National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National 

Recreation Area

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/NRR—2015/995
ON THE COVER

A vista to the Bighorn Mountains from the uplands in Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area (photo credit: NPS).
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National 

Recreation Area

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/NRR—2015/995

Rob Daley1

, Michelle Kinseth2, Kristin Legg1, William B. Monahan2

1

National Park Service

Greater Yellowstone Network

2327 University Way, Suite 2

Bozeman, MT 59715

2

National Park Service

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

1202 Oakridge Dr., Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

July 2015

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Fort Collins, Colorado
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, 

Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of 

interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural 

resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the 

public.

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis 

about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. 

The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of 

the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy 

results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations.

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. 

This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in 

the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par 

technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily

reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of 

trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by 

the U.S. Government.

This report is available in digital format from the Great Yellowstone Network website 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/gryn/) and the Natural Resource Publications Management 

website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). To receive this report in a format optimized 

for screen readers, please email irma@nps.gov.

Please cite this publication as:

Daley, R., M. Kinseth, K. Legg, and W. B. Monahan. 2015. Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon 

National Recreation Area. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/NRR—2015/995. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 960/129103, July 2015
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area iii

Contents

Page

Figures...................................................................................................................................................iv

Tables.....................................................................................................................................................v

Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................vi

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................vii

List of Abbreviations ...........................................................................................................................vii

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

2. Housing ..........................................................................................................................................4

3. Population.......................................................................................................................................6

4. Roads..............................................................................................................................................7

5. Land Cover...................................................................................................................................11

6. Conservation Status......................................................................................................................15

7. Climate .........................................................................................................................................17

8. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................18

9. Literature Cited.............................................................................................................................19
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area iv

Figures

Page

Figure 1.1. NPScape metrics as considerations in a landscape conservation context...........................1

Figure 1.2. Map of surface management/ownership for the area of analysis (study area) 

within 30 km of BICA’s managed boundary.........................................................................................3

Figure 2.1. Map of 2010 housing density. ............................................................................................4

Figure 3.1. Change in total human population density within 30 km of BICA, 1990–

2010........................................................................................................................................................6

Figure 4.1. Map of nonweighted road density (km/km2) calculated for all roads in the 

study area as of 2005..............................................................................................................................7

Figure 4.2. Weighted and nonweighted road density for major roads (highways, 

interstates) and all roads (major roads plus streets) within 30 km of BICA, as of 2005. ......................8

Figure 4.3. Map of the patch size distribution of roadless areas in and around a 30 km 

buffer of BICA, as of 2005. ...................................................................................................................9

Figure 4.4. Number of roadless patches by patch size (km2) within the study area, as of 

2005......................................................................................................................................................10

Figure 4.5. Total area (km2) of roadless patch sizes within the study area, as of 2005. .....................10

Figure 5.1. Map of natural vs. converted land cover circa 2011 in and around a 30 km 

buffer of BICA.....................................................................................................................................11

Figure 5.2. Percentage area of major land cover types in the study area circa 2011. .........................13

Figure 5.3. Percentage area of all NLCD cover types in the study area circa 2011............................13

Figure 5.4. Map of major land cover types circa 2011 in and around the study area. ........................14

Figure 6.1. Level and type of land protection in the study area..........................................................16
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area v

Tables

Page

Table 1.1. Specific landscape indicators presented in this report. ........................................................2

Table 5.1. Change in area for major cover types from 2001 to 2011 in the study area. .....................12
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area vi

Executive Summary 

Some of the land and resource management challenges faced by stewards of Bighorn Canyon 

National Recreation Area (BICA) relate to how BICA fits within the surrounding landscape. BICA is 

a relatively narrow and elongated stretch of land along the canyon of the Bighorn River, which flows 

north from Wyoming into Montana. Understanding BICA’s resources in a landscape context was 

formally identified as a priority for park managers in the 2005 Vital Signs Monitoring Plan for the 

Greater Yellowstone Network. In 2010 the Inventory and Monitoring Division of the National Park 

Service provided a suite of standard landscape metrics, data sources, and analytical tools for helping 

parks quantify and document resource conservation vulnerability and opportunity in a landscape 

context. The study area within a 30-kilometer buffer around and including BICA’s managed lands 

represents the landscape for reporting on housing, population, roads, land cover, conservation status, 

and climate.

Most residential land use in the area around BICA is rural, with rather slow growth over the past few 

decades, and population density remains at just over one person per square kilometer after 

experiencing a slight increase in the 1990s. Weighted road densities estimating traffic volume are 

relatively low, since there are no interstates and few major highways in the study area. However,

smaller roads are widespread across the study area, and these roads can fragment habitats, increase 

the spread of exotic plants, and affect visitor experience from vehicle traffic. Natural land cover, 

primarily in the form of shrub/scrub and herbaceous vegetation, occurs over most of the area, except 

for concentrated areas of cultivated crops and hay/pasture lands in proximity to the Shoshone and 

Bighorn rivers. In the decade from 2001 to 2011 almost no change took place in the balance of 

natural versus converted land cover. With Crow tribal lands adjacent to most of the northern half of

BICA, and the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range and Yellowtail Wildlife Habitat Management

Area overlapping and adjacent to BICA, cooperative management of protected areas is a defining 

theme for park resource specialists and administrators. The natural resource conservation status for 

tribal lands is not reported here because land management and conservation plans are not yet enacted 

for the Crow Indian Reservation. About 40% of the study area landscape is under federal 

management that includes protection for federally listed endangered and threatened species and is 

generally managed to permanently protect the majority of natural land cover while allowing for some 

extractive uses. Current and future resource planning and management efforts require understanding 

changes in climate and addressing how future climatic conditions and trends may interact with 

natural and cultural resources in BICA and the surrounding landscape. Recent data from BICA found 

that since 1983, four key temperature variables, including annual mean temperature, have reached the 

uppermost limits of all observed temperatures since 1901.

With these highlights in mind, this report on the landscape context of BICA provides a foundation for

continued monitoring that will inform park managers and motivate researchers to help address how

landscape factors relate to BICA’s resources.
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area vii

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the input, assistance, and support from Bighorn Canyon NRA staff members Bill 

Pickett, Cassity Bromley (now at Gulf Islands National Seashore), Virginia DuBowy, and 

Superintendent John Bundy. Additional thanks go to NPScape team members Lisa Nelson, Tom 

Philippi, and Mike Story who contributed to the development of data sets and tools used in this 

report.

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviations Description

BICA Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

DOD

DOI

Department of Defense

Department of Interior

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute

GAP Gap Analysis Program

NLCD National Land Cover Dataset, or National Land Cover Database

NPS National Park Service

NPScape National Park Service Landscape Dynamics Monitoring Program

NRSS Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

PAD-US Protected Areas Database of the US

SERGoM Spatially Explicit Regional Growth Model

USFS US Forest Service

USGS US Geological Survey

Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 1

1. Introduction 

Extending north into Montana and south into Wyoming between the Pryor and Bighorn mountains,

the landscapes of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area (BICA) brim with natural and cultural 

history and resources. The establishment, history, and setting of BICA are described in numerous 

documents and reports, including the BICA natural resource condition assessment (Komp et al. 

2012), the BICA long-range interpretive plan (NPS 2012), and the BICA strategic plan for 2001–

2005 (NPS 2000). The National Park Service (NPS) administers BICA to provide for public outdoor 

recreation and to preserve scenic, scientific, and historic features. Managing BICA entails following 

NPS management policies and interacting extensively with other federal, state, tribal, and private 

jurisdictions and interests within, overlapping, and adjacent to the National Recreation Area.

Natural landscapes at BICA are subject to the no-impairment standard defined in NPS management 

policies (NPS 2006). To help determine whether an impact would harm the integrity of BICA’s 

natural landscapes, including opportunities to enjoy those natural landscapes, it is necessary to 

quantify and document landscape characteristics in a reliable, repeatable, and comparable way over 

time. For this reason land use and land cover in and around BICA were identified for long-term 

monitoring by the NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program’s Vital Signs Monitoring Plan for the 

Greater Yellowstone Network (Jean et al. 2005). Since many national park service units share the 

need to monitor landscapes, the NPS Inventory and Monitoring Division initiated a service-wide

program called NPScape in 2010 to assemble data, develop tools, and provide support for evaluating 

and reporting on landscape characteristics and changes that extend beyond park boundaries (NPS 

2014). The NPScape program assesses natural systems, human drivers, and conservation context to 

help address questions related to resource vulnerability to landscape change, as well as opportunities 

for management and mitigation (Figure 1.1). Products from NPScape provide important context for 

assessing a potential impact’s severity, duration, and timing, and its direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects.

Figure 1.1. NPScape metrics as 

considerations in a landscape 

conservation context.
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 2

The value of landscape monitoring comes from consistently documenting land cover and land use 

conditions in and around BICA, including the

• intactness or structural integrity of major habitat types

• spatial and quantitative relationships between natural disturbance and human land use

• size and distribution of roadless areas

• location of other protected areas

Using standard data and methods to measure key landscape variables every few years provides input 

on resource vulnerability and opportunity that can be factored into park management and planning, 

and that can help identify research needs to better understand how human drivers in larger systems 

impact resources within and around BICA.

This is the first report in a series of similar monitoring products to be published and/or updated

online approximately every five to ten years to promote the understanding of meaningful landscapelevel indicators (Table 1.1) that can reflect changes in and around Bighorn Canyon NRA. This initial 

account establishes a baseline to help researchers, resource managers, and park administrators

recognize and address the complexities of managing resources in a landscape context. Incorporating

“landscape-scale approaches into all facets of development and conservation planning and 

mitigation” is the first principle in the Strategy for Improving the Mitigation Policies and Practices of 

The Department of the Interior (Clement et al. 2014) - the report in response to the Secretary of the 

Interior’s October 2013 Order 3330 (DOI 2013).

A meaningful companion to this report is the NPScape Interpretive Guide (Monahan et al. 2012): 

https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/Profile/2184927

Table 1.1. Specific landscape indicators presented in this report.

Measure Indicator(s) Source Data Years Resolution Reference

Housing Housing Density

Spatially Explicit 

Regional Growth 

Model (SERGoM)

1970–

2010 100 m cells Theobald 2005

Population Population Density US Census Bureau

1990

2000

2010

Census Block 

Groups

US Census Bureau 

1991, 2001, 2011

Roads Road Density,

Roadless Area

Environmental 

Systems Research 

Institute (ESRI)

Varies, 

up to 

2005

Varies ESRI 2010

Land

Cover

- Natural vs. Converted

- Anderson Level 1 

 Land Cover Area

- Anderson Level 2 

 Land Cover Area

- Land Cover Change

National Land Cover 

Dataset (NLCD)

2001,

2011 30 m cells Jin et al. 2013

Conservation 

Status

Gap Status,

Land Ownership

Protected Areas 

Database of the US 

v1.3 (PAD-US)

Varies Varies USGS Gap Analysis 

Program 2013

Climate Temperature,

Precipitation

Climatic Research 

Unit (CRU) highresolution time series 

version 3.21

1901–

2012

0.5 decimal 

degrees Harris et al. 2014
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 3

From the analysis area options presented in the NPScape Interpretive Guide, a 2 million acre study 

area within a 30-km buffer of BICA’s managed boundary was chosen to represent a relatively local 

park-centered landscape that effectively integrates human, natural, and conservation metrics for 

standardized reporting and future monitoring (Figure 1.2). The study area is centered on the 64,000 

acres presently managed by the NPS within BICA’s 120,000 acre legislated boundary.

Figure 1.2. Map of surface management/ownership for the area of analysis (study area) within 30 km of 

BICA’s managed boundary. All landscape metrics are computed for the area within the green outline. This 

is done for consistency throughout this document and to enable comparison with future monitoring reports

using the same study area. The vicinity outside the study area is shown for visual context.
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 4

2. Housing

Housing density, modeled based on U.S. Census data from 2010, is relatively low within the study 

area (Figure 2.1). Most residential land use is rural, with six or fewer residential units per square 

kilometer. Within and near Lovell, Wyoming, a few smaller areas have exurban or suburban housing 

density up to 1,234 units per square kilometer. Two airports are the only commercial/industrial 

spaces within the study area.

Figure 2.1. Map of 2010 housing density.
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 5

Housing density estimates come from a Spatially Explicit Regional Growth Model (SERGoM, 

Theobald 2005) based on U.S. Census data. The model determines density categories that include 

low density settings that can be important in terms of quantity and distribution for ecological studies

and resource conservation concerns.

From 2000 to 2010, there was essentially no change in the area occupied by the housing categories 

represented in Figure 2.1. Since 1970 rural areas decreased slightly from 2,990 to 2,982 km2 (–0.3 

%), while exurban areas grew slightly from 10 to 22 km2 (120%), a reflection of communities 

beyond the suburbs where residents often commute into towns and use technology and long distance 

communication to maintain a more urban lifestyle in a rural setting (Goetz et al. 2005). The exurban 

growth primarily occurs adjacent to established communities like Lovell. Suburban areas also 

expanded slightly in 40 years from 2.0 to 3.2 km2 (60%).

For a complete description of the data sources and methods used to analyze housing, please visit the 

NPScape web site (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/npscape/methods.cfm) and see the

Standard Operating Procedure for Housing: (https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/Profile/2221576).
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 6

3. Population

Human population within the study area increased from an estimated 7,600 people in 1990 to around 

8,600 people in 2000, but by 2010 the population was only slightly higher (8,700 people). Still, 

during all three periods population densities were low (~1 person per square-kilometer; Figure 3.1), 

and this corresponds to the low housing densities described in Section 2.

Figure 3.1. Change in total human population density within 30 km of BICA, 1990–2010.

Data on human populations around BICA are from the U.S. Census Bureau (1991, 2001, 2011). 

Population density (people/km2

) is calculated for inhabited areas. Water and other uninhabitable 

areas are excluded, primarily the Yellowtail Wildlife Habitat Management Area and Pryor Mountain 

Wild Horse Range. These two areas are managed mainly for biodiversity, and disturbance processes 

can be suppressed in them, as discussed in Section 6 (Conservation Status).

Complete details about the data sources and methods used to analyze population are available from 

the NPScape web site (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/npscape/methods.cfm) and the 

Standard Operating Procedure for Population can be downloaded from: 

(https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/Profile/2221729).
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 7

4. Roads

Types of roads and their location and density in the BICA landscape are important considerations for 

resource management because of habitat fragmentation effects and traffic factors that include sound, 

light, and vehicle/wildlife collision potential. In semi-arid environments, like those in portions of 

BICA and the study area, roads can influence the water capacity and content of adjacent soils, thus 

affecting the types of vegetation that occur and the associated animal habitats. The connection 

between roads and exotic invasive plant species is a particular concern for park management (Komp 

et al. 2012). As of 2005, overall road density is low within the study area, and the highest density 

values occur in and around Lovell, Wyoming (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1. Map of nonweighted road density (km/km2) calculated for all roads in the study area as of 

2005.
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 8

The road network analyzed for this report is from ESRI Data and Maps - U.S. and Canada Detailed 

Streets, TeleAtlas 2005 (ESRI 2010). To help represent the relative traffic volume of major roads, a 

weighting factor of 10 is applied to interstates, 3 is applied to highways, and no weighting factor is 

used for other road types (streets, local roads, etc.). Few if any studies exist to quantify the 

relationships between roads and wildlife in the study area. A 2000–2002 study of bighorn sheep 

habitat and population in and around BICA (Schoenecker 2004) does not directly relate roads in 

general to sheep occupancy or as barriers to bighorn sheep movement, but the study recommends that 

managers consider roads on a case-by-case basis prior to translocation of bighorn sheep. Given that 

most roads in the study area are not highways or interstates with heavy traffic (Figure 4.2), habitat 

fragmentation effects from the existence of all roads may be of more interest to managers than direct 

impacts from vehicle/wildlife collisions or from the emissions, sounds, and light associated with 

vehicle traffic.

Figure 4.2. Weighted and nonweighted road density for major roads (highways, interstates) and all roads 

(major roads plus streets) within 30 km of BICA, as of 2005.
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 9

Figure 4.3. Map of the patch size distribution of roadless areas in and around a 30 km buffer of BICA, as 

of 2005.

Roadless areas are continuous patches of land 500 or more meters from any type of road. The patch 

size distribution of roadless areas varies considerably around BICA (Figure 4.3), with several large 

roadless patches (10 to >100 km2

) within and adjacent to the NRA. Additional large roadless areas 

are evident outside the study area on federal and tribal lands.

Within the study area about 90% (696 of 775) of the roadless patches are less than 10 km2 (Figure 

4.4), but these small areas add up to less than 20% (750 km2 out of 3815 km2

) of the total roadless 

area within the 30-km buffer around BICA (Figure 4.5) as of 2005. This reflects the highly dissected 

nature of the landscape due to roads and brings attention to potential impacts on wildlife populations 

affected by road fragmentation.
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 10

For more information about the data sources and methods used to analyze roads please visit the 

NPScape web site (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/npscape/methods.cfm). The Standard 

Operating Procedure for calculating roads metrics can be downloaded here: 

(https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/Profile/2221733)

696

59

16 4

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 - 10 10 - 50 50 - 100 > 100

Number of Patches

Patch Size km2

750

1,259

1,002

804

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 - 10 10 - 50 50 - 100 > 100

Area km2

Patch Size km2

Figure 4.4. Number of 

roadless patches by 

patch size (km2) within

the study area, as of 

2005.

Figure 4.5. Total area 

(km2) of roadless 

patch sizes within the 

study area, as of 2005.
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 11

5. Land Cover

Based on a standardized classification from the 2011 National Land Cover Database (NLCD, Jin et 

al. 2013), natural land cover types occur across most of the study area (Figure 5.1). This has changed 

very little in the decade since the 2001 NLCD was released (Table 5.1), and these very small 

differences relative to the 2 million acre study area are well scattered across the landscape. NLCD 

characterizes and monitors land cover nation-wide using a series of products created from Landsat 

satellite data at 30-meter spatial resolution. The 16 cover classes from NLCD are grouped to show 

converted lands (comprising developed areas, cultivated crops, and hay/pasture lands) versus natural 

lands (all other major cover types).

Figure 5.1. Map of natural vs. converted land cover circa 2011 in and around a 30 km buffer of BICA.
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 12

Table 5.1. Change in area for major cover types from 2001 to 2011 in the study area. The change values 

do not total zero because open water and barren cover types are not listed due to very small area values.

Also, the relatively minor changes in cover types over a 10-year period across the large study area may 

result partly from Landsat data processing.

Cover Type 2001 Area km2 2011 Area km2 Change in Area km2

Shrub/Scrub 2,935 2,938 3

Grassland/Herbaceous 3,303 3,305 2

Developed 70 70 no change

Agriculture 540 534 -6

Forest 1,034 1,028 -6

Wetlands 252 235 -17

Natural vs. Converted

Natural 7,633 7,639 6

Converted 610 604 -6

In 2011 more than 75% of the study area was covered with grassland/herbaceous and shrub/scrub

vegetation, while forested areas comprise about 13% (Figure 5.2). Evergreens dominate the forest 

types, and the classification of 30-meter pixel satellite imagery does distinguish a small amount of 

deciduous forest and mixed forest in the study area (Figure 5.3). Substantial agricultural use is 

evident in proximity to the Shoshone and Bighorn rivers, where cultivated crops and hay/pasture 

lands account for about 7% of the study area (Figure 5.4). Monitoring these broad land cover classes 

at the landscape level can help put into context the ongoing long-term monitoring of upland 

vegetation in communities of concern within BICA’s managed boundary.
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 13

Figure 5.2. Percentage area of major land cover types in the study area circa 2011.

Figure 5.3. Percentage area of all NLCD cover types in the study area circa 2011. 

Perennial snow and ice cover is not shown because it does not occur in the study area.
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 14

Figure 5.4. Map of major land cover types circa 2011 in and around the study area.

For comprehensive information about the data sources and methods used to analyze land cover 

please visit the NPScape web site (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/npscape/methods.cfm). 

The Standard Operating Procedure for calculating land cover metrics can be downloaded here: 

(https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/Profile/2221549).
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 15

6. Conservation Status

Most of the publicly administered land in the study area, including BICA, is managed to protect the 

majority of natural land cover but can allow some extractive uses of either a broad, low-intensity type 

(e.g., logging) or a localized intense type (e.g., mining) (Figure 6.1). This is according to the U.S.

Geological Survey’s Gap Analysis Program Protected Areas Database for the United States (PADUS), the official inventory of protected open space in the United States. (U.S. Geological Survey 

2013). The PAD-US requests and aggregates data from federal and state sources, and national 

conservation organizations, in order to assign all lands to one of four biodiversity management status 

ranks (GAP Status) using established criteria (after Scott et al. 1993; Edwards et al. 1994; Crist et al. 

1996). Criteria include prescribed management and the intent of a land steward as evidenced by legal 

and institutional factors. This latest update to the PAD-US does not include conservation status data 

for some BLM land in the Pryor Mountains, the small military training area southeast of Lovell, and 

adjacent tribal lands in Montana. These are represented in the PAD-US database with the term “no 

known mandate for protection.” However, all federal and state lands include protection for federally 

listed endangered and threatened species, and recent resolutions by the Crow Tribal Legislature 

signify the tribe’s interest in developing a land management act and natural resource management 

plan for tribal lands (Crow Tribe 2008). Portions of the Yellowtail Wildlife Habitat Management 

Area and some parts of the Pryor Mountains adjacent to BICA are managed to maintain a primarily 

natural state but may receive uses or management practices that degrade the quality of existing 

natural communities, including suppression of natural disturbance. No portions of the study area have 

management policies to permanently protect and maintain a natural state where natural disturbance 

events are allowed to proceed without interference or by mimicking natural disturbance through 

active management.

While this basic classification of conservation status broadly reflects management intent to conserve 

biodiversity, the PAD-US does not account for every local land management policy, action, or 

outcome. Still, these categories of conservation status provide consistent data using standard criteria 

for monitoring conservation status at the landscape-level in order to help managers identify and 

respond to changes or concerns.

About 12% of the 8,425 km2 study area is private property, mostly concentrated in the vicinity of 

Lovell, with additional private holdings scattered throughout. Tribal lands comprise most of the 

northern half of the study area and make up 51% (3,754 km2

) of the nonprivate lands. Approximately 

46% (3,428 km2

) of the nonprivate land is federally managed by NPS, USFS, BLM, BOR, or DOD. 

The remaining 3% (220 km2

) of the nonprivate lands are parcels of state land, including the 

Yellowtail Wildlife Habitat Management Area.
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 16

Figure 6.1. Level and type of land protection in the study area.

For comprehensive information about the data sources and methods used to analyze conservation 

status please visit the NPScape web site.

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/npscape/methods.cfm). The Standard Operating Procedure 

for calculating the conservation status metrics can be downloaded here: 

(https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/Profile/2221712)
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 17

7. Climate

A recent report on climate exposure in U.S. national parks (Monahan and Fisichelli 2014) found that, 

for the BICA study area, four temperature variables over the past 10 to 30 years were “extreme 

warm” when compared to the 1901–2012 historical range of climatic conditions (annual mean 

temperature, maximum temperature of the warmest month, minimum temperature of the coldest 

month, and mean temperature of the warmest quarter). “Extreme” conditions were defined as 

exceeding 95% of the historical range of variability for each climate variable. The study also found

that precipitation of the warmest quarter was “extreme dry.”

Ongoing and future climate change will likely affect all aspects of park management, including 

natural and cultural resource protection as well as park operations and visitor experience. Effective 

planning and management requires a thorough understanding of the climate’s past dynamics, present 

conditions, and projected future change. Climate awareness involves understanding variations in 

average conditions as well as planning for particular climate-related events that can include more 

intense storms, flooding, or drought, any of which may substantially affect the conditions of park 

resources.

For graphics and a summary of methods, results, and climate change adaptation ideas, please see the 

resource brief “Recent Climate Change Exposure of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area”

(NPS 2015; http://irmafiles.nps.gov/reference/holding/497068). 
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 18

8. Conclusion

Bighorn Canyon NRA, unlike many other units in the National Park System, retains its rural 

character with low housing and road densities and slowly growing human populations. The study 

area, encompassing lands within 30 km of BICA’s managed boundary, contains primarily natural 

vegetation, about half of which is on Crow tribal lands. Most nontribal lands in the study area are

managed for natural resources conservation by the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land 

Management, or the U.S. Forest Service. Only 12% of the study area is privately held and substantial 

agricultural use occurs on only about 7% of the study area, primarily along the Shoshone and 

Bighorn rivers. Based on this report, the prevailing and prospective landscape-scale considerations 

for BICA managers are the potential spread of exotic plants, particularly along well-traveled 

roadways; the lack of opportunity to manage for ecological processes such as natural fire regimes; 

potential for low level extractive uses such as logging and mining; and the impacts of climate change 

on vegetation, water availability, and other resources and natural processes that are projected to 

respond to a changing climate.. This report serves as a baseline for evaluating future changes in 

housing density, human population, roads, land cover, conservation status, and climate, using 

standardized landscape-level data and analytical procedures that are repeatable over time and thus 

conducive to long-term monitoring.

Other ongoing and future studies are also important landscape information sources for BICA 

managers. As online data and interactive maps become more common, these information delivery 

systems will likely supplement or replace traditional reports to interactively provide products when 

needed, and to integrate results from independent studies. It is likely that BICA’s next report on 

landscape dynamics will involve an online, interactive tool for timely and dynamic information 

delivery, one that incorporates data used for this report with newer data as it becomes available, such 

as when population and housing data are available from the 2020 census, and when the next version 

of NLCD is available for land cover. These online tools will integrate and synthesize data and results 

that show relationships between landscape metrics and resources such as wildlife habitat and 

migration routes. The following online map viewers and services are available now, and their content 

and functions are expected to expand over time.

NPS Planning Division’s Park Atlas:

http://insideparkatlas.nps.gov/Gallery/

NPS Inventory & Monitoring Division’s NPScape Viewer: 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/npscape/viewer/

USGS Gap Analysis Program Protected Areas Viewer:

http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/viewer/

The Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative:

http://greatnorthernlcc.org/overview
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 19

9. Literature Cited

Clement, J. P., A. Belin, M. J. Bean, T. A. Boling, and J. R. Lyons. 2014. A strategy for improving 

the mitigation policies and practices of the Department of the Interior. A report to the Secretary 

of the Interior from the Energy and Climate Change Task Force, Washington, D.C.

Crist, P., B. Thompson, and J. Prior-Magee. 1996. Land management status categorization for Gap 

Analysis: A potential enhancement. Gap Analysis Bulletin #5. National Biological Service, 

Moscow, Idaho. 

Crow Tribe. 2008. Crow Tribal Legislature Joint Action Resolution No. JAR 08-09. Available at 

http://indianlaw.mt.gov/content/crow/resolutions/jar/jar0809_land_natural_resource_managemen

t_plan_land_use_code_land_registry.pdf.

Department of the Interior. 2013. Secretarial Order No 3330. Improving Mitigation Policies and 

Practices of the Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.

Edwards Jr, T. C., C. Homer, and S. Bassett. 1994. Land management categorization: a users’ guide. 

A Handbook for Gap Analysis, Version 1, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, Idaho.

ESRI. 2010. U.S. and Canada Detailed Streets. DVD. Compiled by Tele Atlas North America (2005), 

Inc., distributed by ESRI, Redlands, California.

Goetz, S. J., J. S. Shortle, and J. C. Bergstrom, eds. 2005. Land Use Problems and Conflicts: Causes, 

Consequences and Solutions. Routledge, New York.

Harris, I., P. D. Jones, T. J. Osborn, and D. H. Lister. 2014. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly 

climatic observations – the CRU TS3.10 Dataset. Int J Climatol 34: 623–642.

doi:10.1002/joc.3711.

Jean, C., A. M. Schrag, R. E. Bennetts, R. Daley, E. A. Crowe, and S. O’Ney. 2005. Vital Signs 

Monitoring Plan for the Greater Yellowstone Network. National Park Service, Greater 

Yellowstone Network, Bozeman, Montana. 107 pp. plus appendices.

Jin, S., L. Yang, P. Danielson, C. Homer, J. Fry, and G. Xian. 2013. A comprehensive change 

detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011. Remote Sensing 

of Environment 132:159–175. 

Komp, M. R., A. J. Nadeau, E. Iverson, L. Danzinger, S. Amberg, K. Kilkus, J. Sopcak, C. Jean, M. 

Myers, and B. Drazkowski. 2012. Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area: Natural Resource 

Condition Assessment. Natural Resource Report NPS/BICA/NRR—2012/554. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Monahan, W. B., and N. A. Fisichelli. 2014. Climate exposure of US national parks in a new era of 

change. PLoS ONE 9(7): e101302. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101302. Available from 

http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101302.
Landscape Context of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 20

Monahan, W. B., J. E. Gross, L. K. Svancara, and T. Philippi. 2012. A guide to interpreting NPScape 

data and analyses. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NRSS/NRTR—2012/578. National 

Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

National Park Service (NPS). 2000. Strategic plan 2001-2005: Bighorn Canyon National Recreation 

Area. National Park Service, Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, Lovell, Wyoming.

National Park Service (NPS). 2006. Management Policies – A Guide to Managing the National Park 

System. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service (NPS). 2012. Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Long-Range 

Interpretive Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bighorn Canyon 

National Recreation Area, Fort Smith, Montana.

National Park Service (NPS). 2014. NPScape: monitoring landscape dynamics of US National Parks. 

Natural Resource Program Center, Inventory and Monitoring Division, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/npscape/ (accessed 30 June 2015).

National Park Service (NPS). 2015. Resource Brief: Recent Climate Change Exposure of Bighorn 

Canyon National Recreation Area. National Park Service, Inventory and Monitoring Division,

Fort Collins, Colorado.

Schoenecker, K. A., compiler. 2004. Bighorn sheep habitat studies, population dynamics, and 

population modeling in Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, 2000–2003: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Open File Report 2004-1337.

Scott, J. M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. F. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, F. 

D’Erchia, and T. C. Edwards Jr. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of 

biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123:3–41. 

Theobald, D.M. 2005. Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. 

Ecology and Society 10:32.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1991. Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Summary Tape File 1,

Technical Documentation/prepared by the Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Census 2000 Summary File 1, Technical Documentation/prepared by the 

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. 2010 Census Summary File 1—United States [machine-readable data 

files]/ prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2013. Standards and Methods Manual for Data Stewards. USGS Gap 

Analysis Program, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho.
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific 

and other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities.

NPS 960/129103, July 2015
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM