United States 

Department of

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Rocky Mountain

Region

July 2012 

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

Shoshone Land Management 

Plan Revision

Summary

Shoshone National Forest

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

MT 

UT 

Montana 

r----------t:------....·-------~ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I o 

I 

0 50 100 Miles 

30 

Shoshone 

National 

Forest 

Wyoming 

Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

ii

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Shoshone National Forest
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapters 1 and 2

iii

Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

Draft 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 

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: JOE 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 draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) documents analysis of six alternatives 

developed for programmatic management of the 2.4 million acres administered by the Shoshone National 

Forest. The Forest Service has identified Alternative B as the preferred alternative.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful 

to the Agency’s preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the 

comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and contentions. The submission of 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

iv

timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to participate in subsequent administrative 

review or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and 

addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments 

submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not 

provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative or judicial reviews.

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. 

The final plan and final environmental impact statement will be published in the summer of 2013. 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 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 plan will not be issued until the reviewing officer has responded to 

the objections. 

Send Comments to: FOREST PLAN COMMENTS 

 808 Meadow Lane 

Cody, WY 82414 

Fax: 307-578-5112 

Email: shoshone_forestplan@fs.fed.us 

Date Comments Must Be Received: November 1, 2012 

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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapters 1 and 2

v 

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.

Draft 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 Shoshone National Forest 1986 Land Management Plan (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 draft forest plan would designate 26 management area themes 

across the Forest and would guide natural resource management activities on the Shoshone for the next 10 

to 15 years. The 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 

219.32. 
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. 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. 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 draft 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 existing forest plan and the 

strong public interest in how the revised 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

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

The revision topics led the agency to develop alternatives to the proposed action including: 

Alternative A (No Action): Alternative A is the continuation of present management under the existing 

1986 Land and Resource Management Plan and its amendments. It meets requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act that a no-action alternative be considered. “No action” means that current 

management practices based on existing land use plans and other management decision documents would 

continue. 

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

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

responsive to the issues raised by the public.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Summary 

ix

Alternative C: Alternative C demonstrates the most amount of land allocated for wilderness, with no 

motorized use in remaining inventoried roadless areas.

Alternative D: Alternative D provides back country and non-motorized uses, while maintaining moderate 

to low levels of commodity production. This alternative also addresses issues raised by the public and 

conservation groups. 

Alternative E: Alternative E provides commodity production and motorized use while addressing issues 

shared by the public, local industry, and motorized user groups. 

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

possible within parameters, such as designated wilderness.

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 draft 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

Figure 2 displays the management area allocations by category for the alternatives.

Management area (MA) 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.

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 draft Forest 

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

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

management area.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

x 

Figure 2. Comparison of management area prescription categories by alternative
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Summary 

xi

Table 2. Comparison of management allocations (in acres)

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

1.1 Wilderness 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1C Proposed Sawtooth Peatbeds Geological Area 648 648

3.3A Back Country Motorized 185,936 64,243 4,948 8,333 90,500 175,296

3.3B Back Country Winter Motorized 86,413 3,157 75,068 43,485

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

3.5 Back Country Recreation and Restoration 66,427

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

4.3 Back Country Access Corridor 13,982 5,120 13,947 8,775 3,349

4.5A Proposed Kirwin Historical Area 481 481 481 481 481

5.1 Managed Forests and Rangelands 157,215 173,116 72,298 168,350 253,717 528,146

5.2 Public Water Supply 12,868 6,841 7,953 12,868

5.4 Managed Big Game Crucial Winter Range 54,972 55,079 145,505 54,057 80,016

8.2 Ski-based Resort 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,145
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xii

Environmental Outcomes 

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 function 

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 

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. 

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 acres that range from 2,000 acres in alternative 

C to 2,500 acres in the remaining alternatives. 

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

for restoring whitebark pine acres, ranging from 500 acres in alternative C to 1,250 acres in alternative F. 

The whitebark pine objective in alternatives B, D, and E is 750 acres. This is a small percentage of total 

whitebark pine acres, but begins the process of restoring this species in areas where it has been devastated 

by white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle. This modest objective reflects the limited availability 

of blister rust-resistant planting stock, which will not be more available until near the end of the planning 

period. 

Differences in the 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). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Summary 

xiii

Sensitive plant species

The alternatives that allocate lands to research natural area/special interest area management areas 

provide important areas 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. 

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

In alternatives A, B, E, 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. These alternatives may increase the risk of impacts to some 

sensitive plant species. 

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. In general, alternatives in 

order of the least impact to the most are C, D, B, A, E, and then F. 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. The action alternatives increase 

precommercial thinning in lynx habitat outside the wildland-urban interface up to 2,000 acres during the 

planning period. 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. 

Alternatives E and F eliminate the pack goat closure in core bighorn sheep habitat. 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. 

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. 
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xiv

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 54,990 acres 

of MA 5.4, while 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, 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 are similar at over 180,000 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 from 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 39,700 acre 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 least land.

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 70,200 in alternative F (see table 3). Acres suitable for commercial 

livestock grazing range from 216,800 acres in alternative C to 425,400 acres in alternative F (see table 3).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Summary 

xv

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 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 NFS lands are withdrawn from development or plan direction states that surface 

occupancy for oil and gas development is not suitable. The percentage of lands with a high potential for 

oil and gas occurrence (255,000 acres) that are generally available for oil and gas development with 

surface development1 ranges from 99 percent in alternative F to 62 percent in alternative C (see table 3). 

Recreation 

Approximately 874 miles of National Forest System (System) roads are currently open and would remain 

open under alternatives A, B, D, E and F. The analysis projects that 110 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). 

Under alternative B, over-snow motorized vehicle recreation would continue to be allowed in areas where 

it is currently occurring under alternative A, except within MA 1.6B (Dunoir Special Management Unit) 

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

alternatives. In Alternatives B and E, 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). Finally, under alternative F, winter recreation would be allowed in all capable areas 

assigned as open year-round to motorized activity. 

Wilderness

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

respectively. Alternatives A, B, E, and F do not propose 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, 

 

1 Lands where surface occupancy is allowed or that are within 1 mile of lands where surface occupancy is allowed.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xvi

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

important characteristics.

Alternatives C and D establish eight potential research natural areas, which would lead to 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 were recognized as important in the 

1986 Forest Plan and contain areas important to biodiversity.

Special interest areas

Special interests 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 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 historical and geological 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 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 will be similar. 

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. 

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 NEPA analysis is completed.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Summary 

xvii

Table 3. Summary comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Recreation

Effect of alternative on current over-snow motorized recreation Continues to 

allow use on 

lands where 

it currently 

occurs 

including 

within Dunoir 

SMU1

(1.6B). 

Allows use 

on lands 

where it 

currently 

occurs 

except 

use is 

prohibited 

in Dunoir 

SMU. 

Lands 

where use 

is currently 

occurring is 

reduced by 

80%

Lands 

where use 

is currently 

occurring is 

reduced by 

33%

Allows use 

on lands 

where it 

currently 

occurs 

except use 

is prohibited 

in Dunoir 

SMU. 

Allows use 

on lands 

where it 

currently 

occurs 

except use is 

prohibited in 

Dunoir SMU. 

Lands where allocation allows over the snow motorized recreation

(% of Forest acres)

887,600 

(36%)

480,000 

(20%)

103,000 

(4%)

323,700 

(13%)

525,200 

(22%)

825,200 

(34%)

Lands where allocation allows motorized summer recreation

(% of Forest acres)

570,600 

(23%)

570,800 

(23%)

322,400 

(13%)

350,600 

(14%)

656,500 

(27%)

823,900 

(34%)

Total miles motorized trails 32 55 21 40 62 92

Total miles open roads 880 880 770 880 880 880

Lands where allocation allows mechanized (bicycle use) 

(% of Forest acres)

1,072,900 

(44%)

1,044,000 

(43%)

1,044,000 

(43%)

1,044,000 

(43%)

1,044,000 

(43%)

1,044,000 

(43%)

Acres where mechanized use is restricted to roads and trails 

(% of Forest acres) 1,280 (<1%) 31,570 

(1%)

606,700 

(25%)

200,200 

(8%) 17,100 (1%) 17,100 (1%)

Special Areas and Designations

Acres recommended wilderness 0 0 628,800 194,500 0 0 

Number of proposed new research natural areas (acres) 0 6 

(63,200ac)

8 

(70,600ac)

8 

(70,600ac) 3 (35,600ac) 0 

Number of proposed new special interest areas (acres) 0 3 

(2,840ac) 3 (2,840ac) 3 (2,840ac) 1 (480ac) 0 

Number of existing designated wild and scenic river segments 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Eligible wild and scenic river segments maintained 0 13 13 13 13 13

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
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

xviii

Table 3. Summary comparison of alternatives by revision topics

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F

Acres of hazardous fuels reduction management activity 

(next 10 years) 36,100 35,800 35,000 35,600 37,400 39,700

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

Acres of fire regime condition class maintained or improved 221,300 218,700 219,100 219,300 212,400 201,100

Lands suitable for timber production 86,300 127,000 122,100 124,500 179,700 251,200

Total sale program quantity (Ccf) (annual estimate) 17,000 16,600 14,900 15,900 22,100 30,500

Allowable sale quantity (Ccf) (annual estimate) 19,800 22,800 21,900 22,400 32,800 46,600

Invasive plant treatments (annual acres) 2,000 2,000 1,500 2,000 2,000 3,000

Wildlife Habitat Management

Permitted domestic sheep and goat and pack goat use related to 

bighorn sheep habitat (BHS)

No 

Permitted 

domestic 

sheep and a 

Temporary 

Closure for 

pack goats 

in Core 

Native BHS 

Habitat on 

Clarks Fork, 

Wapiti, 

Greybull and 

Wind River 

RD.2

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.3

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.

Oil and Gas Development

Percent of acres with high potential for oil and gas occurrence 

(255,000 acres) generally available with surface development 97% 89% 62% 81% 91% 99%

Commercial livestock grazing
Draft 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

Acres suitable for commercial livestock grazing 375,400 375,400 216,800 375,400 375,400 415,400

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

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Consistency with Roadless Rule No Yes Yes Yes No No

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

Economics

Recreation: forest visitors (average annual labor income thousands of 

dollars) 6,467 6,467 6,467 6,467 6,467 6,467

Recreation: commercial (average annual labor income thousands of 

dollars) 1,893 1,893 1,893 1,900 2,280 2,397

Livestock grazing (average annual labor income thousands of dollars) 1,900 1,900 1,064 1,135 1,185 1,241

Timber harvest (average annual labor income thousands of dollars) 2,487 2,422 2,119 2,324 3,239 4,4463

1 Special Management Unit

2 Ranger District

3 Shoshone National Forest