sawtooth Peatbeds did not meet RNA criteria and became a potential SIA.

The Line Creek Plateau RNA was established in 2000 to protect an example of Rocky Mountain 

alpine tundra vegetation types and associated features (USDA Forest Service 2000). The area 

comprises 3,050 acres on the Shoshone and 19,370 acres on the adjacent Custer National Forest. 

The area exhibits a Rocky Mountain alpine tundra vegetation type with examples of alpine turf, 

alpine wetland, alpine snow bed, and subalpine conifer forest. In June 2000, the 1986 Forest Plan 

as amended was amended by the Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact for the Line 

Creek Plateau RNA (USDA Forest Service 2000). 

Currently, there are eight potential RNAs identified on the Shoshone (table 158 and map 58). 

They include Lake Creek, Beartooth Butte, Pat O’Hara, Grizzly Creek, Sheep Mesa, Arrow 

Mountain, Roaring Fork, and Bald Ridge. The eight potential RNAs comprise approximately 

71,000 acres of which approximately 80 percent is in designated wilderness. If RNAs are 

designated, management plans will be written to recognize and protect these areas for their 

special characteristics and research value. Draft establishment reports are found in the forest plan 

project record.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

553

Three other areas were identified in the mid-2000s as potential RNAs: Little Popo Agie Moraine, 

Sawtooth Peatbeds, and the Deep Lake landslide. These areas did not meet RNA selection 

criteria and were instead evaluated for SIA designation.

Table 158. Potential research natural area acres

Potential RNA Acres

Arrow Mountain 14,450

Bald Ridge 2,310

Beartooth Butte 2,450

Grizzly Creek 11,680

Lake Creek 5,860

Pat O’Hara 5,010

Roaring Fork 13,480

Sheep Mesa 15,320

Total RNA Acres 70,570

Desired Condition

Within RNAs ecological processes will prevail, with minimal intervention, providing for natural 

conditions. RNAs on the Shoshone also provide for conservation of rare plant species and 

exceptional examples of biological diversity.

Environmental Consequences

The intent of RNAs is to provide for baseline ecological processes and systems. Humans are 

intervening in every ecosystem globally, so it is important to provide some representative areas 

that are close to “natural” to make sustainability determinations on lands more actively managed. 

RNAs are managed to maintain natural conditions, while allowing ecological processes to 

prevail with minimal human intervention. Vegetation, habitat, soil productivity, water quality, 

and ecological processes are left in a natural condition or in as close a natural condition as 

practicable. However, under some circumstances, deliberate manipulation may be utilized to 

maintain the ecosystem or unique features for which the RNA was established or to re-establish 

natural ecological processes. 

A variety of uses, including most non-motorized recreation activities, are allowed in RNAs as 

long as the activity or uses do not become a threat to the values for which the RNA was 

established and as long as RNA management plan direction is followed. Heritage resources are 

generally protected by RNA designation since ground-disturbing activities are limited.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The eight potential RNAs were jointly selected by the Rocky Mountain Research Station and the 

Regional RNA Steering Committee to meet Forest Service regional and national RNA goals. The 

management area allocations for existing and proposed research natural areas by alternative are 

displayed in table 159.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

554

Table 159. Management area allocations for existing and potential research natural areas by alternative

Management 

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

1.1 Wilderness 54,730 54,730 54,730 54,730 54,730 54,730 54,730

1.2 Recommend wilderness 11,996

1.2A Recommend High Lakes WSA 2,358

1.3 Back country non-motorized 9,775 1,662 53 55 11,448 11,448 55

1.6A High Lakes WSA 2,358 2,358 2,358 2,358 2,358 2,358

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

2.3 Potential RNA 28 12,125 4,298 15,200 13,829

3.3A Back country year-round motorized 310 248 248 758 250

3.3B Back country summer non-motorized/winter mot 539 477

3.3C Back country summer motor/winter non-motorized 510 510 508

3.5 Back country recreation/forest restore 679

4.2 Travel corridor 1,595 5 5 5 1,805 1,805 138

4.3 Back country corridor 3 3 3 3

5.1 Manage forests 2,504 1,245

5.2 Municipal watershed

5.4 Big game crucial range 1,049 27 706

Total 73,625 73,625 73,625 73,625 73,625 73,625 73,625
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

555

Alternatives C, D, and G establish eight potential RNAs that lead to plant associations and 

communities on the Shoshone being represented within a designated RNA, meeting Forest Service 

RNA goals. Various numbers of RNAs are proposed under alternatives A, B, E, and F, resulting in 

some plant associations and communities on the Shoshone not being represented within a designated 

RNA.

Populations of federally listed threatened and endangered species located within any of the potential 

RNAs will be protected according to stipulations under the Endangered Species Act and applicable 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines. Sensitive species located within any of the proposed RNAs 

will be protected by applicable Forest-wide standards and guidelines. The overall effect of RNA 

designation would be to provide additional protection for rare plant species.

In considering the alternatives, alternatives C, D, and G establish the eight potential RNAs which 

lead to the greatest regulatory protection of rare plants. No new RNAs are proposed under 

alternatives A and F, subsequently, rare plants receive no additional regulatory protection. 

Alternatives E and B would only partially add regulatory protections, increasing the risk of potential 

listing of rare plants.

Effects from Timber Harvesting: The potential RNAs are located in areas that are generally not 

considered suitable for timber harvest and have not been harvested in the past. Exceptions are in 

alternatives F and A. In alternative F, 1,250 acres in the Bald Ridge and Beartooth Butte potential 

RNAs would be open for timber activities. Timber stands in both of these areas are of lower 

productivity. In alternative A, 2,500 acres are open for timber activities. Access and lower 

productivity reduce potential harvest activities. In alternatives where RNAs are established, those 

areas would not be available for timber harvest.

In considering the various alternatives, alternatives A and F are expected to have the greatest amount 

of timber harvesting activities within potential RNAs. Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G propose no 

timber harvesting. There is little or no effect on RNA establishment from timber harvesting.

Effects from Roads and Trails Management: On the Shoshone, potential RNAs are without system 

roads and the primary access is via trails. New road construction in RNAs outside of wilderness 

would be prohibited. Motorized use is not allowed in RNAs outside of wilderness, unless deemed 

necessary for research or authorized administrative access. 

Trails that exist prior to RNA designation are allowed and maintained for recreation, scientific, or 

educational access. The construction of new trails is discouraged unless they are to provide better 

resource protection. 

There is little or no effect on RNA establishment by roads and trails management under any 

alternative.

Effects from Disturbance Processes (fires/fuels management and insect/disease mortality): 

Natural outbreaks of native insects and disease are allowed to proceed without intervention, unless 

they are a substantial threat to important resources inside or outside the RNA boundary. 

Prescribed fire activities and mechanical fuels management are not allowed unless the approved 

establishment record and or RNA management plan dictates otherwise. Managed wildfires may be 

allowed to burn to accomplish RNA resource objectives. There may be situations where suppression 

actions need to occur to protect values inside and outside the RNAs. Minimum-impact suppression 

techniques would be used; however, application of these tactics may occur in some situations such as 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

556

fireline construction, retardant application, and construction of helispots. These activities are not 

expected to occur frequently.

There is little or no effect on RNA establishment from disturbance processes under any alternative.

Effects from Livestock Grazing: Grazing allotments tend to follow watershed boundaries. Within 

allotments, there is considerable acreage of non-suitable areas. RNAs are generally located in areas 

of little conflict with livestock grazing. Incidental grazing by livestock may occur because the 

potential and existing RNAs will not be fenced. When cattle are found or reported in the RNAs, they 

are removed as a part of the normal livestock herding practice. 

Table 160 compares allotments and acres of proposed RNAs.

Table 160. Allotment acres compared with potential research natural areas

Allotment name Acres in RNA RNA name

Beartoooth and Face of the Mountain 1,090 Line Creek

Bench 1,900 Bald Ridge

Basin 1,570 Pat O’Hara

Bald Ridge 410 Bald Ridge

Bald Ridge 1,800 Pat O’Hara

Robber Roost 1,690 Pat O’Hara

Line Creek RNA (established 2002)

Portions of the Beartooth cattle and horse allotment are contained within the Line Creek RNA. There 

is no planned livestock grazing within the RNA, however, occasionally incidental livestock use 

occurs. There have been no negative impacts to the existing commercial livestock grazing operation 

on the Beartooth cattle and horse allotment from the establishment of the Line Creek RNA.

Potential Bald Ridge RNA

The entire 1,900 acres of the proposed Bald Ridge RNA that falls within the Bench cattle and horse 

allotment are both unsuitable and not capable from a rangeland forage standpoint and totally 

inaccessible from a livestock grazing standpoint. This area consists primarily of a portion of the 

south face of the lower Clarks Fork Canyon. There would be no negative impacts to the existing

commercial livestock grazing operation on the Bench cattle and horse allotment as a result of 

establishment of the Bald Ridge RNA.

The majority of the 410 acres of the proposed Bald Ridge RNA that falls within the Bald Ridge cattle 

and horse allotment are both suitable and capable from a rangeland forage standpoint. Even though 

this area is within a pasture with annually planned livestock grazing, it receives very little use due to 

the distance to any available source of livestock water. The area is not large enough or productive 

enough to result in the need for a stocking reduction. There would be no negative impacts to the 

existing commercial livestock grazing operation on the Bald Ridge cattle and horse allotment from 

the establishment of the Bald Ridge RNA.

Potential Pat O’Hara RNA

The majority of the 1,570 acres of the proposed Pat O’Hara RNA that falls within the Basin cattle 

and horse allotment are both unsuitable and not capable from a rangeland forage standpoint. This 

portion of the proposed RNA is a combination of heavy timber and steep bare slopes. No past use of 

this area by livestock has been documented nor any future use anticipated. There would be no 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

557

negative impacts to the existing commercial livestock grazing operation on the Basin cattle and horse 

allotment as a result of establishment of the Pat O’Hara RNA.

The majority of the 1,800 acres of the proposed Pat O’Hara RNA that falls within the Bald Ridge 

cattle and horse allotment are both unsuitable and not capable from a rangeland forage standpoint. 

This portion of the proposed RNA is primarily comprised of heavy timber and steep bare slopes. The 

one area of potential conflict would be an inclusion of open south-facing slopes on the north side of 

the proposed RNA. These open slopes and meadows receive significant commercial livestock and 

recreational horse grazing use. This area does not contain crucial vegetation types or rare plant 

communities typical of this proposed RNA. 

The majority of the 1,690 acres of the proposed Pat O’Hara RNA that falls within the Robber Roost 

cattle and horse allotment is capable, but not suitable from a rangeland forage standpoint due to steep 

slopes and distance to water. As such, even though this area is within a pasture with annually planned 

livestock grazing, it receives little to no livestock use. Since there is little suitable rangeland, there is 

no need for a stocking reduction. There would be no negative impacts to the existing commercial 

livestock grazing operation on the Robber Roost cattle and horse allotment as a result of 

establishment of the Pat O’Hara RNA.

Effects from Recreation: The Forest Service would not promote RNAs as destinations for 

recreation use. Existing non-vehicular recreation use would be allowed as long as the use does not 

pose a threat to the values for which the RNA was proposed. Current levels of horseback riding, 

hunting, hiking, fishing, camping, and related low-impact uses by the public would be allowed to 

continue. If resource degradation develops from increased use, the public would be encouraged to 

shift use to other, less ecologically important areas. 

There is little or no effect on RNA establishment from recreation activities under any alternative.

Effects from Noxious and Invasive Species: Management of invasive species is allowed in RNAs 

to protect valued resources.

There is little or no effect on RNA establishment from invasive species management under any 

alternative.

Effects from Oil and Gas and Mineral and Energy Development: Oil and gas leasing is allowed, 

however, no ground-disturbing activities are permitted within the boundaries of the RNA. Protecting 

recommended RNAs to maintain their consideration for designation would impact oil and gas 

exploration in proportion to the number of acres where surface occupancy is prohibited. There is 

expected to be no impact to oil and gas leasing from the designation of RNAs under any alternative. 

When withdrawal from locatable mineral entry is necessary to protect the values for which the area 

was designated, a request for withdrawal from mineral entry will be made. Extraction of salable 

mineral (sand gravel, hard rock for crushing, and landscape materials) would not be allowed in 

RNAs.

There is no effect on RNA establishment from oil and gas development or mineral and energy 

development under any alternative.

Effects from Land Use Authorizations: Proposals for non-manipulative research would require 

approval of the Rocky Mountain Research Station Director and the applicable Forest Service 

authorized officer. Special use permits are required for the collection of all products, as well as for 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

558

many other types of commercial uses. Effects from land use authorizations will be the same across 

all alternatives.

There is little or no effect on RNA establishment from land use authorization under any alternative.

Summary of Effects to Resource

Alternatives C, D, and G establish eight potential RNAs which lead to plant associations and 

communities on the Shoshone being represented within a designated RNA, meeting Forest Service 

RNA goals. Lesser numbers of RNAs are proposed under alternatives A, B, E, and F, resulting in 

some plant associations and communities on the Shoshone not being represented within a designated 

RNA.

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects resulting from designation of RNAs would include present and future loss of 

commodity production (principally wood products and grazing products), although these effects are 

small due to the negligible level of these activities currently occurring. Recreational pursuits in the 

future could be affected by some of the limitations prescribed by RNA direction on types of 

recreation allowed and limits on accessibility, but only if future use levels substantially increase over 

present levels. Designation of RNAs will add to the acreage on the Shoshone where ecological 

processes are largely unaffected by human influences. 

The life of the revised Forest Plan (10 to 15 years) was considered the future time horizon for this 

cumulative effects analysis. There are no reasonably foreseeable actions that would add to either the 

RNA system or the BLM system of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), which are 

approximately equivalent to RNAs. For this analysis, draft BLM Resource Management Plans or 

draft revised forest plans were considered reasonably foreseeable actions. 

The cumulative effects analysis area for the present status of RNAs and ACEC include: 

• NFS lands administered by Custer National Forest, Beartooth Ranger District, Montana.

• BLM lands administered by the Lander Field Office (Lander Planning Area) and Worland 

District Office (Bighorn Basin), Wyoming.

Custer National Forest, Beartooth Ranger District shares the Line Creek RNA with the Shoshone. 

This RNA was established jointly between the forests. The shared RNA has a beneficial effect in 

protecting the resource values for which the RNA was established.

The Lander BLM Field Office has five ACEC designations that are adjacent to the Shoshone 

boundary. These include Lander slope, Red Canyon, Dubois badlands, Whiskey Mountain, and East 

Fork. The eastern portion of Whiskey Mountain ACEC shares a boundary with the proposed Arrow 

Mountain RNA. This ACEC has a beneficial effect to the potential RNA.

The Worland BLM Field Office has five ACEC designations that are adjacent to the Shoshone 

boundary. These include Carter Mountain, Upper Owl Creek, Clark Fork Canyon, Rattlesnake 

Mountain, and Sheep Mountain. The western portion of the Clark Fork ACEC shares a boundary 

with the potential Bald Ridge RNA. This ACEC has a beneficial effect to the potential RNA.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

559

Special Interest Areas

Introduction

Certain limited areas of National Forest System (NFS) lands have outstanding or unique examples of 

plant and animal communities, geological features, scenic grandeur, or other special attributes that 

merit special management. These areas may be designated administratively as special interest areas 

(SIAs) and are managed to emphasize uses in harmony with the purpose for designation. Currently, 

one SIA is established, Swamp Lake Botanical Area. Three additional SIAs are proposed (see map 

58). They include Sawtooth Peatbeds Geological Area, Kirwin Historical Area, and Little Popo Agie 

Moraine Geological Area. One proponent proposed area, the Deep Lake Slide, was not considered 

because of its location in a management area that allows adequate protection.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Regulations and Policies

FSM 2372: This manual provides guidance in establishing and managing special interest areas.

FSH 1909.12: This handbook provides guidance in establishing and managing special interest areas.

36 CFR 294.1: This CFR provides guidance in establishment and management of special interest 

areas.

Methodology

Shoshone resource specialists identified NFS lands that possess “Special Area” characteristics and 

have submitted them for the recommended designation.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

Spatial context used for SIA analysis is the area within the Shoshone National Forest boundary. The 

timeframe of the analysis is 15 years or the anticipated life of the revised Forest Plan.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

The Shoshone National Forest has numerous areas that could qualify as SIAs. It has many 

outstanding examples of plant and animal communities, geological features, scenic grandeur, or 

areas of other special attributes. These have not been systematically analyzed for this current 

planning effort. 

Affected Environment 

The existing 580-acre Swamp Lake Botanical SIA was established in 1987. This SIA contains eight 

different wetland vegetation types and an unusually high concentration of regionally rare, boreal 

disjunct plants. The riparian wetland complex comprises an unusual and perhaps unique set of 

ecological conditions. The extensive marl deposits and scenic qualities make it an area of 

extraordinary interest. A detailed description can be found in the project record.

Three new areas are potential SIAs: Sawtooth Peatbeds Geological Area, the Kirwin Historical Site, 

and Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological Area. 

The Sawtooth Peatbeds are a unique fen palsa located in a broad subalpine valley shaped by glacial 

scouring. It has a large peat deposit with permafrost at 46 centimeters depth (18 inches). The palsa 

has exposures of peat polygons caused by frost heaving and areas of thaw depression pools. This 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

560

geomorphologic feature is the only known palsa in the lower 48 states. The potential geologic area 

encompasses 650 acres. The peatbeds themselves encompass the center of the potential area.

The mining town of Kirwin was formed in the mid-1880s after gold and silver were discovered in the 

area. By 1902, exploration was well established, and by 1904 about 200 miners and their families 

lived in Kirwin. Although miners found some promising veins, the geology of the area is such that 

viable quantities of silver or gold were never found. The Kirwin mines produced very little ore, and 

the railroad, crucial to any mining district, never came to Kirwin. Adding to Kirwin’s troubles, a 

national financial panic in 1907 cut the flow of investment capital to the mines. The town declined 

steadily after that. In 1962, the American Metals Climax Mining Company purchased the Kirwin 

properties and conducted extensive operations in the area, mapping a rich deposit of copper under 

Spar Mountain. Plans to mine the deposit were dropped after the price of copper fell and startup 

expenses for the operation became too high. In 1992, the Richard King Mellon Foundation and 

Conservation Fund purchased the Kirwin properties and facilitated the donation of 3,490 acres of 

land in the Upper Wood River Valley to the Shoshone. The property, known as the Kirwin property, 

is an eligible National Historic District. Today, visitors can explore the old mining town site and 

surrounding area, including cabins, mining equipment, and a mine shaft. The central portion of 

potential historical SIA encompasses 480 acres. A larger area that would encompass many of the 

surrounding mining areas and the Double D Ranch encompasses 4,550 acres.

The Little Popo Agie Moraine is unique in the Wind River Mountains and the Middle Rocky 

Mountains due to glacial ice stalling at about 8,300 feet. Other large glaciers on the eastern slope of 

the Wind Rivers flowed to basin level. These wetlands resulted from a slow rate of glacial recession, 

leaving a hummocky topography that is influenced by groundwater flowing through the 3-squaremile terminus. The result is the largest and most dense collection of kettle lakes and ponds at this 

elevation in the Wind River Range. The groundwater system that flows through the entire area is 

extensive. The glacial moraine deposits created approximately 160 kettle ponds, lakes, and marshes. 

They are surrounded by forests dominated by lodgepole pine, spruce/fir, whitebark pine, and aspen. 

Wetlands contain a unique assemblage of unusual plant and animal species. Unusual plants for the 

area include a disjunct population of trapper's tea (Ledum glandulosum), and the only record of 

lanceleaf grapefern (Botrychium lanceolatum) in Wyoming was documented adjacent to Louis Lake.

Wildlife species that inhabit the moraine include elk, moose, mule deer, black bear, little brown bat, 

water voles, and beaver. A verified sighting of a fisher was made along the Little Popo Agie River in 

the summer of 1991. Bird life includes bald eagle, goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, Northern 

three-toed woodpecker, Brewer’s sparrow, loon, Sandhill crane, goldeneye, sapsucker, flycatcher, 

and osprey. Of particular interest is the large breeding population of ring-neck ducks. Field census 

indicated that it probably is the largest breeding population of ring-neck ducks in the Middle Rocky 

Mountains. These ducks are forest pond nesters that require the habitat provided by the moraine 

environment. Elsewhere, they occur in one to a few pairs on isolated forest or beaver ponds.

Past grazing and timber management exclude this area from becoming a research natural area. This 

potential geological SIA encompasses 1,710 acres.

Designation and management plans would recognize and protect these special interest areas for their 

unique and/or special characteristics. 

Desired Condition

SIAs on the Shoshone recognize outstanding or unique examples of geological, historical, and 

botanical resources. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

561

Environmental Consequences 

Swamp Lake Botanical Area, Sawtooth Peatbeds Geological Area, and Little Popo Agie Moraine

Geological Areas are managed to maintain natural conditions, while allowing ecological processes to 

prevail with minimal human intervention. Vegetation, habitat, soil productivity, water quality, and 

ecological processes are left in a natural condition or in as close a natural condition as practicable. 

However, under some circumstances, deliberate manipulation may be utilized to maintain the 

ecosystem or unique features for which the SIA was established or to re-establish natural ecological 

processes. Kirwin Historical Area SIA is managed to maintain, protect, preserve, and interpret its 

historic values. 

A variety of uses, including most non-motorized recreation activities, are allowed in the SIAs as long 

as the activity or uses do not become a threat to the values for which the SIA was proposed and as 

long as SIA management plan direction is followed. Heritage resources are generally protected by 

SIA designation since ground-disturbing activities are limited.

SIAs may provide regulatory protection of rare plant habitat. Alternatives B, C, D, and G would 

provide the most protection of rare plant habitat associated with the SIAs. Alternatives A, E, and F 

do not include the Sawtooth Peatbeds Geological SIA and Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological SIA. 

These two potential SIAs include rare plant habitat that would not have regulatory protection and 

may increase the risk of listing.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Shoshone selected the three potential SIAs to recognize these areas for outstanding or unique 

examples of plant and animal communities, geological features, historical attributes that merit 

special management. For each of the management program activities described below, the 

environmental consequences for SIA resources are compared by alternative, based on key indicators 

of disturbance for each type of activity. Not all management activities would impact SIA resources 

due to location of facilities or potential use or development e.g., there is low potential for minerals 

development in the SIA areas, therefore, no impacts are anticipated under any alternative to SIA 

resources from minerals development. 

Effects from Timber Harvesting: In considering the various alternatives, A, E, and F have acreage 

that is designated for timber harvest in the potential Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological Area.

There is little or no effect on SIA establishment from timber harvesting under any alternative.

Effects from Disturbance Processes (fires/fuels management and insect/disease mortality): Fire

could detrimentally affect Swamp Lake Botanical SIA, proposed Sawtooth Peatbeds Geological SIA, 

and proposed Kirwin Historical Site SIA. Fuels reduction projects would have a positive effect in 

protecting these SIA values at risk. Wildfire could threaten historic structures, exposed peat soils, and 

rare plant communities. Vegetation communities of the Little Popo Agie Moraine would benefit from 

the effects of fire.

There is little or no effect on SIA establishment from disturbance processes under any alternative.

Effects from Livestock Grazing: Grazing allotments tend to follow watershed boundaries. Within 

allotments there is considerable acreage of non-suitable areas. The proposed SIAs are generally 

located in areas of little conflict with livestock grazing. Incidental grazing by livestock may occur 

because portions of the proposed and existing SIAs are not fenced. When cattle are found or reported 

in the SIAs they are removed as a part of the normal livestock herding practice. Table 161 compares 

allotments and acres of proposed SIAs.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

562

Table 161. Acres of special interest area by grazing allotment

Allotment name Allotment acres in SIA SIA name

Crandall I & II 30 Swamp Lake Botanical Area

Ghost Creek 550 Swamp Lake Botanical Area

Maxson Basin 420 Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological Area 

Kirwin & Wood River 480 to 4,550 Kirwin Historical Area

Swamp Lake Botanical SIA (established 1987)

This SIA is part of the Crandall I & II cattle and horse and Ghost Creek Allotments. The current 

situation has been in place since establishment of the SIA in 1987. There is no planned livestock 

grazing within the SIA, however, during periods of extreme drought and low water incidental 

livestock use may occur. Livestock on the allotment are managed under a multi-pasture deferred 

rotation grazing system and when cattle are found or reported in the SIA they are removed as a part 

of the normal livestock herding practice. Additional protection for the SIA is planned in the form of 

exclusion fencing. Very little suitable rangeland would be within the exclosure and all costs for the 

fence construction and maintenance would be the responsibility of the Forest Service. There have 

been no negative impacts to the existing commercial livestock grazing operation on the Crandall I & 

II cattle and horse or Ghost Creek Allotments from the establishment of the Swamp Lake SIA.

Potential Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological SIA

This potential SIA is part of the Maxson Basin cattle and horse allotment. The majority of the 420 

acres of the potential Little Popo Agie Moraine SIA that fall within the Maxson Basin cattle and 

horse allotment are neither capable nor suitable from a rangeland standpoint due to heavy timber, 

rock outcroppings, and wetlands. As such, even though this area is within a pasture with annually 

planned livestock grazing, it receives very little livestock use. Establishment of this SIA 

acknowledges and accepts incidental livestock use and if cattle are found or reported in the SIA they 

would be removed as a part of the normal livestock herding practice. Since there is little suitable 

rangeland, there is no need for a stocking reduction. There would be no negative impacts to the 

existing commercial livestock grazing operation on the Maxson Basin cattle and horse allotment as a 

result of establishment of the Little Popo Agie Moraine Geological SIA.

Kirwin Historical Site SIA

This potential SIA is part of the Kirwin & Wood River cattle and horse allotment. There is no 

planned livestock grazing within the smaller (480 acres) or larger (4,600 acres) proposed SIA, 

however, occasional incidental livestock use may occur. This use usually occurs when ATV riders 

encounter livestock on the road in the narrow valley and inadvertently herd them up the drainage. 

Livestock on the allotment are managed under a multi-pasture deferred rotation grazing system, and 

when cattle are found or reported in the SIA they would be removed as a part of the normal livestock 

herding practice. Additional protection for the SIA is planned in the form of a drift fence and 

cattleguard located at the upper end of the grazing area. All costs for the fence and cattleguard 

construction would be the responsibility of the Forest Service. There would be no negative impacts 

to the existing commercial livestock grazing operation on the Kirwin & Wood River cattle and horse 

allotment from the establishment of the Kirwin Historical SIA.

There is little or no effect on SIA establishment from livestock grazing under any alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

563

Effects from Noxious and Invasive Species: Invasive plants are considered to have detrimental 

effects to SIAs. They can be treated in all alternatives to protect resource values. There is little or no 

effect on SIA establishment from invasive plant management under any alternative.

Effects from Heritage Management: In considering the various alternatives, A and F do not 

propose addition of the Kirwin Historical Site, and the opportunity to recognize this area as a 

valuable historic site and provide special management would be lost. Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G 

designate Kirwin Historical Site as an SIA, allowing the preservation and management of this 

historic Wyoming mining town.

Summary of Effects to Resource 

Overall potential impacts to SIA resources would be least under alternatives B, C, D, and G with the 

establishment of the three potential SIAs. Alternative E would protect one potential SIA, the Kirwin 

Historical Site. No new SIAs are proposed under alternatives A and F; their historical and geological 

features are not emphasized. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects resulting from designation of SIAs would include present and future loss of 

commodity production (principally wood products and grazing products), although these effects are 

small due to the negligible level of these activities currently occurring. Recreational pursuits in the 

future could be affected by some of the limitations prescribed by SIA direction on types of recreation 

allowed and limits on accessibility, but only if future use levels substantially increase over present 

levels. Designation of three of the SIAs would add to the acreage on the Shoshone where ecological 

processes are largely unaffected by human influences. The Kirwin Historical SIA recognizes the 

effect of early Wyoming extraction of resources.

The life of the revised Forest Plan (10 to 15 years) was considered the future time horizon for this 

cumulative effects analysis. There are no reasonably foreseeable actions that would add to either 

Shoshone SIAs or the BLM ACEC system, similar to the Forest Service SIA designation. For this 

analysis, draft BLM Resource Management Plans or draft revised forest plans were considered 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

The cumulative effects analysis area for the present status of SIAs and ACECs include BLM lands 

administered by the Lander Field Office (Lander Planning Area) and Worland District Office 

(Bighorn Basin), Wyoming.

The Lander BLM field office has six ACEC designations that are adjacent to the Shoshone boundary. 

These include Lander slope, Red Canyon, Dubois badlands, Whiskey Mountain, and East Fork. The 

South Pass ACEC is similar to the potential Kirwin Historical Site SIA because both recognize 

Wyoming historic mining areas.

The Worland BLM Field Office has five ACEC designations that are adjacent to the Shoshone 

boundary. These include Carter Mountain, Upper Owl Creek, Clark Fork Canyon, Rattlesnake 

Mountain, and Sheep Mountain. None of these areas share similarities to the potential Shoshone 

SIAs.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

564

Scenery Resources

Introduction

Scenery management is concerned with providing scenic integrity, through time, to meet the public 

desire for attractive natural landscapes and to support recreation and tourism uses. The scenery 

management system replaces the visual management system used in the 1986 Shoshone National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986 Forest Plan as amended). 

The scenery management system is used to inventory and analyze scenery, to assist in establishing 

resource goals and objectives, to monitor the scenic resource, and to ensure high-quality scenery for 

future generations. The new system applies to all national forests and grasslands administered by the 

Forest Service and to all Forest Service management activities. 

Legal and Administrative Framework 

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528) authorizes and directs the Secretary 

of Agriculture “to develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the National Forests” 

for “harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources . . . with consideration being 

given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that 

will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output.”

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1601) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to 

prepare land management plans which provide for outdoor recreation and to develop and keep 

current a comprehensive inventory of all NFS, as well as state and private, lands and resources. 

Section 6 of this act requires an assessment of potential aesthetic impacts during the interdisciplinary 

review of proposed timber sale areas that would include clear-cutting and other cuts designed to 

regenerate an even-aged stand of timber. It also specifies treatment of cut blocks and protection of 

aesthetic resources, and directs that multiple use and sustainable yield guidelines be used with 

private lands involved with government programs.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600) requires that the removal of trees, 

portions of trees, or forest products “be compatible with multiple use resource management 

objectives in the affected area.”

• Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 219, Subpart A, National Forest 

System Land and Resource Management Planning (36 CFR part 219, subpart A), 

includes requirements for consideration, treatment, and protection of intangible resources 

such as scenery and aesthetics.

• Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 219, Subpart A, 219.21 (f) National 

Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning (36 CFR part 219.21(f)), 

“The visual resource shall be inventoried and evaluated as an integrated part of evaluating 

alternatives in the forest planning process, addressing both the landscape’s visual 

attractiveness and the public’s visual expectation. Management prescriptions for definitive 

land areas of the forest shall include visual quality objectives.”

• Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 223, Sale and Disposal of National 

Forest System Timber (36 CFR part 223), includes requirements for protecting 

environmental quality and for minimizing adverse effects on, or providing protection for and 

enhancing, other NFS resources.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

565

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) directs the Federal Government 

to “(2) assure for all Americans ... healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, 

[or] risk to health ..., (4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects” of our 

environment. It further directs agencies to “insure the integrated use of the natural and social 

sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an 

impact on man’s environment.” This act directs agencies to develop methods and procedures “which 

will insure that [scenery and other] unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given 

appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations.”

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131) directs the United States to administer wilderness 

areas to provide for the “preservation of their wilderness character,” to retain their “primeval 

character and influence,” and to protect and manage the natural conditions of wilderness areas so that 

they “generally appear to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” Scenic use is identified as one of the six public purposes of 

wilderness areas.

• Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 293, Wilderness – Primitive Areas (36 

CFR part 293) includes requirements for scenic use, preservation and protection of 

wilderness character, and promotion and perpetuation of specific values including solitude 

and inspiration.

• Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 292, National Recreation Areas (36 

CFR part 292) includes requirements for preservation, conservation, and protection of 

natural, scenic, and pastoral values, and other values contributing to public enjoyment of 

these areas.

The National Trails System Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1241) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to 

administer and manage national scenic trails “for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally 

significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may 

pass.”

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 101) directs the 

establishment of a National Scenic Byways Program with designation criteria to include 

consideration of scenic beauty. It further recommends that designated travelways have operation and 

maintenance standards which include “strategies for . . . protecting and enhancing the landscape and 

view corridors surrounding such a highway.”

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271) directs the United States, in its 

administration of components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, to give primary 

emphasis to protecting “its aesthetic, [and] scenic ... features.”

• Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 297, Wild and Scenic Rivers (36 CFR 

part 297), includes requirements for the protection of scenic and natural values from the 

effects of any water resources project.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201) authorizes the Secretary 

of Agriculture to permit surface coal mining operations on NFS lands if there are no significant 

recreational or other values which may be incompatible.

• Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 228, Subpart A, Locatable Minerals 

(36 CFR part 228, subpart A) includes requirements for harmonizing mineral operations 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

566

with scenic values (sec. 228.8), and protecting scenic values when approving access to those 

operations (sec. 228.12).

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 4401, 4401-4413; 16 U.S.C. 

669b) recognizes the aesthetic values of fish, shellfish, and other wildlife; it further recognizes that 

wetland ecosystems provide aquatic areas which are important for recreational and aesthetic 

purposes. It directs the head of each Federal agency, to the extent consistent with the agency’s 

mission and statutory authorities, to cooperate to restore, protect, and enhance the wetland 

ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds, fish, and wildlife.

Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 254, Landownership Adjustments (36 CFR 

part 254), include requirements for protecting aesthetic values on lands involved in these 

transactions.

Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 290, Cave Resources Management (36 CFR 

part 290), includes requirements for protecting and maintaining the scenic values of significant 

caves.

FSM, Chapter 2380, Landscape Management provides direction for Forest Service landscape 

management including aesthetics and scenery.

Resource Protection Measures

Scenery resource protection measures are included in forest-wide and management area standards 

and guidelines. Scenery resource methods and techniques are described in the following USDA 

handbooks:

• National Forest Landscape Management, Vol. 1. Agriculture Handbook 434: 1973.

○ National Forest Landscape Management, Vol. 2, Chapter 1: The Visual Management 

System. Agriculture Handbook 462: 1974.

○ Utilities, Volume 2 - Chapter 2. Agriculture Handbook 478: 1975.

○ Range, Volume 2 - Chapter 3. Agriculture Handbook 484: 1977.

○ Roads, Volume 2 - Chapter 4. Agriculture Handbook 483: 1977.

○ Timber, Volume 2 - Chapter 5. Agriculture Handbook 559: 1980.

○ Fire, Volume 2 - Chapter 6. Agriculture Handbook 608: 1985.

○ Ski Areas, Volume 2 - Chapter 7. Agriculture Handbook 617: 1984.

○ Recreation, Volume 2 - Chapter 8. Agriculture Handbook 666: 1987.

• Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook 701: 

1995

Methodology and Analysis Process

In 1986, when the Forest Plan was adopted, scenic resources were inventoried and analyzed using 

the visual management system as outlined in Forest Service Handbook 462 (USDA Forest Service 

1974). This system, which was released in 1974, established standards of measurement (i.e., visual 

quality objectives) for assessing proposed and existing impacts to scenic quality.

In 1995, after 20 years of experience with the visual management system and after additional 

research in the public and private sectors, the Forest Service revised the visual management system 

and replaced it with the scenery management system. This revised system is described in 

Agricultural Handbook 701, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (USDA 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

567

Forest Service 1995). The scenery management system was used in combination with the visual 

management system in this analysis because the scenery management system will not fully replace 

the visual management system on the Shoshone National Forest until the revised Forest Plan is 

adopted.

Although the visual management system and scenery management system both manage scenic 

resources, the scenery management system takes the visual management system process one step 

further by rating the importance of the landscape and developing scenic classes to measure the value 

of a landscape being viewed. Scenic classes allowed managers to compare the scenic value of a 

landscape with the value of other resources during the planning process. Most concepts are the same 

in both systems, but often terminology has changed. Both systems establish objectives (visual quality 

objectives or scenic integrity objectives) to measure the degree of alteration or deviation permissible 

in a landscape. The definitions for these objectives are similar, but application is slightly different. 

The scenery management system measures deviations from the existing landscape character, and 

ecosystems provide the environmental context for the scenery management system. With ecosystems 

providing the context, the focus is on movement toward the desired landscape character (USDA 

Forest Service 1995, 20). The scenery management system also places additional emphasis on 

constituent analysis.

The scenery management system, as outlined in Agricultural Handbook 701, is today’s best science 

to achieve high-quality scenery as an outcome of national forest ecosystem management practices. 

Scenery management system inventories were completed for the Shoshone as part of the land and 

resource management plan revision process. ArcMap and geographic information system (GIS) data 

layers were used to analyze current forest plan direction for scenic resources (referred to in the 1986 

Forest Plan as amended as visual resources), inventory scenic resources as outlined in the scenery 

management system to determine the relative value of scenic resources, develop scenic integrity 

objectives for the action alternatives, and analyze the alternatives in regard to desired conditions for 

scenic resources (i.e., visual quality objectives or scenic integrity objectives). 

The scenery inventory process is fully documented in the Scenery Management System Inventory 

Report for the Shoshone National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Revision (SMS 

Inventory Report). The effects analysis will consider how each alternative manages scenic resources 

by considering the management prescriptions proposed in each alternative and the amount of each 

visual quality objective established or scenic integrity objective proposed on NFS lands in each 

alternative. To ensure clarity, the following cross walk between visual quality objectives and scenic 

integrity objectives is provided (table 162).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

568

Table 162. Scenic integrity, visual quality objective, and perception crosswalk (USDA Forest Service 

1995, 2-4)

Scenic 

integrity (both 

existing and 

objective)

Visual quality 

objective The Forest’s scenic integrity as people perceive it

Very high Preservation Unaltered; landscape character is intact

High Retention Appears unaltered; deviations to landscape character are not 

evident

Moderate Partial 

retention

Slightly altered; deviations are subordinate to landscape character 

being viewed

Low Modification Moderately altered; deviations begin to dominate the valued 

landscape character being viewed

Very low Maximum 

modification

Appears heavily altered; deviations may strongly dominate the 

valued landscape character.

Unacceptably 

low

Unacceptable 

modification

Appears extremely altered; this level is only used to inventory 

existing scenic integrity. It is never an objective on NFS lands

The effects analysis will also consider how each alternative provides for management of natural 

appearing scenery. The very high, high, and moderate scenic integrity objectives result in a relatively 

natural-appearing landscape. It is important for national forests to manage scenery at this level. 

“Research has shown that high-quality scenery, especially that related to natural-appearing forests, 

enhances people's lives and benefits society” (USDA Forest Service 1995, 17). It should also be 

noted that according to “Floyd Newby’s findings that ‘people expect to see natural or naturalappearing scenery’” (quoted in USDA Forest Service 1995, 2 3). Furthermore, “research shows that 

there is a high degree of public agreement regarding scenic preferences. This research indicates that 

people value most highly the more visually attractive and natural-appearing landscapes” (USDA 

Forest Service 1995, 30).

Issues Addressed in this Analysis

During public meetings and public feedback periods scheduled throughout the plan revision process, 

the public identified no key issues in regard to scenic resources. However, the interdisciplinary team 

determined that the revised Forest Plan would affect how scenic resources are managed, and these 

effects should be analyzed. The following issues regarding scenery are analyzed in this analysis. 

• Issue – The best available science for managing scenic resources may not be used in each 

alternative. 

Indicator – Whether the scenery management system is being implemented to manage 

scenery. 

• Issue – Existing or proposed plan direction may provide for varying amounts of naturalappearing scenery for forest visitors.

Indicator – Percentage of NFS land provided by plan language (visual quality objective or 

proposed scenic integrity objective allocations) of natural-appearing scenery

• Issue – Existing or proposed plan direction provides for varying amounts of lands allocated 

to travel corridors management area prescription, which provides scenery prescriptions for 

management activities that provide for the public enjoyment of scenery over time.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

569

Indicator – Percentage of NFS land allocated to travel corridors management area 

prescription.

• Issue – Existing or proposed management prescription categories may affect scenic 

resources. 

Indicator – Alternative(s) disclosed with least potential impact to scenic resources. 

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The temporal timeframe for direct, indirect and cumulative effects was run for 15 years, the 

anticipated life of the revised Forest Plan. The analysis area used was the Shoshone, where land

management actions may be prescribed. 

Affected Environment 

As area populations increase, so does visitation to area national forests. Driving for pleasure and 

viewing scenery have become some of the most popular national forest activities as shown from 

National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey data. Visitors expect a certain level of “naturalness” in the 

recreation and tourism settings they pursue. Even individuals who have never visited the Shoshone 

expect a certain level of “natural intactness” in these landscapes. This natural beauty contributes to 

their sense of well-being and quality of life. The scenic integrity of national forest landscapes (which 

measures landscapes' inherent scenic attractiveness and the public's visual expectations for 

naturalness) is the system by which projected alterations in national forest landscapes are evaluated. 

National forest visitors are attracted to a variety of areas for the natural character they possess. 

Visitors and residents value the forested backdrops that frame the surrounding communities. The 

transportation network and associated use areas provide visitors with scenic routes and vantage 

points to experience the region's vast expanse of rugged back country. 

The Shoshone has a variety of landscape character types created by glaciers, rivers, continental 

uplifting, and mass wasting. The Shoshone contains many areas of outstanding scenic beauty unique 

to the Rocky Mountain Region. The American public generally recognizes that NFS lands with 

exceptional scenic resources are valuable public assets that should be protected and managed for the 

enjoyment of future generations. Landscapes on the Shoshone contain alterations from past events 

and activities such as fire, mining, logging, and ranching, even though many of these changes are not 

readily visible to most forest visitors. The most visible effects to scenery from past human activities 

have generally been caused by the removal of vegetation in patterns that contrast with the natural 

forms, lines, colors, and textures of the natural landscape. Forest vegetation management is generally 

done via timber sales or prescribed burning. Other activities that require alteration of landforms often 

result in more permanent changes to the landscape. Examples of these types of activities include: 

roads, trails, buried utilities, mines, reservoirs, communication sites, and gravel pits. Structures such 

as power lines, communication sites, buildings, fences, and other structures located on NFS lands 

also have potential to be noticed and create negative visual changes. 

National forest travel routes have been evaluated for the estimated level of public concern for 

alterations to the landscape. Travel routes classified as concern level 1 (including those routes that 

are designated state scenic highways or national forest scenic byways) indicate that the public is 

most concerned about alterations; concern level 3 indicates the least concern. In evaluating landscape 

visibility, landscape managers have recognized that “distance” is one of the primary perceptual 

factors for determining whether alterations are visually noticed. Foreground distance zones reveal 

even the subtlest alterations; background distance zones are able to absorb greater alterations, 

provided color contrasts are minimized.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

570

Landscape management is used to meet people's scenery expectations for the management of 

national forest landscapes. To ensure that scenic integrity is maintained, six levels of scenic integrity 

objectives have been established, derived from the landscape's attractiveness and the public's 

expectations or concerns. Each scenic integrity objective depicts a level of scenic integrity used to 

direct landscape management: very high (unaltered), high (appears unaltered), moderate (slightly 

altered), low (moderately altered), and very low (heavily altered).

Generally, landscapes that are most attractive (as classified by scenic attractiveness class) and are 

viewed from popular travel routes (as classified by concern level) are assigned higher scenic 

integrity objectives. The methodology for establishing scenic integrity objectives is provided in 

Agriculture Handbook 701.

The 1986 Forest Plan as amended used the visual management system described in the publication 

titled National Forest Landscape Management (USDA Forest Service 1977). The visual quality 

objectives shown in table 163 were established for the 1986 Forest Plan as amended.

Table 163. 1986 Forest Plan as amended visual quality objectives

Visual quality objective Acres Percentage of Forest 

Preservation 1,365,000 56%

Retention 360,900 15%

Partial retention 683,900 28%

Modification 28,100 1%

Maximum modification 

TOTAL 2,438,000 100%

In some landscapes, human influence is evident through changes in vegetation patterns, landform 

alterations, or the introduction of structural elements. For the most part, national forest landscapes in 

the planning area remain natural-appearing in character, with many of the valued landscape attributes 

still intact. 

The Scenic Integrity Scale

The scenic integrity scale is used to describe both existing and desired conditions. The scenic 

integrity scale describes a range of scenic quality conditions. The first five categories are not 

inherently good or bad. This scale is a continuum of scenic condition ranging from a landscape 

where changes are natural occurrences, to a landscape where management activities and uses 

overwhelm the original landscape character. This scale is used to evaluate existing condition and to 

describe future objectives. In general, landscapes with very high, high, and moderate scenic integrity 

have a natural appearance; landscapes with low, very low, and unacceptably low scenic integrity are 

dominated to varying degrees by development and use.

Very high The valued landscape character “is” intact with only minute if any 

deviation. The existing landscape character and sense of place is 

expressed at the highest possible level.

High The valued landscape character “appears” intact. Deviations may be 

present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture and pattern 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

571

common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale 

that they are not evident.

Moderate The valued landscape character “appears slightly altered.” 

Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the 

landscape character being viewed.

Low The valued landscape character “appears moderately altered.” 

Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being 

viewed but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge 

effect, and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or 

architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. They should 

not only appear as valued character outside the landscape being 

viewed but compatible or complimentary to the character within.

Very low The valued landscape character “appears heavily altered.” 

Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. 

They may borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge 

effect, and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or 

architectural styles within or outside the landscape being viewed. 

However deviations must be shaped and blended with the natural 

terrain (land forms) so that elements such as unnatural edges roads, 

landings, and structures do not dominate the composition.

Unacceptably low The valued landscape character being viewed “appears extremely 

altered.” Deviations are extremely dominant and borrow little if any 

form, line, color, texture, pattern, or scale from the landscape 

character. Landscapes at this level of integrity need rehabilitation. 

This level should only be used to inventory existing integrity. It 

must not be used as a management objective.

The Scenic Byways

There are three scenic byways and one All American Road crossing the Forest: Chief Joseph Scenic 

Byway, (U.S. Highway 296), Buffalo Bill Scenic Byway (U.S. Highway 14-16-20), Wyoming 

Centennial Scenic Byway (U.S. Highway 26-287), and the Beartooth All American Road (U.S. 

Highway 212). Each road provides a unique and different view of the Shoshone because they vary in 

viewshed, vegetation, geological features, and historical uses. They provide opportunities for 

approximately 306 miles of scenic travel on the Shoshone and adjacent national forests. These roads 

provide forest access for the majority of tourists and local visitors.

Desired Condition

The desired visual condition for the Shoshone is administered so that management activities maintain 

or improve the scenic integrity. Management activities are not evident or remain visually subordinate 

along forest arterial and collector roads and primary trails. In other portions of the Shoshone, 

management activities may dominate the foreground and middleground views, but harmonize and 

blend with the natural setting. Landscape rehabilitation is used to restore landscapes to a desirable 

scenic integrity. Enhancement aimed at increasing positive elements of the landscape to improve 

visual variety is also desired. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

572

Environmental Consequences

This section of the scenery analysis describes the environmental consequences for all alternatives. 

Potential environmental consequences for scenic resources include: implementation of the scenery 

management system, general effects of varied management activity prescriptions, differences in the 

proposed scenic integrity objective(s) among the alternatives, and differences in proposed 

management area prescriptions among the alternatives. The proposed scenic integrity objective(s) for 

each alternative are based on the relative value for scenery (scenic class), the theme of the 

alternative, and the desired condition and mix of management areas in each alternative. 

Consequences of Implementing the Scenery Management System 

Under alternative A, scenic resources would continue to use visual quality objectives, developed 

from the 1986 visual management system inventories, to manage scenic resources. Under the visual 

management system, scenic resources would not be managed in an ecosystem context. Any human 

activities in the landscape, even when planned to improve ecosystem processes, could be considered 

a deviation in the landscape character. The 1986 visual management system inventories would not be 

updated to reflect the current concern for scenery on the Shoshone. Alternative A would not use best 

available science, the scenery management system, to manage scenic resources in the context of 

ecosystem management to sustain scenic resources in the long term. 

During the development of the revised Forest Plan, an inventory of scenic resources was conducted 

using the scenery management system as outlined in the Scenery Management System Handbook 

(USDA Forest Service 1995). As part of the interdisciplinary revision process, proposed scenic 

integrity objectives were developed from the scenery management system inventories. It is part of 

the revised Forest Plan and alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G to fully implement the scenery 

management system including goals, standards and guidelines to manage scenic resources in the 

context of ecosystem management. 

Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G use best available science, the scenery management system, to 

manage scenic resources. In the scenery management system, ecosystems provide the environmental 

context for the scenery management system and increased concern for the Shoshone scenery has 

been considered.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The quality of the visitor experience may be affected by the condition of the forest environment 

encountered, depending on the number and types of manmade activities and the degree of deviation 

from the landscape’s inherent natural condition that has occurred. Each alternative will affect 

landscape character to varying degrees over time, based on the amount of change from the natural 

condition that is allowed. 

Changes in scenery may be the result of natural events and human activities. Project planning, design 

and layout techniques may be used to minimize changes in scenic integrity. The observer’s viewing 

location, distance from the change, the season, landform and vegetation screening, weather 

conditions, and the duration of the view affect how noticeable changes are.

Management activities and uses such as timber harvest, road building, mining, grazing, utilities, trail 

construction, ski area development, and developed and dispersed recreation affect scenery. Activities 

designed to blend in with the surrounding landscape may have a positive effect on scenic integrity; 

poorly designed activities that contrast sharply with the surrounding landscape usually result in an 

adverse effect on scenic integrity. The planning, design, and layout of projects are critical to 

achieving scenic integrity objectives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

573

Each alternative developed for the forest plan revision includes varied management prescriptions and 

each management prescription is assigned a proposed scenic integrity objective(s) based on the 

desired condition of the management area. Scenic integrity objectives assigned to management area 

prescriptions influence the amount, degree, intensity, and distribution of management activities 

needed to achieve the desired condition. Distribution includes both distribution in space and 

distribution through time.

Alternatives C and D, enhance or protect the inherent naturalness of scenic landscapes for the highest 

number of acres. These alternatives are most likely to provide the greatest public benefit from a 

scenery resources standpoint. Scenery is an integral component of all national forest settings and 

must be considered in the analysis for all activities on NFS land. Each site-specific project must be 

analyzed in detail to determine compliance with forest plan direction and determine if mitigation 

measures are required. 

Scenic integrity objectives have a range from very high to low. The scenic integrity objectives for 

each alternative are based on the proportionate mix of management areas in each alternative. Each 

management area has a range of proposed scenic integrity objectives as a guideline. These ranges are 

set to be compatible with the desired condition for the management area. 

As stated in the methodology section, the very high, high, and moderate scenic integrity objectives 

result in a relatively natural-appearing landscape. Providing for naturally appearing scenery is an 

indicator for this analysis. Alternatives A, B, C, D, E, and G provide for an equal amount of naturally 

appearing scenery, 99 percent of NFS lands. Alternative F provides less naturally appearing scenery 

than the other alternatives, 98 percent of NFS lands. Alternatives C and D allocate the highest 

percentage of NFS lands as very high scenic integrity objective. Table 164 displays the proposed 

scenic integrity objective categories by alternative based upon the allocation of the management 

areas. 

Map 59 displays the visual quality objectives for alternative A. Maps 60−64 and 78 display the 

scenery integrity objectives for alternatives B through G.

Table 164. Percentages of the Shoshone acreage by scenic integrity objective and alternative

Scenic integrity 

objective 

Percentage of Shoshone acreage by alternative 

Aa B C D E F G

Very High 56b 59 82 66 58 58 58

High 15c 27 8 23 26 20 27

Moderate 28d 14 9 11 15 21 13

Low 1e 1 1 1 1 2 1

TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

a Alternative A (No-action – 1986 Forest Plan as amended) does not have scenic integrity objectives established using the 

scenery management system. When the 1986 Forest Plan as amended was completed, scenery was described using the 

Visual Management System (USDA Forest Service 1977) with areas of the forest classified using visual quality objectives 

(VQO).

b In the 1986 Forest Plan as amended this was the percent assigned to the “Preservation” VQO. 

c In the 1986 Forest Plan as amended this was the percent assigned to the “Retention” VQO. d In the 1986 Forest Plan as amended this was the percent assigned to a “Partial Retention” VQO. 

e In the 1986 Forest Plan as amended this was the percent assigned to a “Modification & Maximum Modification” VQO.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

574

The Scenic Byways

A management area prescription helps define the purpose and need for future projects in that area. 

Management area 4.2, travel corridors, provides scenery prescriptions for management activities that 

provide for the public enjoyment of scenery over time (see map 43). The scenery prescription is 

applied to areas of concentrated recreation use (e.g., campgrounds, visitor centers) and along scenic 

byways.

Scenic byways provide opportunities to enjoy scenic beauty. The designated scenic integrity 

objective for this management area is moderate to high.

Effects from other Resource Management

For each of the resource areas described below, the environmental consequences for scenery 

resources are compared by alternative, based on key indicators of disturbance for each type of 

activity. In general, alternatives that propose greater levels of disturbance activities for various 

resource uses generally have the greater potential to impact scenery resources.

Effects from Insects and Disease and Fire and Fuels Management: In all alternatives, natural 

disturbance factors have the potential to alter the appearance of the Shoshone. While these changes 

are consistent with the landscape character of the Shoshone, they occur within the historic range of 

variability of that character type. It is difficult to compare the potential effects of insects, disease, or 

wildfire to the more predictable effects of management activities and development. Opportunities to 

minimize natural disturbances through active management will be evaluated for scenery effects when 

projects are developed. Opportunities may be identified for rehabilitation work to reduce the visual 

effects of insects, disease, and wildfire. Insects, disease, and wildfire are natural disturbance factors 

with a high potential to change scenic beauty, but no direct effect on scenic integrity. Effects to 

scenic integrity might result from the development of roads for timber management.

Prescribed fires that are used to reduce fuels, improve forest, range and habitat conditions also affect 

the scenery. The significance of the effect depends on the vegetation type(s), the number of acres 

treated and the duration of the effect. Prescribed fires in rangeland usually have short-term visual 

effects. Prescribed fires with crown fires in a timber stand usually have a more apparent and lasting 

impact. Other types of fuel treatments (e.g., thinning and burn piles) affect scenery as well. Based on 

the prescribed burning projected annually for forested acres, impacts on scenery would be similar 

throughout all alternatives on a percentage basis. The greatest number of acres anticipated to be 

affected by mechanical treatment, prescribed fire, and wildfire would occur under alternative A , 

followed by alternatives D, C, B and G, and F, respectively.

Effects from Mineral, Oil and Gas Development: Mineral and energy development may affect 

scenery on the Shoshone. Scenic integrity would be reduced if the landscape is modified by energy 

development. Location of structures (e.g., roads, pipes, pumpjacks, tanks, and fences) would affect 

scenery. Mineral development may occur for common minerals such as gravel. Alternative C has 

fewer acres available under standard lease terms for energy development than other alternatives, and 

would have the least potential for effects to scenery resources. However, minerals development 

potential is low to very low, and effects are anticipated to be minimal under any alternative.

Effects from Timber Management: Timber management activities can be designed to minimize 

effects on scenic integrity, although design criteria may conflict, in varying degrees, with timber 

management objectives. Timber harvest can be used to maintain or enhance scenic integrity over 

time if that objective is identified in project planning. Negative effects on scenic integrity are usually 

noticed when harvest units dominate the landscape. Management areas emphasizing forest products
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

575

from suited timber lands have the potential for reduced scenic integrity as a result of timber 

management. The potential for reduced scenic integrity is least under alternative C, followed by 

alternatives D, A, B and G, E, and F, respectively.

Summary of Effects to Resource 

All alternatives provide goals and guidelines to manage scenic resources. The main difference among 

alternatives is the management system used (visual management system vs. scenery management 

system) and whether that system manages scenic resources in the context of ecosystem management. 

Alternative A manages scenic resources using visual quality objectives, developed from the 1986 

visual management system inventories. Visual quality objectives range from preservation to 

modification. Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G use the scenery management system to maintain 

scenic resources. Scenic integrity objectives proposed for every acre of NFS lands vary from very 

high to low. The proposed scenic integrity objectives focus on movement toward the desired 

landscape character.

Scenic byways provide opportunities to enjoy scenic beauty. Alternatives vary little with respect to 

acres of byway corridors that would be managed for scenery values and uses.

Proposed management prescription categories may impact scenery across alternatives. Alternative C 

provides the least potential impact from oil and gas development and timber harvest when compared 

to the other alternatives. 

All alternatives provide for an equal amount of naturally appearing scenery of NFS lands. “Research 

has shown that high-quality scenery, especially that related to natural-appearing forests, enhances 

people's lives and benefits society” (USDA Forest Service 1995, 17).

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area for scenic resources is the Shoshone and the lands adjacent to 

and within the Shoshone under other ownership. Cumulative consequences are those consequences 

of past, present, and foreseeable activities on lands of other ownership that, in conjunction with 

management activities likely to occur on the Shoshone, may intensify, negate, improve or otherwise 

affect scenic resources. Below are considerations of consequences of activities that will likely occur 

on adjacent or nearby ownerships to the Shoshone. The Shoshone shares borders with the BridgerTeton, Custer, and Gallatin National Forests, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park 

Service, State of Wyoming, Wind River Indian Reservation, and private land.

Any guiding documents or plans for lands in and around the Shoshone were reviewed to determine if 

they would contribute to cumulative consequences. If lands have some management direction (goals, 

objectives, guiding principles, etc.) for scenic resources or natural character, it is assumed that scenic 

resources would be considered in any future project planning.

The Bridger-Teton, Custer, and Gallatin National Forests manage scenic resources using the visual 

management system and visual quality objectives allocated in their current land management plans. 

The Shoshone would implement the scenery management system before adjacent national forests. 

Consistent management of scenic resources would be beneficial to scenery in the long term, 

especially when scenery objectives (scenic integrity objectives or visual quality objectives) are edgematched across forest boundaries. 

The BLM is currently revising resource management plans for the Wind River/Bighorn Basin 

District and Lander Field Office planning areas. The BLM manages scenic resources using the Visual 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

576

Resource Management System. Under this system, scenic resources are inventoried and assigned 

visual resource management classes which provide objectives for managing scenery including level 

of change visible in the landscape. Scenic resources were inventoried and new visual resource 

management classes were assigned in the Bighorn Basin and Lander Draft Resource Management 

Plans to update the 1986 and 1987 resource management plans. Proposed visual resource 

management classes in the Bighorn Basin and Lander Draft Resource Management Plans’ DEIS 

were reviewed. 

Yellowstone National Park includes outstanding scenic resources adjacent to the Shoshone. Strategic 

and comprehensive plans include goals and frameworks preserve important cultural, natural, and 

scenic resources. 

The State of Wyoming and Wind River Indian Reservation manage some lands adjacent to or within 

the Shoshone boundary. While these lands permit public access, they are not managed like other 

public lands such as national forests or parks. As these lands are managed, scenic resources may or 

may not be considered in that action. 

Since most private lands do not have regulations for scenic resource management, the effects of 

ongoing private developments next to NFS lands can sometimes have negative effects on scenic 

resources when viewing the continuous landscape. Shoshone visitors often view scenery as a 

continuous landscape with little discernment regarding the land ownership being viewed. Sometimes 

management activities occurring on ownership boundaries can be quite noticeable if the change in 

form, line, color, or texture of the activity follows ownership boundaries rather than a natural 

landscape feature. If activities on private lands are designed to lessen impacts to scenic resources, the 

difference between private lands and NFS lands is less apparent.

The cumulative effects table at the beginning of chapter 3 (table 20) includes the list of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future activities that were considered for the scenery resource. Effects 

were evaluated for the Shoshone. Any activities implemented on NFS lands (roads and trails, timber 

harvest, recreation development, prescribed fire, etc.) can affect scenery when viewed from nearby 

lands. The appraised value of property is often influenced by the proximity to the forest and the 

natural-appearing landscapes (i.e., high scenic integrity) of the forest. A cumulative effect of the 

subdivision of rural acreage and the development of residences is to raise the level of concern for 

scenic integrity. This effect is likely to increase over time as subdivision and development increases. 

The effect is similar for all alternatives, although alternatives that emphasize more active 

management may be more difficult to implement.

In conclusion, in consideration of the proposed scenic integrity objectives, the summary of effects of 

the alternatives on the scenery resource ranked from most to least is alternative A , followed by 

alternatives D, C, B and G, E, and F, respectively. The largest impacts are expected to result from 

vegetation treatments. Vegetation treatments might include harvests, thinning, and prescribed fire.

Land management plans for the lands in other ownership adjacent to and within the Shoshone may 

also have cumulative consequences. Below are considerations of consequences of activities that will 

likely occur on adjacent or nearby ownerships to the Shoshone. 

With the National Park Service emphasis on preserving natural and scenic resources, all alternatives 

consistently manage scenic resources across these ownership boundaries. Any cumulative 

consequences promote natural or natural-appearing scenery.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

577

In alternative A, the visual quality objectives of the 1986 Forest Plan as amended would not manage 

scenic resources consistently with the adjacent national forests once their plans are adopted, but 

would be consistent with the current land management plan’s visual resource management.

Under alternative A, the visual quality objectives of the 1986 Forest Plan as amended may not 

manage scenic resources consistently with other land managers or owners, such as the BLM resource 

management plans, which would update their visual resource management systems. Overall, 

cumulative consequences of alternative A result in the potential for discrepancies across ownership 

boundaries in how scenic resources are managed for natural-appearing scenery. These discrepancies 

are anticipated since alternative A manages scenery with visual quality objectives, while the adjacent 

land managers mentioned above would manage scenery under the scenery management system or 

updated visual resource management systems in the foreseeable future when new management plans 

are adopted.

Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G would manage scenic resources more consistently across national 

forest boundaries in the foreseeable future because the scenery management system would be 

implemented. Proposed scenic integrity objectives were not edge-matched with visual quality 

objectives on adjacent national forests because it is assumed that the future plan revisions of adjacent 

forests would implement the scenery management system and establish new scenic integrity 

objectives. It is assumed that during the plan revision process, adjacent forests would edge-match the 

Shoshone scenic integrity objectives when possible. Some inconsistencies across the national forest 

boundaries may occur under alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G until new forest plans are adopted.

Proposed BLM visual resource management classes in the Bighorn Basin and Lander Draft Resource 

Management Plans’ DEIS were reviewed. The consistency of managing scenic resources varies 

across alternatives. This analysis primarily focuses on comparing the Shoshone proposed scenic 

integrity objectives to the preferred alternatives of the BLM draft resource management plans. 

The Lander BLM Draft Resource Management Plan DEIS identifies their alternative D as the agency 

preferred alternative and assigns the lands adjacent to the Shoshone as visual resource management 

class II; the objective is to retain the existing character of the landscape. A proposed scenic integrity 

objective of low or visual quality objective of modification would manage the landscape with more 

noticeable alternations than adjacent lands. 

For this analysis, alternatives E and F propose the highest amount of low scenic integrity objective 

along the ownership boundary, followed by alternatives B and G, and D. Alternative C proposes the 

least amount of low scenic integrity objective along the ownership boundary. Alternative A proposes 

no modification to visual quality objective along the ownership boundary. Alternatives A and C 

provide more consistency across ownership boundaries to manage for natural to naturally appearing 

scenery (very high, high, and moderate scenic integrity objectives and visual resource management 

class II) when compared to the Lander BLM Draft Resource Management Plan DEIS preferred 

alternative. Alternatives E and F provide more discrepancies by managing for more modified scenery 

(low scenic integrity objective) along this ownership boundary than the other alternatives for the 

Lander Field Office area. The Bighorn Basin BLM Draft Resource Management Plan DEIS 

identifies their alternative D as the agency preferred alternative. 

The Bighorn Basin BLM Draft Resource Management Plan DEIS alternative D assigns the lands 

adjacent to the Shoshone as mostly visual resource management class II, with some visual resource 

management class III in the northern portion; the objectives are to retain and partially retain the 

existing character of the landscape. A proposed scenic integrity objective of low or visual quality 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

578

objective of modification would manage the landscape with more noticeable alternations than 

adjacent lands. 

This analysis indicates alternatives A, E, and F propose the highest amount of low scenic integrity 

objective or modification of visual quality objective along the ownership boundary. Alternatives B 

and G, C, and D propose no low scenic integrity objective along the ownership boundary. 

Alternatives B and G, C, and D provide the most consistency across ownership boundaries to 

manage for natural to natural-appearing scenery (very high, high, and moderate scenic integrity 

objectives and visual resource management class II) when compared to the Bighorn Basin BLM 

Draft Resource Management Plan DEIS preferred alternative. Alternatives A, E, and F provide more 

discrepancies by managing for more modified scenery (low scenic integrity objective or modification 

visual quality objective) along this ownership boundary than the other alternatives for the Bighorn 

Basin area.

It is anticipated that alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G would more consistently manage scenic 

resources with other land managers or owners since the scenery management system would be 

implemented. The cumulative consequences of alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G, with the known 

management plans discussed above result in more consistency across ownership boundaries in how 

scenic resources are considered and managed for natural and natural-appearing scenery. It is assumed 

that any future site-specific actions occurring on any adjacent Federal lands would consider scenic 

resources in their environmental analysis and any needed mitigation measures to meet scenic 

resources standards and guidelines would be applied.

Heritage Resources

Introduction

Heritage resources within the Shoshone National Forest are represented by various sites or 

structures, including their landscape settings that exemplify the cultural, architectural, economic, 

social, political, or historic heritage of the Shoshone and its surrounding areas and communities. 

Hundreds of recorded heritage resources are located within the Shoshone. 

Legal and Administrative Framework 

In the early 20th century, the public began to recognize that heritage resources (items modified by 

humans over 50 years old; i.e., stone artifacts, stone circles, wagon roads, mining, homestead 

cabins, etc.) were an important aspect of our country’s history and cultural values, that these 

resources are nonrenewable, and that they should be protected for future generations. A series of 

Federal laws were enacted to protect heritage resources on Federal lands from damage or loss due to 

Federal programs and/or federally funded or permitted activities.

The following acts, along with other land use laws, executive orders, and policies guide management 

of cultural resources on NFS lands. Other laws pertinent to historic property management on NFS 

lands can be found in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2300 – Recreation, Wilderness, and Resource 

Management; Chapter 2360 – Heritage Program Management. 

Laws

Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431) – This act protects historic or prehistoric remains or any 

object of antiquity on Federal lands and applies to both cultural and paleontological resources. It 

imposes criminal penalties for unauthorized destruction or appropriation of antiquities without a 

permit. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

579

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470) – This act protects historic 

and archaeological values during the planning and implementation of Federal projects (CFR 36.800 

and CFR 36.60). The law requires the following: (1) location and identification of cultural resources 

during the planning phase of a project, (2) a determination of eligibility for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places and (3) provisions for mitigation of any significant sites that may be 

affected.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4346) – This act establishes 

the national policy for the protection and enhancements of the environment. NEPA establishes part of 

the function of the Federal government is to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural 

aspects of our natural heritage.” 

The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469) – This act 

requires Federal agencies to collect, protect, and preserve historic and archaeological data, as the 

results the agencies’ undertakings/actions. This act also applies to agencies’ actions that fund or 

license projects and these effects on heritage resources. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 § 102(8)) – This 

act requires that “public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, 

scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource and archeological 

values; that, where appropriate will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural 

condition ...” This law applies to cultural and paleontological resources.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) – This act protects American Indian 

rights to exercise traditional religions including access to sites and freedom to worship through 

ceremonial and traditional rites. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470) – This act imposes 

civil penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, damage, alteration, or defacement of 

archaeological resources. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001)

– American Indian burials and sacred items are protected by this act. If human remains or objects of 

cultural patrimony are discovered, this law requires consultation with the Indian tribes. The tribe then 

determines the appropriate treatment of the remains. This may include repatriation or scientific study 

and curation at a university. 

Executive Orders

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971) –

This order directs Federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under their jurisdiction, nominate 

all federally owned properties that meet the criteria to the National Register of Historic Places. 

Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites (1997) – This order directs Federal agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of American Indian sacred sites by tribal religious 

practitioners, to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and, where 

appropriate, to maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

(2000) – This order directs Federal agencies to establish regular and meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with Tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have Tribal 

implications.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

580

Executive Order 13287: Preserve America (2003) – This order establishes Federal policy to 

provide leadership in preserving America’s heritage by actively advancing the protection, 

enhancement, and contemporary use of the historic properties owned by the Federal government. 

The order also requires agencies to review and report their policies and procedures for compliance 

with the National Historic Preservation Act § 110 and 111 and improve Federal stewardship of 

historic properties.

Regulation and Policies

Regulations and policies have been passed in support of these laws and require the following:

• Uniform Rules and Regulations (16 U.S.C.G 432-433) – These regulations coincide with 

the Antiquities Act of 1906. They give the Secretary of Agriculture “jurisdiction over ruins, 

archaeological sites, historic and prehistoric monuments and structures, objects of antiquity, 

historic landmarks, and other objects of historic or scientific interest” on the NFS lands. 

These regulations also apply to paleontological resources.

• Code of Federal Regulations: Property (36 CFR 261.9 (g), (h)) – This regulation prohibits 

excavating, digging or injuring/damaging in any way prehistoric and/or historic heritage 

resources, structure, site, artifact, or property and removing any prehistoric and/or historic 

heritage resource, structure, site, artifact, or property.

• Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR part 800) – These regulations implement the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 and define how Federal agencies 

meet the statutory responsibility to take into account the effects of their undertakings on 

historic properties. The regulations identify the goal of consultation, which is “to identify 

historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects, and seek ways 

to avoid, minimize or mitigate and adverse effects on historic properties” (36 CFR 800.1)

• National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR part 60) – These regulations establish the 

National Register of Historic Places as a planning tool to assist Federal agencies to evaluate 

cultural resources in consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Criteria for determination of historic 

property eligibility are also outlined.

• Protection of Archaeological Resources Uniform Regulations (36 CFR part 296) – These 

regulations implement the Archaeological Resource Protection Act by establishing the 

uniform definitions, standards, and procedures for Federal land managers to follow in 

providing protection for archaeological resources located on public lands and Indian lands. 

Prohibited acts, including excavating, removal, damaging, or otherwise altering or defacing 

archaeological remains; and selling, purchasing, exchanging, transporting, or receiving any 

archaeological resource that was removed from Federal land in violation of ARPA of any 

other Federal law. 

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Regulations (43 CFR part 10, 

Subpart B) – These regulations carry out provisions of the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation act of 1990. These regulations establish a systematic process for 

determining the rights of lineal descendants and Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian 

organizations to certain Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or 

objects of cultural patrimony that are in Federal possession or control or in the possession or 

control of any institutions of State or local government receiving Federal funds. 

• Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2300 – Recreation, Wilderness, and Resource Management; 

Chapter 2360 – Heritage Program Management. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

581

Other Agreements 

Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Wyoming Forests, Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (2008) – The 

Purpose of this programmatic agreement is to expedite compliance with the regulations “Protection 

of Historic Properties” 36 CFR Part 800 implementing Section 106 of the NHPA. The programmatic 

agreement was developed to streamline Section 106 compliance when appropriate circumstances 

permit the application of routine procedures and to decrease the need for review. Another goal of the 

programmatic agreement is to facilitate compliance with Section 110 of the NHPA through planned 

110 activities and reporting of these activities in the annual report prepared for the SHPO by the 

Shoshone. 

Resource Protection Measures 

FSM 2300 – Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management, Chapter 2360 –

Heritage Program Management 

2364.02 Objectives – Forest Service objectives related to cultural resource protection and 

stewardship are to:

• Protect cultural resources in a manner consistent with their National Register qualities and 

management allocations

• Avoid or minimize the effects of Forest Service or Forest Service-authorized land use 

decision and management activities on cultural resources.

• Safeguard cultural resources in NFS lands from unauthorized or improper uses and 

environmental degradation.

• Mitigate adverse effects to historic properties when it is impossible or impractical to 

maintain them in a non-deteriorating or threatened condition.

• Recognize archaeologically, historically, or culturally significant properties and landscapes 

thorough formal National Register, National Historic Landmark, and other special 

designations.

• Develop, interpret, and use cultural resources for the public benefit under the framework of 

Windows on the Past.

2364.03 – Policy 

1. Protection. It is the policy of the Forest Service to:

• Ensure that land use decisions and management practices do not have an inadvertent adverse 

effect on the characteristics that qualify cultural resources for listing on the National Register 

or on the uses determined appropriate through the evaluation and allocation processes.

• Determine whether proposed Forest Service or Forest Service-permitted undertakings will 

have effects on National Register listed or eligible properties and take those effects into 

account in land use decisions, following the procedures set forth in 36 CFR part 800, or 

national, regional, or State programmatic agreements that are applicable to the undertaking 

proposed.

• Consult with the SHPO, Indian tribes, Advisory Council, and the interested public about 

proposed land use decisions and their potential effects on cultural resources, in accordance 

with 36 CFR part 800 or national, regional, or State programmatic agreements that are 

applicable to the undertaking proposed.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

582

• Monitor, assess, and document the physical conditions of and human or environmental 

threats to National Register eligible or listed historic properties on a frequent and systematic 

basis.

• Implement management treatments that protect, conserve, stabilize, rehabilitate, restore, and 

enhance cultural resources based on their National Register qualities and values, their 

importance to cultural groups, and their recommended management allocation.

• Integrate law enforcement in cultural resources monitoring, protection, and investigation of 

human-caused disturbance, destruction, or theft.

• Create public education and awareness programs under the Windows on the Past program 

and pursuant to ARPA Section 10(c).

• In coordination with the Tribal Government Relations Program, treat American Indian 

human remains recovered from public lands in strict accordance with the requirements of 

NAGPRA and 43 CFR part 10, and any applicable State laws. Coordinate with the Tribal 

Government Relations Program to implement requests for reburial of remains on NFS lands 

(FSM 1563.3).

• Follow State law or the “Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Policy Statement 

Regarding Treatment of Burial Sites, Human Remains, and Funerary Objects,” for reburial 

of non-Indian remains.

2. Stewardship. It is the policy of the Forest Service to:

• Complete National Register and National Historical Landmark nominations and seek other 

special designations as appropriate for historic properties in collaboration with State and 

local governments, other agencies, Indian tribes, and interested historic preservation 

organizations.

• Develop and implement preservation-related programs to recognize, enhance, restore, 

interpret, and use National Register eligible or listed properties in accordance with their 

management allocations.

• Conduct stewardship-related activities in consultation and involvement with other Federal, 

State and local agencies, Indian tribes, historic preservation organizations, interested parties, 

and the private sector.

• Develop historic property plans (FSM 2362) for National Register-eligible or listed historic 

districts, properties, or property types to establish short- and long-term stewardship goals 

(desired conditions), proposed treatments, funding needs, and work schedules.

• Establish partnerships with the public and private sector to achieve stewardship goals and 

enhance capacity to meet public education and outreach goals (FSM 2365).

Methodology 

Analysis methods used for historic properties include a review and synthesis of pertinent literature, 

records, and documentation available on the history and prehistory of the Forest. This information 

includes not only that which is available from a variety of generalized sources, but also information 

resulting from several years’ worth of Forest Service cultural resource inventories. Information from 

previously documented sites can be used as an indicator of the type, frequency, and location of sites 

likely to be found within the analysis area. 

To analyze existing condition and effects, the corporate database that tracks infrastructure (INFRA), 

and the Forest GIS heritage layers were used to identify acres inventoried to standard and sites that 

have been documented. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

583

Affected Environment 

The Shoshone is situated near or within the Wyoming Basin, Great Plains, and Rocky Mountain 

culture areas in the prehistoric cultural sub-area known as the Northwestern Plains. The 

Northwestern Plains stretch from central Alberta to southern Wyoming and from western 

North Dakota to western Montana. For the purpose of this discussion, when describing the 

archaeological record of the Shoshone, it helps to broadly categorize cultural materials and 

properties into three general eras, the prehistoric, proto-historic, and historic periods. 

Through examination of geological, biological, sociological, and archaeological evidence, the 

prehistory of the Shoshone goes back at least 12,000 years. These early people were mobile hunters 

and gatherers, taking advantage of the wide range of resources available in the Northwestern Plains. 

Resources utilized consisted of numerous plant, animal, and aquatics, as well as lithic resources. Site 

types found in the Shoshone prehistoric record include trails, plant processing, tool stone quarries 

and tool manufacture, tepee ring and open camps, stone alignments, rock shelters, animal processing, 

rock art and ceremonial sites. Although the lifestyle of these early residents is becoming clearer, 

there is still much to be learned about the interaction of these people with their environment. 

The proto-historic period took place in the Northwestern Plains from roughly 1725 A.D. to 

1800 A.D. This period is characterized by the hunting and gathering adaptive strategy, which was 

dependent on the horse and Euro-American trade goods prior to recorded contact with EuroAmericans. There is a continuity of site types in the proto-historic with the prehistoric. The 

distinction between the two eras being the introduction and use of trade goods witnessed in the 

archaeological record of the proto-historic period. The introduction of the horse also brought about 

significant changes in subsistence economies, demographic characteristics, social reorganization, and 

settlement patterns.

The historic period in the Northwestern Plains started with the introductions and encounters between 

indigenous native cultures and Euro-American trappers, traders and explorers in the early 1800s. The 

early traders and trappers were sent by Hudson’s Bay and the Northwest Fur Trade companies. These 

early encounters between cultures were followed by a steadily increasing influx of Euro-American 

missionaries, miners, homesteaders, and loggers who gradually increased the size of the population 

of northwestern Wyoming. As conflicts arose between Native culture and the new Euro-American 

settlers, the United States government attempted to settle the armed conflict with a number of treaties 

and military actions. 

The history of the Shoshone began with the creation the Yellowstone Timber Reserve in March of 

1891, by President Benjamin Harrison. This reserve was the first established in the Nation and was 

originally under the administrative control of the Department of the Interior, General Land Office. In 

1905, administration of the country’s forest reserves transitioned to the Department of Agriculture, 

under the newly created U.S. Forest Service. In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered the 

creation of the Shoshone National Forest out of the northeastern quarter of the old Yellowstone 

Forest Reserve. The southern zone of the current Shoshone was made into the Bonneville National 

Forest. For the first 37 years of their existence, these forests were managed as separate units. In 

1945, the then-named Washakie National Forest was merged into the Shoshone National Forest.

All of the aforementioned histories and events have left their mark on the Shoshone in the form of 

cultural sites. To date, 1,198 cultural resource inventories have been conducted over approximately 

168,500 acres of the Forest (approximately 7.5 percent). The Shoshone has 1,506 recorded sites. Of 

this total, 469 sites have been determined “Eligible” for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places, 595 sites have been determined “Not Eligible,” and 442 sites remain unevaluated. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

584

Information on cultural sites is kept on file as hard copy site and inventory forms, as well as on GIS 

and within the National Heritage Infra data base. Information concerning the nature and location of 

any cultural resource is confidential and not subject to public disclosure as per Public Law 94-456, 

[16 U.S.C. 470 hh Section 9 (a and b)].

Environmental Consequences 

Potential effects to cultural resources are similar under all alternatives. What will vary is the volume 

of effects to these resources. The most prevalent effect to cultural resources across the alternatives 

would be from surface-disturbing activities in relation to the direct project actions involving the 

management of other resources. Effects to cultural resources are also caused by indirect project 

actions, public use and vandalism, and natural causes. Direct project actions include all of those 

activities, both beneficial and harmful, that are conducted by the Forest Service or authorized by 

Forest Service permits, including timber and silvicultural management, prescribed fire, wildlife and 

fisheries management, road and trail construction, facilities construction and maintenance, recreation 

use and management, and special uses authorization to third parties. Public use and vandalism of 

historic facilities and archaeological sites can cause the deterioration or destruction of cultural 

resources. Natural causes include damage by erosion, fire, wind, weathering, and other natural 

processes. The type of cultural resource and the management allocation must be taken into account to 

determine the significance of the effect.

The criteria for assessing adverse effects under the NHPA are found at 36 CFR 800.5(a) and are 

defined as:

“(1) Criteria of adverse effect: An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, 

directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property 

for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the 

property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including 

those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property's 

eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable 

effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance 

or be cumulative.

(2) Examples of adverse effects: Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not 

limited to: (i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; (ii) Alteration 

of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, 

hazardous material remediation and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent 

with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR part 68) and 

applicable guidelines; (iii) Removal of the property from its historic location; (iv) Change of 

the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property's setting that 

contribute to its historic significance; (v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible 

elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features; (vi) Neglect 

of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are 

recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or 

Native Hawaiian organization; and (vii) Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal 

ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to 

ensure long-term preservation of the property's historic significance.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

585

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects from Vegetation Management/Timber Harvesting: Vegetation management activities have 

the potential for affecting cultural resources. Large-scale thinning, harvesting, skidding, piling, 

decking, and construction of service roads have the potential to destroy the integrity of cultural 

objects, sites, historic districts, and historic landscapes. The National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) determinations for Federal undertakings are utilized in NEPA review and decisions. 

Successful implementation of vegetation management projects using the process outlined in 36 CFR 

800 regulations will lead to little or no effect to archaeological and historical sites. 

Alternative A is the no-action alternative. Impacts to cultural resources would remain similar to 

current levels under the 1986 Forest Plan as amended. Alternatives B and G would maintain similar 

levels of impact as alternative A. Under alternatives C and D, potential impacts to heritage resources 

from ground-disturbing activities would be lessened due to a decreased amount of vegetation 

management and timber harvesting. Under alternatives E and F, there is a greater potential of 

increased impacts to cultural resources due to a higher volume of ground-disturbing activities 

associated with a more robust vegetation management and timber harvesting emphasis. 

Effects from Roads and Trails Management: Construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of 

roads and trails may also affect cultural resources. Motorized routes tend to cause more damage than 

horse, bike, and foot trails, but all roads and trails that pass through heritage resources have the 

potential to partially or completely destroy these resources. Transportation features also provide 

access to cultural sites, potentially leading to public vandalism and incidental damage from parking 

and camping off roads. Unauthorized, user-created routes and areas could affect cultural resources. A 

direct effect could be caused by motorized vehicle uses or the consequences of such use; including 

physical damage resulting in or from erosion, down-cutting, rutting, and damage to cultural 

resources. 

Indirect effects are associated with motorized vehicle uses, but occur outside designated routes and 

areas, such as adjacent dispersed camping areas or areas where travel off of designated routes or 

areas may occur. The proximity of sensitive cultural resources, such as rock art, rock shelters, to 

designated routes or areas is important when determining where resources could be susceptible to 

greater threats or risks. 

Alternative A is the no-action alternative. Impacts to cultural resources would remain similar to 

current levels under the 1986 Forest Plan as amended. Alternative B would maintain similar levels of 

impact as alternative A. Under alternatives C and D, with an increase in the amount of wilderness 

and an emphasis toward non-motorized use in the back country, there would be fewer impacts to 

known and unrecorded cultural resources through a reduction of access and the volume of roads and 

trail users. Under alternatives E and F, there is a higher potential for impacts to known and 

unrecorded cultural resources due to increased miles of motorized road and trails. Alternative G 

(proposed action) would likewise maintain similar levels of impact seen within alternative A.

Effects from Fire and Fuels Management: Fire and fuels management activities have the potential 

to adversely affect cultural objects, sites, and historic districts and landscapes. Prescribed fire and 

wildfire may destroy historic cultural sites with burnable features, such as cabins, mine structures, 

lookouts, dendroglyphs,32 and administrative sites. Prehistoric cultural sites with burnable features 

include Bighorn sheep traps, hunting blinds and game fences, eagle traps, wooden conical and 

 32 Carvings in the bark of living trees.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

586

cribbed lodges, and rock art sites. The loss of forest duff (otherwise known as the O Horizon) also 

endangers cultural materials to looting and erosional events. 

With appropriate planning and following the regulations outlined in 36 CFR 800, the potential for 

impacts to cultural resources from prescribed fire is relatively low, while wildfire is relatively high 

due to its unplanned nature. Prescribed fire implementation actions and wildfire suppression 

activities may also adversely affect cultural resources through construction of fire line, backfires, 

clearing of vegetation, and location of staging areas. Alternatives A through D and G would have 

more acres or potential wildfire acres and more potential to impact heritage resources than 

alternatives E and F, which have lower anticipated acres of wildfire. Under all alternatives, known 

objects and sites may be protected by various suppression techniques.

Effects from Recreation: Recreation management activities have the potential to affect objects, 

sites, historic districts, and historic landscapes. Construction of developed recreation sites may 

damage or destroy cultural resources and continued management of existing recreation sites that 

overlay cultural resources can continue to affect those extant portions of cultural resources that were 

not damaged in the original construction activities or subsequent use. 

Additional potential to affect cultural resources comes from the management of beetle-killed or 

affected vegetation, which could also have a direct effect. Other effects could occur from recreation 

site use and would include activities such as trampling; which could adversely affect traditional 

plants, as well as changing the traditional character of an area by introducing negative visual and 

audio impacts.

Alternative A is the no-action alternative. Impacts to cultural resources would remain similar to 

current levels under the 1986 Forest Plan as amended. Alternative B would see a slight increase of 

impacts with new summer trails being allowed in some inventoried roadless areas when compared to 

alternative A. Under alternatives C and D, the impact to both known and unrecorded cultural 

materials would decline due to a reduction of open roads due to management area allocation, and the 

closing of roads and motorized trails in inventoried roadless areas. Under alternatives E and F, there 

is a greater potential for quantitative impacts to known and unrecorded cultural resources due an 

increase of motorized recreation activities throughout the forest. Alternative G (proposed action) 

with potential changes to summer motorized recreation would see an increase of impacts.

Effects from Fisheries and Wildlife Management: Aquatic management activities are typically 

small scale, affecting river and stream channels and their adjacent terraces or culvert and bridge 

configurations to allow for aquatic biota passage. Archaeological and historical sites are commonly 

found along the terraces of stream channels and may be affected when channel restoration projects 

restore original or more natural channels. 

Successful implementation of fisheries and wildlife management projects using the process outlined 

in 36 CFR 800 regulations will lead to little or no effects to archaeological and historical sites.

Impacts to cultural resources would remain similar to current levels under the 1986 Forest Plan as 

amended under all alternatives. 

Effects from Minerals, Oil, and Gas Development: Mineral activities have the potential for 

affecting cultural resources. Ground disturbing development activities have the potential to destroy 

the integrity of cultural objects, sites, historic districts, and historic landscapes. The National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) determinations for Federal undertakings are utilized in NEPA review and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

587

decisions. Successful implementation of mineral projects using the process outlined in 36 CFR 800 

regulations will lead to little or no effect to archaeological and historical sites. 

The possibility of mineral development in the planning period is predicted to be low or very low 

under all alternatives. Potential adverse effects would be from roading, land disturbance, and 

potential spills. For lands suitable for oil and gas surface development, alternative A has the most 

acreage. Alternatives F, B, and E have less acreage in decreasing order. Alternatives C and D have 

less land available and alternative G has the least acreage. If oil and gas development were to occur, 

implementation of heritage resource regulations would minimize the effects to archaeological and 

historical sites.

Effects from Land and Special Use Authorizations: Various laws provide for rights-of-way over 

public lands. The Forest Service is responsible for all existing grants and permits located on NFS 

lands, including their administration, amendment, and renewal when authorized and appropriate. 

Lands and special use actions have the potential to adversely affect cultural objects, sites, historic 

districts, and historic landscapes. Sale or trade of lands out of Federal ownership, even with 

management covenants may lead to the damage or destruction of cultural resources by the third party 

to which the land is conveyed. 

As with other Federal undertakings, special use permits may adversely affect historic properties if 

regulations outlined in 36 CFR 800 are not followed. Many special use actions are relatively small 

compared to other actions and involve less than an acre for access, water, or utility corridors, but 

they can also affect very large areas, such as in the case of major pipe and power line projects. 

Impacts to cultural resources would remain similar to current levels under the 1986 Forest Plan as 

amended for all alternatives. 

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 

known proposals for additional development of any of these lands. Lands adjacent to the Forest are 

primarily private or BLM. Private lands receive minimal pressure from urban development trends. 

The adjacent lands would likely continue to receive impacts from livestock grazing, recreational 

uses, and potential fires. These activities should not impact heritage sites on the Forest, but may 

increase exposure if heritage resources are adjacent to the affected areas. Individual site protections 

would be ensured through preparation of site-specific NEPA analysis, with protection offered 

through Forest-wide standards and guidelines.

Other natural impacts, such as weathering and deterioration, erosion, landslides, fires, and other 

physical/natural processes would occur under all alternatives and could be influenced by 

management activities. Any adverse effects can be resolved through compliance with Section 106 of 

the NHPA. 

Finally, long-term consequences of unauthorized activities are also incorporated; for example, 

unauthorized vehicle travel through an historic property and vandalism and/or illegal excavation and 

collection of heritage resource artifacts. The most likely activities through forest planning that would 

affect heritage resources are vegetation management.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

588

Social and Economic

Introduction 

The social and economic implications of land management on the Shoshone are of interest to local 

residents surrounding the Forest, users of the Forest, and to people throughout the country who value 

or are interested in national forest resources. Historically, individuals in local communities 

developed strong place attachments to public lands that provided recreational, aesthetic, 

employment, and other contributions to their social environment. Work, place, and lifestyles became 

an integral part of the culture and social characteristics of such communities. These communities 

developed particular interests in the interactions of public lands with their ways of life and their 

economic present and future. These interests are expressed in their interactions with public lands in 

addition to the actions and comments of local interest groups. 

People throughout the Nation also have interests and concerns about public lands in general as well 

as particular public lands such as those of the Shoshone. These interests are expressed in public 

comments to management actions as well as in direct experiences recreating, visiting, or otherwise 

using public lands. Some people also express their interest through national organizations with both

broad-based concerns about the management of public lands and in specific resources such as oldgrowth forests, grizzly bears, or other threatened and endangered species. Thus, they are part of the 

social environment of public lands through the values and beliefs that motivate actions about 

particular places and by their comments and actions related to these places. 

Policy decisions that influence the management of national forests attempt to balance the wide 

variety of uses and values individuals hold for forest resources. It is unlikely that any alternative 

selected in this process will answer the needs of all those interested in management of the Shoshone. 

Each alternative will be a compromise between the competing uses and values of the Forest. The 

balance achieved between conserving areas for recreation and providing commodity uses is 

important in contributing to the economic growth of rural economies (Lorah et al. 2012).

This analysis describes the potential social and economic impacts to different interests and values of 

the Shoshone resources by alternative. The analysis includes a description of the analysis area, 

demographics and trends within Wyoming, environmental justice considerations, and potential social 

and economic impacts by alternative on various Shoshone interests and values and resource user 

groups.

Legal and Administrative Framework 

Laws and Executive Orders

• Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960: Identifies principles for managing the resources 

of the National Forest System (NFS). The direction to manage these resources for the 

greatest good over time includes the use of economic and social analysis to determine 

management of the NFS. 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: Mandates consideration of the consequences 

to the quality of the human environment from proposed management actions. The agency 

must examine the potential impacts to physical and biological resources as well as potential 

socioeconomic impacts (40 CFR 1508.14). 

• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974: As amended by the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976, this act requires consideration of potential 

economic consequences of land management planning. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

589

• Office of Management and Budget Circular A-116 (issued August 16, 1978): Requires 

executive branch agencies to conduct long-range planning and impact analysis associated 

with major initiatives. 

• Executive Order No. 12898 on Environmental Justice (issued February 11, 1994): 

Mandates Federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their mission. 

This includes identification and response to disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations. 

• National Forest Revenue Act (amended 1908): Requires 25 percent of revenues generated 

by NFS lands to be paid to the states for use by the counties in which the lands are situated 

for the benefit of public schools and roads. 

• Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000: Designed to 

stabilize annual payments to states and counties containing NFS lands and public domain 

lands managed by the BLM. Funds distributed under the provisions of this act are for the 

benefit of public schools, roads, and related purposes. 

Regulation and Policies

Regulations and policies have been passed in support of these laws and require the following:

• 1982 Planning Rule Procedures: The procedures of the 1982 NFS Land and Resource 

Management Planning Rule requires the comprehensive consideration of economic benefits 

and costs, specifically identifying the social sciences, economic considerations, cost-efficient 

alternatives, impacts on present net value, and impacts on local employment. 

Methodology 

Various data sources were used to describe population, land ownership, employment, income, and 

county payments. These data sources include U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Montana Natural Resource Information, and the Economic Profile 

System — Human Dimensions Toolkit. 

National forest contributions to employment and income and changes by alternative were estimated 

with input-output analysis using the IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) modeling system 

(MIG 2003) and Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool) (Alward et al. 2010). The IMPLAN 

modeling system allows the user to build regional economic models of one or more counties for a 

particular year. The model for this analysis used the 2009 IMPLAN data. Forest economic analysis 

spreadsheet tool (FEAST) is a spreadsheet modeling tool that serves as an interface between user 

inputs and imported data from an existing IMPLAN model. 

Input-output analysis is a means of examining relationships within an economy, both between 

businesses and between businesses and final consumers. It captures all monetary market transactions 

for consumption in a given time period. Economic contribution analysis is defined as “the gross 

change in economic activity associated with an industry, event, or policy in an existing regional 

economy” (Watson et al. 2007). By using Forest Service expenditure data, resource output data, and 

other economic information, IMPLAN can describe, among other things, the jobs and income that 

are supported by NFS management activities. The direct employment and labor income benefit 

employees and their families and, therefore, directly affect the local economy. Additional indirect 

and induced, multiplier effects (ripple effects) are generated by the direct activities. Together the 

direct and multiplier effects comprise the total economic contribution to the local economy. The data 

used to estimate the direct effects from timber harvest is information provided by University of 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

590

Montana. The economic effects tied to other Forest Service programs and the multiplier effects were 

estimated using IMPLAN. Resource-specific data (recreation visits, range head months, timber 

volume harvested, etc.) were collected and input into the IMPLAN and FEAST models. For current 

management levels, a 3-year average using 2008 to 2010 data was calculated for resources to 

eliminate the year-to-year variability inherent in the data.

Present net value was calculated using a spreadsheet and estimated costs and values for goods and 

services for each alternative. Present net value combines benefits and costs that occur at different 

times and discounts them into an amount that is equivalent to all economic activity in a single year. 

Costs and values for anticipated activities, goods, and services over the next 50 years for each 

alternative were derived by resource specialists.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

The relationship between the Shoshone and the local economy and lifestyle in the surrounding region 

is highly integrated and complex. Outdoor recreation, tourism, livestock grazing, and timber are all 

important aspects of the Shoshone to the surrounding region. This analysis examines the present 

economic and social conditions and forecasts for the counties that both influence and are influenced 

by the Shoshone. Estimates for potential economic or social impacts are considered in this analysis 

over the 15-year period that is the anticipated “life of the plan.”

Generally, the economic and social impacts are considered indirect as they are a result of a direct 

result of a direct resource action taking place on NFS lands (timber sale, outfitter and guide permit, 

grazing permit, etc.). Cumulative effects are greatly influenced by economic and social trends and 

conditions occurring outside Forest Service control (gas prices, timber imports, beef industry 

conditions, new recreational equipment, etc.), but these trends and conditions have an effect on local 

communities within the study area.

The Shoshone National Forest’s 2.4 million acres are located in portions of five Wyoming counties 

(table 165) including: Fremont, Hot Springs, Park, Sublette, and Teton. Due to the small amount of 

the Forest located in Teton (0.1 percent) and Sublette (0.3 percent), only Fremont, Hot Springs, and 

Park were considered in this analysis. Figure 29 highlights the portion of each county that includes 

NFS land.

Table 165. National Forest System land within counties encompassing the Shoshone National Forest, 

2011

County Total acres Total NFS 

acres

Shoshone 

NFS acres

Percentage of county 

within Shoshone NF

Fremont 5,877,760 981,433 846,261 14%

Hot Springs 1,282,560 54,386 54,386 4%

Park 4,442,880 1,700,158 1,524,705 34%

Sublette 3,127,680 1,169,415 9,697 0.3%

Teton 2,556,800 1,370,507 2,682 0.1%

Source: USDA Forest Service, Lands 2011 Report. U.S. Census Bureau 2010.

The three-county area covers 18,129 square miles in northwestern Wyoming and was home to a 

population of 71,285 in 2009. The area’s population resides in 28,564 households with an average 

household income of $98,924. The total personal income for the area was $2.8 billion in 2009. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

591

area’s economy contains 189 different industries that generated $4.7 billion of output in 2009. This 

economic activity supported 44,675 jobs and $1.7 billion in labor income (MIG 2010).

Figure 29. Counties within the Shoshone National Forest boundary

In terms of total output, the largest sectors in the three-county economy were, in order, extraction of 

oil and gas, public education, state and local government, drilling oil and gas wells, support activities 

for oil and gas operations, real estate establishments, food services and drinking places, and 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

592

construction of new nonresidential structures. In terms of employment, the largest sectors in the 

three-county economy were, in order (largest to smallest), public education, state and local 

government, food service and drinking places, real estate establishments, construction of new 

nonresidential structures, and general merchandise (MIG 2010).

Incomplete and Unavailable Information 

Economic data available for analysis has a 2-year time lag. So the most recent data available when 

the analysis began were for 2009, in some cases, data were updated to 2010 where available. But, for 

modeling, a 2009 model is used. This can create some concerns if the study area economy is 

changing quickly and the 2-year time lag does not reflect an accurate picture of what is happening on 

the ground in the communities. For use in Forest planning analysis, the model is used to show 

relative differences between alternatives, so the time lag in data should not create a problem, despite 

the recession and recovery taking place during the time lag. 

Some interest groups have requested to have economic analysis by specific areas of the Shoshone or 

communities or for specific activities or uses. For the most part, the economic analysis considers the 

Forest as a whole and the counties surrounding it to be the impact area. Smaller areas are not broken 

out, as it is difficult to assign outputs or outcomes from one part of the Shoshone to a specific 

community or location. As for activities or uses, the basic forest industries are considered separately 

(wood products, grazing, recreation, etc.). 

Recreation is not broken down by activities because the survey used to estimate visitor use (National 

Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey) results in a small subset of the sample with visitor 

expenditure information by activity. This small sample size will not produce estimates that are 

statistically valid. Some interest groups felt the economic analysis should include an analysis of 

motorized and non-motorized uses to highlight to economic benefits of the two types of uses. The 

Forest Service provides both motorized and non-motorized opportunities as part of the multiple-use 

mandate. The Shoshone is not required to manage for the highest dollar activities, but for a range of 

multiple uses. The use by recreational types is described in detail in the recreation section of this 

document.

Conflicting Science 

Several recreational or tourism interest groups were interested in having specific economic studies 

from various sources used within this economic analysis. The Forest Service uses the NVUM survey 

for all recreation- and tourism-related information used for use and economic analysis. The Data 

Quality Act requires that Federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity” of 

information disseminated to the public. With these requirements for data used in the economic 

analysis, the Forest Service focuses on the NVUM survey that the methodology and results can be 

documented and repeated as needed. The interest group surveys completed use a variety of 

methodologies to complete their analyses. To be used within this economic analysis, all data would 

need to be collected using similar methods and assumptions. Without such consistencies, 

comparisons between interest group surveys or results are not possible in this analysis.

Affected Environment 

In describing the social and economic environment that may be affected by the Shoshone forest plan, 

we draw directly from the economic (Taylor et al. 2012) and social (Clement and Cheng 2008) 

assessments conducted for the revision process. The following analysis highlights the conditions and 

trends found in the study area that will influence and be influenced by the revised Forest Plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

593

Elements of the analysis include demographics, land ownership and use, lifestyle, attitudes, values, 

and beliefs, employment and income, payments to counties, and forest contributions. 

Population Demographics 

Population is an important variable to consider because the ability to attract and retain individuals to 

live and work within an area is critical to the survival of a community and its economy. Population 

statistics only account for permanent residents. However, seasonal workers, who are often missed in 

the April census count, and second home owners who are not counted, are temporary residents that 

are also important to the local economy and community. 

Overall, the study area’s population increased by 10 percent from 2000 to 2010 (see table 166). 

Fremont County was the fastest growing with a 12 percent increase, followed by Park County with a 

9 percent increase. Hot Springs County was estimated to have lost about 1 percent of its population 

between 2000 and 2010. Population growth in the study area was similar to the national rate between 

2000 and 2010 (10 percent). The study area’s population growth rate was relatively modest 

comparable to that for Wyoming (14 percent). Wyoming ranked 12th out of the 50 states in 

population growth between 2000 and 2010. On an annual basis, the study area’s average population 

growth rate increased from 0.8 percent per year between 1990 and 2000 to 1.0 percent per year from 

2000 to 2010.

Table 166. Population by county in Shoshone National Forest study area, 1990 to 2040

Sources: Woods and Poole Economics 2010, Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis 

Division 2011.

a Reported from U.S. Census Bureau

b Forecasted from Woods and Poole Economics

Age of Study Area Population: Historically, all three counties in the study area have populations 

that are older than either Wyoming or U.S. average (table 167). In 1990, the percent of the region’s 

population 65 and over was 13 percent compared to 10 percent for Wyoming and 13 percent for the 

United States. The oldest population was in Hot Springs County where 19 percent of the population 

was 65 and over. The youngest population was in Fremont County where 12 percent of the 

population was 65 and over. In Park County, 13 percent of the population was 65 and over in 1990.

Year Fremont Hot Springs Park Study area

1990a 33,662 4,809 23,178 61,649

2000a 35,804 4,882 25,786 66,472

2010a 40,123 4,812 28,205 73,140

2020b 42,170 4,875 29,510 76,555

2030b 45,490 4,957 31,030 81,477

2040b 48,840 5,052 32,570 86,462

Change 1990 to 2000 6.4% 1.5% 11.3% 7.8%

Change 2000 to 2010 12.1% -1.4% 9.4% 10.0%

Change 2010 to 2040 21.7% 5.0% 15.5% 18.2%
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

594

Table 167. Share of population age 65 and over in Shoshone National Forest study area, 1990 to 2040

Year Fremont Hot Springs Park Study area Wyoming U.S.

1990a 11.6 18.9 13.3 12.8 10.4 12.6

2000a 13.3 20.0 14.5 14.2 11.7 12.4

2010a 14.5 22.6 17.5 16.2 12.4 13.0

2020b 18.5 28.2 24.1 21.2 16.4 16.1

2030b 21.6 30.2 28.7 24.8 19.4 19.4

2040b 20.8 26.1 28.3 24.0 18.8 20.2

Sources: Woods and Poole Economics 2010. Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis 

Division 2011.

a Reported from U.S. Census Bureau

b Forecasted from Woods and Poole Economics

By 2010, the percent of the study area’s population 65 and over had increased to 16 percent, 

compared to 12 percent in Wyoming and 13 percent in the United States. Hot Springs County again 

had the oldest population with 23 percent of its population being 65 and over. Fremont County had 

the youngest population with 14 percent being 65 and over. In Park County, 17 percent of the 

population was 65 and over. 

In 2010, Hot Springs had the oldest median age, 48.6 years, of any county in Wyoming. The median 

ages for Fremont, 38.5 years, and Park, 43.6 years, were also above the median for Wyoming (36.8) 

and the United States (37.2).

By 2040, it is projected that 24 percent of the study area’s population will be 65 and over. This shift 

toward an older population will manifest itself in many ways, from preferred outdoor recreation 

activities on public lands, to the services locals demand from their local government, and the 

business mix of retail and services offered on Main Street. 

Ethnicity of Study Area Population: Population changes relate not only to the number of residents 

in the region, but also to their ethnicity. Table 168 highlights the ethnic components of the counties 

in the analysis area. Except for the American Indian population, the area is not very ethnically 

diverse with 84 percent of the population being classified as white in 2010. Due to the presence of 

the Wind River Indian Reservation, 21 percent of the population in the Fremont County was 

classified as American Indian in 2010. As a result, the three-county area has a higher percentage of 

American Indian population than the State as a whole (12 percent versus 2 percent). The percentage 

of the population for every other non-white racial component is less than the State average. The 

racial composition of the region did not change dramatically between 2000 and 2010, although the 

percentage of the population classified as white decreased slightly and the percentage of the 

population for other groups increased slightly.

School Enrollment: Demographic changes in any region are often first detected in local schools. 

With an aging population, school enrollments in the three-county study area have generally declined 

over time. Table 169 displays the total school enrollment in the study area between 2001 and 2010. 

Hot Springs County had the largest decrease with a 14 percent decline, followed by Park County (-6 

percent), and Fremont County (-2 percent). These declines compare to a 0.3 percent increase in 

school enrollment statewide between 2001 and 2010. All eight school districts in Fremont County 

had declining enrollments, except for the Fort Washakie and Arapahoe Districts. All three of the Park 

County school districts and the one Hot Springs County school district also had declining 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

595

enrollments. However, all three counties have experienced slight upturns in school enrollment since 

2007.

Table 168. Racial component of study area population by county, 2010

Area Total 

population White Black American 

Indian

Asian or 

Pacific 

Islander

Other/ 

multi-race

Hispanic, 

any race

Fremont 40,123 74.3% 0.3% 21.2% 0.4% 3.8% 5.6%

Hot Springs 4,812 95.8% 0.2% 1.5% 0.5% 2.0% 2.2%

Park 28,205 95.6% 0.2% 0.6% 0.7% 3.0% 4.8%

Study Area 73,140 83.9% 0.2% 11.9% 0.5% 3.4% 5.1%

Wyoming 563,626 90.7% 0.8% 2.4% 0.9% 5.2% 8.9%

Source: Wyoming Economic Analysis Division

Table 169. School enrollments by county in Shoshone National Forest study area, 2001 to 2010

Year Fremont Hot Springs Park Study area Wyoming

2001 6,639 752 4,226 11,617 87,897

2002 6,504 702 4,055 11,261 86,116

2003 6,344 699 3,941 10,984 84,739

2004 6,299 679 3,893 10,871 83,772

2005 6,373 634 3,896 10,903 83,705

2006 6,362 623 3,938 10,923 84,629

2007 6,280 642 3,935 10,857 85,578

2008 6,342 655 3,952 10,949 86,519

2009 6,329 652 3,970 10,951 87,420

2010 6,493 650 3,973 11,116 88,165

Pct. Change 2001-2010 -2.2% -13.6% -6.0% -4.3% 0.3%

Source: Wyoming Department of Education

School enrollment in kindergarten classes can provide some indication of future enrollment in local 

schools. Unlike total enrollment, kindergarten enrollment in the study area was 29 percent higher in 

2010 than it was in 2001 (table 170). Fremont County had the largest growth with a 38 percent 

increase, followed by Park County (+29 percent). Kindergarten enrollment in Hot Springs County 

was the exception to this trend with a 35 percent decline between 2001 and 2010. Statewide 

kindergarten enrollment was 27 percent higher in 2010 than it was in 2001. Except for Hot Springs 

County, these trends may bode well for future school enrollments in the study area. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

596

Table 170. Kindergarten enrollments by county in Shoshone National Forest study area, 2001−2010

Year Fremont Hot Springs Park Study area Wyoming

2001 442 57 269 768 6,002

2002 464 44 291 799 6,165

2003 469 43 309 821 6,224

2004 473 51 259 783 6,263

2005 474 55 270 799 6,381

2006 464 54 285 803 6,576

2007 498 54 308 860 6,891

2008 514 39 303 856 7,215

2009 533 44 312 889 7,422

2010 609 37 348 994 7,611

Pct. Change 2001-2010 37.8% -35.1% 29.4% 29.4% 26.8%

Source: Wyoming Department of Education

Land Ownership and Use

The three-county area covers 11.7 million acres with 51 percent in Fremont County, 38 percent in 

Park County, and 11 percent in Hot Springs County (Wyoming Department of Administration and 

Information 2010). Approximately 17 percent of the land area is in private ownership. This ranges 

from 14 percent in Fremont County to 17 percent in Park County, and 31 percent in Hot Springs 

County. About 62 percent of the land area is under Federal management. This ranges from 43 percent 

in Hot Springs County to 54 percent in Fremont County, and 79 percent in Park County. Tribal lands 

represent 16 percent of the land in the area. This ranges from 19 percent in Hot Springs County to 26 

percent in Fremont County. There is no tribal land in Park County.

The Forest Service is the second largest Federal land manager in the area, after the BLM, accounting 

for 23 percent of the total land area. This ranges from 4 percent in Hot Springs County to 16 percent 

in Fremont County, and 38 percent in Park County. Sixty percent of the NFS land in the area is 

managed as wilderness. This ranges from 48 percent in Hot Springs County to 54 percent in Fremont 

County, and 63 percent in Park County.

Nearly 90 percent of the private land in the area is in agricultural use. This ranges from 86 percent in 

Park County to 90 percent in Fremont County, and 96 percent in Hot Springs. Approximately 

111,200 acres of land in the area were in residential development in 2000 with 94 percent in exurban 

areas where the average lot size was between 1.7 and 40 acres. Between 1980 and 2000, the acres of 

residential development in the area increased by 32 percent, while the population increased by less 

than 1 percent. Nearly 98 percent of the increase was in exurban development. In the individual 

counties, the increase in acres of residential development ranged from 1 percent in Hot Springs 

County to 14 percent in Fremont County, and 73 percent in Park County.

Social – Values, Attitudes, Lifestyle

The State of Wyoming funded a study in 2007 of the residents around the Shoshone to find out about 

their values and preferences, and what forest management issues were important to them. The Study 

of Preferences and Values on the Shoshone National Forest final report was completed in 2008, and 

the results are summarized here.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

597

The majority of survey respondents were interested in the management of the Shoshone. Of the 

residents surveyed, about 60 percent participated in motorized recreation on the Forest, and about 40 

percent did not. The majority of those surveyed were satisfied with their summer recreation 

experience (80 percent) and their winter recreation experience (66 percent) on the Shoshone. The 

majority of those sampled (72 percent) would like to maintain the current level of outfitter and guide 

use on the Forest.

In terms of management on the Shoshone, there was limited support of those surveyed for 

construction of new road access (20 percent), the majority of people felt the Shoshone had enough 

roads (39 percent) or should construct a new road only if needed for another resource purpose (30 

percent). The majority of those surveyed (84 percent) would like to see the same/current level or 

more active vegetation management, about 10 percent would like to see less or no active 

management of the vegetation. 

Those surveyed were fairly evenly split on the question of designating additional roadless areas to 

wilderness, or leaving roadless areas undesignated. 

People living around the Shoshone use the Forest throughout the year, with over 40 percent of those 

surveyed going into the Forest more than 10 times a year, with fewer visits during the winter. Figure 

30 displays the level of use from residents over a 12-month period, and figure 31 shows the seasons 

of the year most used by the residents surveyed.

Figure 30. Level of Forest use by residents during a 12-month period
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

598

Figure 31. Survey results, what seasons do you visit the Shoshone National Forest?

A wide variety of recreational activities take place on the Shoshone throughout the year. Figure 32

displays those activities in which survey respondents participated on the Shoshone; each respondent 

was able to select more than one activity. The results are similar to national use trends on NFS lands.

Figure 32. Survey results, what activities do you participate in on the Shoshone National Forest?

Social concerns are broad and complex enough that they do not constitute a single issue that can be 

easily measured and addressed. Generally, the values people hold toward forest resources is the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

599

measure used to assess if alternatives will have positive or negative impacts to various individuals or 

groups. There are many definitions of value, for this analysis it is assumed that we can understand 

forest values by understanding what is important to people (Kroger p. 156).

Forest values represent the importance and worth that people have assigned to NFS lands. Table 171

lists, in alphabetical order, major categories of forest values that individuals may hold for any forest 

resource or opportunity. People can hold multiple values for the same resource, or may hold very 

separate values for specific places or experiences. The same place or area will have different values 

to different people.

Table 171. Forest values that people may hold

Forest value Description of why people hold this value

Aesthetic Value the Shoshone because of the scenery, sights, sounds, smells, etc.

Biological diversity Value the Shoshone because it provides a variety of fish, wildlife, plant life, etc.

Cultural Value the Shoshone because it is a place to practice, and pass down wisdom and 

knowledge and traditions

Economic Value the Shoshone because it provides timber, minerals, oil/gas/coal, and tourism 

opportunities (outfitter/guides)

Future Value the Shoshone because it allows future generations to experience the Forest 

as it is now.

Historic Value the Shoshone because it has places and things of natural and human history 

that are important

Intrinsic Value the Shoshone in and of itself, just to know it exists, no use is needed to gain 

value

Learning Value the Shoshone because one can learn about the environment through 

scientific observation or experimentation

Life sustaining Value the Shoshone to produce, preserve, clean and renew air, soil and water

Recreation Value the Shoshone because it provides a place for outdoor recreation activities

Spiritual Value the Shoshone for sacred, religious, or spiritually special places, and for 

providing a feeling of reverence and respect for nature

Subsistence Value the Shoshone because it provides necessary food and supplies to sustain life 

for individuals

Therapeutic Value the Shoshone for physical and/or mental health

Source: Brown and Reed 2000, page 243

Conflicts occur when individuals or groups hold different forest values for the same resource or 

place. It is difficult to measure these forest values, so specific information is limited, and yet it is 

these differences in values that create resource management conflicts. Resolving conflicts among 

forest values is a political problem and would not be corrected by simply counting or measuring the 

values better (Challenges 1995, No 2). But understanding conflicts and the different preferences 

people have can be helpful for all involved in forest planning efforts.

Figure 33 displays the survey results of respondents when asked if they favor (solid bar) or oppose 

(cross hatch bar) different types of uses, recreational and commercial, on the Shoshone. The vast 

majority (98 percent) of respondents are in favor of wildlife viewing/observing as a use on the 

Shoshone, with no responses opposing that use. Similarly, sightseeing and fish/wildlife habitat use of 

the Shoshone received 96 percent favorable response with no opposing responses. Oil and gas 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

600

drilling and commercial mining received the largest percentage of opposing responses, 55 percent of 

respondents felt those uses should not be occurring on the Shoshone.

Figure 33. Survey results, respondents favor or oppose activities on Shoshone National Forest

The survey also asked residents about their values (as defined in table 171) of the Shoshone in 

general. Figure 34 highlights the results of respondents’ values, with aesthetic, recreation, and 

biodiversity having the highest value scores. Subsistence, cultural, and spiritual had the lowest value 

scores; they are still positively valued, but may not hold as high a priority as some of the other values 

respondents were selecting between.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

601

Figure 34. Survey results, what do you value about the Shoshone National Forest?

Values and Interests

The values and interests included in this analysis are based on responses to comments the public has 

provided to previous planning documents, and to survey results. The identified values and interests 

are not based entirely on a random sample; the survey conducted was a random sample, but people 

who chose to respond to a Forest Service comment period are self-selected. By focusing on those 

who commented, the analysis focuses on those people who hold strong values regarding forest 

resource management on the Shoshone.

This analysis centers on six broad categories of forest values/interests, based on the survey and 

comments received. The categories, defined in table 172, are used to display the differences between 

alternatives, and do not define specific individuals or groups, and do not represent a complete 

analysis of all possible interests people have for the Shoshone. 

Several assumptions underlie this analysis:

• People make choices or reflect their preferences based on what is important to them 

(Kleindorfer et al. 1993).

• An individual may hold one or more of the values or interests for the forest resources 

described in this section. Consequently, the impacts of the alternatives on specific 

individuals may be cumulative, mixed, or singular, depending on how many different values 

the individual holds. For example, a person may hold values similar to those of the 

preservation category when considering wildlife habitat, but may hold values similar to the 

non-motorized recreation category when considering access to recreational opportunities. 

• Management actions within the Shoshone that are inconsistent with people’s forest values 

are perceived by them as threatening and undermining to their values.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

602

• The ability of Shoshone users to continue to engage in current or future use of the NFS lands 

and to maintain the quality of their experience is tied to the ecological health of the natural 

resources found there.

Table 172. Forest value/interest categories used for Shoshone analysis

Value or interest 

category Defined for Shoshone National Forest analysis

Preservation

Values the Shoshone for the natural processes and opportunities provided without 

additional management or infrastructure development. Much of the value is in 

knowing that the Forest exists and that it is protected from future development, rather 

than associated with actual use, visitation, restoration, or management.

Recreational use –

non-motorized

Values maintaining or expanding non-motorized opportunities on the Shoshone. 

There is some division in this category between those interested in mechanized use 

(mountain bikes) and those who would like to limit access to hiking and horses. 

Overall, the desire is for quiet/non-motorized experiences within the national forest.

Recreational use −

motorized

Values gaining access via roads to the Shoshone, as well as maintaining current 

motorized use for recreational opportunities. For some, driven by need or disability, 

the desire for roaded access is due to the inability to get into the Forest without the 

road system. For others, desire for additional roaded access is the preferred method 

of travel, the travel itself is the recreational experience. Others value, where 

appropriate, increasing back country motorized trails/singletrack (summer and winter 

use) rather than roads.

Wildlife and fish –

hunting/fishing

Values maintaining habitat conditions for healthy populations of wildlife on the 

Shoshone. Great interest in hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing. Values access to 

non-motorized experiences as well as management activities that would restore or 

improve habitat for wildlife and fish.

Tourism – nonmotorized 

This category is commercial interest, capitalizing on the natural amenities that attract 

customers to the area for leisure activities. Scenery is of concern to this category, but 

most importantly is the value of access to non-motorized opportunities on the 

Shoshone to provide wilderness experiences.

Resource 

economic 

opportunities

Values commercial activities on the Shoshone such as timber, grazing, oil and gas 

development, mining, utilities, and other uses where appropriate. Values future 

access as needed to facilitate continued resource development and support of local 

resource jobs and income.

Employment and Income

The employment data presented here was obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce; Bureau 

of Economic Analysis’s Regional Economic Information System (REIS) and represents the latest 

data that are currently available for counties in the United States (2009). REIS data was used because 

it provides estimates of all employment in a region, including those individuals who are selfemployed. In some cases employment for an individual industry is not reported by REIS due to 

confidentiality requirements. In these cases the industry employment was estimated based on 

information from Woods and Poole Economics.

Economic Contribution of the Shoshone National Forest to the Economic Study Area

Management of national forests contributes to the local economies by the products (e.g., timber, 

livestock grazing, minerals, etc.) that are produced on the national forests and processed in the local 

economy; by uses (e.g., recreation visits, etc.) that occur on the national forests; and by the service 

provided by employees of the national forests. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

603

An IMPLAN input-output model was constructed to estimate the economic contribution of the 

national forests to the analysis area economy. The IMPLAN model was constructed using 

2009 IMPLAN data (the most recent IMPLAN data available).

Table 165, table 173, and table 174 provide a summary of the study area’s economy and the 

contribution of the Shoshone on the region’s economy. Table 174 highlights the study area’s totals 

for all employment and earnings within the three-county area. Fremont County supports the highest 

number of jobs, but Park County has the highest average earnings per job. Hot Springs County has 

average earnings per job that is about $3,500 less than the study area average.

Table 173. Economic impact summary for the Shoshone National Forest, 2009 (2009 Dollars)

Labor Average

Employment Earnings Earnings

County (Jobs) (000$) Per Job

Fremont 24,752 $876,813 $35,424

Hot Springs 3,304 $106,532 $32,243

Park 20,698 $760,895 $36,762

Study Area Total 48,754 $1,744,240 $35,776

Sources: 1) U.S. Department of Commerce

2) U.S. Department of Commerce, University of Montana, Dean Runyan Associates

Table 174. Shoshone National Forest − forest-related industries

Fremont Hot Springs Park Study area

Industry (Jobs) (Jobs) (Jobs) (Jobs)

Agriculture 1,481 188 928 2,597

Wood Products 58 0 125 183

Travel 1,580 360 3,540 5,480

NLI+ 448 63 585 1,113

Totals 3,567 611 5,178 9,373

Industry

Fremont

(Earnings)

(000$)

Hot Springs

(Earnings)

(000$)

Park

(Earnings)

(000$)

Study area

(Earnings)

(000$)

Agriculture -$2,007 $1,013 $8,702 $7,708

Wood Products $2,106 $0 $4,577 $6,683

Travel $41,100 $7,600 $75,000 $123,700

NLI+ $13,876 $1,670 $16,840 $32,387

Totals $55,075 $10,283 $105,119 $170,477

Average Earnings/Job $15,440 $16,830 $20,301 $18,188

Sources: 1) U.S. Department of Commerce

2) U.S. Department of Commerce, University of Montana, Dean Runyan Associates

NLI+ = Non Labor Income above the state average (used a proxy for amenity residents)

The contribution analysis considers the impact of the Shoshone on the economy of the three-county 

region through the forest-related industries. Forest-related industries are at least partially dependent 

on national forest resources. In other words, a portion of the economic activity associated with these 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

604

industries is dependent on the use of natural resources within the Shoshone. For this analysis, forestrelated industries were defined as Agriculture, Wood Products Manufacturing, Travel (outdoor 

recreation and tourism), and proportion of non-labor income above the State average (NLI+). In this 

section the proportion of non-labor income above the State average was used as a proxy for the 

income of amenity residents. Amenity residents are residents who live in the region specifically 

because of the region’s amenities. Some unknown portion of the attractiveness of the region to 

amenity residents is likely associated with the Shoshone.

Table 174 displays the importance of forest-related industries on the economy of the three-county 

study area. Total direct regional employment for forest-related industries was 9,373 jobs in 2009. 

This represented nearly 20 percent of the total employment in the three-county region. Travel was 

the largest forest-related industry in terms of employment (58 percent), followed by agriculture (28 

percent), NLI+ (12 percent), and wood products manufacturing (2 percent). Among individual 

counties, the percentage of total employment from forest-related industries ranged from 14 percent in 

Fremont County to 25 percent in Park County, with Hot Springs County at 18 percent. In all three 

counties, the largest forest-related industries in terms of employment were travel and agriculture.

Total direct regional labor earning for the forest-related industries was $170.5 million in 2009. This 

represented 10 percent of total labor earnings in the three-county region. Travel was the largest 

forest-related industry in terms of labor earnings (73 percent), followed by NLI+ (19 percent), 

agriculture (5 percent), and wood Products Manufacturing (4 percent). Among individual counties, 

the percent of total labor earnings from forest-related industries ranged from 6 percent in Fremont

County to 14 percent in Park County, with Hot Springs County at 10 percent.

Average earnings per job for forest-related industries-related employment were below the regional 

average. In 2009, average earnings per job for forest-related industries were $18,188, which was 50 

percent below the region’s average ($35,776). Much of this difference was due to the low labor 

earnings in agriculture in 2009, although average earnings per job for the other three industries were 

also below the study area average in 2009. Among individual counties, average earnings per job for 

forest-related industries ranged from 56 percent below the study area average for Fremont County to 

45 percent below for Park County. For Hot Springs County average earnings per job for forestrelated industries were 48 percent below the study area average.

For some forest-related industries, it was possible to estimate the contribution of the Shoshone on the 

three-county study area economy. For those industries, summarized in table 175, it is estimated that 

economic activity on the Shoshone generated 1,260 jobs in the study area economy. This estimate is 

based on the IMPLAN model for the region and includes both direct and secondary jobs. The total 

jobs from the Forest represent 3 percent of the total jobs and 13 percent of the total forest-related 

industries jobs in the region. Approximately 31 percent of the forest-related jobs was associated with 

general visitation to the Shoshone with 28 percent from commercial recreation, 16 percent from 

livestock grazing, 7 percent from timber, and 19 percent from Forest Service employment. It was not 

possible to estimate the proportion of NLI+ that was strictly related to the Shoshone National Forest 

activity.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

605

Table 175. Shoshone National Forest economic contribution

Study Area Study Area Average

Employment Earnings Earnings

(Jobs) (000$) Per Job

Livestock grazing 200.7 $6,467 $32,220

Timber 82.6 $1,893 $22,918

Forest visitors 388.4 $10,234 $26,350

Commercial recreation 353.0 $7,539 $21,358

Shoshone National Forest 235.7 $10,578 $44,879

Totals 1,260.4 $36,711 $29,127

Forest-related employment was estimated to generate $36.7 million in labor earnings in the region. 

These labor earnings represented 2 percent of total labor earnings and 21 percent of total forestrelated industries labor earnings in the study area. Average earnings per job for forest-related 

employment was $29,127, which was 18 percent below the study area average.

While the economic impacts of the Shoshone are not a large percentage of total employment and 

labor earnings in the study area, they are not insignificant. At the national level, the economic impact 

of the Shoshone would be equivalent to 3.7 million jobs and $130.9 billion in labor earnings in 2009. 

To put this in perspective, 3.7 million jobs represent 60 percent of the total number of jobs lost 

nationally during the recent recession. Thus, relatively small percentage changes can have important 

implications for the economies at both the national and regional level.

Although ranches in the region are typically only dependent on Federal land grazing for forage 

during certain times of the year, this forage source can be a critical part of their livestock operation. 

Greer (1994) and Taylor et al. (1992) both found that while the reliance of ranchers on forage from 

Federal land grazing can appear relatively unimportant when calculated on an acreage or AUM basis, 

they become quite important when calculated on a seasonal dependency basis. The rigidity of 

seasonal forage availability means that the optimal use of other forages and resources are impacted 

when Federal AUMs are not available, Torell et al. (2002). Bartlett (1983), Gee (1983), Hahn et 

al.(1989), Bartlett et al.(1979), Gee (1981), Perryman and Olson (1975), Rowe and Bartlett (2001), 

Torell et al.(1981), and Van Tassell and Richardson (1998) have all found that potential reductions in 

income and net ranch returns are greater than just the direct economic loss from reductions in 

Federal grazing. The economic assessment (Taylor et al. 2011) completes a methodology and 

documents potential impacts to ranch profitability or viability based on changes to Federal grazing.

Based on the fact that the Shoshone has had little or no mineral activity for the last 25 years, that we 

project a low probability of any development during the planning period, and that we project that any 

development that did occur would be the same in all alternatives no economic analysis of minerals 

was conducted. Specific information about mineral activity is included in the minerals section of this 

chapter.

Regional Totals

In terms of regional data, table 173 indicates there were a total of 48,754 jobs in the three-county 

region in 2009. Fifty-one percent of this employment was in Fremont County with 42 percent in 

Park, and 7 percent in Hot Springs. Labor earnings for the three-county region totaled $1.7 billion in 

2009. Forty-nine percent of this income was in Fremont County with 45 percent in Park County, and 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

606

6 percent in Hot Springs County. Average earnings per job for the region was $35,776. County 

averages ranged from $32,243 in Hot Springs County to $36,762 in Park County, with Fremont 

County at $35,424.

Payments to Counties

State and local government cannot tax federally owned lands the way they would if the land were 

privately owned. A number of Federal programs exist to compensate county governments for the 

presence of Federal lands. These programs can represent a significant portion of local government 

revenue in rural counties with large Federal land holdings.

Before 1976, all Federal payments were linked directly to receipts generated on public lands. 

Congress funded the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program with appropriations beginning in 

1977 in recognition of the volatility and inadequacy of Federal revenue sharing programs. PILT was 

intended to stabilize and increase Federal land payments to county governments. PILT payments are 

also important because they are not restricted to particular local government services, but can be 

used at the discretion of county commissioners to fund any local government needs. The annual 

payment by county is based on a maximum per-acre payment reduced by the sum of all revenue 

sharing payments and subject to a population cap. PILT is permanently authorized, but Congress 

must appropriate funding on an annual basis. PILT was typically not fully funded until FY 2008 

when counties received a guarantee of 5 years at full payment amounts (FY 2008 to FY 2012 

payments).

The 25 percent Fund, established in 1908, shares revenue generated from the sale of commodities 

produced on public land with the county where the activities take place. Twenty-five percent of the 

value of public land receipts are distributed directly to counties and must be used to fund roads and 

schools. States determine how to allocate receipts between these two local services. The Secure 

Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS), or Public Law 106-393 was 

enacted to provide 5 years of transitional assistance to rural counties affected by the decline in 

revenue from timber harvests on Federal lands. SRS was reauthorized for a single year in 2007, and 

again in 2008 for a period of 4 years. 

The SRS Act has three titles that allocate payments for specific purposes.

• Title I − these payments to counties make up 80 to 85 percent of the total SRS payments and 

must be dedicated to funding roads and schools. States determine the split between these two 

services, and some states let the counties decide.

• Title II − these funds are retained by the Federal Treasury to be used for special projects on 

Federal land. Resource advisory committees at the community level help make spending 

determinations and monitor project progress. 

• Title III − these payments may be used to carry out activities under the Firewise 

Communities program, to reimburse the county for search and rescue and other emergency 

services, and to develop community wildfire protection plans.

Figure 35 displays the revenue sharing for fiscal years 1986 through 2010.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

607

Figure 35. Forest Service revenue sharing within study area, fiscal years 1986 to 2010

SRS received broad support because it addressed several major concerns around receipt-based 

programs: volatility, the payment level, and the incentives provided to counties by linking Federal 

land payments directly to extractive uses of public lands.

Table 176 displays fiscal year 2010 Federal payments within the study area counties by type of 

payment.

Table 176. Components of Federal land payments to State and local governments by geography of 

origin, FY 2010 (2011 Dollars)

Fremont 

County

Hot Springs 

County Park County Study Area

Total Federal land payments by 

geography of origin $3,008,686 $829,800 $2,315,136 $6,153,622 

PILT $1,907,983 $713,956 $1,221,349 $3,843,287 

Forest Service payments $829,437 $37,328 $1,026,606 $1,893,370 

BLM payments $271,266 $78,517 $67,182 $416,965 

Percent of Total

PILT 63.4% 86.0% 52.8% 62.5%

Forest Service payments 27.6% 4.5% 44.3% 30.8%

BLM payments 9.0% 9.5% 2.9% 6.8%

BLM Payments: The BLM shares a portion of receipts generated on public lands with state and local governments, including 

grazing fees through the Taylor Grazing Act and timber receipts generated on Oregon and California (O & C) grant lands.

PILT and SRS each received a significant increase in Federal appropriations in FY 2008 through the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Despite the increased appropriations, SRS is 

authorized only through FY 2011, PILT only through FY 2012, and Federal budget concerns are 

creating uncertainty for the future of both. Figure 36 highlights the overall trend in Federal payments 

within the study area between 1986 and 2010.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

608

Figure 36. Components of Federal land payments within study area by fiscal year, 1986 to 2010

Desired Condition

The Shoshone contributes to the social and economic well-being of local communities by promoting 

sustainable use of renewable natural resources. Timber is provided for commercial harvest, forage 

for livestock grazing, exploration and development opportunities for mineral resources, and settings 

for recreation are consistent with goals for watershed health, sustainable ecosystems, biodiversity 

and viability, and scenic or recreation opportunities. 

Environmental Consequences

The Shoshone provides a variety of uses, values, benefits, products, services, and visitor 

opportunities (termed “outputs and values”). Under all alternatives, these outputs and values will be 

provided in a sustainable manner, supplying outputs and values for current and future generations. 

These outputs and values contribute to the sustainability of the social and economic systems within 

the analysis area. 

While the analysis area is affected by the management activities, uses, and outputs of the Shoshone, 

there are also many external factors that affect local counties and communities. These external 

factors include national and regional population trends, national trade agreements, state and national 

laws and regulations, technological advances in manufacturing, technological advances in recreation 

equipment, cultural trends, and changes in societal values. These external factors often have a larger 

impact on the social and economic environment than does management of the Forest. This section 

addresses the potential effects from Shoshone management decisions from the alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Population

Population is not expected to vary by alternative. Current trends are expected to continue over the 

life of the revised Forest Plan. 

Land Ownership and Use

Land ownership is not expected to change under any alternative. There may be some land exchanges 

in the future, but it is not expected to result in any net increase in lands administered by the 

Shoshone. Any future land exchanges or sales would be assessed to determine specific impacts. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

609

Lifestyles, Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs

Each of the seven alternatives differs in the balance point between key conflicting values. Effects on 

values and interests are described in terms of the six key categories outlined in table 172. The 

analysis presented by alternative below uses public comments and information from the social 

survey completed on the Shoshone to describe the potential effects of and differences among the 

alternatives.

Preservation

The existing plan (alternative A) has much to offer those who value preservation. Over 50 percent of 

the forest is currently designated wilderness. Another 30 percent is inventoried roadless areas that 

have many characteristics that are similar to wilderness. Much of the inventoried roadless area has 

rarely seen any type of motorized recreation or vegetation management. None of these additional 

lands would be recommended for wilderness in alternative A. 

Alternative C would be the preferred alternative for those with preservation interests/values. 

Alternative C recommends an additional 25 percent of the forest for wilderness designation. In 

inventoried roadless area not recommended for wilderness, motorized recreation would be 

prohibited. Miles of open road, motorized trails, and snowmobile trails would all be reduced in this 

alternative. For people interested in allowing nature to take its course and with a strong preference 

for non-motorized opportunities, this alternative best meets those interests/values.

Alternative D would be preferred over alternative A by those with preservation interests/values. It 

recommends an additional 8 percent of the forest for wilderness designation. Like alternative C, it 

would prohibit motorized recreation within most inventoried roadless areas. Unlike alternative C, it 

would not reduce the miles of existing open roads, motorized trails, or snowmobile trails. For these 

items, alternative D would be the same as alternative A.

Alternative F would be the least favored alternative for those with preservation interests/values. It 

does not propose any new wilderness. It opens most inventoried roadless areas to some motorized 

recreation and would increase the area of the forest that would be open to active vegetation 

management. Alternative E is similar to alternative F, but it would be slightly less impactful to 

preservation values. It would not open as much of the inventoried roadless areas to motorized 

activity and less of the forest is open to active vegetation management. But overall, both alternatives 

E and F would be less valued by persons with preservation interests/values than alternative A.

Persons with preservation interests/values would likely consider alternatives B and G similar. Neither 

alternative proposes additional wilderness designations. Both alternatives would manage inventoried 

roadless areas according to the 2001 Roadless Conservation Rule. This prohibits the construction of 

new permanent roads except under certain conditions and it limits the use of vegetation treatments to 

specific situations within inventoried roadless. Large areas of inventoried roadless areas would be 

managed to prohibit motorized activities. Though not as restrictive as alternatives C and D, many of 

these lands would be maintained in a manner that is consistent with those with preservation 

interests/values. The portion of the forest that would be actively managed in alternatives B and G is 

similar to the area in alternative A.

Recreation non-motorized

All the alternatives will provide some opportunity to those persons who value non-motorized 

recreation in a quiet environment; given that over 50 percent of the forest is designated wilderness 

under all alternatives. There is variation among the alternatives on how much additional opportunity 

for non-motorized recreation would be provided on the areas outside of designated wilderness. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

610

In alternative A, there are large areas that provide an exclusive summer non-motorized experience. 

This is provided on over 75 percent of the forest. In the winter, most of the area outside of wilderness 

allows some level of winter motorized experience. Exclusive non-motorized recreation is provided 

on just over 60 percent of the forest. This is contrary to those who would desire a quiet nonmotorized experience in the winter. Despite the area being open to motorized use, use is normally 

low in many of these areas. 

The comparison of the alternatives for those that value non-motorized recreation is similar to the 

comparison to those that value preservation. The main difference is that that those that value nonmotorized recreation are not as tied to the designation of wilderness. Their values can be met through 

management that emphasizes non-motorized recreation with or without the wilderness designation. 

Alternative C would be the preferred alternative for those with non-motorized recreation 

interests/values. Over 80 percent of the forest would provide an exclusively non-motorized 

experience in the summer and over 90 percent would provide an exclusively non-motorized 

experience in the winter. Alternative D would be similar to C, providing non-motorized experiences 

on over 80 percent in both the summer and winter.

Alternative F would be the least favored alternative for those with non-motorized recreation 

interests/values. This alternative would provide exclusive non-motorized experience on just under 70 

percent of the forest in both the summer and winter. For those who value non-motorized recreation, 

this alternative would be worse that alternative A in the summer, but better in the winter. Alternative 

E provides more non-motorized experiences than alternative F, around 75 percent of the forest is 

exclusively non-motorized in the summer, which would still be less than alternative A. And in the 

winter, around 80 percent of the forest would be exclusively non-motorized—more than alternative 

A.

For those persons who favor non-motorized recreation experiences, alternatives B and G would be 

more favorable than alternative A. In alternative B, the area for summer exclusive non-motorized use 

would be similar to alternative A, while in alternative G it would be slightly higher than alternative 

A. The area of exclusive non-motorized use in the winter for both alternatives B and G would be 

around 80 percent and 75 percent, respectively. For those persons who favor non-motorized

recreation, this would be much better than the 60 percent in alternative A.

Recreation motorized

All the alternatives provide some value to those persons who value motorized recreation. Over 50 

percent of the forest is already designated wilderness, and does not provide motorized recreation 

opportunities in any of the alternatives. There is variation among the alternatives on the level of 

opportunity that would be provided on the areas outside of designated wilderness. Summer 

motorized use is only allowed on designated roads and trails in all alternatives. When we discuss the 

area of the forest that could be open to motorized use, we are referring to that area where motorized 

roads and trails could be designated. In many cases, those acres may not provide those motorized 

opportunities now, because the environmental analysis to designate the route will not occur until the 

plan is implemented after a final decision is made on the plan.

In alternative A, less than 25 percent of the forest is available for summer motorized experiences. In 

the winter most of the area outside of wilderness, about 35 percent, allows some level of winter 

motorized experience. 

The comparison of the alternatives for those who value motorized recreation is the converse of those 

who value non-motorized recreation.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

611

Alternative C would be the least favored alternative for those with motorized recreation 

interests/values. Less than 15 percent of the forest would provide a motorized experience in the 

summer and less than 5 percent in the winter. In addition, Alternative C would result in the closure of 

existing open roads (10 percent) and snowmobile trails (60 percent). Alternative D is similar to 

alternative C in that it would provide motorized experiences on less than 15 percent of the forest in 

the summer and winter. Alternative D would not result in the closure of any existing roads or 

snowmobile trails.

Alternative F would be the most favored alternative for those with motorized recreation 

interests/values. This alternative would provide motorized experience on over 30 percent of the 

forest in both the summer and winter. For those who value motorized recreation, this alternative is 

better than alternative A in the summer, but slightly worse in the winter. Alternative E would provide 

slightly less exclusive motorized experiences than alternative F. Under alterative E, 25 percent of the 

forest would be motorized in the summer (more than alternative A), and around 20 percent in the 

winter, which is less than alternative A.

For those persons who favor motorized recreation experiences, alternatives B and G would provide 

fewer opportunities than alternative F. The area for summer motorized use in alternative B would be 

similar to alternative A, while in alternative G it would be slightly lower than alternative A. Though 

G would be lower than B, it does try and locate those areas available for summer motorized use in 

areas that do not conflict with grizzly bear management that would restrict motorized use. As a result 

of this shifting, it is possible that alternative G may provide more opportunity than alternative B in 

the long term. The area of motorized use in the winter for both alternatives B and G would be around 

20 percent and 25 percent, respectively. For those persons who favor motorized recreation, this is 

less than the 35 percent in alternative A.

Wildlife and Fish

All the alternatives provide some value to those persons with values/interest in wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. Persons with these values include those who engage in wildlife viewing and those who like 

to hunt and fish. There are some value differences from viewers of wildlife and those who hunt or 

fish. For the most part, those value differences are not impacted by forest management, since all 

segments generally favor high quality habitat. Some individuals believe that any management actions 

are a negative impact to wildlife populations and would not favor any active management. For the 

purposes of this discussion, those individuals are included with those persons who value 

preservation. In this group we are addressing those individuals who value wildlife and wildlife 

habitat and are also supportive of management actions that are focused on benefiting wildlife.

Alternative A includes direction that supports the recovery of threatened and endangered species, 

grizzly bear and Canada lynx. This alternative recognizes the need to protect big game critical winter 

range, but does not always allocate winter range to management prescriptions that would provide

that protection. The alternative includes a temporary restriction on recreation pack goat use to protect 

bighorn sheep in core habitat that would be allowed to expire. The alternative is implemented in a 

manner to protect Region 2 sensitive species, but does not always contain specific direction on that 

protection.

Generally, persons who value wildlife are not as supportive of alternatives that have a strong focus 

on other resource values such as timber harvest or mineral extraction. Those alternatives do contain 

direction to protect wildlife because there would be impact on wildlife even if that impact is 

mitigated. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

612

Alternative F would be the alternative least favored by persons that value wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. The alternative focuses large areas of the forest on commercial timber harvest, livestock 

grazing, oil and gas development, and motorized recreation. Some of the vegetation treatments 

would improve limited habitats such as aspen, sagebrush, and whitebark pine. Protection would 

likely be reduced for grizzly bear and Canada lynx, with no timing restrictions for winter motorized 

use on crucial winter range, no priority given to big game use of forage on crucial winter range, 

crucial winter range would be open to oil and gas development, and recreation pack goat use would 

be allowed to continue in bighorn sheep core habitat.

Alternative E would also not be favored by persons with values/interest in wildlife, but it would be 

slightly more favored than alternative F. Alternative E focuses less on the forest resource extraction 

than alternative F. Some of the vegetation treatments would improve limited habitats such as aspen, 

sagebrush, and whitebark pine. It would include protection for grizzly bear and Canada lynx. It 

would not prioritizing forage for big game, but it would limit winter motorized use on most of the 

crucial winter range. Large areas of the forest would still be open for oil and gas development, but 

much less than in alternative F. Recreational pack goat use would be allowed in bighorn sheep 

habitat.

Alternatives C and D would be the most favored alternatives by persons who value wildlife and 

wildlife habitat. They focus much less of the forest on resource extraction. A larger percentage of the 

vegetation treatments to be conducted would be for the benefit of wildlife. For persons who want 

more vegetation management for wildlife, alternative D may be preferred over alternative C. The 

wilderness recommendation in alternative C results in fewer acres on the forest being available for 

conducting vegetation treatment that would improve wildlife habitat. Alternative C would eliminate 

all winter motorized use on all big game winter range. Alternative D would eliminate motorized use 

on all crucial big game winter range. Alternative C would also eliminate livestock grazing on big 

game winter range. Under both alternatives much less of the forest would be open to summer and 

winter motorized use. Alternative C would eliminate recreational pack goat use throughout the forest, 

while alternative D would eliminate pack goat use just within bighorn sheep core habitat. Both 

alternatives would include protections for grizzly bear and Canada lynx.

Alternatives B and G would be less favored than C and D, but more favored than alternatives E and 

F. All protections for grizzly bear and Canada lynx would be included. Both would eliminate 

recreational pack goat use in bighorn sheep core habitat. Both would prioritize forage in crucial 

winter range for big game. Some crucial winter range would remain open for winter motorized use in 

both alternatives, although less than what would be open in alternative E. Alternative B would have 

less open than alternative G. Both would have fewer acres available for oil and gas development than 

alternative A or F. Alternative B would have more available oil and gas acres than alternatives C and 

D. Alternative G would have fewer acres than alternative B and only slightly more than Alternative 

C. Vegetation management activities would be available to improve wildlife habitat in both 

alternatives.

Tourism non-motorized

This interest group favors alternatives that increase the natural amenities that attract customers to the 

area for leisure activities. Scenery is important but most important is the access to areas that provide 

wilderness-like non-motorized experiences. An important aspect of this is somewhat at odds in that 

there needs to be sufficient development (trails, parking, roads) to facilitate access to support the 

activities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

613

Alternative A provides both the natural amenities and key development that this group would favor. 

It does not increase the acres of wilderness that could be used by this group to increase marketing.

Alternative D would be most favored by these persons. It provides increased wilderness areas, while 

still maintaining the existing infrastructure needed to access those areas. Alternative C would provide 

more wilderness, but would decrease the existing infrastructure for motorized access that would be 

needed to transport customers to the areas.

Alternative F would not be favored by this group. It would focus on resource extraction on much of 

the forest and while the existing wilderness would still provide existing opportunities for this group, 

the lands that would need to be traversed would be in greater contrast than what exists now. This 

alternative would provide more infrastructure for accessing lands, but unlikely that would be greatly 

beneficial to many of the current tourism groups operating on the Shoshone. 

Alternatives B, G, and E would be similarly favored by this group. There would be no additional 

wilderness designated, but existing infrastructure would be maintained for access. Much of the lands 

outside of wilderness would provide opportunities for wilderness-like experiences, alternative E less 

so than alternatives B and G.

Resource economic opportunities

This group values commercial activities that can capitalize on the timber harvest, livestock forage, 

and mineral resources on the forest. They value the contribution that commercial activity makes to 

local communities as jobs and incomes. Roads are valued because of how they facilitate access for 

resource development opportunities. Alternative A maintains existing levels of commercial grazing 

and suitable timber lands. 

Alternative F would be most favored by this group. It would provide the highest level of suitable 

timber acres, most acres of commercial livestock grazing, and most area open to mineral 

development. Alternative E would be less favored than alternative F, but more favored than the 

remaining alternatives. Of the action alternatives, alternative E would have the second highest 

opportunities for timber harvest, livestock grazing and mineral development. Of which, all but 

mineral development would be greater than alternative A.

Alternative C would be least favored by this group. It would have the lowest acres suitable for timber 

harvest, livestock grazing, and mineral development. It would eliminate existing roads and 

recommends additional wilderness areas that would limit future commercial resource development. 

Alternative D would be slightly more favored over alternative C, because it recommends less 

wilderness acres and maintains existing roads.

Alternative B and G would be similarly preferred. They would provide fewer opportunities than 

alternatives E and F, but more than alternatives C and D. The timber and livestock opportunities 

would be the same under alternatives B and G. Timber harvest would be greater than alternative A, 

while livestock grazing would be the same as alternative A. For mineral development, alternative B 

would be greater than C and D. Alternative G would be less than B and only slightly greater than 

alternative C.

Employment and Income 

Local employment and income is affected by changes in outputs and uses on the Shoshone. As 

described in the Methodologies section above, the IMPLAN modeling system was used to estimate 

levels of jobs and income from expected resource output and use levels for each alternative. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

614

Economic effects include an estimate of future payments to counties in the study area using a four 

year average of past county payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (fiscal year 09−12). 

Although the differences among the alternatives for the study area in many cases are relatively small, 

the impacts may be considerable to individuals, families, or businesses. In small communities, the 

loss of a single job may be important, yet negligible across the study area. 

Table 177 displays the employment and table 178 the income associated with Shoshone management 

for the three-county study area by alternative. These tables compare the alternatives to current levels 

(alternative A) of employment and income.

Table 177. Employment by program for current management and by alternative (average annual jobs, 

decade 1)

Resource Alt. A 

no action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - annual average jobs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Recreation: Forest visitors 388 388 388 388 388 388 388

Recreation: Commercial 353 353 353 353 353 353 353

Grazing 179 179 100 179 215 225 179

Timber 85 83 75 80 111 153 83

Payments to states/counties 42 42 42 42 42 42 42

Forest Service expenditures 236 236 234 235 242 253 236

Total Forest Management 1,283 1,281 1,192 1,277 1,351 1,414 1,281

Percent change from current -0.2% - 7.1% -0.5% 5.3% 10.2% -0.2%

No analysis of minerals or oil/gas was completed. Outputs for these resources are marginal under all alternatives and show 

limited impact to the study area.

The additional levels of grazing and timber outputs in alternatives E and F result in increases in 

employment and labor income as compared to the current situation. Although these are fairly small 

increases, a 5 percent increase in alternative E and a 10 percent increase alternative F. The other 

alternatives have some minor decreases as the resource output levels are decreased to adjust for 

additional Wilderness recommendations and other more primitive or non-motorized uses. Alternative 

C shows the greatest decrease with almost 8 percent decline from the current situation due to the 

largest decrease in resource outputs and increase in wilderness recommendations. For all 

alternatives, the Recreation Visitors and Recreation Commercial show the largest contribution of the 

resource programs, constant across all alternatives, providing a consistent source of economic 

activity to the local study area economy.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

615

Table 178. Labor income by program for current management and by alternative (average annual, 

decade 1; thousands of dollars)

Resource 

Alt. A 

no 

action

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

- - - - - - - - - - - - - annual average labor income (1,000 $s) - - - - - - - - - - -

Recreation: Forest visitors $10,234 $10,234 $10,234 $10,234 $10,234 $10,234 $10,234

Recreation: Commercial $7,539 $7,539 $7,539 $7,539 $7,539 $7,539 $7,539

Grazing $5,794 $5,794 $3,246 $5,794 $6,953 $7,280 $5,794

Timber $2,487 $2,422 $2,178 $2,324 $3,239 $4,463 $2,422

Payments to states/counties $1,693 $1,693 $1,693 $1,693 $1,693 $1,693 $1,693

Forest Service expenditures $10,578 $10,578 $10,493 $10,539 $10,864 $11,370 $10,578

Total Forest Management $38,325 $38,260 $35,383 $38,123 $40,522 $ 42,579 $38,260

Percent change from current -0.2% - 7.7% -0.5% 5.7% 11.1% -0.2%

No analysis of minerals or oil/gas was completed. Outputs for these resources are marginal under all alternatives and show 

limited impact to the study area

The largest difference between the alternatives and the current amounts is based on changes to 

timber. The timber output for current management is an average of the amount that was harvested in 

fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009. Timber harvest during this time period was very low because of 

poor market conditions following the decline in the housing market. For the alternatives, the timber 

output is the average annual first decade timber sold as modeled in Spectrum. The timber sold level 

for the alternatives is similar to the amount of timber sold over the last 5 years. However, timber 

harvest levels have been greatly reduced based on market conditions. See the Timber section in this 

chapter and appendix B for more information on the modeling and results for predicted timber 

volume sold. 

Because over 85 percent of forecasted Shoshone timber volume was sawtimber, and there are 

currently no major sawmills open in the three-county study area, the timber analysis assumed that the 

regional economic impact of timber harvest from the Forest was limited to forestry and logging with 

all lumber processing being completed outside the area, and not accounted for in the numbers in 

table 177 and table 178. The University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research 

has estimated that direct employment for forestry and logging in the Central and Southern Rockies 

region (which includes Wyoming) is 23 workers per million cubic feet of timber. This estimate 

served as the basis for estimating the economic impact of the timber harvest from the Shoshone. If, 

in the future, major lumber processing were to reopen in the three-county study area, the estimated 

employment for lumber processing for the central and southern Rockies would be 32 workers per 

million cubic feet of timber.

Livestock grazing, similar to timber outputs, increases under alternatives E and F, increasing the 

economic contribution within the study area in terms of potential jobs and income. In the case of 

alternative C, outputs and contributions would decline as fewer allotments would be available for 

livestock grazing. There is some probability that this decline in available forage could affect some 

ranches’ economic viability. In addition to the social, cultural, and environmental implications of the 

conversion of “prime” ranchland in the region, there would be significant economic implications 

beyond food and fiber production. Studies in Colorado have found that ranchland provides important 

economic benefits to both residents and visitors. Magnan et al. (2005) found that the natural 

environment, ranchlands, and western historical preservation were the three most important 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

616

contributors to local quality of life in Routt County. Ellingson et al. (2005) found that the natural 

environment, ranch open space, western historical preservation, and recreational amenities are local 

assets that strongly add to the summer visitors’ experience. 

Recreation and tourism outputs are constant for all alternatives. Levels may increase over current 

levels based on expected population growth over the next 10 years in the western United States 

(2000 U.S. Census Bureau data, Population Projections table 6), but there is no available study or 

information from the recreation section to indicate that such growth will create different levels of 

demand for the different levels of opportunities offered by the different themes of the alternatives, so 

it is assumed use will remain constant. Types of use may change, with one activity substituting for 

another, but overall use numbers will be similar across the alternatives. The potential impact from 

recreation and tourism is the largest impact across the resource sector in both jobs and labor income, 

highlighting the importance of the Shoshone as a destination for recreation activities. The 

commercial tourism sector provides about the same level of employment as the recreation sector, but 

the labor income impact from the commercial tourism sector is smaller than the recreation sector. 

This may highlight the higher level of local spending (in the three-county study area) within the 

recreation sector versus the commercial tourism sector. Forest Service expenditures vary slightly 

based on the level of timber output by alternatives assuming that additional budgets would be needed 

to produce additional timber outputs. 

Payments to states and counties remain constant for current management and all alternatives based 

on expected continuation of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. 

Under this act, forest management does not affect Federal payments to states and counties. An 

analysis was conducted to determine the effect if this act was not extended and payments reverted to 

the 25 percent Payments. If this were to occur, employment would decrease by approximately 20 

jobs and labor income would decrease by about $841,000 in all alternatives.

Payments to states and counties remain constant for current management and all alternatives based 

on expected continuation of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. 

Under this act, forest management does not affect Federal payments to states and counties. . 

However, if this act expires and no other act replaces it, payments would revert to 25 percent 

Payments (as under the National Forest Revenue Act of 1908). If this were the case, payments to 

counties would be greatly diminished from current levels. Alternatives providing the highest level of 

receipts (alternatives E and F) would provide the highest amount of payments to counties. The 25 

percent Payments for the three-county area are estimated to range from a high of $597,000 under 

alternative F to a low of $340,000 under alternative C. The FY12 level of payments associated with 

the Shoshone for the three-county area is about $1,410,000 under the Secure Rural Schools and 

Community Self-Determination Act. A return to 25 percent Payments would result in a large 

reduction in payments to counties. Affects would be greatest in those counties where Federal 

payments are a larger portion of the county budget. 

Payments from payment in lieu of taxes may increase under reduced Forest Service payments to 

counties, depending on appropriations from Congress. The amount of increase is unknown, but 

would generally be insufficient to offset the reduction in Forest Service payments under the 25 

percent payments.

Economic Efficiency 

Economic efficiency examines the broader definition of benefits provided by alternatives, valuing 

public land uses that are not captured in the market place as well as market costs and revenues 

associated with each alternative’s outputs. The main criterion used in assessing economic efficiency 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

617

is present net value, which is defined as the value of discounted benefits minus discounted costs. A 

present net value analysis includes all outputs, including timber, grazing, recreation, and minerals, to 

which monetary values are assigned. The monetary values include both market and nonmarket 

values. See appendix B for a description of these values and the economic analysis. 

Many non-market, non-use values are excluded from this economic efficiency analysis. Some 

outcomes or impacts – like those related to biological diversity, wildlife habitat, ecosystem function, 

water quality, climate change, visual amenities, bequest values, or existence values – have no 

monetary values or costs that have been established by the Forest Service. Academic research studies 

have explored the monetary expression of such values and preferences in a variety of physical and 

social settings. However, it is also reasonable and consistent with the Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.23) to consider these values in a non-monetary/qualitative 

discussion. This has been included in other sections of this FEIS document under the other resource 

sections. Net public benefit (NPB) is an important concept for carrying out a land management plan 

revision. NPB is defined as the overall value to the nation of all outputs and positive impacts 

(benefits), minus all the associated inputs and adverse impacts (costs) for producing those primary 

benefits, whether than can be quantitatively valued or not. Conceptually, NPB are the sum of the 

economic analysis, plus the net value of non-priced outputs and costs. It is not the result of an 

economic analysis alone. This concept is the basis upon which the decision –maker selects an 

alternative for implementation and outlines in the record of decision.

Table 179 shows estimated benefits, costs, and cumulative present net value by alternative. All 

monetary values are expressed in constant dollars with no allowance for inflation. A 4 percent 

discount rate was used over a 50-year period (2012 to 2061). The reduction in present net value in 

any alternative as compared to the most economically efficient solution is the economic trade-off, or 

opportunity cost, of implementing that alternative.

Table 179. Economic efficiency by alternative (in millions of dollars)

Alt. A

no action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. G

Present net 

value 6,683,721 6,683,717 6,682,701 6,683,789 6,683,246 6,682,454 6,683,717 

A level for an annual Forest Service budget was estimated for all alternatives. The amount of change 

in benefits by alternative is based on the amount and type of grazing AUMs and timber/salvage that 

was projected over the next 50 years. The majority of other activities are estimated to remain the 

same across the alternatives. The present net value is positive for all alternatives, indicating the 

alternatives are economically efficient. The alternative with the highest present net value is 

Alternative D and the alternative with the lowest present net value is Alternative F. However, as table 

179 indicates, differences among alternatives for present net value are slight, society would benefit 

from the implementation of any of the alternatives considered. 

Cumulative Effects

Many factors influence and affect the local social and economic environment. National, state, and 

county policies affect population growth, demographics, and land uses. Following is a brief 

description of some items that are changing or may change in the future, adding to the effects on 

local communities from the alternatives. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

618

Population Growth

The West has been the fastest growing region in the country, and this trend is expected to continue 

for the next 20 years (U.S. Census 2010 data and projections). With this increased growth rate comes 

an increased diversification of the population. More new residents are migrating in, while the adult 

children of families living in the region are moving out of the area to find employment. This change 

in population composition has added to the diversity of attitudes, lifestyles, and values of the 

population within the planning area.

Development of Forestlands

There has also been increased housing density adjacent to and within national forest boundaries, and 

this trend is expected to continue over the next several decades. Moderate and high increases in 

residential development are projected around national forests located in Wyoming (Stein et al. 2007). 

While local urban, county, and regional planners and the public are making progress in defining 

desirable development and recognizing the inherent costs and effects associated with subdivision

sprawl, growth will continue in some form and overall density will increase. This development 

would likely add pressure on adjacent NFS lands. Pressure would include increased demand for 

potentially conflicting recreation opportunities, services such as road maintenance, demand for 

undeveloped and semi-primitive settings, and increased fire management problems.

Future Mining or Wood Products Development 

The overall estimates for low development on the Shoshone are similar to those made 25 years ago 

(USDA Forest Service 1992). As discussed in the minerals section, the potential for any oil and gas 

development in the planning period is very low.

A report developed by the University of Montana estimated that 7,955 thousand board feet of timber 

was harvested in the three-county area in 2005. This represented 13 percent of the total timber 

harvest in Wyoming. Approximately 60 percent of the area’s timber harvest came from national 

forests. The University of Montana report also estimates that there were 19 primary wood products 

facilities in the three-county area including 7 sawmills, 1 post and pole, 8 house logs, and 3 log 

furniture operations in 2005. All these facilities are presumably small-scale operations.
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

619

Other Required Disclosures

Environmental Justice

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations) directs all Federal agencies to focus attention on the human health and environmental 

conditions in minority and low-income populations. The purpose of EO 12898 is to identify and 

address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations that may be associated with a plan or project.

The Forest Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to future 

site-specific projects and activities. The Plan does not create, authorize, or execute any grounddisturbing activity, although it does provide for the consideration of certain types of activities. Sitespecific activities will consider potential disproportionate effects on minority or low-income 

communities during project planning.

The social assessment for the Shoshone did not identify any minority or low-income populations 

within the study area that may be disproportionately negatively impacted from the potential forest 

management activities of the Forest Plan alternatives. In addition, collaboration efforts throughout 

the study area on the Forest Plan did not identify any concerns regarding disproportionately high or 

adverse impacts to low-income or minority populations. 

Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

The Shoshone Forest Planning analysis has been reviewed and analyzed to ensure compliance with 

Departmental Regulation (DR) 4300-4, Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA); 7 CFR 15d, 

Nondiscrimination in Programs and Activities Conducted by the United States Department of 

Agriculture DR 1512-1 Regulatory Decision-Making requirements and to identify actual or potential 

adverse effects based on race, sex, national origin, age, and disabilities. 

The CRIA describes the civil rights implications of policies, actions or decisions that will affect the 

USDA workforce or federally conducted or assisted programs and activities. The CRIA helps to 

advise USDA policy makers, managers, and administrators about whether an action or decision will 

have the effect of unintentionally or otherwise illegally discriminating against USDA customers 

based on race, sex, national origin, age, and disabilities. Also, the CRIA serves to advise USDA 

policy makers, managers, and administrators of the effectiveness of decisions as related to ensuring 

efficient, appropriate allocation or distribution of goods and services in a manner that ensures 

compliance with all the laws, rules and regulations under which USDA must operate.

Disparate impact, a theory of discrimination, has been applied to the Shoshone planning effort in 

order to reveal any such negative effects that may unfairly and inequitably impact beneficiaries 

regarding program development, administration, and delivery. The objectives of this review and 

analysis are to prevent disparate treatment and minimize adverse Civil Rights impacts that may have 

caused an effect of discrimination against minorities, women and persons with disabilities and to 

ensure compliance with all Civil Rights statutes, Federal regulations, and USDA policies and 

procedures. 

The Shoshone Forest Plan CRIA, using USDA Forest Service Civil Rights and Social/Economic 

direction, Executive Order 12989, Council of Environmental Quality National Environmental Policy 

Act direction and required analysis within the FEIS, sought to determine whether: 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

620

• all minorities, women and persons with disabilities are provided the same opportunities to 

participate in the Shoshone Forest Planning process; 

• all minorities, women and persons with disabilities are provided the same or improved 

opportunities to access information about or have access to roadless areas as managed under the 

Shoshone Forest Plan. 

The CRIA revealed no adverse effects associated with the Shoshone Forest Plan process to the 

participation of any persons or groups based on race, sex, national origin, age, and disabilities. The 

process was open to the participation of any individuals or groups. There were no known barriers at 

the public meetings; 

• all were open to the public, 

• all were advertised locally through Forest networks, and 

• all meeting facilities were accessible to the public including persons with disabilities. 

Under all seven alternatives, there would be no difference in opportunities for women, minorities, or 

persons with disabilities.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act

Agencies must make a good faith effort to understand how Indian religious practices may come into 

conflict with other forest uses and consider any adverse impacts on these practices in their decisionmaking practices. There are 11 federally recognized American Indian nations with cultural affiliation 

on the Shoshone: the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana, the 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Reservation, the Crow Tribe of Montana, the Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, the Nez 

Perce Tribe, the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah, the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho, and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of 

the Duck Valley Reservation. No effects on American Indian social, economic, or subsistence rights 

are anticipated as a result of this forest plan revision effort. No matter which alternative is chosen for 

implementation, the Forest will be required to consult with tribes when management activities may 

impact treaty rights and/or cultural sites and cultural use, according to the Consultation Protocol. 

Desired conditions for American Indian Rights and Interests, for all action alternatives, would be for 

the Shoshone to: recognize and maintain culturally significant species and the habitat necessary to 

support healthy, sustainable, and harvestable plant and animal populations to ensure that rights 

reserved by tribes are not significantly impacted or diminished; recognize, ensure, and accommodate 

tribal member access to the Shoshone for the exercise of treaty rights and cultural uses consistent 

with law, policy, and regulation; and recognize and protect traditional cultural areas as associated 

with the traditional beliefs of a tribe about its cultural history.

Potential Conflicts with Goals and Objectives of Other Agencies

Forest Service planning regulations require the agency to consider other Federal, State and local 

government and tribal land management plans and policies. Meetings and discussions were held 

between 2011 and 2013 with adjacent and/or interested Federal, State, and local agencies along with 

tribal representatives regarding the proposed objectives of our revised plan. An adjacency plan 

analysis was completed comparing the resource management goals in the revised Forest Plan with 

the goals in the land use plans of adjacent agencies. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

621

In general, all plans reviewed have a consistent theme of multiple resource use and resource 

protection, consistent with the revised Forest Plan. The Forest has worked closely with the local 

cooperating agencies and tribes to resolve potential conflicts between the revised Forest Plan and 

local agency land use plans. The following describes some of the disparate goals identified through 

the analysis along with potential solutions to concerns of possible conflict during plan 

implementation:

• Fremont County has a strong focus on motorized access to public land. The revised plan will

provide continued and slightly increased motorized access while protecting certain wildlife 

habitat and special areas.

• Fremont County aspires to bring equal weight to socioeconomic issues and species management 

when considering Endangered Species Act (ESA) enforcement and the management of other 

resources. The Forest is required (under the National Environmental Policy Act) to consider 

input from the County during project planning for resource management projects including 

projects involving ESA consideration.

• Fremont County states as an objective to have the Shoshone achieve and maintain the timber 

harvest level prescribed in the 1986 Shoshone Forest Plan. The revised Plan preferred alternative 

provides 40,000 more acres of lands generally suitable for timber production than the 1986 plan. 

While the predicted volume sold is 450 Ccf less per year in the preferred alternative of the 

revised Plan than in the 1986 Plan, the allowable sale quantity increases by 3,000 Ccf per year 

from the 1986 Plan to the revised Plan. When funding and congressional direction allows, the 

Forest has the flexibility to increase the volume harvested and sold.

• Hot Springs County has a goal of “No net loss of authorized AUMs.” The revised Forest Plan 

maintains the same number of acres suitable for livestock grazing and maintains the same 

number of AUMs. A goal in the revised Plan allows AUMs to range between plus or minus 10 

percent of 60,000 AUMs to allow for ecosystem restoration and fire or drought conditions.

• Policy within the Meeteetse Conservation District (MCD) Land Use Plan opposes the restriction 

of access (including access for mineral production) and any management that might “negatively 

impact the livelihoods” of their constituents. The MCD views the further restriction of surface 

occupancy for oil and gas leasing proposed in the preferred alternative of the Shoshone revised 

plan as being in conflict with their policy. In designating lands available for surface occupancy 

the forest focused on those lands with a high potential for oil and gas occurrence. No surface 

occupancy designations were drafted to be consistent with the direction for back country nonmotorized management areas, big game crucial winter range and the desire of the public (that 

commented on the DEIS) to limit oil and gas leasing on the Forest. Economic impacts to the 

communities within the MCD from restrictions on surface occupancy are not anticipated low 

potential for oil and gas development during the life of the Forest Plan (10 to 15 years).

Alternatives, associated effects, Forest-wide standards and guidelines, and management area 

prescriptions are generally compatible and complement the goals and objectives of land management 

agencies adjacent to or near the Forest. The following summary is provided to help define areas of 

potential differences between the Forest Service policies, management, and responsibilities and those 

of other agencies.

• Mining – the U.S. Mining Laws Act of 1872 predates all other laws that govern Forest Service 

activities. Mitigating effects from mining activities could result in conflicts with Federal mining 

laws. Conflicts could arise between the mining activities allowed under the act and other 

resources, such as scenery, water, sensitive plants and animals, or recreation.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

622

• Water resources – Federal requirements and authorities for maintenance and protection of water 

resources may conflict with the state of Wyoming’s administration of water rights.

• Big game hunting – the Forest is cooperating with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to 

investigate potential declines in big game hunting opportunities on the Forest. 

The Forest intends to continue working closely with Federal, State and local government agencies 

and American Indian tribes during the implementation of the revised forest plan.

Conformance with the Resource Planning Act 

NFMA regulations require development of at least one alternative which incorporates the Resource 

Planning Act (RPA) Program’s tentative objectives for each national forest as displayed in Regional 

Guides (36 CFR 219.12(f)(6). The last RPA Program was developed in 1995. The USDA Forest 

Service Strategic Plan 2007−2012, in lieu of an RPA Program, was completed in accordance with the 

Government Performance Results Act and the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The 

Strategic Plan does not recommend outputs to incorporate in specific forest plans. All alternatives 

analyzed in detail in this FEIS incorporate the following Government Performance Results Act goals: 

1. Restore, sustain, and enhance the Nation’s forests and grasslands

2. Provide and sustain benefits to the American people

3. Conserve open space

4. Sustain and enhance outdoor recreation opportunities

5. Maintain basic management capabilities of the Forest Service

6. Engage urban America with Forest Service programs

7. Provide science-based applications and tools for sustainable natural resources management

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Forest plan revision and forest plans do not produce unavoidable adverse effects because they do not 

directly implement any management activities that would result in such effects. Forest plans 

establish management emphasis and direction for implementation of activities that may occur on 

NFS lands in the planning period. If activities occur, application of Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines and resource protection measures would limit the extent and duration of any adverse 

environmental effects. Some adverse effects could still occur, and adverse effects for one source may 

be a beneficial effect for another. For example, timber harvest may adversely affect the habitat for 

species that need mature, large trees while at the same time increasing the amount of habitat for 

species that need early successional habitat. For a detailed discussion of potential effects, including 

unavoidable adverse effects, see the Environmental Consequences discussions for each resource 

area: air, biological diversity, recreation, minerals, etc. 

Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Environment and Longterm Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity (40 CFR 1502.16). Short-term uses are 

those expected to occur on the Forest over the next 10 years. These uses include, but are not limited 

to, recreation, grazing, mineral development, timber harvest, and prescribed burning. Long-term 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

623

productivity refers to the capability of the land to provide resource outputs for a period of time 

beyond the next 10 years.

The minimum management requirement established by regulation 36 CFR 219.27 provides for the 

maintenance of long-term productivity of the land. Minimum management requirements prescribed 

by the Forest-wide standards and guidelines will be met under all alternatives. Minimum 

requirements assure that long-term productivity of the land will not be impaired by short-term uses.

Impacts to air quality are expected to be minimal for most activities and of relatively short duration. 

Short-term impacts from wildland fires to air quality and related values such as visibility could occur 

at times, but they would normally occur over relatively small portions of the planning area. 

Emissions from oil and gas development activities, if these activities occur, would contribute to 

increasing regional emissions from similar activities occurring outside the planning area. As the 

amount of oil and gas development activity on the forest is expected to be low, if any, it can be 

reasonably expected that impacts to air quality from oil and gas extraction on the Forest would be 

also be low. Emissions from oil and gas development, should any occur, could potentially continue 

for the duration of the current planning period (15 years).

Commercial livestock grazing would be considered a short-term use particularly on the Shoshone 

due to the relatively short grazing season and the fact that while Term Grazing Permits are usually 

for a 10-year period. The actual grazing of livestock must be approved each year. Only through 

repeated overutilization of the forage plants or physical damage to a resource would impacts from 

livestock grazing result in a long-term loss of productivity. Such long-term impacts have occurred in 

some areas in the past due to high stocking rates, long seasons of use, and inadequate management. 

Because all alternatives implement the same standards and guidelines, BMPs and soil and water 

conservation practices, there would be no loss of long-term resource productivity. 

Monitoring, described in chapter 3 of the revised Forest Plan, applies to all alternatives. One purpose 

of monitoring is to assure that the long-term productivity of the land is maintained or improved. If 

monitoring and subsequent evaluation indicates that Forest-wide standards and guidelines are 

insufficient to protect long-term productivity, the revised Forest Plan will be amended accordingly.

Although all the alternatives were designed to maintain long-term productivity, there are differences 

among alternatives in the long-term availability or condition of resources. There may also be 

differences among alternatives in the expenditures necessary to maintain desired conditions. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are defined in Forest Service Handbook 

1909.15 (2/21/95).

The irreversible commitment of resources means that nonrenewable resources are consumed or 

destroyed. Examples include mineral extraction, which consumes nonrenewable minerals, and 

potential destruction of such things as heritage resources by other management activities. These 

consumptions or destructions are only renewable over extremely long periods of time.

The irretrievable commitments of resources are opportunities foregone. They represent trade-offs in 

the use and management of forest resources. Irretrievable commitment of resources can include the 

expenditure of funds, loss of production, or restrictions on resource use. 

Decisions made during the forest planning process do not represent actual irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources. They merely determine the kinds and levels of activities that are 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

624

appropriate on the Forest. Additionally, a forest plan does not make project- or site-specific 

decisions. A decision to irreversibly or irretrievably commit resources occurs:

• When the Forest Service makes a project- or site-specific decision.

• At the time Congress acts on a recommendation to establish a new wilderness or to include a 

river in the Wild and Scenic River System.

Examples of irretrievable resource commitments associated with revised Plan decisions are as 

follows:

• Commodity outputs and uses (such as motorized recreation) are curtailed or eliminated in 

areas recommended for, and subsequently designated as, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, 

research natural areas, and some special interest areas.

• Opportunities for non-motorized recreation, solitude, and primitive or wilderness 

experiences are foregone if portions of the Forest are not allocated or recommended for these 

purposes.

• Timber volume outputs would be foregone on lands determined not suitable or available for 

harvest.

• Commodity outputs are reduced or foregone on areas allocated to specific uses or purposes, 

such as developed recreation sites, special interest areas, or botanical areas.

• Non-commodity values such as scenic resources may be reduced or foregone in areas 

allocated to commodity uses.

Energy Requirements for Implementing the Alternatives

Energy is consumed in the administration and use of natural resources from the Shoshone. For 

purposes of the revised Forest Plan, energy sources are gasoline, diesel fuel, liquefied petroleum, 

natural gas, electricity, and wood. Although many activities consume energy, the following are 

considered important in implementing any alternative:

• Energy consumption related to recreation is the amount required for visitors to get to and 

around the Forest, and for administrative purposes. The amount used is based on the number 

of dispersed and developed recreation visitor days, estimated trip lengths, and facility 

construction.

• Energy consumed in timber harvesting is the amount required for felling, bucking, skidding, 

loading, hauling; for performing road maintenance; and for the industrial traffic associated 

with harvest activities.

• Energy consumed in using range vegetation is the amount required for hauling livestock to 

and from the range and for permittee range improvement activities (watering, salting, and 

herding).

• Energy consumed in road construction and reconstruction activities is that used by 

contractors or Forest Service crews in completing road development.

• Energy consumed by Forest Service administrative activities includes vehicle use; lighting 

and heating of buildings; and fuel used in such equipment as small engines and burners.

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland

No prime farmland, rangeland, or forestland has been identified in the planning area. Forest plan 

revision or the forest plan would not directly affect such lands; although implementation of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Chapter 3

625

revised Forest Plan could have indirect effects. Regardless of the alternative selected for 

implementation, NFS lands would be managed with sensitivity to the values of any adjacent private 

or public lands.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Potential effects to species listed under the Endangered Species Act can be found in chapter 3 of this 

document, as well as in the Wildlife, Water and Soils, Aquatics, Riparian and Fisheries resources, 

and the Rare Plants specialist reports (project file). The biological assessment and biological 

evaluation will be finalized for the final forest plan and final EIS. Management direction to protect 

the threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive species, or to provide for their habitats, can be 

found in the draft forest plan (Forest-wide, management area, desired conditions, standards and 

guidelines).

Wetlands and Floodplains

Forest plan revision and forest plans do not directly implement any management activities that would 

result in loss of wetland or floodplains. Revised Forest-wide management direction identifies the 

need to restore currently degraded wetlands and floodplains, incorporates Forest Service Regional 

and National BMP Directives, and provides a broad spectrum of standards and guidelines designed 

to protect soil, water, riparian, and aquatic resources. The goals and intent of Executive Orders 11988 

(Floodplain Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) would be met through compliance 

with this direction. Documentation for this conclusion can be found in this DEIS, chapter 3, Water 

and Soils, Riparian/Wetlands, and Aquatic, Riparian and Fisheries Resources, and in the draft forest 

plan (desired condition, standards, and guidelines).

Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4

627

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors

The preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS) and the revised Forest Plan has been 

a major undertaking. This list of preparers is limited to those people who were members of the 

Interdisciplinary Team working on these documents. Their preparation could not have been 

completed without the support and assistance of employees of the Shoshone and our colleagues in 

the Regional Office. We also recognize the forest leadership team as providing guidance during 

this process.

Interdisciplinary Team Members:

Name Position

Joseph Alexander Forest Supervisor

Bryan Armel Resource Staff Officer

Carrie Christman Planning Staff Officer

Susan Douglas Public Affairs Officer/Writer/Editor

Mark Giacoletto Forest Fire Management Officer

Joe Harper Forest Wildlife Biologist

Joe Hicks Rangeland Management Specialist

Kent Houston Forest Soil Scientist/Botany/Weeds

Ben Lara Lands and Recreation Staff

Karin Lovgren Engineering Staff Officer

Lois Pfeffer Environmental Coordinator

Kelsey Pike Editorial Assistant

Loren Poppert Recreation Staff Officer

Kristie Salzmann Public Affairs Officer

Randy Spiering Timber Management Officer

Paul Valcarce Landscape Architect

Kyle Wright Archaeologist 

Ray Zubik Forest Fisheries Biologist 

Support to the Interdisciplinary Team:

Name Position

Karri Cary Hydrologist

Vickey Eubank GIS Specialist

Kathy Kurtz Regional Office NEPA Planning Staff

Patricia Goude Writer-Editor

Debbie Miller Air Quality Specialist

Cory Mlodik Wildlife Biologist

Miera Nagy Director, Strategic Planning

Kawa Ng Social Scientist

Marynell Oechsner Wildlife Biologist

Ken Ostrom GIS Coordinator

John Rupe Regional Office NEPA Planning Staff

Julie Schaefers Social Scientist

Chris Sporl Regional Office Recreation Staff

D.T. Taylor Economist

Olga Troxel Land Management Analyst

Chris Wehrli Regional Office NEPA Planning Staff
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

628

Government Cooperators Work Group:

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes 

and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

The Government Cooperators Work Group (Work Group) was formed in 2005. The Work Group 

consisted of local elected officials, representing three boards of county commissioners, seven 

conservation districts, the Governor’s Planning Office, and eight State of Wyoming agencies. 

Between 2005 and mid-2008, the Forest Service hosted 14 Work Group meetings. All Work 

Group meetings were open to the public. The counties and conservation districts have engaged 

contractors to assist them.

In 2011, the Work Group expanded to four boards of county commissioners, eight conservation 

districts, and two senior policy advisors from the Governor Mead’s office. The number of State of 

Wyoming agencies remained the same. 

The Work Group and the interdisciplinary team met in April 2011, for a series of seven 

workshops on the existing conditions on the Shoshone. Resource specialists shared data and 

trends. As with the earlier revision process, all Work Group meetings have been, and will 

continue to be, open to the public. 

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement 

This EIS has been distributed to the following Federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, State 

and local governments, organizations representing a wide range of views regarding the long-term 

management of the Shoshone National Forest, and individuals who specifically requested a copy 

of the document.

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Name Agency

Larry Allen Fremont County Board of Commissioners 

Mike Baker Hot Springs County Board of Commissioners

Brenda Bangert Park County Board of Commissioners

Larry Bentley Wyoming Department of Agriculture

Kelly Bott Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Dave Burke Park County Board of Commissioners

Shelby Carlson Wyoming Department of Transportation

Marc Coffman Wyoming State Trails

Mark Conrad Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Jessica Crowder Wyoming Department of Agriculture

Tavis Eddy Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Becky Enos Fremont County Board of Commissioners

Mary Flanderka Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Mack Frost Cody Conservation District

Keith Grant Big Horn County Board of Commissioners

Loren Grosskopf Park County Board of Commissioners

Bill Haagenson Wyoming State Forestry

Emily Hagedorn Teton Conservation District

Jay Hein Wyoming State Forestry

Penny Herdt Hot Springs County Board of Commissioners

Brad Hill Wyoming State Trails

Rick Huber Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Ron Huff Wyoming Department of Transportation
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4

629

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Name Agency

Peter Jachowski Cody Conservation District

Kevin Johnson Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Steve Jones Meeteetse Conservation District

Gregory Kennett ERG LLC

John Lumley Hot Springs County Board of Commissioners

Cathy Meyer Lower Wind River Natural Resource District

Rich Olson Hot Springs Conservation District

Reg Phillips Dubois-Crowheart Conservation District

Jerimiah Rieman Wyoming State Planning Office

Peggy Ruble Park County Board of Commissioners

Jill Shockley Siggins Cody Conservation District

Diane Shober Wyoming Business Council 

Carla Thomas Hot Springs Conservation District

Joe Tilden Park County Board of Commissioners

Kristin Tilley Shoshone Conservation District

David Waterstreet Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Bryon Wilczewski Lower Wind River Natural Resource District

Randy Williams Teton Conservation District

Tim Wilson Popo Agie Conservation District

Judy Wolf Wyoming State Historical Preservation O

Tim Woolley Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Clara Mae Yetter Meeteetse Conservation District

Jeremy Zumberge Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Director, Planning and Review, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Deputy Director APHIS PPD/EAD

Rural Utilities Service

National Environmental Coordinator, NRCS

Acquisitions & Serials Branch, National Agricultural Library

USDA Office of Civil Rights

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Chief of Naval Operations (N45)

US EPA, Region 8, Attn: Suzanne Bohan

Director OEPC

U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant CG-47

Regional Director, Northwest Mountain Region, Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Highway Administration, Division Administrator

Director, NEPA Policy & Compliance, DOE

Tribes

Nathan Small, Chairman Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation

Carolyn Boyer-Smith, Cultural Resource Coordinator Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall 

Reservation

Brooklyn Baptiste, Chairman Nez Perce Tribe

Patrick Baird, THPO/Archaeologist Nez Perce Tribe

Leroy Spang, President Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Conrad Fisher, THPO Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Mike Lajeunesse, Chairman Eastern Shoshone Tribe

Wilfred Ferris, THPO Eastern Shoshone Tribe

Willie A. Sharp, Jr., Chairman Blackfeet Nation

John Murry, THPO Blackfeet Nation

Cedric Black Eagle, Chairman Crow Tribe
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

630

Dale Old Horn, THPO Crow Tribe

Kim Harjo, Chairperson Northern Arapaho Tribe

Darlene Conrad, THPO Northern Arapaho Tribe

Micheal O. Finley, Business C. Chairman Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Guy Moura, THPO History/Archaeology Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Leo Stewart-Executive Director, Board of Trustees Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla

Ms. Carey Miller THPO/Archaeologist Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla

Jason Walker, Chairperson Northwestern Band of Shoshone Tribe

Others

Jane Adamson

Peter Aengst

Harold Albright

George Alderson

Jim Allen

Andrew Allgeier

Larry Amundson

Richard Anderson

Tom Andrews

Carol J. Armstrong

Mark Asplund

Vic Augustine

Ann Ayres

Carol Bachmann

Keith S.Bailey

Leslie Bailey

Ron Bailey

Monte Baker

Bob Baker

C J Baker

Virginia D. Baldwin

Curt Bales

Brian Ballard

Holly Balogh

Steve Banks

Aaron Bannon

Joy Bannon

Dawna Barnett

Bill Bartlett

John Bear

Robert & Gloria Beaver

Ann Becker

Keith Becker

Cody Beers

Larry Bentley

Don & Carolyn Bentzen

Bob Bessler

Pamela Betters

Bud Betts

Robert Betts Jr.

Andy Blair

Tom Blair

Bill Blake

Twila Blakeman

Marvin Blakesley

Auzie Blevins

John Blomstrom

Mike Blymyer

June Bonasera

Gwen Booth

Leonard Bopp

Clifford Bove

Jim Bowen

R Brame

Bill & Mary Brazelton

Steven Brock

Steven Brutger

Buck Butkovich

Shirley Bye-Jech

John Caproni

Mark Cardell

Bryce Carroll

Andrew Carson

Bill Carter

Lawrence E. Cary

Elaine Casteel

Kay Chandler

Jack D Cheney, Jr.

Cameron Chimenti

Thomas W. Churchill

Scott Christy

Cindy & Brad Cicci

Margo Clark

Richard Clark

Donna Clark

Douglas Clark

David Clark-Barol

Alonzo Coby

Kevin Colburn

Wayne Conn

Thomas Cooper

Eric Cooper

Ferin Cooper

Matthew Copeland

Eugene Copp

Charles Cord

John Corra

Barbara Cozzens

Eva Crane

Monica Craver

Dwight Crawford

Gary Cukjati

Carl Dammann

Mark Davenport

Kristin & Tad Davis

Allory Deiss

Christina Denney

Marion Dickinson

Christopher Dingman

Nick Dobric

Carl & Carol Dockery

Callie Domek

Mark Domek

Sara Domek

Meade Dominick

David Dominick

Sarah Dominick

Steven Donham

Howard Donley

Robert Dorn

Kenneth Driese

Charles Drimal

Don Dunham

William & Valorie Dunn

Peter Dvorak

Colin Dye

Geoff Dyer

Allen Edwards

Hilary Eisen

Brian Elliott

John Ellis

Ron Erickson

Michelle Escudero

Tad Facinelli

Jennifer Fairbrother

Jeremy Fancher

Bruce Fauskee

Dennis Ferguson

Jason Flag

Vera Ford Gottlieb

Nathan Foster

Ric Foster

Bayard Fox

Janet Frey

Gloria Frisby Hedderman

Robert J. Henke

Clay Fulcher

Guy Fulfer
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4

631

Jake Fulkerson

John Gallagher

Cameron Garnick 

Kenny Gasch

Allen Gee

Rich Gerow

Alicia Giuffrida

Steve Glenn

Clinton Glick

Jack Gordon

Ryan Gorsuch

Rich Graskemper

Sonya Grave

Rebecca Gray

Tonia Grdina

Robert Gregoire

Gregory Griffith

Donna Guelde

Brian Gustafson

Tim Haberberger

David Haire

Kurt Hallock

Robert Handelsmann

Jane Hannelly

S Hansen

Robert Hanson

Chris Hanson

Oliver Hanson

Ray Hanson

Merlin Hare

Jeff Harrington

Kari Harrington

Valerie Harris

Deb Harris

Janice Harris

Zachory Hart

Stan Harter

Lara Hartman

Ann Harvey

Buzzy Hassrick

Gary Hatle

Ken Haukaas

Krystal Hazen-McCreary

J.E. Hazlewood

Rex Headd

Bill Heath

Bonnie Heidel

Mark Heinz

Joe Hejna

Bill Helms

Yvonne Henze

E Heyward

Joslin Heyward

Laney Hicks

Edwin & Carol Higbie

Nathan Hindman

Caleb Hiner

Mark Hinschberger

Robert Hitchcock

Glenda Hlavnicka

Bob Hodecker

Robert Hoskins

Ken Hostetter

John Housel

Liz Howell

Mike Hudson

Lisa Hueneke

Jim Hulsey

Kevin Hurley

Dan Hutchison

Robert Hutchison

Field Iiams

Dick Inberg

Ada Inbody

Vince Irene

Alice Irwin

Kathleen & Pete Jachowski

Michael & Judy Jackson

Tiffani Jackson

Charles Jennings

Kevin Jensvold

Craig Johnson

Debby & John Johnson

Jerry Johnson

Lindy Johnson

Hugh Jones

Bob Joslin

Vincent Kalkowski

Scott Kane

Marvin Kauffman

Tom Keating

Robert Keith

Lowell Keller

Mike Kelly

Amy Kenworthy

Steff Kessler

Martin Kidston

Charles Kirkham

Jim Klebba

Dennis Knight

Kirk Koch

Justin Koehler

Keith L. Kohnke

Sarah Krall

Rod Krischke

Dick Kroger

Juan Laden

Ivan Laird

Jerry Langbehn

Sean Leach

Mike Leahy

John Learned

Bennie LeBeau

Bradley Lee

Byron Lee

John Lee

Travis Leenerts

Doug Lemm

Rodger Leseberg

Larry Lewis

Thomas Lewis

Ken Lichtendahl

Christine Lichtenfels

Brad Lindsey

Russ Linneman

Ruby Lippincott

Hugh Livingston

Kim Locautli

Edward Lone Fight 

Richard Louis Grush

Robert Luce

Justin Lundvall

Tom & Nancy McCoy

John & Kathy McFadden

Greg Macauley

David MacKenzie

Doug Madsen

Jim Magagna

Joe Malek

Rob Marshall

Terry Martin

Teresa Martinez

Don Mason

Gib Mathers

Benjamin Mayer

Forrest McCarthy

Douglas McCormick

Dennis McDaniel

Jazmyn McDonald

Fred McDonald

John McGee

Lisa McGee

Richard McGinity

William McMillian

Travis McNiven

Mike McRann

Anthony Melita

Scott Mellor

James Melton

Theresa Mercer

Bert & Brenda Miller

Neil & Jennifer Miller

Jeff Milton

Megan Mitchell

Jeff Moberg

Bob Model

Erik Molvar

Eric Shawn Moody

Charlie Moore

Pat Moore

Bob Moseley
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

632

Charlie Moses, Jr.

Suzan Moulton

Eugene Mueller

Mike Mufich

Daryle Murphy

Warren Murphy

Chuck Neal

Dave Neary

Lee Nellis

Katie Nelson

Peter Nelson

Robert & Darlene Nielsen

Neil E. Niemin

Leslie Nistico

Suzy Noecker

Pam Noesner

Werner Noesner

Matt Norby

Joanne Nordenstam

Laura Norman

Mark Nunnink

Jared Oakleaf

Jim O'Connor

Vicki Olson

Diane Orme

John Osgood

Emilene Ostlind

Joel Otto

Ernie Over

Bill Overfield

Bob Overton

Robert Owsley

John Parr

R.D. Pascoe

Debra Patla

Nic Patrick

Leslie Patten

Ed Patterson

John Paul Travis

John Pearson

Steve Pearson

Dave Pendleton

Ann Perkins

Bruce Perry

Lew Peterson

Frank Philp

Rob Philp

Ken Pierce

Patricia Poletti

Jim Pratt

Ruffin Prevost

Ray Price

Jeramie Prine

Jodee Pring

Charles & Vyrla Prior

Jonathan Proctor

Kevin Proescholdt

Cathy Purves

Amy Quick

Gail Rae

Dustin Ralston

Tom Ransburg

Amy Rathke

Jonathan Ratner

Linda Raynolds

Garth Reber

Ed Regan

Chad Regester

Jim Reiss

Barry Reiswig

Rori Renner

Gary Reynolds

Bonnie Rice

Bob Richard

Robin Rick

Hap Ridgway

J R Riggins

Dave Riebe

Rick Roach

David Roberts

Ed & Lisa Roberts

Philip Robertson

Bob Robinson

Shannon Rochelle

Mary & Tim Rogers

Ron Rose

Dustin & Jenni Rosencranse

Jody Rowlands

Charles Rumsey Jr.

Jack Russell

Ben & Alicia Rux

Al Sammons

Arne Sandberg

Dana Sander

Dana Sander

Irene Saphra

Clint Sauer

Greg Sauer

Josh Scheer

Brit Schiner

Pat Schmidt

Mr & Mrs Larry Schoening

Gene Schrader

Harold Schultz

Robert Schwinn

Richard & Beverly Scott

Steph Sedler

Dan Seifert

Janean Sellers

Mr. & Mrs. Senitte 

Eric Severns

Ray Shaffer

Gregory Shedd 

Sean Sheehan

Philip Sheets

Bill Shipley

Dan & Tana Shively

Diane Shober

Josh Shorb

Jean Shouder

Dave Showalter

Daniel & Dianne Shumway

Gary Siemens

Tony & Sandra E Simek 

Benj Sinclair

Alan Sinner

Joyce Skoric

Mark Slacks

Ardell Smith

Christine Smith

Bernie Spanogle

Lynne Sparks

Jeff Stanbury

Heidi Stearns

Ted Stephen

Sandra Sternod

Mike Stewart

Dave Stinson

Laurence Stinson

James Strite

Rene Suda

Jared Szakacs

Linwood Tallbull

Fred Tammany

Frank Tanner

Amy Taylor

Neil Thagard

Deb Thomas

Joan Timchak

Lawrence Todd

Donald Tolman

Butch & Sue Tonkin

Terry Trombley

Tom Troxel

Amy Truman

Charlie Truman

J. Truman

Luke Truman

Thomas Turiano

Hubert B. Two Leggins

Linda Van der Veer

Tim Wade

Wayne Warwick

David Waterstreet

Edward A. & Phyllis K. 

Watlington

C Wawak

Bill Weaver

Eric Weber

Jack Welch

Jennifer Wellman
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4

633

Darren Wells

John Wells

Frank Weltz

Rondal Wendling

Alan Werner

Ed & Deborah Whitmer

John Wiest

Kim Wilbert

Mike Williams

Joe Winkler

Al Witzel

James Wolf

Alex Wolfer

Scott Woodruff

Spencer Woods

George Wuerthner

Kristin Yannone

Steve Yekel

Joe Yelton

Elmer Zenisek

Fred & Linda Ziegler

Tom Zimmer

Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Glossary

635

Glossary

Term Definition

Adaptive management An approach to natural resource management where actions are 

designed and executed and effects are monitored for the 

purpose of learning and adjusting future management actions, 

which improves the efficiency and responsiveness of 

management.

Age class Age class is one of the intervals, commonly 10 years, into 

which the age range of trees is divided for classification or use. 

Age class distribution refers to the location and/or 

proportionate representation of different age classes in a forest.

Aggradation The process of building up a surface by deposition; a long-term 

or geologic trend in sedimentation.

Air quality related values Air quality related values are resources that may be affected by 

a change in air quality and generally relate to visibility, odor, 

flora, fauna, soil, water, climate, geological features, and 

cultural resources. Values are specific for each wilderness area.

Allowable use The degree of use of range or pastureland considered desirable 

and attainable, considering the present nature and condition of 

the resource, the management objective, and the level of 

investment.

Allowable sale quantity The quantity of timber that may be sold from an area of suitable 

land covered by a forest plan for a time specified by the plan. 

This quantity is usually expressed on an annual basis as the 

average annual allowable sale quantity.

Animal unit month An animal unit month is the equivalent to the amount of dry 

forage consumed by a 1,000-pound non-lactating cow in1 

month (approximately 780 pounds, or 26 pounds per day).

Application Rules The application rules are outlined in the Final Conservation 

Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area

(Interagency Conservation Strategy Team 2007). 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

636

Term Definition

Appropriate management 

response

An appropriate management response is any action suitable to 

meet fire management unit objectives. Typically, the 

appropriate management response ranges across a spectrum of 

tactical options (from monitoring to intensive management 

actions). The appropriate management response is developed 

by using fire management unit strategies and objectives 

identified in a forest’s fire management plan.

Aquatic ecosystem Waters of the United States that serve as habitat for interrelated 

and interacting communities and populations of plants and 

animals. It includes the stream channel, lake or estuary bed, 

water, biotic communities, and the habitat features that occur.

Bankfull Bankfull stage is the stage at which a stream first overflows its 

natural banks. 

Bark beetles Bark beetles are members of the family Scolytidae whose 

adults and larvae tunnel in the cambium region (bark and 

sapwood) or living, dying, and recently dead or felled trees and 

do immense damage to trees all over the world.

Basal area The area of ground surface occupied by the stem of a plant, as 

contrasted with the full spread of its foliage, generally 

measured at 1 inch above soil level.

Beneficial uses Any of the various uses that may be made of the water, 

including, but not limited to, domestic water supplies, fisheries 

and other aquatic life, industrial water supplies, agricultural 

water supplies, navigation, recreation in and on the water, 

wildlife habitat, and aesthetics.

Best management 

practices

Practice or set of practices that enable a planned activity to 

occur while still protecting the resource managed, normally 

implemented and applied during the activity rather than after 

the activity.

Big game Those species of large mammals normally managed for sport 

hunting, generally including antelope, bighorn sheep, deer, elk, 

moose, and mountain goat. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Glossary

637

Term Definition

Big game (crucial) winter 

range

Big game winter range is where a population or portion of a 

population of animals uses the documented suitable habitat 

within this range annually, in substantial numbers only during 

the winter. Crucial winter range describes any portion of the 

range which has been documented as the determining factor in 

a population’s ability to maintain itself at a certain level 

(theoretically at or above the Wyoming Game and Fish

population objective) over the long term.

Biological opinion Biological opinions document a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

opinion as to whether a Federal action is likely to jeopardize the 

continued of an Endangered Species Act-listed species, or result 

in the destruction or adverse modification of species’ critical 

habitat. 

Boreal disjunct plants Boreal disjunct plants are remnants of the boreal (northern) 

ecosystem that remain in high elevation places. 

Candidate species Plant and animal species being considered for listing as 

endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

Capital investment A capital investment is expenditure of funds on infrastructure.

Carex Carex is a genus of plants in the family Cyperaceae, commonly 

known as sedges.

Channel An open conduit either naturally or artificially created which 

periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which 

forms a connecting link between two bodies of water. 

Clearcut A regeneration or harvest method that removes essentially all 

trees in a stand.

A stand in which essentially all trees have been removed in one 

operation to produce an even-aged stand.

Coarse woody debris Provides living spaces for a host of organisms and serves as 

long-term storage sites for moisture, nutrients, and energy. 

Coarse woody debris consists of any woody material greater 

than 3 inches in diameter and is derived from tree limbs, boles, 

roots, and large (greater than 12 inches in diameter) wood 

fragments and fallen trees in various stages of decay.

Collaboration Working with someone to produce or create something. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

638

Term Definition

Community wildfire 

protection plan

A community wildfire protection plan is a plan developed in the 

collaborative framework established by the Wildland Fire

Leadership council and agreed to by state, tribal, and local 

government, local fire department, other stakeholders, and 

Federal land management agencies managing land near the 

planning area. A community wildfire protection plan identifies 

and prioritizes areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments 

and recommends the types and methods of treatment on Federal 

and non-Federal land that will protect one or more at-risk 

communities and essential infrastructure and recommends 

measures to reduce structural ignitability throughout the at-risk 

community. A community wildfire protection plan may address 

issues such as wildfire response, hazard mitigation, community 

preparedness, or structure protection; or all of the above. 

Condition class Depiction of the degree of departure from historical fire 

regimes, possibly resulting in alterations of key ecosystem 

components. These classes categorize and describe vegetation 

composition and structure conditions that currently exist inside 

the fire regime groups. Based on the coarse-scale national data, 

they serve as generalized wildfire rankings. The risk of loss of 

key ecosystem components from wildfires increases from 

condition class 1 (lowest risk) to condition class 3 (highest 

risk). 

Connectivity The arrangements of habitats that allow organisms and 

ecological processes to move across the landscape. Patches of 

similar habitats are either close together or linked by corridors 

of approved vegetation. The opposite of fragmentation.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Glossary

639

Term Definition

Conservation status 

ranking

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 

(NatureServe 2012; Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 

2012). 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 nonbreeding (N) population in a particular nation or state/province.

Conservation strategy A conservation strategy is a management scheme or plan to 

conserve or sustain particular ecosystem elements such as rare 

species or habitats. An example of a conservation strategy 

would be to survey for potential habitats during project 

planning in order to protect known populations of a rare species 

through project-specific measures. 

Coppice

(Coppice with standards)

Coppice is a vegetation reproduction method with clear felling 

or clearcutting. Clear felling stimulates sprouting from the

residual roots. Standards are selected overstory trees reserved 

for a longer rotation at the time each crop of coppice material is 

cut.

Corridors Avenues along which wide-ranging animals can travel, plants 

can propagate, genetic interchange can occur, populations can 

move in response to environmental changes or natural disasters, 

and threatened species can be replenished from other areas. 

Cultural properties The definite location of a past human activity, occupation, or 

use identifiable through field inventory, historic documentation, 

or oral evidence. Cultural properties include prehistoric and 

historic archaeological remains, or architectural sites, 

structures, objects, or places with important public and 

scientific uses.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

640

Term Definition

Cultural resources Cultural resources are the physical remains of human activity 

(artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, petroglyphs, etc.) and 

conceptual content or context (as a setting for legendary, 

historic, or prehistoric events, as a sacred area of native people, 

etc.) of an area or prehistoric or historic occupation.

Deciduous A deciduous tree or shrub sheds its leaves annually.

Decommission Demolition, dismantling, removal, obliteration, and/or disposal 

of a deteriorated or otherwise unneeded asset or component, 

including necessary cleanup work. This action eliminates the 

deferred maintenance needs for the fixed asset. 

Decommissioning roads includes activities that result in the 

stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more 

natural state.

Deferred maintenance Maintenance that was not performed when it should have been 

or when it was scheduled and which was delayed. When 

allowed to accumulate without limits or consideration of useful 

life, deferred maintenance leads to deterioration of 

performance, increases costs to repair, and decrease in net 

value. 

Degradation To wear down by erosion, especially through stream action.

Designated wilderness Designated wilderness refers to any area of land designated by 

Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System that was established by the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Developed recreation Developed recreation is outdoor recreation requiring significant 

capital investment in facilities to handle a concentration of 

visitors on a relatively small area. Examples are ski areas, 

resorts, and campgrounds.

Developed site Developed recreation sites are relatively small, distinctly 

defined areas where facilities are provided for concentrated 

public use, such as campgrounds and picnic areas. 

Disjunct Disjunct populations are separated from other populations.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Glossary

641

Term Definition

Dispersed recreation Dispersed recreation is outdoor recreation in which visitors are 

diffused over relatively large areas. Where facilities or 

developments are provided, they are more for access and 

protection of the environment than for the comfort or 

convenience of the people. 

Disturbance A disturbance is a discrete event that changes existing plant 

community composition or structure, and interrupts, changes, 

or resets the ongoing successional sequence. Disturbances may 

include human presence, noise, or other activity that causes 

wildlife to move away from the area or alter behavior. 

Early detection and rapid

response

The long-term goals of the early detection and rapid response 

system are to detect, report, and identify suspected new 

invasive plants with free living populations in the United 

States.

Ecological conditions Components of the biological and physical environment that 

can affect diversity of plant and animal communities and the 

productive capacity of ecological systems. These components 

could include the abundance and distribution of aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats, roads and other structural developments, 

human uses, and invasive species. 

Ecological niche The physical space in a habitat occupied by an organism; its 

functional role in the community, e.g., its trophic position; and 

its position in environmental gradients of temperature, 

moisture, pH, soil, and other conditions of existence.

Ecosystem An interacting system of living organisms and their 

environment.

Endangered species A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range.

Endangered Species Act Public Law 93-205, approved in 1973 and since amended, the 

Endangered Species Act provides for the conservation of 

ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of 

fish, wildlife, and plants depend. 

Endemic Endemic denotes an area in which a particular disease is 

regularly found, that is, the disease is native. Endemic 

populations of plants or animals are native to a particular area. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

642

Term Definition

Even-aged management A planned sequence of treatments designed to maintain and 

regenerate a stand with predominantly one age class. The range 

of tree ages is usually less than 20 percent of the rotation age 

planned for the stand. 

Final regeneration harvest Timber harvest designed to regenerate a timber stand or release 

a regenerated stand. This includes clearcut, removal cut of a 

shelterwood or seed tree system, and selection cut. 

Fire management plan A fire management plan is developed for all areas with 

burnable vegetation. The fire management plan is a strategic 

plan that defines a program to manage wildland and prescribed 

fires based on the forest plan. The fire management plan will 

provide for firefighter and public safety. 

Fire regime Description of the patterns of fire occurrences, frequency, size, 

severity, and sometimes vegetation and fire effects as well, in a 

given area or ecosystem. A fire regime is a generalization based 

on fire histories at individual sites. Fire regimes can often be 

described as cycles because some parts of the histories usually 

are repeated, and the repetitions can be counted and measured, 

such as fire return interval. 

Fire regime condition class Fire regime condition class is an expression of the departure of 

the current condition from the historical fire regime. It is 

derived from the historical fire regime and the current fire 

severity. It is used as a proxy for the probability of severe fire 

effects, e.g., the loss of key ecosystem components—soil, 

vegetation, structure—or alteration of key ecosystem 

processes—nutrient cycles, hydrologic regimes. The fire 

regime condition class is an index of ecosystem risks 

attributable to wildland fire.

Fire suppression All the work of extinguishing or confining a fire beginning with 

its discovery.

Fish toxicant A chemical that kills fish.

Fladry Fladry is flagging placed on fences.

Forbs Forbs are herbaceous flowering plants other than grasses.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Glossary

643

Term Definition

Forest health The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns 

about such factors such as its age, structure, composition, 

function, and vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects and 

diseases, and resilience to disturbance. 

Fragmentation A condition in which a continuous area is reduced and divided 

into smaller sections. Habitat can be fragmented by natural 

events or development activities. 

Fuel load The amount of fuel present expressed quantitatively in terms of 

weight of fuel per unit area. This may be available 

(consumable) fuel or total fuel and is usually dry weight.

Fuel treatment Any manipulation or removal of fuels to lessen potential 

damage and resistance to control (includes mechanical and 

prescribed fire treatments).

Geophysical Geophysical describes a branch of earth science dealing with 

the physical processes and phenomena occurring especially in 

the earth and in its vicinity. 

Geophysical prospecting Geophysical operations (seismic, gravity, magnetic, etc.) 

surveys) necessary to gather data which will facilitate an 

evaluation of the potential occurrence of a mineral deposit or 

geological structures that would warrant further exploration.

Graminoids Graminoids are plants with narrow leaves growing from the 

base. Forbs are broad-leaved herbs other than grasses.

Greater Yellowstone Area Federal lands in the Greater Yellowstone Area, or Ecosystem, 

are managed by the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating 

Committee. About 15 million acres of public lands are managed 

by the USDA Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management. It 

includes six national forests (Beaverhead-Deerlodge, BridgerTeton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, Gallatin, and Shoshone); three 

national parks (Grand Teton, Yellowstone, and John D. 

Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway); two national wildlife 

refuges (National Elk Refuge and Red Rock Lakes); and 

portions of BLM lands in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.

Ground cover In soil conservation, grasses or other plants grown to keep soil 

from being blown or washed away. In horticulture, low growing 

plants such as vinca and ginger that do not require mowing. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

644

Term Definition

Groundwater Water in the ground that is in the zone of saturation, from 

which wells, springs, and groundwater runoff are supplied. 

Group selection A method of regenerating uneven-aged stands in which trees 

are cut, in small groups, and new age classes are established. 

The width of groups is commonly approximately twice the 

height of the mature trees, with small openings providing 

suitable microclimates for shade-tolerant tree species to 

regenerate, and the larger openings providing suitable 

microclimates for more shade-intolerant tree species to 

regenerate. 

Habitat A geographical area that can provide for the key activities of 

life.

Hazard fuel rating Hazard fuel rating based on areas mapped using Standard Fire

Behavior Models: Low = Fuel Model 1; Moderate = Fuel 

Models 2, 4, 5, and 8; and High = Fuel Models 6 and 10.

Hazardous fuel Hazardous fuel is a complex defined by kind, arrangement, 

volume, condition, and location that presents a threat of 

ignition and resistance to control.

Herbaceous Of, denoting, or relating to herbs. 

Hibernacula Habitat niches where certain animals, e.g., bats, over-winter, 

such as caves, mines, tree hollows, or loose bark. 

Hydrologic unit boundary A hydrologic unit boundary is a geographic area representing 

all or part of a surface drainage basin or distinct hydrologic 

feature. A 6th level hydrologic unit boundary ranges in size 

from 10,000 to 40,000 acres and is named and coded with 12 

digits.

Ichnofossil An ichnofossil is a trace fossil, such as that of an animal’s track 

or burrow.

Infra Infra is a collection of web-based data entry forms, reporting 

tools, and GIS tools that enable the Forest Service to manage 

and report accurate information about the inventory of 

constructed features and land units as well as the permits sold 

to the public and to partners.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Glossary

645

Term Definition

Infrastructure The basic physical and organizational structures and facilities,

e.g., buildings, roads, and power supplies, needed for operation. 

Integrity The capacity to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, 

and adaptive biological system having the full range of 

elements and processes expected in a region’s natural habitat. 

Interpretation Explaining the meaning or significance of something. 

Invasive species A species is invasive if it meets two criteria: (1) is nonnative to 

the ecosystem, and (2) its introduction causes or is likely to 

cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human 

health.

Krummholz Krummholz refers to stunted trees near timberline. 

Ladder fuel Ladder fuels are fuels that provide vertical continuity between 

strata, allowing fire to carry from surface fuels into the crowns 

of trees with relative ease.

Large woody debris Large pieces of relatively stable woody material located within 

the bankfull channel and appearing to influence bankfull flows. 

Single – A single piece that has a length equal to or greater than 

3 meters or two-thirds of the wetted stream width and 10 

centimeters in diameter one-third of the way from the base.

Aggregate – Two or more clumped pieces, each of which 

qualifies as a single piece.

Rootwad – Rootmass or boles attached to a log less than 3 

meters in length. 

Leave tree A leave tree is a tree marked to be left standing in an area 

where it would otherwise be felled.

Long-term sustained yield 

capacity

The highest uniform wood yield from lands being managed for 

timber production that may be sustained under specified 

management intensity consistent with multiple-use objectives. 

Lynx analysis unit A lynx analysis unit is an area of at least the size used by an 

individual lynx, from about 25 to 50 square miles. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

646

Term Definition

Maintenance level Maintenance level refers to the level of service provided by, 

and maintenance required for, a specific road. Maintenance 

level 1 = roads placed in storage for longer than one year, 

closed to vehicular traffic; maintenance level 2 = roads open for 

use by high-clearance vehicles, minor traffic, no warning signs; 

maintenance level 3 = roads open and maintained for a standard 

passenger car, low speed travel, warning signs provided; 

maintenance level 4 = moderate travel speeds, single or double 

lane, aggregate or paved surface; maintenance level 5 = high 

degree of user comfort, single or double lane, generally paved 

surface. 

Management action or 

activity

An action or activity humans impose on a landscape for the 

purpose of managing natural resources 

Management indicator 

species

Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species that are used to promote 

more effective management of diversity and wildlife habitats 

on National Forest System lands. 

Mechanical treatment Mechanical vegetation treatment is any activity undertaken to 

modify the existing condition of the vegetation accomplished 

with mechanical equipment.

Mechanized Wheeled forms of transportation, including non-motorized 

carts, wheelbarrows, bicycles, and any other non-motorized, 

wheeled vehicle.

Minerals Locatable – Hard rock minerals that are mined and processed 

for the recovery of metals. They may include certain nonmetallic minerals and uncommon varieties of mineral materials 

such as valuable and distinctive deposits of limestone or silica. 

Leasable – Coal, oil, gas, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil 

shale, sulfur, and geothermal resources.

Salable (or mineral materials) – A collective term to describe 

common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, pumice, cinders, clay, 

and other similar materials. Common varieties do not include 

deposits of those materials that may be locatable. 

Mitigation Measures implemented to minimize, reduce, rectify, avoid, 

eliminate, and/or compensate the potential impacts to resources 

identified in the effects analysis.

Monoculture Of a single species, generally even-aged.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Glossary

647

Term Definition

Montane Of or inhabiting mountainous country.

Mosaic Mosaic refers to the intermingling of plant communities and 

their successional stages in such a manner as to give the 

impression of an interwoven design.

Motor vehicle use map A motor vehicle use map is a map reflecting designated roads, 

trails, and areas open to motorized public use on an 

administrative unit or a ranger district of the National Forest 

System.

National Forest System 

lands

National Forest System lands are lands reserved or withdrawn 

from the public domain of the United States, all national forest 

lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other 

means, the national grasslands and land utilization projects 

administered under title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant 

Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 USC 1010-1012), and other lands, waters, 

or interests therein which are administered by the Forest 

Service or are designated for administration through the Forest 

Service as a part of the system. 16 USC 1609(a).

National Register of 

Historic Places

The National Register of Historic Places is the Nation’s official 

list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. Authorized 

under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the 

National Register is part of a national program to coordinate 

and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and 

protect our historic and archaeological resources. Properties 

listed in the Register include districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, and objects that are significant in American history, 

architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The 

National Register is administered by the USDI National Park 

Service. 

Off-highway vehicle An off-highway vehicle is any motor vehicle designed for or 

capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, 

water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural 

terrain.

Openings Meadows, clearcuts, and other areas of vegetation that do not 

provide cover.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

648

Term Definition

Organic matter In soil, the organic fraction that includes plant and animal 

residues at various stages of decomposition, cells and tissues of 

soil organisms, and substances synthesized by the soil 

population; commonly determined as the amount of organic 

material contained in a soil sample passed through a 2-

millimeter sieve.

Overstory That portion of the trees, in a forest of more than one story, 

forming the upper or uppermost canopy layer. 

Over-the-snow vehicle Over-snow vehicles are vehicles that are designed for use over 

snow and that run on a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while 

in use over snow.

Palsa Palsa are low, often oval frost heaves occurring in polar and 

sub-polar climates, which contain permanently frozen ice 

lenses.

Parturition area Parturition areas are birthing areas.

Party A group of people readily recognized as traveling together.

Perennial stream A stream that flows continuously. 

Plan area The National Forest System lands covered by a plan.

Prescribed fire Prescribed fire is a wildland fire originating from a planned 

ignition to meet specific objectives identified in a written, 

approved prescribed fire plan for which National 

Environmental Policy Act requirements (where applicable) 

have been met prior to ignition.

Primary Conservation 

Area

The primary conservation area is described in the Final 

Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area (Interagency Conservation Strategy Team 

2007). The primary conservation area is the same as the 

original grizzly bear recovery zone; it is the area where 

stipulations to protect grizzlies are applied. About 1,230,000 

acres of the Shoshone are in the primary conservation area.

Proposed species Any species that is proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service or National Marine Fisheries Service to be listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Glossary

649

Term Definition

Rangeland Rangeland refers to land on which vegetation is predominantly 

grasses, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing. 

Rangeland may include some forest and barren land.

Recreation opportunity 

spectrum

A framework of land delineations that identifies a variety of 

recreation experience opportunities categorized into classes on 

a continuum. The Spectrum’s continuum has been divided into 

six major classes for Forest Service use: urban, rural, roaded 

natural, semi-primitive motorized, semi-primitive nonmotorized, and primitive. 

Recreational livestock use Recreational livestock use refers to the use of an area by 

domesticated animals, such as horses, llamas, and mules, which 

are used primarily in conjunction with recreation activities.

Regeneration Natural – A group or stand of young trees created from 

germination of seeds from trees on the site or sprouting from 

trees on the site. 

Artificial – A group or stand of young trees created by direct 

seeding or by planting seedlings or cuttings. 

Resilience The amount of change a system can undergo (its capacity to 

absorb disturbance) and remain with the same regime—

essentially retaining the same function, structure, and 

feedbacks.

Restore/restoration Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an 

ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. It is 

an intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery 

of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity, and 

sustainability.

Riparian A riparian ecosystem is a transition area between the aquatic 

ecosystem and the adjacent terrestrial ecosystem, identified by 

soil characteristics or distinctive vegetation communities that 

require free or unbound water.

Road A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified 

and managed as a trail.

Road construction Activity that results in the addition of system or temporary road 

miles.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

650

Term Definition

Road decommissioning Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of 

unneeded roads to a more natural state.

Road maintenance level See maintenance level.

Road reconstruction Activity that results in improvement or realignment of a system 

road.

Salvage Salvage refers to removal of trees that are dead or in imminent 

danger of being killed or damaged by injurious agents other 

than competition between trees, to recover economic value that 

would otherwise be lost.

Sawtimber Sawtimber refers to trees fit to yield saw logs (considered 

suitable in size and quality for producing sawn timber). 

Scenic Integrity Objective Scenic integrity objectives serve as the desired conditions for 

the scenic resources and represent the degree of intactness of 

positive landscape attributes. Scenic integrity objectives are 

categorized into five levels. The highest ratings are given to 

those landscapes where valued landscape attributes will appear 

complete with little or no visible deviations. Lower ratings are 

given to those landscapes where modifications will be more 

evident. 

Very high – Landscape is intact with changes resulting 

primarily through natural processes and disturbance regimes.

High – Management activities are unnoticed and the landscape 

character appears unaltered.

Moderate – Management activities are noticeable but are 

subordinate to the landscape character. The landscape appears 

slightly altered.

Low – Management activities are evident and sometimes 

dominate the landscape but are designed to blend with 

surroundings by repeating line, form, color, and texture of 

valued landscape character attributes. The landscape appears 

altered.

Very low – Human activities of vegetation and landform 

alterations may dominate the original, natural landscape 

character but should appear as natural occurrences when 

viewed at background distances.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Glossary

651

Term Definition

Secure habitat An area where wildlife retreat to for safety when disturbance in 

their usual range is intensified, such as by logging activities or 

during hunting seasons. 

Sedge A sedge is a grasslike plant with triangular stems and 

inconspicuous flowers, growing typically in wet ground. 

Seepage Water escaping through or emerging from the ground along an 

extensive line or surface as contrasted with a spring where the 

water emerges from a localized spot. Also, the slow movement 

of gravitational water through the soil.

Seral Seral refers to the gradual supplanting of one community of 

plants by another, the sequence of communities being termed a 

sere and each stage seral (successional). 

Shelterwood A method of regenerating an even-aged stand in which a new 

age class develops beneath the moderated microclimate 

provided by the residual trees on a site. When employed, the 

treatment sequence includes three distinct types of cuttings: (1) 

an optional preparatory cut to enhance conditions for seed 

production, (2) a shelterwood seed cut (or establishment cut) to 

establish a moderated microclimate, prepare the seed bed, and 

create a new age class, and (3) a shelterwood removal cut (or 

overstory removal cut) to release established regeneration from 

competition with the overstory. Cuttings may be done 

uniformly throughout the stand, in groups or patches (group 

shelterwood), or in strips (strip shelterwood). 

With reserves – A regeneration method in which some or all of 

the shelter trees are retained to attain goals other than 

regeneration. This method creates an even-aged stand or a twoaged stand if sufficient trees are removed.

Silviculture The theory and practice of controlling the establishment, 

composition, constitution, and growth of forests.

Single-tree selection An uneven-aged method where individual trees of all size 

classes are removed more or less uniformly throughout the 

stand, to promote growth of remaining trees and to provide 

space for regeneration.

Size class Size class is based on basal area weighted diameter of the plot 

or stand. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

652

Term Definition

Slope stability The resistance of any inclined surface, as the wall of an open 

pit or cut, to failure by sliding or collapsing.

Smoke-sensitive area An area in which smoke from outside sources is intolerable, for 

reasons such as heavy population, existing air pollution, or 

intensive recreation use. 

Snag A snag is a standing, dead tree.

Snowmobile A motorized vehicle 50 inches or less in width, designed for use 

over snow, runs on a track and uses one or more skis for 

steering.

Special use authorization A permit, term permit, lease, or easement that allows 

occupancy, use, rights, or privileges of National Forest System 

land. 

Stand replacement fire A fire severity classification where at least 75 percent average 

top-kill of vegetation occurs within a typical fire perimeter.

Stewardship contracts Stewardship contracting authorities allow agencies to package a 

diverse array of land stewardship work by combining the 

disposal of goods, e.g., timber or other forest products, with 

contracts to perform services, e.g., road decommissioning, 

watershed restoration, stream restoration, hazardous fuel 

reduction, etc.

Stocking The degree to which an area is effectively covered with living 

trees. Fully stocked stands contain as many trees per acre as can 

properly use the growing space available.

Structure The horizontal and vertical physical elements of forests and 

grasslands and the spatial interrelationships of ecosystems.

Stubble The basal portion of plants remaining after the top portion has 

been harvested. Also, the portion of the plants, principally 

grasses, remaining after grazing is completed. 

Succession The sequential process of long-term plant community change 

and development that occurs following a disturbance.

Suppression The work of extinguishing a fire or confining fire spread.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Glossary

653

Term Definition

Surface water Water on the surface of the earth.

Sustainability Meeting the needs of the present generation without 

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their 

needs. 

Temporary road A road necessary for emergency operations or authorized by 

contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization. 

Temporary roads are not included in a national forest’s 

transportation atlas.

Thinning An intermediate treatment made to reduce stand density of trees 

primarily to improve growth, enhance forest health, or to 

recover potential mortality.

Threatened species Any species that is likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range.

Three-county area The three-county area, relative to the Shoshone National Forest, 

includes Fremont, Park, and Hot Springs counties in Wyoming.

Timber harvest The removal of trees for wood fiber utilization and other 

multiple-use purposes.

Timber production The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration 

of regulated crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other 

round sections for industrial or consumer use. 

Managing land to provide commercial timber products on a 

regulated basis with planned, scheduled entries. 

Timber sale program 

quantity

The estimated output of timber from the plan area. The estimate 

is displayed as an average annual cubic foot output for a 

decade. It includes projected outputs from lands generally 

suitable for timber harvest. The projected timber outputs reflect 

past and projected budget levels and organizational capacity to 

achieve the desired conditions and objectives in the plan (36 

CFR 219.12 and Forest Service Manual 1921.12). 

Timber stand 

improvement

Intermediate cuttings made to improve the composition, 

constitution, condition, and increment of a timber stand.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

654

Term Definition

Topo-edaphically Of or relating to topography and soil, especially as it affects 

living organisms

Trail A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches 

wide that is identified and managed as a trail.

Unauthorized road or trail A road or trail that is not included in a forest transportation 

atlas.

Uneven-aged management Regeneration and maintenance of stands with a multi-aged 

structure by removing some trees from all size classes singly or 

in groups or in strips. 

Ungulate A hoofed animal. 

Values to be protected Include property, structures, physical improvements, natural 

and cultural resources, community infrastructure, and 

economic, environmental, and social values.

Vegetation management Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forest 

vegetation in order to achieve desired results. When vegetation 

is actively managed, it is manipulated or changed by humans to 

produce desired results. Where active management of 

vegetation is required, techniques are based on the latest 

scientific research and mimic natural processes as closely as 

possible. Vegetation management is the practice of 

manipulating the species mix, age, fuel load, and/or distribution 

of wildland plant communities within a prescribed or 

designated management area in order to achieve desired results. 

Water right The legal rights to the use of water. 

Wetland Seasonally flooded basins or flats; the period of inundation is 

such that the land can usually be used for agricultural purposes. 

Also, lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems 

where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the 

land is covered by shallow water. 

Wildfire Wildfire is an unplanned, unwanted wildland fire, including 

unauthorized human-caused fires, escaped prescribed fires, and 

all other wildland fires where the objective is to put the fire out.

Wildland fire Wildland fire is a general term describing any non-structure fire 

that occurs in the wildland. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Glossary

655

Term Definition

Wildland-urban interface Wildland urban interface refers to the line, area, or zone where 

structures and other human developments meet or intermingle 

with undeveloped wildland or vegetation fuels. 

Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

657

Literature Cited

Allen, K.K.; Long, D.F.; and McMillin, J.D. 2006. Effectiveness of MCH in preventing Douglasfir beetle attacks during a prolonged outbreak. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region, Technical Report R2-66.

Altman, B. and Sallabanks, R. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), The Birds of 

North America Online (Poole, A. Editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved 

from the Birds of North America Online. Available: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/502 doi:10.2173/bna.502

Amman, G.D. and Cole, W.E. 1983. Mountain pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. 

Part II: population dynamics. General Technical Report INT-145. USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Amman, G.D.; Lessard, G.D.; Rasmussen, L.A.; O'Neil, C.G. 1988. Lodgepole pine vigor, 

regeneration, and infestation by mountain pine beetle following partial cutting on the 

Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming. Research Paper INT-396. USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Amman, G.D.; McGregor, M.D.; Cahill, D.B.; and Klein, W.H. 1977. Guidelines for reducing 

stand loss of lodgepole pine to the mountain pine beetle in unmanaged stands in the 

Rocky Mountains. General Technical Report INT-36. USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Anderson, C.R.; Ternent, M.A.; Moody, D.S.; Bruscino, M.T.; and Miller, D.F. 1997. Grizzly 

Bear-Cattle Interactions on Two Cattle Allotments in Northwest Wyoming. Trophy 

Game Section, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Laramie, WY. 78 pp.

Anderson, G.D. 2006. Festuca hallii (Vasey) Piper (Hall’s fescue): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/festucahallii.pdf

Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. USDA Forest 

Service. General Technical Report INT-122. Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah 84401. 22 p.

Barnes, B.V. 1966. The clonal growth habitat of American aspens. [JSTOR]. Ecological Society 

of America. 47(3). http://www.jstor.org/stable/1932983. (02 June 2008).

Bartlett, E.T. 1983. Valuing Range Forage on Public Rangelands. Proceedings: Range 

Economics Symposium and Workshop, Salt Lake City, Utah. USDA Forest Service, 

General Technical Report, INT-149.

Bartlett, E.T.; Taylor, R.G.; and McKean, J.R. 1979. Impacts of Federal Grazing on the Economy 

of Colorado, A report to the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the 

Colorado State Agricultural Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Beauvais, G.P. and Johnson, L. 2004. Species Assessment for Wolverine (Gulo gulo) in 

Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. Prepared for the 

USDOI-BLM, Cheyenne, WY.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

658

Bechard, M.J. and Schmutz, J.K. 1995. Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis), The Birds of North 

America Online (Poole, A. Editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from 

the Birds of North America Online. Available: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/172doi:10.2173/bna.172

Beecham, J.J. Jr.; Collins, C.P.; and Reynolds, T.D. 2007. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis 

canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.pdf .

Belica, L.T. and Nibbelink, N.P. 2006. Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf

Berg, N. D.; Burghardt, J.; Gray, R.; and Smith, B. 2005. The Greater Yellowstone lynx study: 

2004/2005 annual report. Unpublished report on file at Endeavor Wildlife Research 

Foundation, Jackson, Wyoming.

Bevenger, G. 2010. Wilderness Air Quality Value Plan, Shoshone National Forest.

Bighorn Basin Sage Grouse Local Working Group. 2007. Sage-grouse conservation plan for the 

bighorn basin, Wyoming. August 31, 2007.

Bjornlie, D. 2011. Grizzly bear use of insect aggregation sites documented from aerial telemetry 

and observations. Pages 33-35 in C.C. Schwartz, M. Haroldson, and K. West, eds., 

Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Study Team, 2010. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, MT, USA.

Blanchard, B.M. 1990. Relationships between whitebark pine cone production and fall grizzly 

bear movements. Pages 362-363 in W.C. Schmidt and K.J. McDonald, eds., Proceedings 

of a symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: Ecology and management of a highmountain resource. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report INT-270.

Blanchard, B.M. and Knight, R.R. 1991. Movement of Yellowstone grizzly bears, 1975-87. 

Biological Conservation. 58: 41-67. 

Bowker, M.; Starbuck, C.M.; English, D.B.K.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Rosenberger, R.S.; and 

McCollum, D.W. (2009). Estimating the net economic value of national forest 

recreation: An application of the national visitor use monitoring database. Athens, GA: 

The University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 222 pp.

Boyce, M.S.; Blanchard, B.M.; Knight, R.R.; and Servheen, C. 2001. Population viability for 

grizzly bear: A critical review. Interagency Association for Bear Research and 

Management Monograph Series 34.

Boyle, S. 2006. North American River Otter (Lontra canadensis): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northamericanriverotter.pdf

Brock, B.L.; Inman, R.M.; Inman, K.H.; McCue, A.J.; Packila, M.L.; and Giddings, B. 2007. 

Broad-scale wolverine habitat in the conterminous Rocky Mountain States. Pages 21-53 
Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

659

in Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program, Cumulative Report, May 2007. Wildlife 

Conservation Society, Ennis, Montana, USA. 

Brown, G. and Reed, P. 2000. Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest 

planning. Forest Science. 46(2):240-247.

Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), The Birds of North America Online 

(Poole, A. Editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of 

North America Online. Available: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/506doi:10.2173/bna.506

Buskirk, S. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American marten in the Black Hills National 

Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY. Prepared for 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Buskirk, S.W. and Ruggiero. L.F. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: 

American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States. USDA 

Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-GTR-254.

Buskirk, S.W.; Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Pearson, D.E.; Squires, J.R.; and McKelvey, K.S. 

1999. Comparative ecology of lynx in North America. Chapter 14 in Ecology and 

Conservation of Lynx in the United States the Scientific Basis for Lynx Conservation. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain 

Research Station.

Cahill, D.B. 1978. Cutting strategies as control measure of the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole 

pine in Colorado. In: A.A. Berryman, G.D. Amman and R.W. Stark (eds). ProceedingsSymposium on theory and practice of mountain pine beetle management in lodgepole 

pine forests. University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station.

Cerezke, H.F. 1995. Egg gallery, brood production, and adult characteristics of mountain pine 

beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), in three pine hosts. 

Canadian Entomologist 127: 955-965.

Chabot, D. 1991. The use of heart rate telemetry in assessing the metabolic cost of disturbances. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:256-

263.

Clement, J.M. and Cheng, A. 2008. Study of preferences and values on the Shoshone National 

Forest. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 19 p.

Cody Interagency Dispatch Center. 2012. Cody interagency dispatch zone fire danger rating 

operating plan May 2012 v1.0. Cody Interagency Dispatch Zone Coordinating Group, 

Cody, WY: 29 p.

Cole, D.M. 1989. Preventive strategies for lodgepole pine/mountain pine beetle problems: 

Opportunities for immature stands. In: Amman, G.D. (ed). Proceedings-Symposium on 

the management of lodgepole pine to minimize losses to the mountain pine beetle. 

General Technical Report INT-262. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

660

Cole, G.F. 1972. Grizzly bear – elk relationships in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of 

Wildlife Management, Vol. 36, No. 2, April 1972, pp. 556-561.

Cole, W.E.; Cahill, D.B.; and Lessard, G.D. 1983. Harvesting strategies for management of 

mountain pine beetle infestations in lodgepole pine: preliminary evaluation, East Long 

Creek demonstration area, Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming. Research Note INT333. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Cooperative Extension Service (USDA Forest Service; Natural Resource Conservation Service; 

Grazing Land Technology Institute; USDI Bureau of Land Management). 1996. 

Sampling vegetation attribute: interagency technical reference. Denver, CO: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044175.pdf. 

Copeland, J.P.; McKelvey, K.S.; Aubry, K.B.; Landa, A.; Persson, J.; Inman, R.M.; Krebs, J.; 

Lofroth, E.; Golden, H.; Squires, J.R.; Magoun, A.; Schwartz, M.K.; Wilmot, J.; 

Copeland, C.L.; Yates, R.E.; Kojola, I.; and May, R. 2010. The bioclimatic envelope of 

the wolverine (Gulo gulo): Do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution? 

Canadian Journal of Zoologigy 88:1-14.

Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C. J.; Green, G.; and Owens, M. 2008. Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in 

the United States, Regions and States: A National Report from the National Survey on 

Recreation and the Environment (NSRE).

Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Green, G.T.; Mou, S.; Leeworthy, V.R.; Wiley, P.C.; Barry, J.J.; and 

Hellerstein, D. 2004. Outdoor recreation for 21st century America: a report to the nation: 

The national survey on recreation and the environment. State College, PA: Venture 

Publishing. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice, Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Washington DC. http://www.whitehouse.gov/CEQ/

Crane, K. K.; Mosley, J. C.; Brewer, T. K.; Torstenson, W. L.F.; and Tess, M. W. 2001. Influence 

of cattle grazing on elk habitat selection; Proceedings, Western Section, American 

Society of Animal Science.

Dean Runyan Associates. 2011. Wyoming Travel Impacts: 1998-2010p Detailed State and 

County Estimates. Prepared for Wyoming Travel and Tourism. April 2011.

Debinski, D.M. 1994. Genetic diversity assessment in a metapopulation of the butterfly 

Euphydryas gillettii. Biological Conservation 70 (1994) 25-31.

Duda, M.; De Michele, P.; Bissell, S.; Wang, P.; Herrick, J.; Lanier, A.; et al. 2001. Public 

attitudes toward grizzly bear management in Wyoming. Harrisonburg, Virginia: 

Responsive Management National Office.

Ellingson, L.; Seidl, A.; and Mucklow, C.J. 2006. Tourists’ Value of Routt County’s Working 

Landscape, 2005. Economic Development Report, Department of Agricultural and 

Resource Economics, Fort Collins, CO, EDR 06-05, May.

English, D.B.K. 2010. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results, May 2010, Data collected FY 

2009, USDA Forest Service, Region 2, Shoshone National Forest.
Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

661

Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. U.S. Methane Emissions 1990 – 2020: Inventories, 

Projections, and Opportunities for Reductions. Washington, D.C.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Wyoming Area Designations for the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

(http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/2008standards/rec/eparesp/08_WY_tsd.pdf)

Esposito, V.; Phillips, S.; Boumans, R.; Moulaert, A.; and Boggs, J. 2011. Climate change and 

ecosystem services: The contribution of and impacts on federal public lands in the 

United States. In: Watson, A.; Murrieta-Saldivar, J.; McBride, B., comps. Science and 

stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Ninth World Wilderness Congress 

symposium; November 6−13, 2009. Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. Proceedings RMRS-P64. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. pp. 155−164.

Evenden, J.C. 1944. Montana’s 30-year mountain pine beetle infestation. Northern region Insect 

Control Report.

Fall, P. 1997. Fire history and composition of the subalpine forest of western Colorado during the 

Holocene. Journal of Biogeography. 24(3): 309-325. 

Foreyt, W.; Jenkins, E.J.; and Appleyard, G.D. 2009. Transmission of lungworms (Muellerius 

capilaaris) from domestic goats to bighorn sheep on common pasture. Journal of 

Wildlife Diseases 45(2): 272-278.

Fralish, J.S. and Franklin, S.B. 2002. Taxonomy and ecology of woody plants in North American 

forests (excluding Mexico and subtropical Florida). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc.: 612 pp.

French, S.P.; French, M.G.; and Knight. R.R. 1994. Grizzly bear use of army cutworm moths in 

the Yellowstone ecosystem. International Conference on Bear Research and 

Management 9:389-399. 

Furniss, M. M.; Livingston, R.L.; and McGregor, M.D. 1981. Development of a stand 

susceptibility classification for Douglas-fir beetle, pp. 115-128. In R. L. Hedden, S. J. 

Barras, and J. E. Coster [eds.], Proceedings, Symposium: Hazard-Ratings Systems in 

Forest Insect Pest Management. USDA Forest Service Washington Office. General Tech. 

Rep. WO-27, Washington, DC.

Furniss, M.M. 1962. Infestation patterns of Douglas-fir beetle in standing and windthrown trees 

in southern Idaho. J. Econ. Entomology 55:486-491. 

Gallant, A. L.; Hansen, A.J.; Councilman, J.S. 2003. Vegetation dynamics under fire exclusion 

and logging in a Rocky Mountain watershed, 1856-1996. Ecological Applications. 13: 

385-403.

Garber, C. S.; Wallen, R.L.; and Duffy, K.E. 1991. Distribution of boreal owl observation records 

in Wyoming. Journal of Raptor Research 25(4):120-122.

Gee, C.K. 1981. Estimating Economic Impacts of Adjustments in Grazing on Federal Lands and 

Estimating Federal Rangeland Forage Values. Technical Bulletin 143, Colorado State 

University, Agricultural Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

662

Gee, C.K. 1983. The Use of Linear Programming to Estimate Range Forage Values. 

Proceedings: Range Economics Symposium and Workshop, Salt Lake City, Utah. USDA 

Forest Service, General Technical Report, INT-149.

Gibson, K.E. 1989. Partial cutting (sanitation thinning) to reduce mountain pine beetle caused 

mortality. In: G.D. Amman (ed). Proceedings-Symposium on the management of 

lodgepole pine to minimize losses to the mountain pine beetle. General Technical Report 

INT-262. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 2007. Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude 

Bands. Datasets and Images. GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, Analysis Graphs and 

Plots. Available: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif.

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. 2006. Outdoor Recreation in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area An Interagency Report. Available on line if you want to use the link: 

http://fedgycc.org/RecreationintheGreaterYellowstoneArea.pdf.pdf 

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, Whitebark Pine Subcommittee. 2011. Whitebark 

pine strategy for the Greater Yellowstone Area. Available: 

http://fedgycc.org/WhitebarkPinePublicationsandArticles.htm. 

Green, G.I.; Mattson, D.J.; and Peek, J.M. 1997. Spring feeding of ungulate carcasses by grizzly 

bears in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1040-1055. 

Greer, A.J. 1994. The Nature of Federal Land Grazing Permits and Seasonal Grazing 

Dependencies in a Four-County Region in Southern Oregon, Oregon State University, 

Extension Service, Special Report 932, Corvallis Oregon.

Gresswell, R.E. 2009. Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/yellowstonecutthroattrout.pdf.

Griffin, P.C. and Mills, L.S. 2007. Precommercial thinning reduces snowshoe hare abundance in 

the short term. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(2):559-564.

Griffin, R. 2004. Administrative activity on closed roads in the upper swan, lower swan, and 

noisy face geographic units. Prepared for Swan View Coalition and Montana 

Ecosystems Defense Council. Kalispell, MT.

Grover, J.C. and Keinath, D.A. 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a 

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. October 25, 2006. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf [6/4/09].

Gunther, K.; Aber, B.; Bruscino, M.; Cain, S.; Frey, K.; Haroldson, M.; and Schwartz, C. 2011. 

Grizzly bear-human conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosytem. Pages 41-44 in 

Schwartz, C.C.; Haroldson, M.; and West, K. Editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear 

investigations: Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2010. U.S. 

Geological Survey. Bozeman, MT.
Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

663

Gunther, K.A. and Renkin, R. 1990. Grizzly bear predation on elk calves and other fauna of 

Yellowstone National Park. International Conference Bear Research and Management 

8:329-334. 

Hahn, W.F.; Crawford, T.L.; Nelson, K.E.; and Bowe, R.A. 1989. Estimating Forage Values for 

Grazing National Forest Lands, Staff Report No. 89-51, Commodity Economics 

Division, Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington D.C.

Halfpenny, J.; Murphy, K.; and Reinhart, D.1999. Lynx: Their Ecology and Biology and How 

Winter Recreation Effects Them. Pp. 49 to 64 in Olliff, T.; Legg, K.; and Kaeding, B. 

editors. Effect of winter recreation on wildlife of the Greater Yellowstone Area: a 

literature review and assessment. Report to the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating 

Committee. Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 315 pp.

Hanni, D.J.; Birek, J.; White, C.; Sparks, R.; and Blakesley, J. 2009. Monitoring Wyoming’s 

birds: 2008 field season report. Tech Rep. M-MWB08-01. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory, Brighton, CO, 91 pp.

Hansen, A. 2006. Yellowstone bioregional assessment: understanding the ecology and land use 

of the Greater Yellowstone. Technical Report #2. Bozeman, MT: Landscape Biodiversity 

Lab. 

Haroldson, M.A. 2011. Assessing trend and estimating population size from counts of 

unduplicated females. Pages 10-15 in Schwartz, C.C.; Haroldson M.A.; and West, K. 

Editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Annual report of the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team 2010. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, MT, USA.

Haroldson, M.A.; Schwartz, C.C.; Cherry, S.; and Moody, D. 2004. Possible effects of elk 

hunting on the fall distribution of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 68(1): 129-137.

Haroldson, M.A.; Ternent, M.A; Gunther, K.A.; and Schwartz, C.C. 2002. Grizzly bear denning 

chronology and movements in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ursus 13:29-37.

Harris, R. 1999. Abundance and characteristics of snags in western Montana forests. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-31. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 21p.

Harris, R.B.; Schwartz, C.C.; Haroldson, M.A.; and White, G.C. 2006. Trajectory of the greater 

Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bear population under alternative survival rates. Pages 

45–56 in Schwartz, C.C.; Haroldson, M.A.; White, G.C.; Harris, R.B.; Cherry, S.; 

Keating, K.A.; Moody, D.; and Servheen, C. Editors. Temporal, spatial and 

environmental influences on the demographics of grizzly bears in the greater 

Yellowstone ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs 161.

Havis, R. 2012. Shoshone National Forest Plan Revision, June 2012, Water yield simulations. 

USFS, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO.

Hayward, G. D. and Hayward, P. H. 1993. Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus), The Birds of North 

America Online (Poole, A. Editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from 

the Birds of North America Online. Available: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/063
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

664

Headwaters Economics. 2012. Economic Profile System- Human Dimension Tool. Profiles 

created for Fremont Hot Springs and Park County Wyoming for Federal payment 

information. 

Heidel, B. and Laursen, S. 2003. Botanical and Ecological Inventory of Peatland sites on the 

Shoshone National Forest. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of 

Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming.

Hester S.G. and Grenier M.B. 2005. A conservation plan for bats in Wyoming. Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department, Nongame Program, Lander, WY.

Hiedel, B. and Rodemaker, E. 2008. Inventory of Peatland Systems in the Beartooth Mountains. 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming.

Hilderbrand G.V.; Schwartz, C.C.; Robbins, C.; Jacoby, M.E.; Hanley, T.A.; Arthur, S.M.; and 

Servheen, C. 1999. Importance of meat, particularly salmon, to body size, population 

productivity, and conservation of North American brown bears. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 77:132-138.

Hillis, M. 1991. Defining elk security: the Hillis paradigm. In: Montana State University. 

Proceedings, elk security, April 10-12, 1991. Bozeman, MT. 38-43 p. 

Holmes, J.A. and Johnson, M.J. 2005. Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri): a technical 

conservation assessment. January 13, 2005. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/brewerssparrow.pdf [6/4/09].

Holmes, J.A. and Johnson, M.J. 2005a. Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/sagesparrow.pdf .

Holmes, M. and Berg, N. 2009. Greater Yellowstone ecosystem lynx study. Endeavor Research 

Foundation. Jackson, WY: http://www.yellowstone.co/pdfs/lynxstudy2009.pdf.

Holsten, E.H.; Thier, R.W.; Munson, A.S.; and Gibson, K.E. 1999. The spruce beetle. USDA 

Forest Service, Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 127 (revised 11/1999), 12 pp.

Houston, D.B. 1973. Wildfires in northern Yellowstone National Park. [JSTOR]. Ecological 

Society of America. 54(5). Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1935577. (04 June 

2008). 

Humphrey, A. 2009. Effectiveness of fenced exclosures in aspen regeneration: An examination 

of several fence types – Final Report. Wallowa Resources, Enterprise, OR.

Inman, R. M.; Packila, M. L.; Inman, K. H.; Aber, B.; Spence, R.; and McCauley, D. 2009. 

Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program, Progress Report – December 2009. Wildlife 

Conservation Society, North America Program, General Report, Bozeman, Montana, 

U.S.A.

Interagency Conservation Strategy Team. 2007. Final conservation strategy for the grizzly bear 

in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Missoula, MT. 160 pp.
Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

665

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 1998. Interagency grizzly bear committee taskforce report: 

Grizzly bear/motorized access management. Missoula, Montana. 8 pp.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. 1998. Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations, 1997. 

Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. 2009. Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations, 2008. 

Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. 2010. Whitebark pine cone production. USGS, Northern 

Rocky Mountain Science Center. Authors: Haroldson, M. and Podruzny, S. Available: 

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/IGBST/2010Wbp_FINAL.pdf.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. 2010. Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations, 2009. 

Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. 2011. Whitebark pine cone production. Authors: 

Haroldson, M. and Podruzny, S. USGS, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center. 

Available: http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/IGBST/2011WBPReport.pdf.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. 2011. Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations, 2010. 

Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate 

Change 2001. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/index.htm.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, 

Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M. and Miller, H.L. editors. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. Available: 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_

wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm.

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

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

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.

Joyce, L.A.; Blate, G.M.; Littell, J.S.; McNulty, S.G.; Millar, C.I.; Moser, S.C.; Neilson, R.P.; 

O’Halloran, K.; Peterson, D.L. 2008. Pp. 3-1 to 3-127. In preliminary review of 

adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A report by the U.S. 

climate change science program and the subcommittee on global change research 

[Julius, S.H. and West, J.M. (editors); Baron, J.S.; Griffith, B.; Joyce, L.A.; Kareiva, P.; 

Keller, B.D.; Palmer, M.A.; Peterson, C.H.; and Scot, J.M. (Authors)]. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Judd, S.L.; Knight, R.R.; and Blanchard, B.M. 1986. Denning of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone 

National Park area. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 6:111-

117. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

666

Keane, R.; Holsinger, L.; Parsons, R.; and Gray, K. 2008. Climate change effects on historical 

range and variability of two large landscapes in western Montana, USA. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 254:375-389. 

Keinath, D. and McGee, M. 2005. Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/borealtoad.pdf

Keinath, D.; Estes-Zumpf, W.; and Tronstad, L. 2009. Shoshone National Forest amphibian and 

invertebrate surveys: Survey results 2009. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 

Laramie, WY. 

Keinath, D.A. 2004. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. 

Octover 29, 2004. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf [6/4/09].

Keinath, D.A.; Andersen, M.D.; and Beauvais, G.P. 2010. Range and modeled distribution of 

Wyoming’s species of greatest conservation need. Report prepared by the Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database, Laramie Wyoming for the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming and the USGS, Fort Collins, Colorado. August 20, 

2010.

Kendall, K.C. 1983. Use of pine nuts by grizzly and black bears in the Yellowstone area. 

International Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:166-173.

Kennedy, P.L. 2003. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf 

Kerr, R. 1988. La Niña’s big chill replaces El Niño. Science 241: 1037-1038. 

Klaus, M. 2003. The status, habitat, and response to grazing of water voles populations in the 

Big Horn Mountains of Wyoming, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 35:100-

109.

Klaus, M. and Beauvais, G.P. 2004. Water Vole (Microtus richardsoni): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/watervole.pdf .

Kleindorfer, P.R.; Kunreuther, H.C.; and Shoemaker, P.J.H. 1993. Decisions Sciences: an 

interactive perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 470 pp. 

Knight, D.H. 1994. Mountains and plains, the ecology of Wyoming landscapes. Yale University 

Press.

Knight, R.R. and Judd, S. 1983. Grizzly bears that kill livestock. International Conference on 

Bear Research and Management 5:186-190.

Kotliar, N.B. 2007. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/olivesidedflycatcher.pdf .
Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

667

Kreutzweiser, D.; Sibley, P.; Richardson, J; and Gordon, A. 2012. Introduction and a theoretical 

basis for using disturbance by forest management activities to sustain aquatic 

ecosystems. The Society for Freshwater Science. 31(1): 224-231. Available: 

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1899/11-114.1. 

Kufeld, R.C. 1973. Foods eaten by the Rocky Mountain elk. Journal of Range Management 26: 

106-113

Landres, P. M.; Vagias, W. M.; and Stutzman, S. 2012. Using wilderness character to improve 

wilderness stewardship. Park Science. 28(3). 

Liebhold, A.M.; Gottschalk, K.W.; Muzika, R.; Montgomery, M.E.; Young, R.; O'Day, K.; and 

Kelley, B. 1995. Suitability of North American tree species to the gypsy moth: a 

summary of field and laboratory tests. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station, General Technical Report N E-211.

Littell, J.S.; Oneil, E.E.; McKenzie, D.; Hicke, J.A.; Lutz, J.A.; Norheim, R.A.; and Elsner, 

M.M. 2010. Forest ecosystems, disturbance, and climatic change in Washington State, 

USA. Climatic Change, 102(1/2), 129-158.

Loeffler, C. (editor). 2001. Conservation plan and agreement for the management and recovery 

of the Southern Rocky Mountain Population of the Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas). 

Boreal Toad Recovery Team and Technical Advisory Group, 97 pp. Available online: 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfCo

ncern/BorealToad/BorealToadRecovery.pdf

Lorah Ph. D., L.; Southwick, R.; and Allen, T. 2012. Conserving lands and prosperity: Seeking a 

proper balance between conservation and development in the Rocky Mountain West. 

Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development. 27 pp.

Lorenz, T. J.; Sullivan, K. A.; Bakian, A.V.; and Aubrey, C.A. 2011. Cache site selection in 

Clark’s nutcracker. The Auk 128:237-247.

Lotan, J.E.; Brown, J.K; Neuenswander, L.F. 1985. Role of fire in lodgepole pine forests. In: 

Baumgartner, D.M.; Krebill, R.G.; Arnott, J.T.; Weetman, G.F., editors. Proceedings, 

lodgepole pine: the species and its management. Pullman, WA: Washington State

University. 133-152. 

Luce, R.J. and Keinath, D. 2007. Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/spottedbat.pdf 

Lyon, L. J., and Christensen, A. G. 1992. A partial glossary of elk management terms. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-GTR-288, 

Portland, Oregon.

Macwhirter, R.B. and Bildstein, K.L. 1996. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), The Birds of 

North America Online (Poole, A. Editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved 

from the Birds of North America Online. Available: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/210doi:10.2173/bna.210
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

668

Magnan, N.; Seidl, A.; Mucklow, C.J.; and Alpe, D. 2005. The Value of Ranchland to Routt 

County Residents, 1998-2005. Economic Development Report, Department of 

Agricultural and Resource Economics, Fort Collins, CO, EDR 05-02, October.

Martin, J.W. and Carlson, B.A. 1998. Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli), The Birds of North 

America Online (Poole, A. Editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from 

the Birds of North America Online. Available: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/326doi:10.2173/bna.326

Massey, C.L. and Wygant, N.D. 1954. Biology and control of the Engelmann spruce beetle in 

Colorado. Circular No. 944, USDA 35 pp.

Mast, M.A. and Ingersoll, G.P. 2011. Trends in Lake Chemistry in Response to Atmospheric 

Deposition and Climate in Selected Class I Wilderness Areas in Colorado, Idaho, Utah, 

and Wyoming, 1993–2009: Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5123.

Mattson, D. J. and Knight, R.R. 1992. Spring bear use of ungulates in the Firehole River 

drainage of Yellowstone National Park. Pages 5-93 and 5-120 in Varley, J.D. and 

Brewster, W.G. eds., Wolves for Yellowstone? A report to the United States Congress, 

Volume IV Research and Analysis. National Park Service. Yellowstone National Park, 

Wyoming. 750 pp. 

Mattson, D.J. 1997. Use of ungulates by Yellowstone grizzly bears (Ursus arctos). Biological 

Conservation 81:161-177.

Mattson, D.J. and Knight, R.R. 1991. Application of Cumulative Effects Analysis to the 

Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Population. U.S.D.I. Natl. Park Serv. Interagency Grizzly 

Bear Study Team Report 1991.

Mattson, D.J. and Reinhart, D.P. 1995. Influences of cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) on 

behavior and reproduction of Yellowstone grizzly bears (Ursos arctos), 1975-1989. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:2072-2079.

Mattson, D.J. and Reinhart, D.P. 1997. Excavation of red squirrel middens by grizzly bears in the 

whitebark pine zone. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:936-940.

Mattson, D.J.; Blanchard, B.M.; and Knight, R.R. 1991. Food habits of Yellowstone grizzly 

bears, 1977-87. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:1619-1629.

Mattson, D.J.; Blanchard, B.M.; and Knight, R.R. 1992b. Yellowstone grizzly bear mortality, 

human habituation, and whitebark pine seed crops. Journal of Wildlife Management 

56:432-442. 

Mattson, D.J.; Gillin, C.M.; Benson, S.A.; and Knight, R.R. 1991b. Bear feeding activity at 

alpine insect aggregation sites in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Can. J. Zool. 69: 2430-

2435.

Mattson, D.J.; Knight, R.R.; and Blanchard, B.M. 1987. The effects of developments and 

primary roads on grizzly bear habitat use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 

International Conference on bear Research and Management 7:259-273.
Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

669

Mattson, D.J.; Reinhart, D.P.; and Blanchard, B.M. 1992a. Variation in production and bear use 

of whitebark pine seeds in the Yellowstone area. In Proceedings of plants and their 

environment: first biennial scientific conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

May, B.; Albeke, S.E.; and Horton, T. 2007. Range-wide status assessment for Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouveri): 2006. Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout 

Conservation Team Report. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT. 410 pp. 

McGregor, M.D. and Cole, D.M. eds. 1985. Integrating management strategies for the mountain 

pine beetle with multiple-resource management of lodgepole pine forests. USDA For. 

Serv., Intermtn. For. & Range Exp. Sta., Ogden, UT, GTR INT-1 74, 68 pp.

McGregor, M.D.; Amman, G.D.; Schmitz, R.F.; and Oakes, R.D. 1987. Partial cutting lodgepole 

pine stands to reduce losses to the mountain pine beetle. Can. J. For. Res. 17: 1234-1239.

McKenzie, D.; Peterson, D.L.; and Littell, J.J. 2009. Chapter 15: Global warming and stress 

complexes in forests of western North America. In: Bytnerowicz, A.; Arbaugh, M.J.; 

Riebau, A.R.; and Andersen, C. (Eds.), Wildland fires and air pollution (pp. 319-337).

Mehl, M.S. 1992. Old-growth descriptions for the major forest cover types in the Rocky 

Mountain Region. Pp. 106-120 In: Kaufmann, M.R.; Moir, W.H; and Bassett, R.L. (tech. 

Cords). Old-growth forests in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain regions: Proceedings 

of a workshop. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-213. Fort Collins, 

CO.

Menlove, J. 2008. Forest resources of the Shoshone National Forest. Fort Collins, CO: USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 16 pp. 

Messier, M.; Shatford, J.; and Hibbs, D. 2012. Fire exclusion effects on riparian forest dynamics 

in southwestern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 264: 60-71. 

Meyer, C.; Knight, D; Dillon, G. 2006. Historic variability for the upland vegetation of the 

Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming. Laramie, WY: Department of Botany, University 

of Wyoming.

Mielke, J.L. 1943. White pine blister rust in western North America. Yale Univ. School For., 

New Haven, Donn. Bulletin 52.

Mielke, J.L. 1957. The comandra blister rust in lodgepole pine. USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Research Station, Research Note INT-46.

Mikkelson K.M., Dickenson, E.R.V., Maxwell, R.M., McCray, J.E., and Sharp, J.O. 2012. Waterquality impacts from climate-induced forest die-off. Nature Clim. Change 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1724 (2012); published online 28 October 2012; 

corrected online 31 January 2013.

Millar, C.I.; Stevenson, N.L.; and Stephens, S.L. 2007. Climate Change and Forests of the 

Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17(8): 2145-2151.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2010. 2009 IMPLAN model for Fremont, Hot Springs, and 

Park County, Wyoming.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

670

Monitoring reports for the Shoshone National Forest, 1995-2009. Available: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/shoshone/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb520144

3

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2012. Montana Field 

Guide. Clark’s Nutcracker – Nucifraga columbiana. Retrieved on May 9, 2012, from 

http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_ABPAV08010.aspx. 

Murphy, K.; Wilmot, J.; Copeland, J.; Tyers, D.; Squires, J.; Inman, R. M.; Packila, M.L.; and 

McWhirter, D. 2011. Wolverine conservation in Yellowstone National Park: Final report. 

YCR-2011-02. National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Yellowstone Center 

for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.

National Academy of Sciences. 2006. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: 

Highlights of National Academies Reports. ( http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf)

National Interagency Fuels Technology Team. 2010. Interagency fire regime condition class 

(FRCC) guidebook: version 3.0. National Interagency Fuels, Fire & Vegetation 

Interagency Transfer. Available at http://www.fire.org/niftt/. 126 p.

NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. [accessed: 29 March 2012]. 

Negron, J.F. 1998. Probability of infestation and extent of mortality associated with the Douglasfir beetle in the Colorado Front Range. For. Ecol. Manage., 107: 71-85.

Negron, J.F.; Schaupp, Jr. W.C.; Gibson, K.E.; Anhold, J.; Hansen, D.; Thier, R.; and Mocettini, 

P. 1999. Estimating extent of mortality associated with the Douglas-fir beetle in the 

central and northern Rockies. West. J. Appl. For., 14: 121-127.

Nicholoff, S.H., compiler. 2003. Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0. Wyoming 

Partners In Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY.

NIFMID. 2011. National Interagency Fire Management Integrated Database (NIFMID). 

Available: https://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/kcfast/. 

Olliff, T.; Legg, K.; and Kaeding, B. editors. 1999. Effects of winter recreation on wildlife of the 

Greater Yellowstone Area: a literature review and assessment. Report to the Greater 

Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. Yellowstone. National Park, Wyoming. 315 pp.

Paige, C. and Ritter, S. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird 

communities. Partners In Flight, Western Working Group, Boise, ID.

Parmenter, A.W.; Hansen, A.; Kennedy, R.E.; Cohen, W.; Langner, U.; Lawrence, R.; Maxwell, 

B.; Gallant, A.; Aspinall, R. 2003. Land use and land cover change in the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem: 1975-1995. Ecological Applications. 13: 687-703.

Patla, D.A. and Keinath, D. 2005. Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris formerly R. 

pretiosa): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/columbiaspottedfrog.pdf
Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

671

Patterson, B.D.; Ceballos, G.; Sechrest, W.; Tognelli, M.F.; Brooks, T.; Luna, L.; Ortega, P.; 

Salazar, I.; and Young, B.E. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the 

Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer 

Perkins, D.L. and Roberts, D.W.. 2003. Predictive models of whitebark pine mortality from 

mountain pine beetle. Forest Ecology and Management 174 (2003) 495–510.

Perkins, J. M. and Cross, S. P. 1988. Differential use of some coniferous forest habitats by hoary 

and silver-haired bats in Oregon. Murrelet 69:21-24.

Perryman, B. 2001. Historic Fire Regimes and Shrub Demography. Journal of Range 

Management, 53:660-665

Perryman, J.S.; Olson, C.E. 1975. Impact of Potential Changes in BLM Grazing Policies on 

West-Central Wyoming Cattle Ranches, University of Wyoming, Agricultural 

Experiment Station, Research Journal 87, Laramie, Wyoming.

Podruzny, S. 2011. Occupancy of bear management units (BMU) by females with young. Page 

16 in C.C. Schwartz, C.C.; Haroldson, M.; and West, K. eds., Yellowstone grizzly bear 

investigations: Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2010. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Bozeman, MT, USA.

Podruzny, S.R.; Cherry, S.; Schwartz, C.C.; and Landenburger, L.A. 2002. Grizzly bear denning 

and potential conflict areas in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Urus 13:19-28. 

Potyondy, J.P. 2007. The evolution of channel maintenance science in the Forest Service. M. 

Furniss, C. Clifton, and K. Ronnenberg, eds., 2007. Advancing the fundamental 

sciences: proceedings of the Forest Service national earth sciences conference, San 

Diego, CA, 18-22 October 2004, PNW-GTR-689, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Raesly, E.J. 2001. Progress and status of river otter reintroduction projects in the United States. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001, 29(3):856-862.

Rasmussen, L.A.; Amman, G.D.; Vandygriff, J.C.; Oakes, R.D.; Munsen, A.S. and Gibson, K.E. 

1996. Bark beetle and wood borer infestation in the Greater Yellowstone Area during 

four postfire years. USDA For. Serv. Research Paper INT-RP-487. 10 pp.

Ratner, J. 2001. Army cutworm moth sites in the Wind River Range: A preliminary survey 2001. 

Prepared by Bradford Environmental Research Institute under contract to the Shoshone 

National Forest.

Ratner, J. 2003. Army cutworm moth sites in the Wind River Range: An expanded survey 2003. 

Prepared by Bradford Environmental Research Institute under contract to the Shoshone 

National Forest.

Rehm-Lorber, J. A.; Blakesley, J.A.; Pavlacky, Jr. D.C.; and Hanni, D.J. 2010. Monitoring the 

Birds of Wyoming: 2009 Field Season Report (Revised). Tech. Rep. M-MWB-09-01. 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO. 64 pp.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

672

Reinhart, D. P.; Haroldson, M.A.; Mattson, D.J.; and Gunther, K.A. 2001. Effects of exotic 

species on Yellowstone grizzly bears. Western North American Naturalist 61(3):227-288.

Renkin, R.A. and Gunther, K.A.. 1996. Predicting grizzly bear mortality in developed areas of 

Yellowstone Park. Bear Management Office, Yellowstone Center for the Resources, 

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 17 pp.

Retzlaff, M. 2010. RPA Nonmarket Values: Pricing Recreation in the National Forest System. 

Draft report under contract to EMC WO staff.

Rhoades, C.C., McCutchan, J.H., Cooper, L.A., Clow, D., Detmer, T.M., Briggs, J.S., Stednick, 

J.D., Veblen, T.T., Ertz, R.M., Likens, G.E., and Lewis, W.M. 2013. Biogeochemistry of 

beetle-killed forests: Explaining a weak nitrate response. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences.

Rice, J.; Tredennick, A.; Joyce, L.A. 2012. Climate change on the Shoshone National Forest, 

Wyoming: a synthesis of past climate, climate projections, and ecosystem implications. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-264. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Rimbey, N.; Torell, A.L. 2011. Grazing Costs: What’s the Current Situation? Prepared by 

University of Idaho Extension Agricultural Economist. Agricultural Economic Extension 

Series No 2011-02. March 22, 2011. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural 

Sociology. Moscow, Idaho. 8 pp.

Robertson, G. J. and Goudie, R. I. 1999. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), The Birds 

of North America Online (Poole, A. Editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 

Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online. Available: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/466doi:10.2173/bna.466

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. 2009. Historic and Current Elk Range Map. Website accessed 

8/12/2011. http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/ElkRange 

Romme, W.H.; Bohland, L.; Persichetty, C.; Caruso, T. 1995. Germination ecology of some 

common forest herbs in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine 

Research. 27(4). 407-412. 

Romme, W.H.; Turner, M.; Gardner, R.; Hargrove, W.; Tuskan, G. 1997. A rare episode of sexual 

reproduction in aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) following the 1988 Yellowstone 

fires. Natural Areas Journal. 17: 17-25. 

Romme, William H. and Knight, D.H. 1981. Fire frequency and subalpine forest succession 

along a topographic gradient in Wyoming. [JSTOR]. Ecological Society of America. 

62(2). http://www.jstor.org/stable/1936706. (04 June 2008).

Rotenberry, J.T.; Patten, M.A. and Preston, K. L. 1999. Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella breweri), The 

Birds of North America Online (Poole, A. Editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 

Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online. Available: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/390doi:10.2173/bna.390

Rowe, H.L. and Bartlett, E.T. 2001. Development and Federal Grazing Policy Impacts on Two 

Colorado Counties: A Comparative Study. Current Issues in Rangeland Resource 
Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

673

Economics, Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Western Coordinating 

Committee 55, New Mexico State University, Research Report 737, Las Cruces, New 

Mexico.

Rudolph, K. M.; Hunter, D. L.; Foreyt, W. J.; Cassirer, E. F.; Rimler, R. B.; and Ward, A.C.S. 

2003. Sharing of Pasteurella spp. between free-ranging bighorn sheep and feral goats. 

Journal of Wildlife Diseases 39:897-903.

Ruediger, B.; Claar, J.; Gniadek, S.; Holt, B.; Lewis, L.; Mighton, S.; Naney, B.; Patton, G.; 

Rinaldi, T.; Trick, J.; Vandehey, A.; Wahl, F.; Warren, N.; Wenger, D.; and Williamson, 

AL. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI 

National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp.

Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Buskirk, S.W. et al., tech. eds. 1999. Ecology and conservation of

lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO: 480 pp.

Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Buskirk, S.W.; Koehler, G.M.; Krebs, C.J.; McKelvey, K.S.; and 

Squires, J.R. 2000b. The scientific basis for lynx conservation: qualified insights. In 

Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Buskirk, S.W.; et al., tech. eds. The scientific basis for lynx 

conservation in the contiguous United States. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RMRS-GTR-30. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Savage, M. 1991. Structural dynamics of southwestern pine forest under chronic human 

influence. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 81(2): 271-289. 

Schmid, J.M. and Hinds. T.E. 1974. Development of spruce-fir stands following spruce beetle 

outbreaks. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, Research Paper RM-131.

Schmid, J.M. and R.H. Frye R.H. 1976. Stand ratings for spruce beetles. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Note RM-309.

Schwartz, C.C.; Haroldson, M.A.; and White, G.C. 2005. Reproductive performance for grizzly 

bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1983-2002. In Schwartz, C.C.; Haroldson, 

M. A.; White, G.C.; Harris, R.B.; Cherry, S.; Keating, K.A.; Moody, D.; and Servheen, 

C. authors. Temporal, spatial, and environmental influences on the demographics of 

grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs.

Schwartz, C.C.; Haroldson, M.A.; Gunther, K.A.; and Moody, D.S. 2002. Distribution of grizzly 

bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1990-2000. Ursus 13:203-212.

Schwartz, M.K.; Copeland, J.P.; Anderson, N.J.; Squires, J.R.; Inman, R.M.; Mckelvey, K.S.; 

Pligrim, K.L.; Waits, L.P.; and Cushman, S.A. 2009. Wolverine gene flow across a 

narrow climatic niche. Ecology 79:2170-2179.

Scott, D.W. 2002. “Untrammeled,” “wilderness character,” and the challenges of wilderness 

preservation. Wild Earth 11(3/4):72–79.

Singer, F.J.; Zeigenfuss, L.C.; and Spicer, L. 2001. Role of patch size, disease, and movement in 

rapid extinction of bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology 15:1347-1354.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

674

Slater, G.L. 2004. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/grasshoppersparrow.pdf .

Slater, G.L. 2006. Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator): a technical conservation assessment. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/trumpeterswan.pdf .

Slater, G.L. and Rock, C. 2005. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernharrier.pdf

Smith, B.E. and Keinath, D.A. 2007. Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernleopardfrog.pdf.

Smith, H. and Keinath, D.A. 2004. Species assessment for northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

in Wyoming. Prepared for the US Depart. of Interior, Bureau of Land Mgmt, Cheyenne, 

WY. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 

Smith, H.; Beauvais, G.P.; and Keinath, D.A. 2005. Survey of historic northern goshawk 

(Accipiter gentilis) locations on the Shoshone National Forest – 2004. Prepared for the 

Shoshone N.F., Cody, WY. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

Smith, N.; Deal, R.; Kline, J.; Blahna, D.; Patterson, T.; Spies, T.A.; and Bennett, K. 2011. 

Ecosystem services as a framework for forest stewardship: Deschutes National Forest 

overview. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-GTR-852. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 pp. 

Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and 

interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Posted electronically at 

http:/soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/taxonomy/.

Squires, J.R. and Reynolds, R.T. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), The Birds of 

North America Online (Poole, A. Editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved 

from the Birds of North America Online. Available: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298doi:10.2173/bna.298

Squires, J.R. and Ruggiero, L.F. 1996. Nest-site preference of Northern Goshawk in southcentral Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management. 60: 170-177.

Stasiak, R. 2006. Lake Chub (Couesius plumbeus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lakechub.pdf

State of Wyoming. 2009. Wyoming statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation guide. 

Cheyenne, WY. 10p.

Stein, S.M.; Alig, R.J.; White, E.M.; Comas, S.J. et al. 2007. National forests on the edge: 

Development pressures on America’s national forests and grasslands (Gen. Tech. Rep. 
Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

675

PNWGTR- 728, 26 pp.). Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station.

Stevenson, N.L. and Millar, C.I. 2012 Climate Change: Wilderness’s greatest challenge, Park 

Science. 28(3).

Taylor, D.T.; Foulke, T.; and Coupal, R.H. 2012. An economic profile of the Shoshone National 

Forest. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming department of agricultural and applied 

economics. On file at the Supervisor’s Office, Shoshone National Forest. 93 pp. 

Taylor, R.G.; Bartlett, E.T.; and Lair, K.D. 1992. Seasonal Dependency on Federal Forage in 

Colorado. Journal of Range Management, 34(5):373-376.

The Outdoor Foundation. 2011. Outdoor Recreation Participation Report. 

http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/research.participation.2011.html.

Thompson, M.; and Henderson, R. 1998. Elk habituation as a credibility challenge for wildlife 

professionals. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26 (3):477-483.

Tinker, D. and Knight, D. 2000. Coarse woody debris following fire and logging in Wyoming 

lodgepole pine forests. Ecosystems. 3: 472-483. 

Tinker, D.B.; Resor, C.A.C.; Beauvais, G.P.; Kipfmueller, K.F.; Fernandes, C.L.; and Baker, 

W.L. 1998. Watershed analysis of forest fragmentation by clearcuts and roads in a 

Wyoming forest. Landscape Ecology. 13: 149-165.

Tinker, D.B.; Romme, W.H.; and Despain, D.G. 2003. Historic range of variability in landscape 

structure in subalpine forests of the Greater Yellowstone Area, USA. Landscape 

Ecology. 18: 427-439. 

Tomback, D.F.; Arno, S.F.; and Keane, R.E. 2001. The compelling case for management 

intervention. In: Tomback, D.F.; Arno, S.F.; and Keane, R.E (editors). Whitebark pine

communities: ecology and restoration. Washington: Island Press. 3-25. 

Tombeck, D.F. 1998. Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana). Species Account Number 331. 

The Birds of North America Online (Poole, A. Editor) Ithaca, NY: Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology. Available: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna.

Torell, L.A.; Garrett, J.R.; and Ching, C.T.K. 1981. The Economic Effects of Three Changes in 

Public Lands Grazing Policies. Journal of Range Management, 34(5):373-376.

Travsky, A. and Beauvais, G.P. 2005. Species assessment for the ferruginous hawk (Buteo 

regalis) in Wyoming. Prepared for the USDI Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, 

WY. 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2011. Methane as a Greenhouse Gas CCSP Research 

Highlight 1 (January 2006). August 22, 2011. Available online at 

http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/highlight1/default.htm

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2011. Regional Economic 

Information System, (http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/).
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

676

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1990. 1990 census of population, social and economic 

characteristics of Colorado. Bureau of the Census. Washington DC. www.census.gov.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. 2000 census of population, social and economic 

characteristics of Colorado. Bureau of the Census. Washington DC. www.census.gov.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2010. 2010 census of population, social and economic 

characteristics of Colorado. Bureau of the Census. Washington DC. www.census.gov.

USDA Forest Service.1977. The visual management system. Agricultural Handbook. National 

forest landscape management, Volume 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office: 462.

USDA Forest Service. 1980. Grassland and shrubland habitat types of the Shoshone National 

Forest. Cody, WY: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Shoshone National 

Forest. 143 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1983. New directions in management on the Bighorn, Shoshone, and 

Bridger-Teton National Forests. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service: 90p.

USDA Forest Service. 1983a. Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho-western Wyoming. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT-144. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 122 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Integrating management strategies for the mountain pine beetle 

with multiple resource management of lodgepole pine forests. Eds. McGregor, Mark and 

Cole, Dennis. General Technical Report INT-174. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Sexual reproduction, seeds, and seedlings. Author: Walter 

McDonough. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-119. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Management Station: 

25-28.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Regeneration of aspen by suckering on burned sites in western 

Wyoming. Authors: Bartos, D.; Mueggler, W.; and Campbell Jr., R. Res. Pap. INT-448. 

Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 10 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Allowable sale quantity amendment to the 1986 Forest Plan. On file 

at the Supervisor’s Office, Shoshone National Forest. Cody, WY.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Challenges, Facing Resource Management and Research. No. 2. 

People and Natural Resource RD&A Program, Seattle Forestry Sciences Lab. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. Seattle, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. 

Agriculture Handbook 701.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Record of decision for oil and gas leasing. Shoshone National 

Forest. Cody, WY.
Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

677

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Rocky Mountain Region. Rangeland analysis and management 

training guide. Denver, CO: http://www.rosemonteis.us/files/references/usfs-1996.pdf. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Environmental assessment for management of noxious weeds and 

undesirable plants on the Shoshone National Forest. On file at the Supervisor’s Office, 

Shoshone National Forest. Cody, WY. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Line Creek Plateau Research Natural Area decision notice, finding 

of no significant impact, and designation order. Shoshone National Forest and Custer 

National Forest. On file at the Supervisor’s Office, Shoshone National Forest. Cody, 

WY. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Riparian and wetland plant community types of the Shoshone 

National Forest. Authors: Walford, G.; Jones, G.; Fertig, W.; Mellman-Brown, S.; and 

Houston, K. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-85. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 122 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Symposium proceedings, sustaining aspen in western landscapes: 

13–15 June 2000, Grand Junction, CO. Compilers: Sheppherd, W.; Binkley, D; Bartos, 

D.; Stohlgren, T.; and Eskew, L. Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 460 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Documentation of the Biological Assessment process For the 

Proposed and Listed Species related to Commercial Livestock Grazing on the Shoshone 

National Forest. Shoshone National Forest. Cody, WY. 62 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Understanding Community-Forest Relations. PNW-GTR-566. 

Technical Editor Linda E. Kruger. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Seattle, 

Washington.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Occupancy and Use Order No. 04-00-104 Special Order—Food 

Storage and Sanitation. Rocky Mountain Region and Intermountain Region, Forest 

Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Rocky Mountain Region. Tech. coordinator: David Winters. 

Contributors: David Cooper, Jeffrey Hamerlinck, Nancy Lee, James Maxwell, Douglas 

Peterson, LeRoyPoff, Frank Rahel, Dennis Staley, and Ellen Wohl. Ed. Molly Welker. 

Aquatic, riparian, and wetland ecosystem assessment: Bighorn National Forest, 

Wyoming. Report 1 of 3. Introduction and ecological driver analysis. Denver, CO.

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/brewerssparrow.pdf .

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction - Record of 

Decision. USDA Forest Service, National Forests in Montana, parts of Idaho, Wyoming, 

and Utah. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/documents.htm. 71 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Shoshone National Forest invasive plant action plan. Shoshone 

National Forest. Cody, WY. 15 pp. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

678

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Watershed condition assessment: Shoshone National Forest. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Continental Divide National Scenic Trail comprehensive plan. 

www.fs.fed.us/cdt/. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Ecosystem Diversity Report: Shoshone National Forest. Version 

4.0. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Wyoming's Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2005. 

Resource Bulletin. RMRS-RB-9. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO: 

28 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Comprehensive evaluation report: Shoshone National Forest, 

Version 3.0. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region.

USDA Forest Service 2010a National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change.

USDA Forest Service 2010b. Shoshone National Riparian Condition Maintained in the Shoshone 

National Forest Geographic Information Systems Library. 808 Meadow Lane. Cody, WY 

82414.

USDA Forest Service 2010c. Wilderness Air Quality Value Plan. Shoshone National Forest. May 

2010. 36 pp.

USDA Forest Service 2010d. Forest plan monitoring report for fiscal year 2009: Shoshone 

National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. Region, Cody, WY.

USDA Forest Service. 2010e. Biological Assessment Livestock Grazing Permit Issuance (2010) 

and Addendum to Documentation of the Biological Assessment Process for Proposed 

and Listed Species Related to Commercial Livestock Grazing on the Shoshone National 

Forest. Shoshone National Forest, Cody, WY. 16 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest plan monitoring report for fiscal year 2009: Shoshone 

National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. Region, Cody, WY.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Visitor Use Report: Shoshone: Region 2, National Visitor Use 

Monitoring, March 2011.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Framework. FS-977.

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. 2011 Amendment to the 2003 biological assessment for 

commercial livestock grazing on the Shoshone National Forest. Cody, WY.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Land Area of the National Forest System, 2011 Report. Table 6, 

National Forest System Acres by State, Congressional District and County.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Quick-Silver: An Economic Analysis Tool, version 7.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Shoshone National Forest. Shoshone National Forest: Final analysis 

of the management situation. Cody, WY. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/shoshone/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb520144

3 
Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

679

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Shoshone National Forest: Proposed Draft Plan. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Shoshone National Forest Aquatic Nuisance Species Action Plan. 

Shoshone National Forest

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004. The healthy forests 

initiative and health forest restoration act interim field guide, FS-799. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management. 58 pp.

USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management; and Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department. 2012. Wyoming: Domestic Sheep and Bighorn Sheep Distribution Map. 

February 2012.

USDA Forest Service; USDI Park Service; and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1990. Nez 

Perce National Historic Trail comprehensive management plan. Missoula, MT. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/npnht/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsbdev3_055670. 

USDA Forest Service; USDI U.S. Geological Survey; and The Nature Conservancy. 2011. 

Landscape fire and resource management planning tools (LANDFIRE). 

http://www.landfire.gov/

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. 

TR 1737-9 1993.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Proper Functioning Condition Work Group. Riparian 

area management: Process for assessing proper functioning condition. Denver, CO. 

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/Final%20TR%201737-9.pdf. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2009. Reasonable foreseeable development scenario for oil 

and gas Lander field office, Wyoming (Draft), February 9, 2009.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Reasonable foreseeable development scenario for oil 

and gas, Bighorn Basin planning area Wyoming, November 8, 2010.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula MT. 181 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice 

of Remanded Determination of Status for the Continuous United States Distinct 

Population of the Canada Lynx; Clarification of Findings; Final Rule. July 3, 2003. 

Federal Register 68(128): 40076-40101.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final 

Rule Designating the Greater Yellowstone Area Population of Grizzly Bears as a Distinct 

Population Segment; Removing the Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment of Grizzly 

Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on 

a Petition to List as Endangered the Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment of Grizzly 

bears. March 29, 2007. Federal Register 72(60): 14866-14938.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National bald eagle management guidelines. USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

680

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. 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. 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/74FR15123.pdf. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 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. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised 

designation of critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population 

segment of the Canada lynx; final rule. 50 CFR 17. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 36. 

February 25, 2009. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Reinstatement of Protections for the Grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

in Compliance with Court Order, Final Rule. March 26, 2010. Federal Register 75(58): 

14496-14498. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Trumpeter swan survey of the Rocky Mountain 

population, U.S. breeding segment- Fall 2010. US Dept. of Interior, USFWS. MountainPrairie Region, Lakewood, CO.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Authors: Jimenez, M.D.; Smith, D.W.; Becker, S.A.; 

Stahler, D.R.; Stahler, E.; Metz, M.; McIntyre, R.; Irving, J.; Raymond, R.; Anton, C.; 

Kindermann, R.; Bowersock, N.; and Krischke, R.F. 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.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service; USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management; and 

USDI National Park Service. 2000. Ruediger, B; Claar, J.; Gniadek, S.; Holt, B.; Lewis, 

L.; Mighton, S.; Naney, B.; Patton, G.; Rinaldi, T.; Trick, J.; Vandehey, A.; Wahl, F.; 

Warren, N.; Wenger, D.; and Williamson, A. Canada lynx conservation assessment and 

strategy. Missoula, MT.

Van de Water, K. and North, M. 2011. Stand structure, fuel loads, and fire behavior in riparian 

and upland forests, Sierra Nevada Mountains, USA: a comparison of current and 

reconstructed conditions. Forest Ecology and Management. 262: 215-228. 

Van Tassell, L.W. and Richardson, J.W. 1998. Impact of Federal Grazing Reductions on 

Wyoming Ranches. Stubble Height and Utilization Measurements: Uses and Misuses, 

Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 682, Corvallis, 

Oregon.

Vaughan, D.M. and Shepherd, M. D. 2005. Species Profile: Euphydryas gillettii. In Shepherd, M. 

D.; Vaughan, D. M.; and Black, S. H. (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North 

America. CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, OR:The Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation.
Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

681

Vickery, P.D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), The Birds of North 

America Online (Poole, A. Editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from 

the Birds of North America Online. Available: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/239doi:10.2173/bna.239

Wallmo, O.C.; Gill, R.B.; Carpenter, L.H.; and Riechert, D.W. 1973. Accuracy of field estimates 

of deer food habits. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 37(4): 556-562. 

Watson, P.; Wilson, J.; Thilmany, D.; and Winter, S. 2007. Determining Economic Contributions 

and Impacts: What is the difference and why do we care? The Journal of Regional 

Analysis and Policy. 37(2):1-15.

Weatherby, J.C. and R.W. Thier. 1993. A preliminary validation of a Douglas-fir beetle hazard 

rating system: Mountain Home Ranger District, Boise National Forest, 1992. USDA 

Forest Service, Biological Evaluation R4-93-05.

Weldon, G.A.; Hall, R.A.; Cohen, D.L.; and Roberson, R. 2008. Fuel treatment effectiveness 

report: Gunbarrel wildland fire use. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Shoshone NF, 12 p.

White, C.M.; Clum, N.J.; Cade, T.J.; and Hunt, W.G. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), 

The Birds of North America Online (Poole, A. Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 

Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online. Available: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/660doi:10.2173/bna.660

Whitlock, C. 1993. Postglacial vegetation and climate of Grand Teton and southern Yellowstone 

National Parks. Ecological Monographs. 63(2): 173-198. 

Wiggins, D. 2004. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. September 22, 2004. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/shortearedowl.pdf [accessed: 

26 March 2012].

Wiggins, D. 2005. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/harlequinduck.pdf .

Wiggins, D. 2005. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. February 10, 

2005. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/loggerheadshrike.pdf 

[accessed 26 March 2012].

Wiggins, D. A.; Holt, D.W.; and Leasure, S.M. 2006. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus), The 

Birds of North America Online (Poole, A. Editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 

Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online. Available: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/062

Wildlife Conservation Society. 2010. Modeled potential wolverine habitat throughout the 

wolverine historic range in the U.S. Rocky Mountains- Map. WCS- North America 

Program, Bozeman, MT.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

682

Williams, E.H. 1995. Fire-burned habitat and reintroductions of the butterfly Euphydryas gillettii

(Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterist’s Society. 49(3), 1995, 183-191.

Woods & Poole Economics. 2010. State Profile: Montana and Wyoming. May 2010.

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis Division. 2010. 

Equality State Almanac 2009.

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis Division. 2011. 

Demographic Profiles Available: http://eadiv.state.wy.us/Demog_data/ 

pop2010/pop10.html

Wyoming Department of Education. 1998-2010. Statistical Report Series. Available: 

http://www.k12.wy.us/TCD/data.asp.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division. March 26, 2009. State of 

Wyoming Technical Support Document I For Recommended 8-Hour Ozone Designation 

for the Upper Green River Basin, Wyoming.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2003. Threatened, endangered, and nongame bird and 

mammal investigations. Lander, WY. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2003. Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan. 

Cheyenne, WY.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2004b. Final Report and Recommendations. Appendix M. 

Available: http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/sheep/index.asp

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2008. Threatened, endangered, and nongame bird and 

mammal investigations. Lander, WY. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2009. Threatened, endangered, and nongame bird and 

mammal investigations – Annual completion report. September 2009. Cheyenne, WY.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2009a. Annual big game herd unit report: Cody region. 

Cheyenne, WY.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2009b. Annual big game herd unit report: Lander region. 

Cheyenne, WY.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2010. Annual report of small and upland game harvest –

2009. Cheyenne, WY.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2010. Annual big game herd unit report: Cody region. 

Cheyenne, WY.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2010a. Wyoming wildlife action plan. Cheyenne, WY.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2010b. Threatened, endangered, and nongame bird and 

mammal investigations – Annual completion report May 2010. Cheyenne, WY.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2010c. Annual big game herd unit report: Lander region. 

Cheyenne, WY.
Environmental Impact Statement – Literature Cited

683

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2010d. Recommendations for development of oil and gas 

resources within important wildlife habitat. Cheyenne, WY 82006.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2011. Stream and lake fish species inventory data. 

Maintained by WGFD, Cheyenne, WY 82006.

Wyoming Range Service Team. 2008. Wyoming rangeland monitoring guide: a cooperative and 

voluntary approach to monitoring rangelands, version 2. ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WY/Range/wy_rangeland_monitoring_guide.pdf. 

Wyoming State Governor. 2011. Executive Order 2011-5: Greater sage-grouse core area 

protection. Office of the Governor, Cheyenne, WY.

Wyoming State-wide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group. 2004. Final Report 

and Recommendations. 18 pp. http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/sheep/index.asp

Yosef, Reuven. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), The Birds of North America 

Online (Poole, A. Editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds 

of North America Online. Available: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/231

Zahniser, H. 1956. The need for wilderness areas. The Living Wilderness 59 (Winter to 

Spring):37–43.

Environmental Impact Statement – Index

685

Index

Air quality, 92, 112

Allowable sale quantity, xxiii, 440, 635

Alpine, xiii, 13, 121, 139, 144, 344, 420

American marten, 191, 194, 195, 296, 657

American peregrine falcon, 281

Aquatic invasive species, 323, 404, 407

Aspen, xiii, 13, 19, 123, 130, 140, 208, 285, 

286

Aspen decline, 386

Bald eagle, 260

Big game winter range, 297, 636

bighorn sheep core habitat, 612

Black-backed woodpecker, 203

Boreal owl, 207

Boreal western toad, 270, 271

Brewer's sparrow, 227, 287

Campgrounds, 503

Canada Lynx Habitat on the Shoshone, 156

Choristoneura occidentalis. See Western 

spruce budworm

Columbia spotted frog, 270

Comandra blister rust, 386

Comandra umbellata. See Comandra blister 

rust

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, 

28, 50, 492, 493, 494, 509, 520

Counties, 1, 155, 361, 606

Cronartium ribicola. See White pine blister 

rust

Cross-country skiing, 7, 46, 159, 310, 330, 

495

Crucial winter range, 472, 636

Decision Framework, vii, 4

Dendroctonus pseudotsugae. See Douglasfir beetle

Desired Condition, 25, 82, 108, 134, 285, 

288, 291, 295, 305, 308, 311, 313, 323, 

366, 397, 404, 420, 438, 456, 467, 480, 

546, 553, 560, 571, 608

Disease, 141, 143, 298, 306, 307, 372, 380, 

574

Diseases

aspen decline, 386

comandra blister rust, 386

dwarf mistletoe, 386

white pine blister rust, 386

Douglas-fir, xiii, 13, 120, 124, 128, 139, 

140, 141, 144, 191, 195, 201, 211, 540

Douglas-fir beetle, 385

Dunoir, 8, 9, 10, 26, 27, 32, 37, 40, 464, 

496, 506, 507, 508, 524, 546

Dwarf mistletoe, 386

Elk

Rocky Mountain elk, xv, 138, 293, 294, 

296

Facilities, x, 9, 24, 29, 35, 38, 74, 75, 174, 

182, 316, 348, 367, 368, 375, 404, 406, 

427, 450, 451, 452, 454, 455, 458, 478, 

480, 489, 490, 498, 501, 502, 503, 504, 

511, 516, 521, 523, 561, 584, 620, 639, 

640, 643

Fens, 133, 143, 144, 342, 344, 348

Ferruginous hawk, 232

Fire, xv, 25, 87, 113, 119, 126, 130, 131, 

134, 137, 140, 143, 155, 192, 201, 203, 

205, 207, 208, 211, 212, 215, 216, 228, 

238, 257, 263, 271, 278, 288, 314, 327, 

347, 355, 358, 361, 362, 363, 366, 369, 

372, 373, 377, 386, 399, 405, 431, 515, 

541, 561, 566, 574, 637, 641, 643, 659, 

669

Fish, vi, xiv, xvi, 17, 18, 71, 81, 151, 196, 

197, 198, 321, 322, 334, 538, 611, 628, 

636, 641, 642, 647, 662

Floodplain, 81, 83, 86, 320, 323, 540, 625

Forest products, xv, xvi, 14, 28, 98, 119, 

147, 438, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 488, 

500, 564, 574, 651

Fremont, 1, 5, 96, 155, 353, 361, 364, 396, 

397, 402, 437, 497, 590, 593, 594, 595, 

596, 603, 604, 605, 621, 628, 651

Fringed myotis, 277

Geophysical, 463, 642

Glacier Addition, 26, 497, 525

Goals, 25, 620

Grasshopper sparrow, 234

Grasslands, 13, 70, 122

Gray wolf, 197

Greater sage-grouse, 237, 242

Greater Yellowstone Area, vi, xiv, 2, 18, 50, 

53, 79, 145, 155, 160, 161, 164, 168, 169, 

171, 174, 179, 182, 183, 294, 343, 350, 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

686

353, 365, 396, 402, 489, 516, 539, 552, 

635, 642, 647

Greybull Ranger District, 415, 454

Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy, xiv

Gypsy moth, 385

Harlequin duck, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267

Harvest, 48, 212, 304, 306, 324, 440, 448, 

483

High Lakes Wilderness Study Area, 8, 9, 

10, 26, 27, 32, 464, 508, 525, 546

Hoary bat, 193, 200, 201

Hot Springs, 1, 5, 96, 361, 396, 397, 402, 

590, 593, 594, 595, 596, 603, 604, 605, 

621, 628, 651

Insects and disease, 141, 143, 372, 380, 574

Integrated pest management, 381, 392

Invasive plants, xvi, 228, 239, 288, 394, 563

Inventoried roadless areas, 33, 35, 38, 41, 

43, 45, 48, 53, 544, 546

Kirwin Historical Site, 519, 520, 559, 561, 

562, 563

Lake chub, 322, 335

Lander, 1, 78, 157, 170, 171, 294, 308, 331, 

404, 563

Lands, xvi, xx, xxii, 19, 20, 37, 40, 84, 259, 

265, 421, 438, 460, 461, 462, 463, 465, 

466, 469, 475, 540, 587, 590, 627

Leasable, 465, 468, 645

Limber pine, 13, 125, 140, 141

Little Popo Agie Moraine, xvii, 12, 27, 34, 

37, 40, 47, 342, 353, 519, 553, 559, 560, 

561, 562

Livestock, xviii, 49, 75, 88, 137, 141, 144, 

166, 171, 180, 182, 183, 197, 198, 199, 

228, 230, 233, 234, 239, 241, 243, 250, 

259, 264, 286, 288, 311, 328, 344, 399, 

408, 416, 422, 427, 431, 556, 561, 562, 

615

grazing, 138, 171, 218, 219, 408, 669

Locatable, 464, 468, 645

Lodgepole pine, 13, 124

Loggerhead shrike, 242, 243, 245

Lymantria dispar. See Gypsy moth

Management areas

1.1, 26, 97, 416, 497, 506

1.1A, 26, 506

1.2, 310

1.3, 26, 97, 310, 546

1.6A, 27, 506, 508

1.6B, xvi, 27, 506

2.2A, 27, 439, 459, 497, 506, 508

2.3, 27, 439, 459, 506, 508

3.1A, 27, 459, 506, 508

3.1B, 27, 439, 508

3.1C, 27, 506, 508

3.3A, 27, 97, 439

3.3B, 28, 439

3.3C, 28, 439

3.5 A-D, 48

3.6A, 28

3.6B, 28

4.2, 28, 439, 529, 574

4.3, 28, 90, 439

4.5A, 28, 439, 440

5.1, 28, 33, 43, 45, 91, 97, 298, 387, 388, 

405, 439, 481, 482, 529

5.2, 28, 439, 529, 547

5.4, xv, xvi, 28, 33, 38, 42, 43, 152, 298, 

306, 387, 439, 529

8.1, 29, 439, 468

8.2, 29, 439, 468

Management indicator species, vi, 18, 19, 

153, 285, 322, 325, 326, 328, 329, 645

Minerals, 179, 279, 460, 461, 462, 645

Monitoring, 7, 22, 72, 79, 102, 103, 107, 

119, 169, 172, 173, 174, 186, 192, 196, 

201, 205, 209, 212, 216, 224, 230, 233, 

236, 240, 245, 247, 251, 254, 258, 261, 

264, 269, 273, 279, 283, 432, 458, 501, 

533, 534, 623

Mountain pine beetle, 382

Mountain suckers, 322, 335

Mule deer, 304, 305

Municipal watersheds, 77

National Forest System roads, 474

Nez Perce National Historic Trail, 28, 492, 

495, 511

North American wolverine, 187

Northern goshawk, 210, 214

Northern harrier, 246

Northern leopard frog, 270

Northern Rockies Lynx Management 

Direction, vi, xiv, 151, 154, 187, 516

Oil and gas leasing, 19, 460, 462, 465, 466, 

468

Olive-sided flycatcher, 215

Peregrine falcon, 281, 282

Proposed Action, vii, 1, 4

Purpose and Need, vii, 3

Ranger Districts, 1, 45, 170, 365, 415

Red-breasted nuthatch, 19, 290, 292

Reforestation, 441
Environmental Impact Statement – Index

687

Research Natural Area, vi, 10, 27, 32, 50, 

338, 342, 343, 350, 353, 459, 517, 550

Revision Topics, viii, 3, 6, 31, 34, 36, 39, 

41, 44, 46, 514

Rights-of-way, 456

Riparian communities, 133

River otter, 253

Roadless Rule, 24, 30, 33, 35, 38, 41, 43, 

45, 48, 51, 544, 545, 546, 547, 549

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, 217

Rocky Mountain elk, 293, 307

Root diseases

Annosus, 387

Armillaria, 387

Sage sparrow, 227

Sagebrush, 13, 19, 122, 123, 139, 374

Scenery, 21, 495, 538, 564, 566, 567, 572, 

573, 612

Scenic byway, 28, 504, 574, 575

seismic, 465

Seismic, 19, 642

Short-eared owl, 249, 250

Skiing, 7, 46, 159, 310, 330, 488, 490, 495, 

496, 521

Soils, 80, 82, 88, 122, 625

Special forest products, 444

Special interest areas, xvii, 12, 21, 50, 559

Special uses, 7, 29, 71, 174, 302, 349, 350, 

399, 449, 453, 455, 459, 503, 518, 519, 

526, 540, 557, 584, 587, 650

Spotted bat, 277

Spruce, 13, 124, 191, 384

Sublette, 1, 96, 97, 99, 155, 294, 590

Swamp Lake Botanical, xvii, 12, 27, 32, 

133, 267, 268, 338, 342, 347, 353, 559, 

561, 562

Teton, 1, 2, 20, 50, 96, 155, 253, 257, 456, 

466, 498, 590, 628, 642

Threatened and Endangered Species, 625

Townsend's big-eared bat, 277

Transportation, 332, 476, 492, 585, 628

Trumpeter swan, 190, 267, 268

Utility corridor, 401, 456, 458

Vegetation, xiii, 3, 6, 13, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 

40, 42, 45, 47, 48, 70, 82, 84, 115, 119, 

127, 142, 152, 431, 480, 540, 553, 561, 

576, 612, 652

Visual resource, 456, 564, 567, 577, 578

Wapiti, 1, 10, 29, 37, 45, 155, 170

Washakie Ranger District

Lander, 1, 9, 10, 25, 26, 27, 32, 45, 96, 

103, 121, 122, 123, 127, 155, 157, 166, 

170, 218, 224, 228, 238, 287, 310, 320, 

332, 365, 407

Water vole, 256, 257

Watershed, 21, 52, 71, 72, 73, 78, 317, 318, 

319

Western spruce budworm, 385

Wetlands, 80, 81, 560, 625

Whiskey Mountain Herd, 219

White pine blister rust, 386

Whitebark pine, xiii, 13, 125, 140, 162, 313, 

340, 343, 673

Wilderness, vi, xvii, 8, 9, 10, 11, 21, 25, 

26, 27, 32, 50, 53, 102, 310, 320, 349, 

367, 375, 459, 464, 491, 497, 523, 524, 

527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 534, 544, 580, 

614, 639, 659, 666

Wilderness Act of 1964, 94, 149, 151, 317, 

318, 391, 524, 526, 565, 639

Wilderness Study Area, vi, 8, 9, 10, 26, 32, 

464

Wildlife, vi, xxiii, 3, 6, 15, 18, 32, 35, 37, 

40, 42, 45, 47, 148, 212, 262, 315, 471, 

539, 560, 611, 625, 636, 642, 647, 656, 

657, 659, 671

Willow, 13, 123, 139, 413

Wind River, 2, 5, 10, 12, 45, 125, 155, 177, 

198, 293

Wiggins Fork, 177, 198, 293

Wind River Indian Reservation, 218, 219, 

222, 575, 576, 594

Wyoming Statewide Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Plan, 491, 497

Yellowstone checkerspot, 310

Yellowstone cutthroat trout, 17, 21, 52, 70, 

75, 151, 318, 320, 321, 322, 330, 332, 

333, 334, 667

Yellowstone National Park, 1, 2, 70, 123, 

126, 127, 129, 157, 170, 197, 220, 256, 

382, 383, 503, 576