United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service

Shoshone Land Management Plan 

Revision

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Volume III

Appendices B through H

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.
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

Big Horn 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: 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 
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

ii

“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 Forest Plan will not be 

issued until the reviewing officer has responded to the objections.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1093

Appendix B - Description of the Analysis Process

Table of Contents

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

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1097

1986 Forest Plan Management Area Adjustments ............................................................................. 1097

Clarks Fork Wild River Corridor.................................................................................................... 1097

High Lakes Wilderness Study Area ................................................................................................ 1097

Dunoir Special Management Unit................................................................................................... 1097

Line Creek Plateau Research Natural Area..................................................................................... 1097

Swamp Lake Botanical Area........................................................................................................... 1097

Kirwin Historical Area.................................................................................................................... 1098

Forest Boundary Changes............................................................................................................... 1098

Timber Inventory data ........................................................................................................................ 1098

Update to R2Veg Vegetation Database for Plan Revision.............................................................. 1098

Forest health (insect and disease)....................................................................................................... 1099

Insect epidemic information used in spectrum analysis.................................................................. 1100

Range Capability and Suitability Evaluation...................................................................................... 1100

Rangeland Capability...................................................................................................................... 1100

Rangeland Suitability...................................................................................................................... 1101

Forest Plan Suitability Determination............................................................................................. 1102

Lands Suitable for Timber Production ............................................................................................... 1102

Identification of Lands Generally Not Suitable for Timber Harvest .............................................. 1102

Identification of Lands Generally Suitable for Timber Harvest ..................................................... 1103

Timber Production Achieves or is Compatible with Desired Conditions and Resource Objectives

........................................................................................................................................................ 1103

Other Lands where Timber Production is not Compatible with Desired Conditions or Resource 

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 1104

Suitable timber acres for alternative A............................................................................................ 1104

Timber Yield Table Development...................................................................................................... 1105

Spectrum Model ................................................................................................................................. 1105

Spectrum Land Units and Strata ..................................................................................................... 1106

Spectrum Miscellaneous Model Parameters................................................................................... 1107

Spectrum Timber Cost and Revenues Coefficients ........................................................................ 1107

Timber Economic Suitability Analysis............................................................................................... 1111

Results............................................................................................................................................. 1112

Fire and fuels analysis ........................................................................................................................ 1113

Shoshone National Forest Wildland Fire Hazard Rating................................................................ 1113

Wildfire costs calculations.............................................................................................................. 1115

References....................................................................................................................................... 1117

Wildlife Grizzly Bear Denning Analysis............................................................................................ 1117

Scenery Management ......................................................................................................................... 1117

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1117

National Direction........................................................................................................................... 1118

Scenery Analysis............................................................................................................................. 1118

Recreation Opportunity Settings......................................................................................................... 1123

Mapping Process – existing ROS setting........................................................................................ 1123

Wilderness Settings......................................................................................................................... 1124
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1094

ROS management area objectives................................................................................................... 1125

Social and Economic Analysis........................................................................................................... 1126

Economic Impacts........................................................................................................................... 1126

Economic Efficiency....................................................................................................................... 1128

References....................................................................................................................................... 1129

Alternative Objective Development ................................................................................................... 1130

Alternative Budget Level Projections................................................................................................. 1131

Benchmark Analysis (new section).................................................................................................... 1132

Maximum timber ............................................................................................................................ 1133

Maximum commercial livestock grazing........................................................................................ 1134

Maximum oil and gas...................................................................................................................... 1134

Maximum motorized summer recreation........................................................................................ 1135

Maximum motorized winter recreation........................................................................................... 1135

Maximum non-motorized recreation .............................................................................................. 1135

Maximum recommended wilderness.............................................................................................. 1136

Maximum grazing and timber labor income................................................................................... 1136

Benchmark not analyzed................................................................................................................. 1136

List of Tables

Table 1. Acres changes resulting from database update of vegetation data............................................ 1099

Table 2. Areas where irreversible damage, adequate restocking, and other environmental conditions make 

the area not suitable for timber harvest........................................................................................... 1103

Table 3. Lands where resource objectives are not compatible with timber production.......................... 1104

Table 4. Spectrum strata ......................................................................................................................... 1106

Table 5. Timber revenues ....................................................................................................................... 1108

Table 6. Activity costs ............................................................................................................................ 1109

Table 7. Output coefficients.................................................................................................................... 1110

Table 8. Application of road coefficients and costs by level identifiers................................................. 1111

Table 9. Present net value by prescription by habitat structural stage (Mature = 4A, 4B, 4C, 4T; Young = 

all others) ........................................................................................................................................ 1112

Table 10. Hazard rating interpretation .................................................................................................... 1113

Table 11. 90th percentile fuel moistures.................................................................................................. 1114

Table 12. Unburnable areas .................................................................................................................... 1115

Table 13. Forest hazard rating ................................................................................................................ 1115

Table 14. Shoshone National Forest wildfire suppression costs (2008 to 2012).................................... 1116

Table 15. 2008-2012 wildfire cost adjusted to 2013 dollars................................................................... 1116

Table 16. Wildfire cost by alternative (2013 dollars)............................................................................. 1117

Table 17. Streams assigned to scenic attractiveness class A .................................................................. 1119

Table 18. Scenic class values derived from scenic attractiveness and landscape visibility analyses..... 1121

Table 19. Scenic integrity objective crosswalk from visual quality objectives...................................... 1121

Table 20. Scenic integrity objectives by management area and scenic class.......................................... 1122

Table 21. Wilderness setting criteria for recommended wilderness areas in alternatives C and D ........ 1125

Table 22. ROS objectives assignments for management areas............................................................... 1125

Table 23. Resource outputs by alternative used for economic impact analysis...................................... 1128

Table 24. Values used for present net value analysis.............................................................................. 1129

Table 25. Objectives to help meet plan goals and how they compare among the alternatives............... 1130

Table 26. Project program budget levels for the alternatives (thousands of dollars).............................. 1132

Table 27. Acre allocation for maximum timber benchmark................................................................... 1133

Table 28. Acres capable and suitable for livestock grazing in the maximum grazing benchmark......... 1134
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1095

List of Figures

Figure 1. Relationship of suitable timber acres for each alternative to the maximum timber benchmark 

suitable acres................................................................................................................................... 1134

Figure 2. Relationship of AUMs for each alternative to the maximum grazing benchmark AUMs ...... 1134

Figure 3. Relationship of acres suitable for surface occupancy for oil and gas development for each 

alternative to the maximum oil and gas benchmark........................................................................ 1135

Figure 4. Relationship of acres suitable for summer motorized recreation for each alternative to the 

maximum summer recreation benchmark....................................................................................... 1135

Figure 5. Relationship of acres suitable for winter motorized recreation for each alternative to the 

maximum winter recreation benchmark.......................................................................................... 1135

Figure 6. Relationship of acres of non-motorized recreation for each alternative to the maximum nonrecreation motorized recreation benchmark.................................................................................... 1136

Figure 7. Relationship of acres of recommended wilderness for each alternative to the maximum 

recommended wilderness benchmark. ............................................................................................ 1136

Figure 8. Relationship of grazing and timber income for each alternative to the maximum grazing and 

timber labor income benchmark. .................................................................................................... 1136

See appendices C and D for descriptions of the analyses used in the Wilderness and Wild and Scenic 

evaluations.

Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1097

Introduction

The major goal of analysis is to provide enough information to help decision makers and the public 

understand trade-offs between alternative management scenarios. Information also helps determine which 

combination of goods, services, and land allocations will maximize net public benefits. The regulations at 

36 CFR 219 (1982 regulations) developed under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) provide 

the analytical framework within which these decisions are made.

For the Shoshone National Forest plan revision a geographic information system (GIS) was used to 

develop the forest plan revision database. The database stores information about features located on the 

landscape, ranging from natural features such as rivers and vegetation types to constructed features such 

as roads and campgrounds. Legal or administrative boundaries such as the Forest boundary, research 

natural areas (RNA), and wilderness boundaries are also part of the GIS database. The database was used 

to analyze suitable timber lands, rangelands, describe the existing resource conditions, and perform other 

analyses for the revision.

1986 Forest Plan Management Area Adjustments

Management areas developed in 1986 for the current forest plan were mapped manually. Once the 

Shoshone acquired GIS in the early to mid-1990s the hard copy management area map was digitized and 

added to the GIS database. As part of the plan revision, that layer has been updated to correct spatial 

errors or to reflect changes to the forest plan since 1986. The following changes were made to the data.

Clarks Fork Wild River Corridor

The Clarks Fork Wild River management area (10D) was changed to match the official boundary as 

designated by legislation. Adjacent management areas were adjusted to match the official boundary.

High Lakes Wilderness Study Area

The High Lakes Wilderness Study Area management area (10E) was changed to match the legislatively 

defined boundary. Adjacent management areas were adjusted to match the official boundary. 

Dunoir Special Management Unit

The Dunoir Special Management Unit management areas (10F) were digitized using 1:24,000 

topographic maps to make the lines more accurate. 

Line Creek Plateau Research Natural Area

Line Creek Plateau Research Natural Area (RNA) management area was added to the forest plan 

management area map. The RNA was established in 2000 in a forest plan amendment. The portion of the 

RNA that falls outside of the High Lakes Wilderness Study Area was digitized and assigned a new 

management area number (10ALC).

Swamp Lake Botanical Area

Swamp Lake is the only existing special interest area (SIA) on the Shoshone. It was officially designated 

in a forest plan amendment in 1987 and was not included on the 1986 Forest Plan management area map. 

The SIA boundary was digitized and added to the management area maps and given the management area 

number (10G) assigned to it in the plan amendment. Adjacent management areas were adjusted to match 

the boundary. 
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1098

Kirwin Historical Area

In 1992, the Shoshone acquired Kirwin, an old mining town from the late 19th to early 20th century, 

when the Richard King Mellon Foundation and the Conservation Fund purchased it from the American 

Metals Climax Mining Company and donated it to the Forest. A forest plan amendment in 1995 

established a management area (10H) for the Kirwin property. The boundary was digitized and added to 

the management area map. Adjacent management areas were adjusted to match the boundary.

Forest Boundary Changes

In 2011, the Shoshone received a land donation on the Wind River Ranger District which was 

incorporated into the surrounding management areas. This added to the National Forest System (NFS) 

lands northwest of Dubois, Wyoming. 

Timber Inventory data

Three sources of inventory data were used in the timber analysis. Inventory data are the source for the 

utilization standards and volume equations used in the analysis. Inventory information for estimating 

stand characteristics and volumes was obtained from the Forest Inventory and Analysis data and from the 

Shoshone’s common stand exam data. Forest Inventory and Analysis provides a statistically based sample 

of forest resources across all ownerships that can be used for planning and analyses at local, state, 

regional, and national levels. Summary documentation of the Forest Inventory and Analysis data for the 

Shoshone is provided in Forest Resources of the Shoshone National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

An additional source of information from the Shoshone’s common stand exam was used to supplement 

the Forest Inventory and Analysis inventory data. These data are available electronically within the 

Forest’s FSVeg database. 

Vegetation mapping for the Shoshone was derived from the R2Veg database.

1.

R2Veg is the Rocky 

Mountain Region’s corporate vegetation database. It consists of existing vegetation data in a spatial layer 

and a series of tables containing vegetation attributes. The spatial and tabular components are housed 

together in an ArcGIS geodatabase. R2Veg data were captured as part of the Integrated Resource 

Inventory effort using a combination of photo interpretation and field verification. Information was 

recorded at the basic level of life form or ground cover (tree, shrub, grass, forb, barren, or water), species, 

size, and density (USDA Forest Service 2005, USDA Forest Service 2008a). 

Update to R2Veg Vegetation Database for Plan Revision

The Forest GIS vegetation database (R2Veg) was fundamental to several analyses performed for the Plan 

revision effort. Although it is updated every few years to reflect changed conditions, there were 

inaccuracies that had to be updated immediately to more realistically represent conditions on the ground. 

No changes were made to the vegetation database between draft and final. No vegetation inventory was 

conducted and no significant wildfires occurred. The current database is representative of forest 

conditions and is adequate for making the needed alternative comparisons. Changes made (see table 1) 

address the following situations.

Wildfires

Cover type and structural stage were updated to reflect changes to stands resulting from recent wildfires 

(Gunbarrel, Hole in the Wall, Warm Springs, Norton Point and Castle). 

 1 In 2011, R2Veg data were moved to a new database called FSVeg Spatial. For the revision process, the data are 

being used in the R2Veg format before being transferred.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1099

Regeneration Cover Types

Forested stands that were burned or where insects killed the overstory were erroneously classified as 

grasslands or shrublands, based on the fact that the majority of the vegetation was grass or shrubs at the 

time of inventory. Information in the database indicated that the stands previously contained trees. The 

majority of these stands will transition back to forested vegetation over time, so they should be classified 

as forested cover types with a current structural stage of grass/forb or shrub for modeling purposes. The 

vegetation database was adjusted to reflect this. 

Alpine versus Grasslands

There was a need to split out alpine habitat from grasslands. This was accomplished using the alpine soils 

GIS layer to identify grasslands characterized by alpine vegetation. A small amount of willow habitat was 

also placed in the alpine group. Alpine grassland has a structural stage of grass/forb and alpine willow 

habitat has one of seedling/sapling. Not all alpine habitat was split out because a majority of the highelevation sites are classified as rock and/or ice.

Table 1. Acres changes resulting from database update of vegetation data

Cover Types Acres Prior to Update Acres after Update Change

Alpine 300,647 300,647

Aspen 27,669 27,792 123

Douglas fir 314,520 355,789 41,269

Grasslands 977,974 518,783 -158,5452

Limber pine 38,251 39,167 916

Lodgepole pine 269,033 389,133 120,101

Non-vegetated 332,368 328,170 -4,198

Other tree 4,760 4,786 26

Sagebrush 52,149 49,955 -2,193

Spruce/fir 331,682 315,986 -15,696

Water 16,363 16,363 0

Whitebark pine 174,033 192,682 18,649

Willow 15,825 15,374 -451

Totals 2,554,626 2,554,626

Forest health (insect and disease)

Information on forest health used in Plan revision was summarized from aerial and ground observations 

by Region 2 Forest health protection staff and Region 2 state partners. Aerial surveys are conducted 

annually, primarily over western conifer and aspen forest. Aerial surveys can detect faded foliage caused 

by bark beetle attack, needle or leaf loss or discoloration caused by defoliating insects, wind thrown 

trees, and in some cases, fungi or abiotic factors. Ground surveys constitute a broad range of observations 

in rural and urban forest environments throughout the region. Data used in plan revision include aerial 

surveys conducted through 2011.

 2 The acres of alpine and grassland habitats were combined to estimate the change in grassland cover type.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1100

Due to the nature of aerial surveys, data will only provide rough estimates of location, intensity, and the 

resulting trend information for agents detectable from the air. Data presented should only be used as a 

partial indicator of insect and disease activity. 

Aerial surveys were conducted in 2012 for the forest. That latest information was not incorporated into 

the analysis between draft and final. It was determined that the existing vegetation dataset was adequate 

to analyze differences among alternatives and inform the decision maker. Any changes to the database 

would have required many of the vegetation-related analyses done for the EIS to be redone. The benefit of 

redoing the analysis versus the time and cost of redoing that work was not deemed favorable. More 

accurate information may be necessary for a site-specific analysis, but for an analysis at the forest scale 

the differences are not significant. The additional acres identified in the 2012 aerial survey amount to 

approximately 14,000 acres across the whole forest.

Insect epidemic information used in spectrum analysis

One of the land stratification identifiers used in the spectrum model was whether the land had been 

impacted by the insect epidemic. This was used to determine whether to assign a yield table that had been 

modified for bug impacts. Because of the nature and accuracy of the aerial survey data as compared to the 

vegetation database, there is not good correlation in the accuracy of mapping and polygon boundary 

locations. In general, the aerial survey mapping is less spatially accurate than the vegetation data. This is 

not a limitation when the aerial survey data is for the primary purpose of identifying trends from year to 

year. It is a limitation when there is an attempt to combine the aerial survey information with more 

accurate stand data.

This issue was addressed by using the stand data as a controlling layer in combining the two data sets. 

Basically the bark beetle information was extracted from the aerial data and was overlaid with the conifer 

stands from the vegetation layer. Any aerial data that fell outside of a conifer stand was dropped. There 

was also no attempt made to match up the cover type classification from the aerial data with the 

vegetation data. The aerial data were strictly used to identify whether there was an impact from the 

epidemic, regardless of tree species. 

The resulting information has a lower estimate for total acres impacted from the epidemic on the forest, 

but still indicates a significant impact to the timber base (more than half the base impacted by insects),

and the interdisciplinary team felt the data were appropriate for comparing effects across alternatives. The 

acres are not intended to provide an estimate of total impacts and should not be used for that purpose.

Range Capability and Suitability Evaluation

The requirement to perform analysis of rangeland suitability is found in the NFMA at 36 CFR 219.20. 

The process followed on the Shoshone National Forest is based on Region 2 direction. This analysis 

focused on those environmental components that had the greatest effect on range suitability and were 

most important for comparison among alternatives. Items that did not vary by alternative and had a 

similar effect in all alternatives were not included. For example, range capability was not reduced by 

calculating the acreage that occurs on road surfaces. That number is relatively constant across the 

alternatives and does not provide information that is important for the decision-making process. Those

types of site-specific components are addressed during project-level allotment management planning.

Rangeland Capability

The definition of rangeland capability found in 36 CFR 219.3 (1982 regulations) follows:

Capability – The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow 

resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of management 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1101

intensity. Capability depends upon current resource and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, 

soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices, such as silviculture or protection 

from fire, insects, and disease.

Process for Determination of Rangeland Capability

The Forest GIS and the most current available data were used for the following analysis.

1. Begin with all NFS lands.

2. Areas that are dominated by a large percentage of rock, barren ground, and generally non-vegetated 

ground were subtracted. Water in the form of lakes and ponds was also subtracted at this step.

3. Slopes greater than 60 percent were subtracted. These areas are identified as not suitable for cattle and 

sheep grazing. In the DEIS analysis, the 40 to 60 percent slope range, which is generally suitable for 

sheep grazing was identified as not being capable. Most of the Shoshone is not available for sheep 

grazing and the interdisciplinary team felt the information on capability for sheep was not needed by 

the decision maker. Sheep are only grazed on two allotments on the south end of the Forest and the 

terrain is generally less than 40 percent slopes in those areas. Comments received on the DEIS 

objected to this approach. They felt it did not follow standard protocols and provided in incorrect 

display of grazing capability. Based on the comments, we reconsidered our approach and adjusted it 

to include the 40 to 60 percent slope range as capable acres. Now they are not removed until the 

suitability screen where suitability for cattle grazing is determined. 

4. The remaining acres are generally capable for grazing.

Rangeland Suitability

The definition of suitability found at 36 CFR 219.3 (1982 regulations) follows:

Suitability – The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a 

particular area of lands, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental 

consequences and the alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of 

individual or combined management practices.

Rangeland suitability varies by alternative or grouping of alternatives.

Process for Determination of Rangeland Suitability

1. Unusable areas identified in the capability analysis were subtracted.

2. Acres with slopes 40 to 60 percent slope were subtracted as not being suitable for cattle grazing.

3. Acres that have an over story or tree canopy cover were subtracted. Transitory range is normally only 

considered for a short time when conditions favor the production of sufficient understory vegetation. 

To simplify the analysis, cover types for lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and spruce/fir were subtracted at 

this stage, based on the assumption that the desired condition on those areas was a fully stocked 

timber stand that would limit understory vegetation. Other cover types (aspen, whitebark pine, limber 

pine) were not subtracted because they generally occur in less dense stands or provide conditions that 

support understory vegetation that provide forage.

4. Acres that occurred outside of existing allotments were subtracted from all alternatives except for 

alternative F. These are areas where management area prescriptions do not support livestock grazing. 

They include areas like wilderness that have never been grazed and other areas where grazing has not 

occurred because of limited forage. Management activities have not supported grazing in these areas. 
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1102

All of the areas outside of wilderness that had some forage potential were included in alternative F to 

provide an opportunity for evaluation.

5. In alternative F, some of the acres in new allotments occurred in old sheep allotments that were not 

restocked with cattle because of their general unsuitability for cattle grazing. To better represent that 

situation in the analysis, acres classified as alpine within old sheep allotments were subtracted from 

alternative F.

6. One of the design criteria in alternative C was for no cattle grazing on bighorn sheep and elk crucial 

winter range. Those acres are subtracted in alternative C.

7. The remaining area is generally suitable for grazing.

Forest Plan Suitability Determination

For forest planning purposes, the combined “capability” and “suitability” analysis constitutes a suitability 

determination. The capability and suitability analysis, and resultant suitability determination is not a 

decision to graze livestock on any specific area of land, nor is it a decision about or estimate of livestock 

grazing capacity. The capability/suitability analysis and suitability determination may or may not provide 

supporting information for a decision to graze livestock on a specific area. 

Any landscape area will contain areas that are capable and/or suitable as well as areas that are modeled as 

being other than capable and/or suitable. Since the forest plan-level suitability determination is based on a 

modeling process, and is dealing with a variety of complex landscapes, it is inevitable that this 

intermingling will occur on a land base of any significant size. Therefore, these suitability determinations 

are not intended to imply that livestock will be precluded from being found on lands that may be modeled 

as other than capable or suitable.

At the forest plan level, the suitability determination provides basic information regarding the potential of 

the land to produce resources and supply goods and services in a sustainable manner, as well as the 

appropriateness of using that land in a given manner. This information assists the interdisciplinary team 

and the line officer in evaluating alternatives and arriving at forest plan-level decisions. It also helps with

an analysis of alternative uses foregone.

Lands Suitable for Timber Production

The timber suitability classification for the Shoshone was accomplished by applying planning regulation 

criteria (36 CFR 219.14 1982 regulations) in a step-wise process. Forest-wide geographic information 

system data were used to analyze and map the classification. Ranger district timber personnel reviewed 

the results and adjusted criteria to reflect on-the-ground experience. The process and rationale are 

described below.

Identification of Lands Generally Not Suitable for Timber Harvest

Criteria for determining lands generally not suitable for timber harvest are outlined in 36 CFR 219.14 

(1982 regulations). Lands generally not suitable for timber harvest are those where:

1. Statute, executive order, or regulation prohibits timber harvest on the land, or the Secretary of 

Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service has withdrawn the land from timber harvest.

2. At the broad forest scale, the responsible official estimates that soil, slope, or other watershed 

conditions will be irreversibly damaged by timber harvest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1103

3. At the broad forest scale, the responsible official estimates there is no assurance that such lands can 

be adequately restocked within 5 years after harvest.

4. Trees are unable to grow due to environmental conditions (such as insufficient rainfall, low 

temperature, or other growing conditions preventing the establishment of tree cover). 

Under criterion 1, areas were identified as not suitable for timber harvest. These included designated 

wilderness, the Dunoir Special Management Unit, and High Lakes Wilderness Study Area. The Glacier 

Addition to the Fitzpatrick Wilderness is not included with this group. The wilderness designation for that 

area allows timber harvest for bighorn sheep management.

Criteria 2, 3, and 4 are considered together because there is overlap between data used to screen for the 

criteria. Table 2 displays lands excluded from timber harvest and the criteria under which they fall.

Table 2. Areas where irreversible damage, adequate restocking, and other environmental conditions make 

the area not suitable for timber harvest

Land conditions Criteria rationale

High elevations above 11,000 feet Adequate restocking and environmental conditions

Low elevations and southwest aspects3 Adequate restocking and environmental conditions

Slopes greater than 40 percent Irreversible damage

Areas of water, rock, or barren Environmental conditions

Identification of Lands Generally Suitable for Timber Harvest

All lands that do not meet the criteria described above were identified as lands generally suitable for 

timber harvest.

These lands include:

1. Lands where timber production achieves or is compatible with the achievement of desired conditions 

and objectives established by the plan. 

2. Other lands where harvest for multiple-use objectives other than timber production, including salvage 

sales, may take place.

Timber Production Achieves or is Compatible with Desired Conditions and 

Resource Objectives

This category includes lands where:

1. Timber production would either (a) achieve, (b) be compatible with, or (c) could contribute to, the 

achievement of desired conditions and resource management objectives , and

2. A flow of forest products can be planned and scheduled on a reasonably predictable basis over time. 

 3 Elevations were adjusted by ranger district from north to south to reflect on-the-ground experience (Clarks Fork 

Ranger District below 7,200 feet, Greybull and Wapiti Ranger Districts below 7,600 feet, Wind River Ranger 

District below 8,000 feet, and Washakie Ranger District below 8,400 feet). These numbers are still being fine-tuned.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1104

On these lands, timber production may be a primary multiple-use resource objective. In many cases, 

timber production may be secondary to other multiple-use resource objectives. If meeting desired 

conditions and resource objectives would achieve or be compatible with producing commercial timber 

products over time, and those products can be planned and scheduled on a reasonably predictable basis, 

the land should be identified as generally suitable for timber production. An important factor in 

determining whether desired conditions and objectives are compatible with timber production is whether 

regeneration of the stand as an element in maintaining the desired conditions of forest vegetation is 

planned at any time in the future. If regeneration is not planned at any time in the future, those lands are 

not included in this category. The identification of lands generally suitable for timber production as one of 

the management objectives is not a final decision approving projects or activities.

For the Shoshone, lands within Management Area (MA) Category 5 were included in this category, 

excluding those lands that meet the criteria described in the next section. 

Other Lands where Timber Production is not Compatible with Desired 

Conditions or Resource Objectives

Special areas and proposed special areas were identified where the desired conditions are not compatible 

with timber production. These include the designated Clarks Fork Wild and Scenic River segment, Line 

Creek Plateau Research Natural Area, and proposed research natural areas and special interest areas. 

On some lands, timber production is not compatible with the resource objectives. Those lands are 

described in table 3.

Table 3. Lands where resource objectives are not compatible with timber production

Lands description Rationale

Cover types of aspen, cottonwood, pinyon Resource objectives are to maintain these cover types. These are not 

commercial timber species.

Cover types of whitebark pine or limber 

pine

Pure stands of these species are not compatible with timber 

production. They do not generally produce marketable products in 

pure stands. This does not apply when they occur in mixed stands 

with other conifer species.

Cover types of grasslands and shrublands Resource objectives are to maintain these cover types. 

Moraine soil type (in the Washakie 

geographic area) Highly rocky soils are not compatible with timber production.

On some lands, the desired conditions for management areas proposed in Plan revision are not compatible 

with timber production. These include all management areas in categories other than 5, including 

management areas MA 4.2 Scenic byways, scenic areas, vistas, and travel corridors and MA 4.3 Back 

country access corridors. In addition, any lands in inventoried roadless areas in alternatives B, C, D, and 

G are not compatible with timber production. Harvest in those alternatives is restricted due to the reasons 

identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Suitable timber acres for alternative A

The timber suitability determination is a forest plan decision and is only changed by a plan revision or 

amendment. The current suitable timber for the existing plan is 86,300 acres. This acreage has not 

changed since the 1986 Forest Plan was first signed, though the 1994 amendment that lowered the 

allowable sale quantity (ASQ) did attempt to map the location of the acres. The accuracy of that map was 

limited by the technology and information available at that time. In this DEIS, suitable acres are reported 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1105

as 86,300 for alternative A, but it was felt that using this number for analysis of effects would skew the 

relative comparison with the other alternatives.

To address this information, the suitable acres for alternative A were remapped using the same process 

used for the action alternatives described above. The existing forest plan management area allocations 

were used in that process. This remapping resulted in 107,000 acres of suitable timber land. These acres 

were used in the analysis process. It is felt that this gives a more appropriate comparison across the 

alternatives and does not change alternative A’s relative ranking on number of suitable timber acres across 

the alternatives. If alternative A is chosen as the preferred alternative in the final decision, this mapping of 

the suitable acres will be established as the suitable acres.

Timber Yield Table Development

Timber yield tables used in the analysis were developed using the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). The 

FVS is a forest growth and yield model designed to forecast forest stand development from stand 

inventory data. The FVS grows individual forest stands into the future with regard to current stand 

conditions, regionally embedded growth and mortality relationships, and user-defined management 

options. Post processing of multiple stand simulations to describe the average stand condition for a group

of similar stands is completed to create stratum-based yield tables. Yield tables were then produced for 

multiple strata under multiple management options for use in the timber model to allocate treatments on 

the landscape in order to obtain desired conditions. Documentation of the development of the timber yield 

tables is found in Summary of Yield Table Development for Forest Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service 

2006). 

Due to the advent of bark beetle outbreaks throughout the Shoshone, it was necessary to generate new 

yield tables to represent the current state and projected yields of lands affected by bark beetles. Lands 

determined to be affected by insects were represented by new simulation runs. Those lands determined to 

be not affected were represented by simulations done in 2006. Representation of bark beetle outbreaks 

was accomplished using FVS forest pest extensions. Those extensions were: Lodgepole Mountain Pine 

Beetle Model and Western Root Disease Model. Root disease impacts were not a component in any strata, 

but the Western Root Disease Model has bark beetle impact capabilities that were used to represent 

Douglas-fir beetle in the Douglas-fir forest cover type and spruce beetle in the Engelmann 

spruce/subalpine fir forest cover type. Dwarf mistletoe impacts were also included in the projections 

using the Dwarf Mistletoe Model where indicated by tree damage and severity codes in the inventory 

data. 

All original inventory data used in the 2006 projections were used in the 2012 projections and no new 

data were introduced. Also unaltered were the strata classes to which the individual stands were assigned, 

as well as the calibration and regeneration parameters developed for the original FVS projections (USDA 

Forest Service 2012).

Spectrum Model

Spectrum, a forest planning model, was used to estimate the ASQ and long-term sustained-yield capacity

for the Shoshone National Forest plan revision. Spectrum is a linear program-based model used to 

optimize the allocation of land and the scheduling of activities and outputs on a forest over a planning 

horizon (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Spectrum is available from the Forest Service’s Inventory and 

Monitoring Institute in Fort Collins, Colorado. The latest version, Spectrum 3.0 was used in this analysis. 

A commercial linear program solver called C-Whiz (version 4.2) was used to solve the matrix generated 

by Spectrum. C-Whiz can be purchased from Ketron Management Science.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1106

Spectrum utilizes data components that include land units, management actions, activities and outputs, 

costs and revenues, management objectives, and a planning time frame or horizon (USDA Forest Service 

2008b).

Spectrum Land Units and Strata

Land units in Spectrum are defined by up to six layers of descriptive qualifiers or identifiers. For the 

Shoshone model, the planning area was stratified into land units based on six identifiers: timber objective, 

vegetation cover type (dominant species), habitat structural stage (stand density and size class), 

inventoried roadless area/roading classification, insect epidemic mortality, and ranger district. 

Vegetation management prescriptions and yields are assigned based on a subset of the land units in 

Spectrum defined by cover type and habitat structural stage (see table 4). The yield tables developed for 

Plan revision were assigned based on this subset of land units.

To simplify model runs and since the model was only being used to model timber harvest, lands where 

timber harvest was not allowed were not included in the final Spectrum analysis. The spectrum analysis 

for altenative B was used for alternative G in the FEIS. All the land allocations in alternative G, including 

those for timber objectives and inventoried roadless, are the same as alternative B. As a result, the other 

changes in alternative G, don’t result in a change to the timber harvest analysis.

Table 4. Spectrum strata

Spectrum Level 

Identifiers Code and Definition Notes

Timber objectives

TMPROD - Timber production

TMHARV - Timber harvest allowed

TMNOHV - Timber harvest not allowed

Identify suitable timber lands (timber 

production) and where other timber 

harvest was allowed or not allowed

Cover type

LP - Lodgepole

SF - Spruce/Fir

DF - Douglas fir

LM - Limber pine

AS - Aspen

WB - Whitebark pine

GRA - Grass and forbs

NFL - Non-forested lands

SHR - Shrublands

WAT - Water

OTH - Other tree species

ALP - Alpine

Used to identify predominate cover type

and to assign yield tables and 

prescriptions. Cover type was one of 

two attributes used to stratify yield 

tables.

Habitat structural stage

2T- Seedling/sapling

3A - Pole low density

3B - Pole medium density

3C - Pole high density

4A - Mature low density

4B - Mature medium density

4C - Mature high density

3T - Pole any density

4T - Mature any density

1M - Grass forb

2S - Shrubs

TT - Any stage

NA - Not applicable

Used to identify habitat structural stage

and to assign yield tables and 

prescriptions. Habitat structural stage 

was one of two attributes used to stratify 

yield tables.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1107

Table 4. Spectrum strata

Spectrum Level 

Identifiers Code and Definition Notes

Inventoried roadless 

area and roaded lands 

IRARDD - Inventoried roadless area that is 

roaded

IRAXXX - Inventoried roadless area without 

roads

XXXRDD - Other forest areas that are 

roaded

XXXXXX - Other forest areas without roads

Used to identify if lands were 

inventoried roadless areas and/or if 

lands were within one mile of a system 

road. Roading identifier was used to 

determine if new system road 

construction was needed to harvest 

timber.

Insect INSECT - Impacted by insect epidemic

XXX - Not impacted by insect epidemic

Used to identify conifer stands impacted 

by insect epidemic. Used to determine

whether to assign yield tables simulated 

for insect epidemics.

Ranger district

CLRKFK – Clarks Fork Ranger District

WAPITI - Wapiti Ranger District

GRYBLL - Greybull Ranger District

WNDRVR - Wind River Ranger District

WSHKIE - Washakie Ranger District

Used to identify ranger district

Spectrum Miscellaneous Model Parameters

The Shoshone model uses a 200-year planning horizon, beginning in 2010. This time span consists of 

20 periods or decades; each period is 10 years. A discount rate of 4 percent was used for economics.

Spectrum Timber Cost and Revenues Coefficients 

Revenues

Revenues are based on sell data from 40 timber sales sold between 2004 and 2011. Only sales over 

10 acres in size were used in the calculations for sawlogs. Sales smaller than 10 acres were not included 

in the calculations. These smaller sales tended to be unique, such as pile sales, and are not representative 

of what is being modeled in Spectrum. The 40 timber sales included represented over 97 percent of the 

timber sale volume and value sold between 2004 and 2011. A rate was calculated for green, dead, and 

mixed green/dead sawlogs. The rates for dead and mixed dead/green were within 20 percent of each other, 

so they were averaged together and one rate is being used for them. The green rate is approximately 

50 percent higher, so it is being kept separate. Revenues developed are for all species. (See table 5.)

The fuelwood or products other than sawtimber (POL) value used is based on the free use rate of $7.50. 

An average of all fuelwood/POL sales from 2004 to 2011 yielded an average of $7.20. Based on the 

closeness of this number to the established rate of $7.50, we decided to use the established rate. 
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1108

Table 5. Timber revenues

Product Revenue 

(dollars per Ccf*)

Fuelwood/POL 7.50

Green sawtimber 31.90

Mixed Dead/green sawtimber 17.00

*Ccf = Hundred cubic feet

Timber sale-related costs

• Timber sale preparation, administration, and planning costs are based on costs experienced between 

2006 and 2011. 

• Stand exam costs are based on current contract costs. The cost is higher for surveys done within lynx 

habitat because additional data are gathered to analyze effects. The higher cost is used for the four 

northern ranger districts because the majority of the suitable timber lands on those districts fall within 

lynx analysis units (LAU). The lower cost is used on the Washakie Ranger District, which does not 

have any LAUs.

• Precommercial thinning costs are based on costs experienced on adjacent Forest Service units. 

Shoshone National Forest costs were not used because there have not been any recent contracts. In the 

last few years, funding has been allocated to fuels projects instead of precommercial thinning 

contracts.

• Planting costs are based on costs recently experienced on the Shoshone. There are three different 

rates: (1) a full rate for planting after wildfire; (2) an interplant rate that makes up the majority of our 

acres planted (this rate is lower because there is usually some amount of existing regeneration within 

planted stands); and (3) a rate for whitebark pine planting, which is more expensive overall both 

because it costs more to raise seedlings and to plant, given that planting sites tend to be more remote. 

• Costs for road construction and reconstruction are based on costs experienced on the Shoshone. The 

difference between these costs is much less than is traditionally seen. This is related to the fact that 

much of our terrain and soils lead to higher costs, even for reconstruction.

• Costs for road maintenance and temporary roads are based on costs experienced on the 40 timber 

sales used in calculating the revenue numbers. (See table 6.)
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1109

Table 6. Activity costs

Activity Cost

Sale preparation (dollars per Mcf*) 146.00

Sale administration (dollars per Mcf) 252.00

Sale planning (dollars per Mcf) 56.00

Stand exam (Clarks Fork, Wapiti, Greybull, Wind River Ranger Districts)

(dollars per acre) 9.20 

Stand exam (Washakie Ranger District) (dollars per acre) 8.20 

Precommercial thinning (dollars per acre) 280.00

Planting – full planting (dollars per acre) 391.00

Planting – Interplanting (dollars per acre) 295.00

Planting – whitebark pine (dollars per acre) $480.00

Road construction (dollars per mile) 23,000.00

Road reconstruction (dollars per mile) 21,150.00

Temporary roads (dollars per mile) 15,895.00

Extended skidding (dollars per Mcf) 204.10

Road maintenance (dollars per Mcf) 18.60

*Mcf = Thousand cubic feet

Output coefficients

The acre and volume coefficients for timber harvest are generated for the FVS yield tables used within the 

Spectrum model (see table 7). (See Timber Yield Table Development for discussion.)

Other coefficients

• Road reconstruction miles are based on the rates experienced in the 40 timber sales used in the 

revenue calculations. This coefficient applies to all timber sales on lands with existing roads and on 

the second entry on lands without existing roads.

• Two numbers were calculated for road construction miles. The number for lands with existing roads is 

based on rates experienced in the 40 timber sales used in the revenue calculations. There is always the 

potential for some new road construction, even in currently roaded areas. The number for lands 

without existing roads is based on the estimated miles needed to access a square mile of land 

considering skidding distances and the construction of some temporary roads.

• Temporary road miles are based on the rates experienced in the 40 timber sales used in the revenue 

calculations. This coefficient applies to all timber sales on lands with existing roads and on the second 

entry on lands without existing roads.

• The extended skidding cost is applied to lands where we cannot build a road system (inventoried 

roadless areas or IRA) or temporary roads. Those lands are managed with extended skidding 

distances up to one mile.

• Acres of planting are based on costs experienced on current timber sales.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1110

Table 7. Output coefficients

Output Coefficients

Road reconstruction 0.0043 mile per acre harvested

Road construction (lands with existing roads) 0.0003 mile per acre harvested

Road construction (lands without existing roads) 0.0031 mile per acre harvested

Temporary roads 0.0031 mile per acre harvested

Planting-full planting 0.75 acre planted per clearcut or fire salvage acres 

harvested 

Planting-interplanting 0.20 acre planted per acre of final harvest other than 

clearcut

Planting-whitebark

0.75 acre planted per acre of restoration treatment (I don’t 

think we will be modeling this in Spectrum, but still need to 

discuss)

Application of road coefficients

A description of how road coefficients were assigned to the strata in the different alternatives follows (see 

table 8). This description is not to be interpreted as forest plan direction, but rather as a way to model that 

direction within the spectrum model. Spectrum is only used to model the portion of timber harvest that 

will be sold as commercial timber. Under plan direction, trees can be cut for other purposes that do not 

require a road system to remove timber from the forest. Direction on where road construction is suitable is 

found in the forest plan. 

For lands outside of IRAs, the assignment is straightforward and the same in all alternatives. In suitable 

timber lands, the only difference is based on roading and miles of new construction. For lands available 

for timber harvest, no new road construction is permitted.

4 However, temporary roads are allowed, and 

therefore, extended skidding costs are not needed. Road reconstruction costs are included regardless of 

whether the lands are roaded or not. When the area is not roaded, it is assumed that the reconstruction 

costs are being applied to roads outside of the area.

For lands within IRAs the assignment differs according to whether the alternative is consistent with the 

2001 Roadless Conservation Rule. For alternatives A, E, and F the assignment is the same as for lands 

outside of IRA. For alternatives B, C, D, and G, there are no lands assigned as suitable timber lands 

within IRAs so there are no coefficients to apply. For timber harvest lands, no new system roads or 

temporary roads can be built, so those coefficients are not applied. Harvest on timber harvest lands can 

only occur if the harvest area is within one mile of an existing road and with the application of extended 

skidding. Road reconstruction costs are still applied under the assumption that the roads being 

reconstructed are outside of the area. Inventoried roadless area acres that are not within one mile of an 

existing road will not be harvested under the assumption that they are not accessible without the building 

of roads. 

 4 There is one management area that is assigned to timber harvest lands that does allow new road construction. That 

is MA 4.2, travel corridors. Although new road construction is allowed, it would rarely be done for harvest because 

the corridor is a 0.5-mile buffer on existing roads, and all lands could be reached with skidding and temporary roads. 

So for the purpose of spectrum modeling these timber harvest lands can be lumped with other lands that don’t allow 

new road construction.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1111

Table 8. Application of road coefficients and costs by level identifiers

Road Status 

Attribute Alternative

Land Suitability attribute

Timber production lands Timber harvest, but not production

Lands that are 

not within 

inventoried 

roadless area 

and are within 

1 mile of a 

system road.

All Alts

Road construction 0.0003 mile/acre 

harvested

Road Reconstruction 0.0043 mile/ acre 

harvested

Temporary roads 0.0031 mile/ acre 

harvested

No extended skidding cost

No road construction

Road Reconstruction 0.0043 mile/acre harvested

Temporary roads 0.0031 mile/acre harvested

No extended skidding cost

Lands that are 

not within 

inventoried 

roadless area 

and are not 

within 1 mile of 

a system road.

All Alts

Road construction 0.0031 mile/ acre 

harvested

Road Reconstruction 0.0043 mile/ acre 

harvested

Temporary roads 0.0031 mile/ acre 

harvested

No extended skidding cost

No road construction

Road Reconstruction 0.0043 mile/acre harvested

Temporary roads 0.0031 mile/acre harvested

No extended skidding cost

Lands that are 

within 

inventoried 

roadless area 

and are within 

1 mile of a 

system road

Alts B, C, D, 

G No acres of this type in these alts

No road construction

Road Reconstruction 0.0043 mile/ acre harvested

No temporary roads 

Use extended skidding cost

Alts A, E, F Same as lands not within inventoried 

roadless area

Same as lands not within inventoried roadless 

area

Lands that are 

within 

inventoried 

roadless area 

and are not 

within 1 mile of 

a system road

Alts B, C, D. 

G No acres of this type in these alts None of these acres will be harvested for timber in these alternatives

Alts A, E, F Same as lands not within inventoried 

roadless area

Same as lands not within inventoried roadless 

area

Timber Economic Suitability Analysis

Economic suitability is a financial analysis required during forest planning to determine the costs and 

benefits of a range of management intensities for timber production (36 CFR 219.14(b) 1982 regulations). 

It helps answer the question of whether lands suitable for timber harvest or production can produce timber 

cost effectively. The analysis is required for those lands that have not already been determined to be 

unsuitable for timber harvest. For each unique land class represented in the Spectrum model, the present 

net value (PNV) of each management prescription that might be applied to that land class is calculated. 

The PNV is the sum of discounted costs and revenues associated with the management prescription for 

the entire planning horizon. Costs and revenues in this analysis are expressed in 2010 dollars. Costs are 

explained in detail in the section Spectrum Timber Costs, Revenues and Coefficients. They include costs 

associated with planning and conducting a timber sale. Revenues are expected gross receipts to the 

government based on expected stumpage prices. Future costs and benefits are discounted to present 

values using a 4 percent interest rate.

Several factors about this analysis should be understood. First, no decisions about the management of the

land are made at the conclusion of the analysis. Rather, the results are used for comparison between 

management regimes and are but one of many pieces of information used in the formulation of 

alternatives. Second, the analysis doesn’t represent a single point in time. The management prescription is 

assumed to continue through time (regular harvest cycles for uneven-aged management and multiple 

rotations for even-aged management) and all costs and returns are considered over the entire 200-year 

planning horizon and discounted to the base year.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1112

Results

The average PNVs for the Shoshone are negative to varying degrees, depending on the management 

prescription. For most management prescriptions, there was a wide range of PNV per acre values across 

the land types where the prescription may be applied. Most of the variation within a management 

prescription is explained by the age of the stand at the beginning of the planning horizon. Table 9 displays 

the average PNV values for each management prescription, and averages for young and mature stands 

within that management prescription.

Low or negative PNV occurs for various reasons. For most harvest treatments on the Shoshone, costs 

exceed revenues. Because of discounting, a prescription that has treatments in early decades will have a 

more negative PNV than the same prescription with treatments in later decades. This explains why for 

each management prescription, the younger stands have a less negative PNV than the older stands.

Table 9. Present net value by prescription by habitat structural stage (Mature = 4A, 4B, 4C, 

4T; Young = all others)

Management Prescription Age Class Average PNV

$/acre

Clearcut -163.15

Mature -224.22

Young -31.72

Convert DF to Aspen -188.05

Mature -214.48

Young -33.99

Convert SF to Aspen -116.11

Mature -203.38

Young -14.80

Group Selection, opt. 1 -150.57

Mature -202.60

Young -18.04

Group Selection, opt. 2 -20.89

Mature -75.55

Young -6.58

Individual tree selection, opt. 1 -110.36

Mature -194.14

Young -12.54

Individual Tree Selection, opt. 2 -92.91

Mature -161.12

Young -5.83

Overstory Removal (opt.1)then Shelterwood -308.39

Mature -308.39

Overstory Removal (opt.2) then Shelterwood -208.33

Mature -208.33
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1113

Table 9. Present net value by prescription by habitat structural stage (Mature = 4A, 4B, 4C, 

4T; Young = all others)

Management Prescription Age Class Average PNV

$/acre

Overstory Removal (opt.3) then Shelterwood -140.74

Mature -140.74

Seed Tree Cut w/ thin in exist and regen -78.31

Young -78.31

Seed Tree Cut w/ thin in regen -143.00

Mature -232.97

Young -53.24

Three Step shelterwood -68.32

Mature -122.25

Young -9.14

Three Step Shelterwood pct -9.74

Young -9.74

Two Step shelterwood -111.16

Mature -144.10

Young -14.44

Fire and fuels analysis

Shoshone National Forest Wildland Fire Hazard Rating

Wildland fire hazard on the Forest was determined using FlamMap, a fire mapping and analysis PC-based 

program that describes potential fire behavior across a landscape under constant environmental conditions 

(weather and fuel moisture). Fire behavior was calculated for each 30x30 meter pixel of the forest using 

vegetation and topological characteristics combined with wind and live and dead fuel moistures. Fireline 

intensity or flame length was used as the indicator to determine a hazard rating across the forest 

landscape. Fireline intensity or flame length is related to the heat felt by a person standing next to the 

flames. See table 10.

Table 10. Hazard rating interpretation

Hazard Rating Fireline Intensity (BTU/ft./s) Flame Length (Feet) Interpretation

Low 0 to 100 0 to 4

Fires can generally be attacked at 

the head or flanks by persons with 

handtools.

Moderate 100 to 500 4 to 8

Fires too intense for direct attack by 

persons with handtools; equipment 

such as dozers, engines or aircraft 

can be effective.

High 500+ 8+

Torching, crowning, spotting may 

cause serious control problems, 

control at the head of the fire is 

ineffective.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1114

Data used for the analysis were obtained from LANDFIRE, version LF 2010, May 2013. LANDFIRE 

data used for the analysis included:

• 40 Scott and Burgan Fire Behavior Fuel Models

• Forest Canopy Bulk Density

• Forest Canopy Base Height

• Forest Canopy Cover

• Forest Canopy Height

• Slope

• Aspect

• Elevation

Version LF 2010 reflected vegetation change and disturbance 1999 to 2010 for fire, vegetation 

management, and succession. Vegetation changes from fire, management, or succession after 2010 were 

not reflected in the data. Wildfires that have occurred since 2010 on the Shoshone include Norton Point 

(24,237 acres), Hole in the Wall (2,541 acres on the Shoshone), and Index Creek (214 acres). 

Management activities on the forest were not incorporated in the latest data version. Vegetation 

characteristics (fuel model change, increase in crown base height, decrease in canopy bulk density and 

decrease in canopy cover) were modified manually using Spatial Analyst in ArcMap for the wildfire areas 

to reflect a change in vegetation before running the FlamMap analysis.

FLAMAP Analysis

FlamMap calculates fire behavior characteristics based on fuels, topography, and weather (Finney 1998).

Inputs:

Potential fire behavior was modeled at the 90th percentile weather and fuel moisture conditions, 

equivalent to high to very high fire danger rating. 

The 90th percentile conditions were calculated for the four National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) 

Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) used on the forest identified in the Cody Interagency 

Dispatch Zone Fire Danger Rating Operation Plan (CIDZFDOP), April 2013, version 1.0. 

Crandall RAWS and Eagle RAWS were identified as the weather stations that best correlated weather 

conditions and fire business on the northern portion of the forest and Elkhorn RAWS and Anderson Ridge 

RAWS on the southern portion. 

FireFamily Plus was used to determine percentile fuel moistures using Energy Release Component (ERC) 

and westerly winds (NW, W, and SW) for each station and then averaged for one live and dead fuel 

moisture value used in the FlamMap analysis. All four stations had similar fuel moisture values. See Table 

11.

Table 11. 90th percentile fuel moistures

1-hr

Fuel Moisture

10-hr

Fuel Moisture

100-hr

Fuel Moisture

Herbaceous

Fuel Moisture

Woody

Fuel Moisture

3% 4% 6% 50% 70%
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1115

Live fuel moistures were estimated rather than calculated using FireFamily Plus. The calculated values 

are generally inaccurate and commonly estimated based on time of year and average curing rates.

Weather is entered as a single event without any temporal variation and is represented by wind. West wind 

direction was used as it reflects between 65 to 81 percent of the wind direction at the four RAWS. A 20-

foot wind speed of 20 mph was estimated to represent 90th percentile conditions. Wind Ninja wind vectors 

within the FlamMap model were used to reflect wind direction and speed based on topological influences.

Outputs: 

The FlamMap output used for the analysis was flame length. The raster data from the output was 

downloaded into ArcMap for display purposes and acres were calculated from the data. 

A significant part of the portion contains non-burnable fuels as reflected in the flame length outputs of 

zero feet. Not all of the areas with zero feet flame length were considered non-burnable as flame lengths 

less than 0.5 feet are rounded down to zero. Areas with low flame lengths include some of the more recent 

wildfires where fuels have not regrown or accumulated enough to reflect a flame length. The 40 Scott and 

Burgan Fire Behavior Fuel Models layer was used to determine the areas that were non-burnable as 

shown in table 12. The acres of non-burnable were subtracted from the total acres that FlamMap 

estimated to have a zero flame length.

The acres calculated from the data were 154 acres less than the 2,438,150 acres currently assigned to the 

Shoshone. To match the acres, each rating area was manually assigned an additional 51.3 acres to balance 

the forest acres.

Table 12. Unburnable areas

Description Acres

91-NB1 Urban Development 1,682

92-NB2 Snow/Ice 14,742

93-NB3 Agriculture 44

98-NB8 Open Water 13,618

99-NB9 Bare Ground 539,935

Total 570,021

Table 13. Forest hazard rating

Hazard Rating Description Acres

None Unburnable Fuels 570,021

Low Flame Length 0-4 ft. 696,189

Moderate Flame Length 4-8 ft. 345,500

High Flame Length 8+ ft. 826,440

Total 2,438,150

Wildfire costs calculations

Seven large fires that ranged in size from 214 to 68,148 acres during the period of 2008 to 2012 were 

used to the derive costs estimates for the alternatives. 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 since it is the 
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1116

same year that the 1986 Forest Plan 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 Forest Plan would continue with the same management direction as what 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 cost for the next 10 

to 15 years. All wildfire costs were adjusted to 2013 dollars. (See table 14, table 15, and table 16.)

Table 14. Shoshone National Forest wildfire suppression costs (2008 to 2012)

Fire Name Zone Year Acres 

Burned Cost RehabCost

WFM 

Cost/acre

Rehab 

Cost/acre

Gunbarrel NZ 2008 68,148 $11,200,000 $368,500 $164 $5

Castle NZ 2009 326 $100,000 $0 $307 $0

North Fork SZ 2010 333 $900,000 $0 $2,703 $0

Norton Point SZ 2011 24,237 $1,900,000 $79,500 $78 $3

Hole in the Wall NZ 2011 6,343 $4,250,000 $0 $670 $0

Warm Springs SZ 2011 807 $370,000 $0 $458 $0

Index NZ 2012 214 $825,000 $0 $3,855 $0

Total 100,408 $19,545,000 $448,000 $195 $4

Data from FIRESTAT (fire report) for fire cost and acres burned

Table 15. 2008-2012 wildfire cost adjusted to 2013 dollars

Fire Name Zone Year Acres 

Burned

2013 Wildfire 

Cost

2013 Rehab

Cost

2013 WFM 

Cost/ac

2013 

Rehab 

Cost/ac

Gunbarrel NZ 2008 68,148 $12,096,200 $397,500 $177 $6

Castle NZ 2009 326 $108,387 $0 $332 $0

North Fork SZ 2010 333 $959,744 $0 $2,882 $0

Norton Point SZ 2011 24,237 $1,964,128 $82,183 $81 $3

Hole in the Wall NZ 2011 6,343 $4,393,443 $0 $693 $0

Warm Springs SZ 2011 807 $382,488 $0 $474 $0

Index NZ 2012 214 $835,554 $0 $3,904 $0

Total 100,408 $20,739,944 $479,683 $207 $5

CPI inflation calculator used - http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1117

Table 16. Wildfire cost by alternative (2013 dollars)

Alternative Acres Burned Wildfire Cost Rehab 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

References

Finney, M.A. 1998. FARSITE: Fire Area Simulator – Model development and Evaluation. Res. Pap. 

RMRS-RP-4. Ogden UT: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. 47 p. [0360] 

LANDFIRE 1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer.U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 

[Online]. Available:http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ [2013, May 3].

Wildlife Grizzly Bear Denning Analysis

The following section summarizes how the information from Podruzny et al. 2002 and grizzly bear 

amendment (2006) was used to address snow machine use on grizzly bear denning habitat. In the rest of 

this discussion those references will be referred to as the denning analysis. The assumptions used in the 

denning analysis to identify what areas were closed to snowmobiling are different than what we use in 

this EIS. For the Shoshone, the areas identified as closed in the denning analysis include areas with 

closure orders, generally inaccessible terrain that was seldom used, and winter range areas that would 

have a closure order applied if there was ever more than incidental use. In this EIS, we identify areas as 

being open to use if plan direction allows it, even if there is little chance of anything besides incidental 

use occurring. As a result, in this EIS analysis alternative A shows more area open to winter motorized use 

than what is actually occurring or than what is shown in the denning analysis. The action alternatives 

displayed in this EIS definitively identify areas that will be open or closed to snowmobile use, so they are 

comparable to the analysis assumptions used in the denning analysis. Of the action alternatives, 

alternative B is designed to be most like alternative A, and as such, would be most comparable to the noaction alternative used in the denning analysis. The percentage of the forest closed to snowmobile use in 

alternative B is 80 percent and is very close to the 78 percent of closed denning habitat shown in the 

denning analysis. For the purposes of this EIS analysis, we will use the percentage of closed area we have 

calculated for the action alternatives. Though the absolute amounts may not be correct, we feel they are 

close and that they provide good metrics for comparing the alternatives. To account for the approximation 

represented by this approach, the percentages were rounded to the nearest 10 percent.

Scenery Management

Introduction

The Forest Service, in cooperation with other agencies, academic institutions, organizations, and private 

practitioners, developed the Scenery Management System (SMS) in 1994 to provide managers with a 
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1118

systematic approach for determining the relative value and importance of scenery in a national forest. The 

SMS evolved from and replaced the Visual Management System (VMS), which was used in the existing 

forest plan. The SMS takes the VMS process one step further by rating the importance of the landscape 

and by developing scenic classes that measure the value of a landscape being viewed. It allows managers 

to compare the scenic value of a landscape with the value of other resources during the planning process. 

National Direction

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2380.3 requires the agency to “inventory, evaluate, manage, and, where 

necessary, restore scenery as a fully integrated part of the ecosystems of National Forest System lands 

through the land and resource management and planning process.” FSM 2380.31 specifies the use of the 

basic concepts, elements, principles, and variables defined in Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for 

Scenery Management (USDA Forest Service 1995). The handbook outlines the vocabulary and systematic 

approach that is SMS and was used in this plan revision process to identify scenic classes across the 

Shoshone National Forest. 

Scenery Analysis

Scenery management analysis involved identifying scenic components as they relate to people viewing 

them, mapping these components using GIS and existing data, and assigning a value for aesthetics. This 

value, or scenic class, provided information for the revision process. 

Data in the Forest GIS database were used for the analysis. Scenic attractiveness, distance zones, and 

concern levels were combined to establish scenic classes. Scenic classes were then combined with scenic 

integrity to develop landscape character goals and scenic integrity objectives. The following describes the 

analysis process applied.

Scenic Attractiveness

Scenic attractiveness classes are developed to determine the relative scenic value of lands within a 

landscape. The first step in defining scenic attractiveness was the development of landscape character 

Descriptions for land units across the Shoshone. Landscape character descriptions provided the frame of 

reference for defining the scenic attractiveness classes. The land units used are subsections, a level of the 

national ecological hierarchy for the Shoshone. Subsections are land units with common vegetation, 

landform, soils, and geology. A description of these physical and biological features was combined with 

the scenic attributes of the landscape to create scenic attractiveness classes.

Three scenic attractiveness classes were used in the analysis as prescribed by the SMS. They are:

• Class A - Distinctive 

• Class B - Common or typical 

• Class C - Indistinctive

Landscape elements of vegetation, cultural features, water features, relief, and vegetation characteristics 

are all considerations in developing the scenic attractiveness map. Using GIS, subsections (Land Type 

Associations Layer) across the Forest were categorized into the three scenic attractiveness classes as 

follows.

Scenic Attractiveness Class A

1. High dissection, high percentage of rock, steep slope

a. Land type described as highly dissected 

b. Land type with elevations ranging above 8,000 feet and slopes ranging above 70 percent
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1119

c. Land type description of greater than 75 percent rock outcrops.

2. High elevation

a. Land type with elevations above 10,000 feet

b. Land type with predominately alpine vegetation

3. High occurrence of lakes and stream bottoms.

a. Land types that have a high number of lakes as determined by visual inspection,

b. Land types associated with stream bottoms.

In addition, selected lakes greater than 25 acres in size and 40 selected streams (see table 17) were 

buffered by 0.25 mile and identified as scenic attractiveness class A.

Table 17. Streams assigned to scenic attractiveness class A

Beartooth Creek Greybull River Roaring Fork Creek

Cabin Creek Grinnell Creek Shoshone River

Clarks Fork Yellowstone River Index Creek South Fork Shoshone River

Clearwater Creek Ishawooa Creek South Fork Warm Spring Creek

Crandall Creek Lake Creek South Fork Wood River

Crazy Creek Little Popo Agie River Sunlight Creek

Dead Indian Creek Middle Fork Wood River Sweetwater Creek

Deer Creek Middle Popo Agie River Venus Creek

Dinwoody Creek North Fork Crandall Creek Warm Spring Creek

Dunoir Creek North Fork Shoshone River West Dunoir Creek

Eagle Creek North Popo Agie River Wind River

East Dunoir Creek Pass Creek Wood River

Fishhawk Creek Pilot Creek

Gannett Creek Rampart Creek

Scenic Attractiveness Class B

All lands not classified as A or C were classified as scenic attractiveness B.

Scenic Attractiveness Class C

All land types that had a primary vegetation component of grass or sage brush were classified as scenic 

attractiveness C, if they were not already in the A category.

Landscape Visibility

Concern levels and distance zones help define landscape visibility. 

Concern Levels

Concern levels are a measure of the degree of importance the public places on landscapes viewed from 

travelways and use areas. Normally, areas are assigned a concern level value from 1 to 3 to reflect the 

relative high-to-low importance of a scene. Concern level is a function of both the number of visitors as 

well as their intent, so, for example, an interstate highway and a wilderness trail can both be mapped as 
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1120

concern level 1. Concern level 3 was initially considered in the process, but the majority of the Shoshone 

falls within concern levels 1 and 2, so concern level 3 was dropped from the analysis. Areas on the Forest 

were assigned the following concern levels using the Forest GIS database.

• Level 1 was assigned to primary travelways, areas of concentration such as recreation facilities, 

special designations such as scenic byways or national recreation/historic trails and cultural sites. 

Users have a high level of concern for scenery in these areas. 

• Level 2 was assigned to areas of local importance such as state highways, county roads, 

secondary trails, scenic overlooks, summer home tracts, etc. The remainder of the Shoshone was 

assigned this concern level.

Distance Zones

Distance zones are measured from the viewpoint of the concern level areas (1 or 2) to determine the 

relative sensitivity of scenes, based on their distance from an observer. Distance zones are an important 

part of scenery analysis, because as the distance increases, the level of visible detail decreases. And, as 

distance increases, so does the opportunity to mitigate the impacts to scenery. Distance zones are divided 

into three categories:

• Foreground - 0 to 0.5 mile from the viewer

• Middleground - up to 4 miles from the foreground, or 0.5 to 4 miles

• Background - greater than 4 miles from the viewer to the horizon

Using GIS software, points were placed every 0.5 mile on system roads and every mile on system trails. 

Roads and trails had previously been classified as concern levels 1 or 2. The result was a point data set of 

“seen areas.” A viewshed model was then applied to the seen data to determine what is visible. On forests 

like the Shoshone with a lot of topographic relief, visibility is also affected by steep terrain, ridges, road 

cuts, etc. A 30-meter Digital Elevation Model was used to determine potentially visible areas. The result 

was an estimate of what can be seen from points across the Forest and the relative importance of the view. 

Scenic Classes

The results of the scenic attractiveness and landscape visibility analyses are combined to produce scenic 

classes (not to be confused with scenic attractiveness class). Scenic classes are numerical ratings from 1

to 7 that rank the relative scenic value of landscape areas, with 1 being the most important or valuable. 

The ratings are determined using a matrix of the scenic attractiveness and landscape visibility indicators. 

Table 18 shows the scenic class matrix.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1121

Table 18. Scenic class values derived from scenic attractiveness and landscape visibility analyses

Distance Zone/Concern Level5

Scenic 

Attractiveness

FG1 MG1 BG1 FG2 MG2 BG2

A 1 1 1 2 2 2

B 1 2 2 2 3 4

C 1 2 3 2 4 5

Scenic Integrity Objectives 

Scenic integrity objectives (SIO) are the product of the scenery analysis process and are derived by 

considering the scenic classes, existing scenic integrity levels, and the integration of other resource 

objectives. Scenic integrity refers to the degree of direct human-caused deviation in the landscape from 

activities such as road construction, timber harvesting, mining, etc. Before SIOs were developed, existing 

scenic integrity was determined and mapped. This is basically an inventory of the current status of the 

landscape and the scenery analysis just described in the previous sections. It tells resource specialists and 

decision makers how much visible disruption there is for a given landscape.

There are six levels of scenic integrity ranging from very high to unacceptably low. Very high represents 

areas that are unaltered or have only minor alterations. Landscapes classified as unacceptably low are 

characterized by evident deviations from the natural landscape.

For the forest plan revision effort, lands were classified into four of the six possible scenic integrity 

objective levels; very high, high, moderate and low. For alternative A, the existing visual quality 

objectives developed under the VMS system were converted as shown in table 19.

Table 19. Scenic integrity objective crosswalk from visual quality objectives

Scenic Integrity Objective (SMS) Visual Quality Objective (VMS)

Very High - unaltered Preservation

High – appears altered Retention

Moderate – slightly altered Partial Retention

Low – moderately altered Modification

The scenic integrity objectives guide the type of management activity as well as the amount, degree, 

intensity, and distribution of those activities needed to achieve goals. They may be expressed as forest 

plan goals and objectives, and in other cases as standards and guidelines.

Management area direction was combined with scenic classes to map the scenic integrity objectives on 

the Forest. Table 20 shows the outcome.

 5 Distance Zone codes are FG = Foreground, MG = Middleground, BG = Background. The number after the 

Distance Zone code is the Concern Level.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1122

Table 20. Scenic integrity objectives by management area and 

scenic class

Management Area Scenic Class Scenic Integrity Objective

1.1 1,2,3,4,5 Very High

1.1A 1,2,4 Very High

1.2 1,2,3,4 Very High

1.2A 1,2 Very High

1.2B 1,2,3 Very High

1.3 1,2 High

1.3 3,4 Moderate

1.5A 1,2 Very High

1.6A 1,2 Very High

1.6B 1,2,3 Very High

2.2A 1,2 Very High

2.3 1,2 Very High

3.1A 1,2 High

3.1B 1,2 High

3.1B 3 Moderate

3.1C 1,2 High

3.3A 1,2 High

3.3A 3,4 Moderate

3.3B 1,2 High

3.3B 3,4 Moderate

3.3C 1,2 High

3.3C 3,4 Moderate

3.5 1,2,3,4 Moderate

3.5A 1,2,3,4 Moderate

3.5B 1,2,3,4 Moderate

3.5C 1,2,3,4 Moderate

3.5D 1,2,3,4 Moderate

4.2 1,2,3 High

4.2 4 Moderate

4.3 1,2,3,4 Moderate

4.5A 1 Moderate

5.1 3,4 Low

5.1 1,2 Moderate

5.2 1,2 Moderate

5.2 3,4 Low

5.4 1,2 Moderate

5.4 3,4 Low

8.2 1,2 High
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1123

Recreation Opportunity Settings

Since the early 1980s, the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) has been used as a framework for 

identifying, classifying, planning, and managing a range of recreation settings. Six distinct settings: 

urban, rural, roaded natural, semi-primitive motorized, semi-primitive non-motorized, and primitive are 

defined using specific physical, managerial, and social criteria. For detailed information on ROS 

categories and criteria, refer to the ROS User Guide, 1982 USDA Handbook.

Existing ROS was remapped for the Shoshone using the latest GIS data and direction in the ROS User 

Guide. It is understood that ROS mapping is not an exact science and some flexibility is necessary at the 

ground level to deal with specific conditions and anomalies that are not exact matches with specific ROS 

class criteria and definitions.

Mapping Process – existing ROS setting

The following section outlines the steps to map existing ROS classes. The first steps describe the process 

and data layers necessary in producing initial ROS maps using GIS. Remaining steps are the adjustment 

of initial GIS maps using local expertise about the landscapes and use patterns.

Mapping criteria derived from the ROS User Guide were used in defining the physical, social and 

managerial setting of each landscape:

Identify division between motorized and non-motorized ROS settings. Motorized ROS settings are 

areas within 0.5 mile of motorized travel routes. Motorized travel routes include roads and motorized 

trails where motorized use is allowed. 

A further refinement of motorized areas requires a roads designation of “better than primitive” or 

“primitive.” For this analysis, better than primitive roads are defined as roads designed for use by 

highway vehicles. We defined this as maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads. All other roads and motorized 

trails were defined as primitive. 

All motorized routes were buffered by 0.5 and 3 miles. Areas that fell within 0.5 mile of a motorized route 

were classified as “motorized.” All areas outside were classified as “non-motorized.” 

Classify non-motorized lands as either primitive or semi-primitive non-motorized. Areas 3 miles or 

greater away from motorized routes were initially classified as primitive. Areas less than 3 miles and 

more than 0.5 mile from all roads and motorized trails were initially classified as semi-primitive nonmotorized.

Classify initial semi-primitive motorized and roaded natural ROS settings. Using the resulting work,

further delineate motorized ROS settings as either semi-primitive motorized or roaded natural. Polygons 

within the 0.5-mile buffers of routes designated as primitive were classified as semi-primitive motorized 

(SPM). Areas within 0.5-mile buffers of “Better than Primitive” roads were classified as roaded natural

(RN).

Apply size criteria to primitive and semi-primitive polygons. This step identifies areas meeting the 

various size criteria as well as identifying areas that don’t meet the size criteria. The areas not meeting the 

size criteria were analyzed to ensure other criteria are fully considered before eliminating the area due 

strictly to remoteness and size. Areas greater than or equal to 5,000 acres meet all criteria for primitive

(P). Those that don’t meet the 5,000 acres were evaluated further as described below.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1124

Areas identified as semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM) with a size greater than or equal to 2,500 acres

were selected. These areas meet all criteria for SPNM. Areas not meeting the size criteria were further 

evaluated as described below. 

Areas identified as “SPM” polygons greater than or equal to 2,500 acres were selected. These areas meet 

all criteria for SPNM. Remaining “SPM” polygons smaller than the 2,500 acres were further evaluated as 

described below. 

Conduct adjacency assessment to refine P, SPNM, and SPM settings that do not meet size criteria.

For those areas initially mapped as primitive, but that were smaller than 5,000 acres, adjacent ROS 

settings were examined. It is possible for them to be contiguous to semi-primitive non-motorized areas, 

yet still provide a primitive experience. In our process, this situation did not exist and these areas were 

classified as one of the semi-primitive settings.

For SPNM areas that did not meet the 2,500-acre size criteria, adjacent ROS designations were 

considered. When adjacent lands were primitive, the area could still provide an SPNM experience, and it 

was mapped as such. In addition, if the area was isolated due to topography or other permanent landscape 

features, the area, even though not 2,500 acres, could still provide SPNM. These determinations were 

made by interdisciplinary team members. 

There may also be instances where a small SPNM setting is engulfed by an SPM setting. In this case, the 

SPNM setting would become part of the SPM polygon. Although motorized use is not allowed in this 

portion of the setting, it contributes to the semi-primitive character.

Small SPM settings that were not adjacent to other semi-primitive areas were coded as roaded natural. 

Distinguish between roaded natural and rural. No size criteria apply to roaded natural or rural ROS 

classes. Remaining buffered areas within 0.5 mile of “better than primitive roads” were classified as 

“RN.” The only area classified as rural was the ski area along the North Fork of the Shoshone. The 

classification was assigned based upon the highly developed nature of the site and is consistent with the 

classification made in the existing forest plan. 

Wilderness Settings

Wilderness settings are related to recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) settings insofar as ROS is a 

starting point. The existing forest plan identified wilderness settings as different management areas 

(management areas 8A, 8B, and 8C). A forest team of recreation specialists from the Shoshone National 

Forest Supervisor’s Office and the ranger districts modified the current forest plan settings for plan 

revision, based on current management direction and conditions on the ground. That process generally 

followed the following criteria. In the new revised plan, wilderness settings are not split into separate 

management areas. They are treated like ROS and are an inventory that is used in making management 

decisions.

Semi-primitive – areas adjacent to heavily used trails where there are higher encounters with other 

people.

Primitive – areas not classified as semi-primitive or pristine

Pristine – areas that are more than 1 mile away from system trails.

For alternative analysis, wilderness settings were applied to the recommended wilderness areas using the 

following criteria shown in table 21.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1125

Table 21. Wilderness setting criteria for recommended wilderness areas in alternatives C and D

Existing ROS setting Distance from system trail Assigned wilderness setting

Roaded natural Any distance Semi-primitive

Semi-primitive motorized Any distance Semi-primitive

Semi-primitive non-motorized

0 to 1⁄4 mile Semi-primitive

Greater than 1⁄4 mile Primitive

Primitive

0 to 1⁄4 mile Semi-primitive

1⁄4 to 1 mile Primitive

Greater than 1 mile Pristine

ROS management area objectives

The mapping discussed above describes the existing ROS setting based on conditions on the ground. The 

interdisciplinary team identified ROS objectives for each management area, based on the desired 

conditions for the management area and the existing ROS setting. Table 22 shows how those assignments 

were made. 

Table 22. ROS objectives assignments for management areas

Management Area Existing ROS classification ROS objective

1.1, 1.1A, 1.2, 1.2A, 1.2B Any Primitive

1.3 Any Semi-primitive non-motorized

1.5A

Roaded natural or semi-primitive motorized Semi-primitive motorized

Semi-primitive non-motorized Semi-primitive non-motorized

1.6A, 1.6B, 2.2A, 2.3 Any Semi-primitive non-motorized

3.1A, 4.5A Any Roaded natural

3.1B

Roaded natural or Semi-primitive motorized Semi-primitive motorized

Semi-primitive non-motorized Semi-primitive non-motorized

3.1C Semi-primitive motorized or Semi-primitive 

non-motorized Semi-primitive non-motorized

3.3A, 3.3C, 3.5, 3.5A, 3.5B, 

3.5C, 3.5D6 Any Semi-primitive motorized

3.3B Any Semi-primitive non-motorized

4.2, 4.3 Any Roaded natural

5.1 or 5.2 or 5.4

Roaded natural Roaded natural

Semi-primitive motorized or Semi-primitive 

non-motorized or primitive Semi-primitive motorized

8.2 Any Rural

 6 3.5B and 3.5D are both assigned to semi-primitive motorized, because of the overall objective to conduct 

vegetation management where some motorized activity could be expected. Objective does not change the overriding 

direction for what type of recreation experience is to be provided for.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1126

Social and Economic Analysis

Social and economic impacts and economic efficiency were analyzed for each alternative. Social and 

economic impacts were measured in terms of changes to jobs and income. Economic efficiency was 

measured based on changes in present net value. 

Economic Impacts

Introduction

Economic effects to local counties were estimated with input-output analysis using the IMPLAN (IMpact 

analysis for PLANning) modeling system (MIG 2010) and FEAST (Forest Economic Analysis 

Spreadsheet Tool). 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. 

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 impact analysis is defined as “the net 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 

impact to the local economy. The data used to estimate the direct effects from timber harvest is 

information provided by University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research. The data 

used for estimate the direct effects from livestock grazing includes price information from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service and expenditure information from University of 

Idaho livestock budgets. The data used to estimate the direct effects from recreation is information from 

the Forest Service’s latest National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report for the Shoshone National 

Forest and Shoshone National Forest recreation permits records. The economic effects tied to other Forest 

Service programs and the multiplier effects were estimated using IMPLAN. Resource specific data 

(recreation visits, animal unit months of grazing, timber volume harvested, etc.) were collected. For 

current management levels, a 3-year average using 2008 to 2010 data were calculated for resources to 

eliminate the year to year variability inherent in the data.

Procedures

To estimate the economic impacts to the Shoshone National Forest area economy, one IMPLAN model 

covering three counties was developed. The counties included Fremont, Hot Springs, and Park counties in 

Wyoming. This area defines the functional social and economic planning area. Labor flows between 

towns and counties are generally contained within these three counties. Flows of labor, goods, and 

services between this area and other counties are not captured in the model, but considered as exports or 

imports. 

Impact analysis describes what happens when a change in final sales (e.g., to non-residents—or exports—

and governments) occurs for goods and services in the model region. Changes in final sales are the result 

of multiplying production data (e.g., cubic feet of timber or recreation visits by non-locals) times sales. 

Economic impacts were estimated using the best available production and sales data.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1127

Impacts to local economies are measured in two ways: employment and labor income. Employment is 

expressed in jobs. A job can be seasonal or year-round, full-time or part-time. Jobs represent the annual 

average of 12 monthly estimates. There is no seasonality in this measure. The income measure used was 

labor income expressed in 2009 dollars. Labor income includes both employee compensation (pay plus 

benefits) and proprietor income (e.g., self-employed). 

The planning area model was used to determine total consequences of dollar, employment, and income 

changes in selected sectors. Because input-output models are linear, multipliers or response coefficients 

need only be calculated once per model and then applied to the direct change in final demand. Methods 

for developing response coefficients and levels of dollar activity are explained below.

Data and Assumptions

Timber Production

Current levels were developed from historic harvest levels on the forest. Products were broken out by 

sawtimber, products other than logs, and salvage. For the alternatives, timber production levels were 

derived using the Spectrum model. It was assumed that the predicted timber sold in the model would be 

harvested in the same timeframe. Because the vast majority of timber volume was sawtimber and because 

there are no longer any large-scale sawmills in the study area, the analysis only considered the economic

impact of logging for the timber harvest with lumber processing assumed to occur outside the study area.

The data used to estimate the direct effects from timber harvest were developed by University of 

Montana's Bureau of Business and Economic Research for the Central and Southern Rocky Mountain 

Region, which includes Wyoming. The indirect and induced effects were generated by the IMPLAN 

model.

General and Commercial Recreation

General recreation visitor days were calculated using the most recent National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) data for the Shoshone National Forest. The current level was based on the most recent data 

collection, which occurred in fiscal year 2009. Recreation figures were held constant for all alternatives.

In addition to the general recreation use of the Shoshone National Forest, a number of commercial 

recreation businesses also operate on the Forest. Much of this recreation activity is probably not captured 

in the NVUM data. Shoshone National Forest data on the recreation permit fees associated with this 

commercial recreation activity were used to estimate the direct impacts of the commercial recreation use 

on the forest. The estimates of secondary impacts for both general and commercial recreation were 

generated by the IMPLAN model.

Grazing

Due to variability in livestock prices, a 10-year average price (2000 to 2009) is used in the analysis. In 

order to make the analysis more reflective of the livestock industry in the study area the “analysis-byparts” procedure, based on a 2010 University of Idaho livestock budget for a 500 head cow-calf ranch, 

was used to input the expenditure data into the IMPLAN model for the study area. Three firm-level 

perspectives were considered in the economic assessment including: (1) evaluating Forest Service animal 

unit months (AUMs) only, (2) evaluating Forest Service AUMs in terms of their impact on ranch 

productivity, and (3) evaluating Forest Service AUMs in terms of their impact on ranch viability. These 

perspectives were based on a previously developed multi-period linear program model for Federal landsdependent ranches in Wyoming. For the economic analysis, impacts were considered under the third 

level, or evaluating Forest Service AUMs in terms of their impact on ranch viability.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1128

The direct, indirect, and induced effects from changes in grazing levels were generated by the IMPLAN 

model. The levels of livestock grazing were varied by alternative, based on estimates from the Shoshone.

Minerals

Because the Shoshone has had little or no mineral activity for the last 25 years, projections are for a low 

probability of any development during the planning period, and projections that any development that did 

occur would be the same in all alternatives, no economic analysis of minerals was conducted.

Federal Expenditures and Employment

Total employment and salaries paid by the Forest Service were based on a 3-year average for 2008 to 

2010. Total Forest expenditures were also based on a three-year average (2008 to 2010). The direct, 

indirect, and induced effects from changes in forest expenditures and employment were generated by the 

IMPLAN model. The levels of forest expenditure varied by alternative based on estimates from the 

Shoshone National Forest. 

Output Levels

Table 23 displays the output levels that were used to perform the economic impact analysis.

Table 23. Resource outputs by alternative used for economic impact analysis

Activity Units Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F Alt G

Saw Timber Mcf/decade 14,634 14,211 12,543 13,574 18,782 25,848 14,211

POL Mcf/decade 804 764 715 735 1,030 1,400 764

Salvage Mcf/decade 1,564 1,578 1,631 1,576 2,328 3,264 1,578

Livestock Grazing AUMs/year 55,881 55,881 31,401 55,881 58,329 61,497 55,881

Non-local Day Trips Trips/year 96,909 96,909 96,909 96,909 96,909 96,909 96,909

Non-local Overnight 

on Forest Trips/year 32,303 32,303 32,303 32,303 32,303 32,303 32,303

Non-local Overnight 

off Forest Trips/year 96,909 96,909 96,909 96,909 96,909 96,909 96,909

Local Day Trips Trips/year 284,266 284,266 284,266 284,266 284,266 284,266 284,266

Local Overnight on 

Forest Trips/year 25,842 25,842 25,842 25,842 25,842 25,842 25,842

Local Overnight off 

Forest Trips/year 19,382 19,382 19,382 19,382 19,382 19,382 19,382

Non Primary Trips Trips/year 90,448 90,448 90,448 90,448 90,448 90,448 90,448

Economic Efficiency

Economic efficiency is defined as how well the dollars invested in each alternative produce benefits to 

society. Present net value was used as an indicator of economic efficiency.

To calculate present net value, a spreadsheet was used which tracks revenues, costs, and benefits for a 50-

year period. Built into the spreadsheet were predicted increases and decreases to output levels over time. 

A 4 percent discount rate was used.

Table 24 displays the economic values that were used for each resource. All values were input as 2012 

dollars. The values were derived from different sources. Timber revenues were those reported by the 

Spectrum model. Range values were based on the rate for private grazing fees for 2008 in the State of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1129

Wyoming. Recreation, fish, and wildlife values were based on an analysis of the National Visitor Use 

Monitoring data (Bowker et al. 2009) and a draft report on Resource Planning Act (RPA) non-market 

values (Retzlaff 2010). Costs were a 3-year average of actual expenditures by program area for fiscal 

years 2008 to 2010. 

Table 24. Values used for present net value analysis

Activity 2012 Dollar Value Source

Sawtimber (M$) $31.90 From spectrum model by alternative

Mixed dead/green sawtimber $17.00 From spectrum model by alternative

Fuelwood/POL $ 7.50 From spectrum model by alternative

Livestock grazing (AUMs) $19.12

Recreation ($/Visit)

 Camping $31.53 Retzlaff 2010 RPA updates

 Motorized Recreation $51.46 Retzlaff 2010 RPA updates

 General Recreation $24.22 Retzlaff 2010 RPA updates

 Hiking $97.62 Retzlaff 2010 RPA updates

 Nature-based Recreation $40.35 Retzlaff 2010 RPA updates

 OHV Use $66.12 Retzlaff 2010 RPA updates

 Primitive Camping $32.51 Retzlaff 2010 RPA updates

 Picnicking $50.98 Retzlaff 2010 RPA updates

 Skiing, Alpine $199.80 Retzlaff 2010 RPA updates

 Snowmobiling $182.56 Retzlaff 2010 RPA updates

Fish & Wildlife ($ / Visit) 

 Hunting $47.19 Retzlaff 2010 RPA updates

 Fishing $70.17 Retzlaff 2010 RPA updates

 Viewing wildlife and nature $40.08 Retzlaff 2010 RPA updates

References

Bowker, M., C.M. Starbuck, D.B.K. English, J.C. Bergstrom, R.S. Rosenberger, and D.W. McCollum.

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.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2010. 2009 IMPLAN model for Fremont, Hot Springs, and Park 

County, Wyoming.

Retzlaff, Michael. 2010. RPA Nonmarket Values: Pricing Recreation in the National Forest System. Draft 

report under contract to EMC WO staff.

Watson, P., J. Wilson, D. Thilmany, and S. Winter. 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.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1130

Alternative Objective Development

The revised forest plan contains a number of objectives that identify desired results to be achieved within 

the planning period to help meet plan goals. Most of these objectives remain constant across the action 

alternatives. However, in seven of these objectives, the results vary in the action alternatives. Table 25

contains a short discussion of those objectives and how they were varied across the alternatives for the 

analysis.

Table 25. Objectives to help meet plan goals and how they compare among the alternatives

Objective Alternative variation Rationale

Increase aspen cover 

type on #### acres 

using mechanical 

treatments.

B, D, E, F = 2,500 ac.

C = 2,000 ac.

G = 3,500 ac.

The 2,500-acre number for alternative B was the initial objective 

for the proposed action and was established by the

interdisciplinary team based on the desired condition, current 

capability, and input from the public, including Wyoming Game 

and Fish, asking for an aggressive objective. Consideration for 

varying the number across the alternatives included suitable acres 

and generally accessible acres. The number is reduced in 

alternative C because of the addition of wilderness and a 

reduction in managed lands. In alternatives E and F, acres don’t 

go up even though suitable acres are up. The reason is that there 

is more suitable land where commercial timber is a goal and there 

will be more pressure to favor conifer over aspen because aspen 

is not a commercial species. Alternative A does not have an 

objective. The objective was raised in alternative G. The objective 

was raised in response to public comment to further emphasize 

aspen and the climate change analysis, which indicates the area 

suitable for aspen expansion is likely to expand.

Restore ### acres of 

whitebark pine

A, B, D, E = 750 ac.

C = 500 ac.

F = 1,250 ac.

G = 1,400 ac.

The 750 acres for alternative B was the initial objective for the 

proposed action. There is a desire for a higher objective, but until 

more rust-resistant planting stock is available, the interdisciplinary 

team felt a more measured approach is best. The variation across 

the alternatives is based on differences in suitable acres and 

generally accessible acres. The objective was raised in alternative 

G. The objective was raised in response to public comment to 

further emphasize whitebark pine and latest assessment from the 

interdisciplinary team that a higher objective is feasible.

Use treatments to 

reduce invasive plant 

species on #### 

acres

A, B, D, E, G = 2,000 

ac.

C = 1,500 ac.

F = 3,000 ac.

The 2,000 acres for alternative B was the initial objective for the 

proposed action and is based on the level of treatment that is 

currently occurring. The variation across the alternatives was 

based on suitable acres and generally accessible acres. Midrange alternatives are relatively close for these numbers, so only 

the more extreme alternatives were varied.

In management area 

categories 4, 5, and 

8 hazardous fuels 

ratings are reduced 

on ##### to ##### 

acres.

A, B, C, D, G = 

30,000 – 40,000

E = 35,000 – 45,000

F = 45,000 – 55,000

These numbers are based on accomplishments in the last 10 

years. Budgets have generally been adequate for accomplishing 

this work in the last 10 years and it is felt that capacity (internally 

and externally) for accomplishing the work was the major limiting 

factor. Though there was a desire to consider increasing the level, 

given budget projections for the planning period, the 

interdisciplinary team does not project that it will be possible to 

increase capacity and it is very likely that available dollars will 

decrease. Alternative variation is based on a proration of acres 

tied to management area allocations, suitable acres, and 

generally accessible acres.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1131

Table 25. Objectives to help meet plan goals and how they compare among the alternatives

Objective Alternative variation Rationale

Permitted animal unit 

months will range 

between plus or 

minus 10 percent of 

##### animal units 

months.

A, B, D, G = 60,000

C = 35,000

E = 77,500

F = 81,500

60,000 AUMs for alternative B were the initial objective for the 

proposed action based on the permitted stocking levels for the last 

10 years. Variations on the alternatives are based on changes in 

suitable acres, considering current stocking rates.

Annual timber sold 

averages ##### Ccf

A = 17,000

B, G = 16,500

C = 14,900

D = 15,900

E = 22,100

F = 30,500

These numbers are based on the spectrum analysis for the plan 

revision and are a function of suitable timber acres, management 

area allocations, and timber budget projections (see Spectrum 

analysis and budget projection sections). 

At least # new, 

wheeled motorized 

trail loop 

opportunities are 

developed

B, G = 3 loops

D = 1 loop

E = 4 loops

F = 8 loops

The 3 new loops for alternative B were the initial objective for the 

proposed action based on interdisciplinary team input considering 

budget levels. The remaining numbers were calculated by 

prorating based on management area acres open to motorized 

trail construction, alternative B having 3 new loops, and alternative 

C having 0 new loops. 

Alternative Budget Level Projections

Alternative output projections take into consideration projected future budgets. The starting point for 

budgets was based on the forest average of the last 6 years (2006 to 2011). This cutoff was used because 

budgets prior to 2006 used different accounting to allocate administrative costs and numbers across the 

different resource program areas are not comparable. Though it is unknown what will happen with future 

budgets, it is likely, given the current state of the national budget, that the trend will be downward during 

at least the first part of the planning period. What happens in the latter half of the planning period is 

unknown. Other than the specific items mentioned below, the interdisciplinary team felt that a flat budget 

projection was the best way to do a comparative analysis of the alternatives. This flat budget is in line 

with alternative A – the no-action alternative. Most of the projected outputs in the alternatives are 

relatively close and could be produced under the flat budget scenario.

The interdisciplinary team did vary projected budget levels for three program areas in some alternatives, 

based on the assumption that the variation in the alternative would result in some redistribution of budget 

allocation. 

The first of these is for the trails program. In alternative F, the large increase in acres allocated to back

country motorized recreation is large enough that there would likely be a change in emphasis to building 

motorized trails that could not be accommodated within the current budget scenario. In alternative F, the 

projected budget for trails is doubled.

The other two items that are varied across the alternatives are the forest products program and planting 

costs with the vegetation and watershed management program. These budget items are usually varied 

based on opportunity for forest products program costs and need for planting costs under current budget 

processes. The forest products program was varied proportionally based on suitable timber acres in the 

alternatives. The planting program was varied based on harvest levels and associated planting needs in the 

alternatives. The current levels for these programs were indexed to alternatives A and B as the starting 

point.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1132

Table 26 displays the projected budget scenarios for the alternatives.

Table 26. Project program budget levels for the alternatives (thousands of dollars)

Program area

2006-2001 

average

program budget

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

Facilities 

Maintenance $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220

Roads Capital 

Improvement $720 $720 $720 $720 $720 $720 $720 $720

Trails Capital 

Improvement $420 $420 $420 $420 $420 $420 $840 $420

Facilities Assessment $180 $180 $180 $180 $180 $180 $180 $180

Inventory and 

Monitoring $530 $530 $530 $530 $530 $530 $530 $530

Lands Ownership 

Management $140 $140 $140 $140 $140 $140 $140 $140

Minerals and Geology $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50

Land Management 

Planning $350 $350 $350 $350 $350 $350 $350 $350

Grazing Management $270 $270 $270 $270 $270 $270 $270 $270

Recreation, Heritage, 

Wilderness $1,240 $1,240 $1,240 $1,240 $1,240 $1,240 $1,240 $1,240

Forest Products $750 $750 $750 $680 $720 $1,000 $1,400 $750

Vegetation and 

Watershed 

Management

$700 $700 $700 $625 $700 $750 $840 $700

Wildlife and fish 

Management $640 $640 $640 $640 $640 $640 $640 $640

Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction $1,140 $1,140 $1,140 $1,140 $1,140 $1,140 $1,140 $1,140

Wildfire 

Preparedness $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230

Administrative 

Management $1,920 $1,920 $1,920 $1,920 $1,920 $1,920 $1,920 $1,920

TOTAL $10,500 $10,500 $10,500 $10,355 $10,470 $10,800 $11,710 $10,500

Benchmark Analysis (new section)

A benchmark analysis was included in the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) to help guide the 

formulation of alternatives to the proposed action in the DEIS. A benchmark analysis provides baseline 

data to support the formulation of alternatives, and aids in defining the range within which alternatives 

can be constructed. Benchmarks estimate the Shoshone’s physical, biological, and technical capabilities to 

produce goods and services. Benchmarks are focused on the revision topics and need for change. 

In response to public comment, the Benchmark analysis was revisited between draft and final. There was 

a request for further discussion on monetary benchmarks and there was an overall desire to ensure the 

sufficiency of the benchmark analysis. During development of the alternatives in cooperation with the 

public and local governments some of the alternatives ended up outside of the range established by the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1133

benchmarks. This was the result of some of the original constraints and assumptions used in the 

benchmark analysis being relaxed in the development of the alternatives. To remedy this situation the 

benchmark analysis was reviewed and reworked to make the assumptions consistent within the context of 

the suite of alternatives. In addition, acre allocations were recalculated using the latest GIS data used for 

the FEIS analysis. 

Additional information is included here that was not available during the development of the alternatives.

The new information is still consistent with the information presented in the DEIS that was used in 

crafting a range of alternatives. The information provides some additional numbers for comparison and 

ensures that the numbers are comparable between the benchmarks and the alternatives. In some cases 

numbers have been developed to supplement the descriptions used in the DEIS. There is no new 

information that changes the potential range of resource options considered in the DEIS. 

For each benchmark, a scale is presented that shows where the alternatives fall within the decision space 

defined by each particular benchmark.

This presentation replaces the benchmark analysis in the AMS and was used to inform the decision 

maker’s final decision.

Maximum timber 

This benchmark represents the maximum potential area of the Shoshone that can be classified as suitable 

for timber production. Forest land not considered as suitable for timber production in this benchmark 

analysis includes land unavailable through statute or administrative action (such as wilderness), and lands 

defined as physically unsuitable for timber production such as non-forest lands, steep slopes, and high and 

low elevations sites. This benchmark represents the highest possible timber harvest volume consistent 

with the principles of non-declining flow and harvests that do not exceed the long-term sustained yield. 

Table 27. Acre allocation for maximum timber benchmark

Max Timber

Lands generally not suited for timber harvest

Wilderness, Dunoir, High Lakes, wild river, RNA, SIA 1,418,000

Rock, steep slopes, Restocking not assured 346,300

Total lands generally not suited for timber harvest 1,764,300

Lands generally not suited for timber production

Grass, shrub, noncommercial species, soil type 323,800

Total lands generally not suited for timber production 323,800

Lands generally suitable for timber production

Suitable acres 349,900

Total lands generally suitable for timber production 349,900

Total Forest Acres 2,438,000

This acre allocation would result in an annual harvest that would average 64,875 Ccf during the next 

decade. The harvest for this benchmark is interpreted based upon the acre versus volume relationship 

represented in alternative F. The following scale displays how the alternatives fall relative to the 

maximum suitable acres represented by the timber benchmark.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1134

A

C

D

B

G E F

0 Suitable Timber Acres 350,000

Figure 1. Relationship of suitable timber acres for each alternative to the maximum timber benchmark 

suitable acres

Maximum commercial livestock grazing

This benchmark represents the maximum potential area of the Shoshone that can be classified as suitable 

for commercial livestock grazing. National Forest System land not considered suitable for commercial 

livestock grazing in this benchmark analysis includes land removed through statute or administrative 

action (such as wilderness). Grazing that occurred when a wilderness was designated is included, but 

there is no expansion into wilderness that was not grazed at the time of designation. Allotments that 

preexisted wilderness and that are not currently being grazed are also included. In addition, lands defined 

as physically unsuitable for grazing such as steep slopes and rock are not included.

Table 28. Acres capable and suitable for livestock grazing in the maximum grazing benchmark

Max Grazing

Capable acres 993,600

Suitable acres 416,200

This acre allocation would provide 61,670 AUMs of commercial grazing annually. The AUMs for this 

benchmark are interpreted based upon the acre versus AUM relationship represented in alternative F. The 

following scale displays how the alternatives fall relative to the AUMs represented by the grazing 

benchmark.

C

A

B

D

G E F

0 AUMS 420,500

Figure 2. Relationship of AUMs for each alternative to the maximum grazing benchmark AUMs

Maximum oil and gas 

This benchmark represents the maximum potential area of the Shoshone that would allow surface 

occupancy for oil and gas development. National Forest System land not considered as suitable for oil and 

gas development in this benchmark analysis includes land removed through statute. Those lands include 

designated wilderness, High Lake Wilderness Study Area, Dunoir Special Management Unit, and Clarks 

Fork Wild River which includes 1,416,200 acres in aggregate. The remaining 1,021,800 acres are suitable 

for surface occupancy under this benchmark.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1135

G C D B E F A

0 Acres suitable for oil and gas 

development with surface occupancy

1,021,800

Figure 3. Relationship of acres suitable for surface occupancy for oil and gas development for each 

alternative to the maximum oil and gas benchmark

All of the alternatives have the same likelihood of oil and gas development given the low potential for 

development on the Shoshone. See the FEIS discussion for further information.

Maximum motorized summer recreation

This benchmark represents the maximum potential area of the Shoshone that can be classified as suitable 

for summer motorized recreation. National Forest System land not considered as suitable for summer 

motorized recreation in this benchmark includes land removed through statute or administrative action. 

Those lands include designated wilderness, High Lake Wilderness Study Area, Dunoir Special 

Management Unit, Line Creek RNA, and Swamp Lake SIA which includes 1,411,100 acres in aggregate.

In addition, physically unsuitable lands (slopes greater than 40 percent), representing 322,300 acres are 

excluded. The remaining, 704,300 acres are identified as suitable for summer motorized recreation in this 

benchmark.

C D G

A

B E F

0 Suitable Summer Motorized Acres 704,300

Figure 4. Relationship of acres suitable for summer motorized recreation for each alternative to the maximum 

summer recreation benchmark.

Maximum motorized winter recreation

This benchmark represents the maximum potential area of the Shoshone that can be classified as suitable 

for winter motorized recreation. National Forest System land not considered as suitable for winter 

motorized recreation in this benchmark includes land removed through statute or administrative action 

(such as wilderness). This also includes the portion of Line Creek Plateau Research Natural Area, which 

is not open to snowmobiling, designated wilderness, and the Dunoir Special Management Unit. This 

benchmark is also consistent with direction for the High Lakes Wilderness Study Area, which allows 

snowmobile use. Total acres suitable for winter motorized use in the benchmark is 1,042,800 acres.

C D B E G F A

0 Suitable Winter Motorized Acres 1,042,800

Figure 5. Relationship of acres suitable for winter motorized recreation for each alternative to the maximum 

winter recreation benchmark

Maximum non-motorized recreation

This benchmark represents the maximum potential area of the Shoshone that can be managed for summer 

non-motorized recreation. National Forest System land not considered as available for non-motorized 

recreation in this benchmark includes land already accessed by forest roads designed for passenger cars 

that are open to the public. The ROS inventory was used as the basis to make this calculation and to 

compare alternatives. The roaded natural category represents those lands that are within 0.5 mile of a road 

designed for passenger car use. For this benchmark, that represents 156,700 acres. The remaining acres 

amounting to 2,281,400 would be managed for non-motorized recreation in this benchmark.
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1136

* F E

B

G A D C

0 Non-motorized recreation acres 2,281,400

Figure 6. Relationship of acres of non-motorized recreation for each alternative to the maximum nonrecreation motorized recreation benchmark

The asterisk (*) on the above scale represents that point at which designated wilderness acres fall on the 

scale.

Maximum recommended wilderness

This benchmark represents the maximum recommended wilderness areas for the Shoshone. All areas 

identified in the evaluation of potential wilderness are included, which amounts to 745,600 acres. Acres of 

existing wilderness are not included in the total, since they have already been designated.

A

B

E

F

G D C

0 Acres of recommended wilderness 745,600

Figure 7. Relationship of acres of recommended wilderness for each alternative to the maximum 

recommended wilderness benchmark.

Maximum grazing and timber labor income

This benchmark represents the maximum labor income that would result from maximizing the use of the 

forest for grazing livestock and producing timber. It provides a surrogate for comparing the alternatives 

and their contributions to the markets for livestock and timber. The benchmark includes the acres 

allocations for the maximum grazing and maximum timber benchmarks. Labor income for the benchmark 

was interpreted based upon the labor income for alternative F in comparison to suitable acres allocations. 

For this benchmark the average annual labor income for the next decade associated with grazing and 

timber production would be $13,519,000. 

C

A

B

D

G E F

0 Grazing and Timber Labor Income 13,519

Figure 8. Relationship of grazing and timber income for each alternative to the maximum grazing and timber 

labor income benchmark.

Benchmark not analyzed

No monetary benchmarks were completed for the AMS. Some public comment on the DEIS noted this 

and requested that a maximum present net value benchmark be completed. They commenter cited both a 

desire to have the information to examine the range of alternatives and a concern that the lack of the 

benchmark would make the plan revision effort deficient.

In general, Region 2 policy used by other Forests in the region does not require monetary benchmarks to 

be completed for plan revision. The regional position is that they have limited utility. Theoretically, the

information generated by such benchmarks would provide a solid focal point from which a decision 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix B

1137

maker could evaluate economic opportunity costs and resource trade-offs. This is not the case. The 

allocation and scheduling models used in estimating these benchmarks are very sensitive to changes in the 

values used. Since the “assigned values” we use are often untenable based on the assumptions used, the 

results of these benchmark analyses do not provide a solid footing for making plan revision decisions.

The requirement to analyze these benchmarks assumes that an allocation/scheduling model can be built 

which adequately represents all resources having “an established market value or an assigned value.” This

is not the case. Our knowledge of the joint production functions within national forest ecosystems is not 

sufficient to adequately quantify all inputs and outputs as required in the deterministic models currently

being used for forest planning analysis. This provides another reason for not relying on these benchmarks 

to provide meaningful information to the decision maker.

For these reasons, the decision maker has chosen to not produce a PNV benchmark. In order to address 

some of the public comment, a benchmark is included that represents the maximum labor income for 

grazing and timber. The interdisciplinary team feels that the information available to produce this 

benchmark is adequate to provide a meaningful comparison across the alternatives. This does not totally 

address the public comment since it does not include recreation outputs. As discussed elsewhere in the 

FEIS, the information to develop production functions for recreation outputs does not exist in a form that 

would allow for meaningful comparison of alternatives. In discussions with the public commenter, they 

were also unable to identify any information that could be used to conduct an analysis for recreation.

Another benchmark that was not completed was the minimum level benchmark which represents the least 

amount of management needed to maintain and protect the Shoshone as part of the National Forest 

System. The minimum level benchmark represents only those costs and outputs associated with protecting 

and managing activities and investments where there is little or no management discretion. Although 

incidental outputs are permissible, there will be no management action-related timber or recreation 

outputs. Forest vegetation will evolve through natural succession. The decision maker does not feel this 

benchmark is necessary to inform their decision.

Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1139

Appendix C. Evaluation of Areas for Potential 

Wilderness, Shoshone National Forest
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1140
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1141

1143
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1144
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1145
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1146
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1147
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1148
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1149
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1150
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1151
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1152
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1153
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1154
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1155
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1156
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1157
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1158
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1159
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1160
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1161
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1162
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1163
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1164
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1165
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1166
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1167
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1168
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1169
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1170
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1171
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1172
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1173
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1174
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1175
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1176
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1177
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1178
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1179
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1180
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1181
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1182
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1183
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1184
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1185
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1186
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1187
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1188
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1189
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1190
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1191
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1192
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1193
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1194
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1195
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1196
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1197
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1198
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1199
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1200
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1201
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1202
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1203
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1204
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1205
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1206
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1207
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1208
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1209
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1210
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1211
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1212
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1213
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1214
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1215
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1216
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1217
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1218
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1219
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1220
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1221
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1222
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1223
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1224
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1225
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1226
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1227
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1228
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1229
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1230
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1231
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1232
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1233
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1234
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1235
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1236
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1237
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1238
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1239
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1240
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1241
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1242
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1243
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1244
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1245
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1246
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1247
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1248
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1249
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1250
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1251
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1252
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1253
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1254
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1255
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1256
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1257
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1258
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1259
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1260
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1261
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1262
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1263
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1264
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix C

1265
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1266
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1267

Appendix D. Wild and Scenic River Eligibility 

Evaluation, Shoshone National Forest
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1268
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1269
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1270
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1271
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1272
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1273
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1274
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1275
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1276
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1277
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1278
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1279
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1280
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1281
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1282
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1283
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1284
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1285
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1286
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1287
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1288
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1289
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1290
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1291
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1292
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1293
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1294
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1295
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1296
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1297
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1298
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix D

1299
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1300
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix E

1301

Appendix E. Maps

Map # Map Description

1 Alternative A Management Areas

2 Alternative B Management Areas

3 Alternative C Management Areas

4 Alternative D Management Areas

5 Alternative E Management Areas

6 Alternative F Management Areas

7 Canada Lynx Habitat and Analysis Units

8 Grizzly Bear Primary Conservation Area (PCA)

9 Grizzly Bear Primary Conservation Area, Occupied Habitat and Commercial Livestock 

Grazing Allotments

10 Grizzly Bear Management Units (BMU)

11 Grizzly Bear Secure Habitat

12 Bighorn Sheep Herd Units

13 Bighorn Sheep Crucial Winter Range

14 Domestic Goat Closure and Core Native Bighorn Sheep Range

15 Elk Calving and Crucial Winter Range

16 Mule Deer Crucial Winter Range

17 Moose Crucial Winter Range

18 Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Current and Historic Range

19 Fire History 1970 to 2011

20 Wildland-urban Interface

21 Alternatives A, B, D, E, and G Lands Generally Suitable for Livestock Grazing

22 Alternative C Lands Generally Suitable for Livestock Grazing

23 Alternative F Lands Generally Suitable for Livestock Grazing

24 Alternatives A, B, C, D, E, and G Commercial Livestock Grazing Allotments

25 NO MAP
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1302

Map # Map Description

26 Alternative F Commercial Livestock Grazing Allotments

27 Alternative A Suitable Timber Lands

28 Alternatives B and G Suitable Timber Lands

29 Alternative C Suitable Timber Lands

30 Alternative D Suitable Timber Lands

31 Alternative E Suitable Timber Lands

32 Alternative F Suitable Timber Lands

33 Potential for Occurrence of Oil and Gas within Legally Available Lands

34 Oil and Gas Development Potential

35 Alternative A Lands Where Allocation Allows Surface Occupancy for Oil and Gas 

Development

36 Alternative B Lands Where Allocation Allows Surface Occupancy for Oil and Gas 

Development

37 Alternative C Lands Where Allocation Allows Surface Occupancy for Oil and Gas 

Development

38 Alternative D Lands Where Allocation Allows Surface Occupancy for Oil and Gas 

Development

39 Alternative E Lands Where Allocation Allows Surface Occupancy for Oil and Gas 

Development

40 Alternative F Lands Where Allocation Allows Surface Occupancy for Oil and Gas 

Development

41 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

42 Nez Perce National Historic Trail

43 Scenic Byways

44 Alternative A Lands Where Allocation Allows Summer Motorized Use

45 Alternative B Lands Where Allocation Allows Summer Motorized Use

46 Alternative C Lands Where Allocation Allows Summer Motorized Use

47 Alternative D Lands Where Allocation Allows Summer Motorized Use

48 Alternative E Lands Where Allocation Allows Summer Motorized Use

49 Alternative F Lands Where Allocation Allows Summer Motorized Use

50 Alternative A Lands Where Allocation Allows Winter Motorized Use

51 Alternative B Lands Where Allocation Allows Winter Motorized Use
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix E

1303

Map # Map Description

52 Alternative C Lands Where Allocation Allows Winter Motorized Use

53 Alternative D Lands Where Allocation Allows Winter Motorized Use

54 Alternative E Lands Where Allocation Allows Winter Motorized Use

55 Alternative F Lands Where Allocation Allows Winter Motorized Use

56 Existing and Potentially Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

57 Inventoried Roadless Areas

58 Research Natural Areas and Special interest Areas

59 Alternative A Visual Quality Objectives

60 Alternative B Scenery Integrity Objective

61 Alternative C Scenery Integrity Objective

62 Alternative D Scenery Integrity Objective

63 Alternative E Scenery Integrity Objective

64 Alternative F Scenery Integrity Objective

65 Municipal Watersheds

66 Streams

67 Riparian and Wetlands

68 Fire Hazard Rating

69 Alternatives A, B, E, F, and G Wilderness Settings

70 Alternative C Wilderness Settings

71 Alternative D Wilderness Settings

72 Alternative B Crucial Winter Range and Snowmobile Exemptions Area

73 Alternative G Crucial Winter Range and Snowmobile Exemptions Area

74 Snowmobile Trails and Big Game Crucial Winter Range

75 Alternative G Lands Where Allocation Allows Occupancy For Oil and Gas 

Development

76 Alternative G Lands Where Allocation Allows Summer Motorized Use

77 Alternative G Lands Where Allocation Allows Winter Mortorized Use

78 Alternative G Scenic Integrity Objectives

79 Alternative G Management Areas

80 Current Oil and Gas Leases

Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix F

1305

Appendix F - Commercial Livestock Allotment Capable 

and Suitable Acres and AUMs by Allotment

Allotment Name Total 

Acres

Capable 

Acres

% 

Capable

Alts 

A/B/D/G 

Suitable 

Acres

Alts 

A/B/D/G 

Pct 

Suitable

Alts 

A/B/D/G 

AUMs

Alts 

A/B/D/G 

Acres per 

AUM

Alts C 

Suitable 

Acres

Alt C Pct 

Suitable

Alt C 

AUMs

Alt C 

Acres 

per 

AUM

Aspen 2,099 1,807 86% 449 21% 201 2.2 439 21% 197 2.2

Atlantic City 968 968 100% 857 89% 48 17.8 857 89% 48 17.8

Bald Ridge 24,609 20,825 85% 8,526 35% 2,644 3.2 2,696 11% 836 3.2

Basin 69,275 56,622 82% 18,583 27% 1,422 13.1 4,505 7% 345 13.1

Bayer Mountain 5,626 5,056 90% 1,525 27% 190 8.0 1,483 26% 185 8.0

Bear Creek 34,909 32,667 94% 14,303 41% 2,475 5.8 9,843 28% 1703 5.8

Beartooth and 30,327 26,143 86% 19,034 63% 1,366 18.9 17,063 56% 1239 18.9

Face of the Mountain 8,280 7,783 94% 6,843 83% 6,402 77%

Beaver Creek 1,031 1,030 100% 666 65% 99 6.7 666 65% 99 6.7

Belknap 10,885 9,088 83% 2,597 22% 941 2.8 1,366 13% 495 2.8

Bench 28,414 18,253 64% 10,491 37% 1,197 8.8 5,932 21% 677 8.8

Big Creek 18,730 11,519 62% 4,770 25% 85 56.1 11 0% 0 56.1

Bobcat 6,515 4,981 76% 2,285 35% 133 17.2 0 0% 0 0.0

Bull Creek 402 379 94% 100 25% 33 3.0 0 0% 0 0.0

Carter Creek 164 149 91% 21 13% 20 1.0 18 11% 18 1.0

Community 14,993 10,497 70% 6,660 44% 523 12.7 53 0% 4 12.7

Cottonwood 6,687 5,726 86% 1,129 17% 195 5.8 1,129 17% 195 5.8

Crandall and 17,478 15,396 88% 4,763 27% 1,134 6.4 1,384 8% 559 6.4

Reef Creek 11,244 9,648 86% 2,500 22% 2,196 20%

Deer Creek 4,416 3,363 76% 1,126 26% 186 6.1 1,126 26% 186 6.1

Dick Creek 10,622 9,208 87% 3,571 34% 1,328 2.7 2,322 22% 864 2.7

Dickinson Park 22,140 19,471 88% 4,847 22% 896 5.4 4,847 22% 896 5.4

Doby Cliff 801 782 98% 568 71% 132 4.3 568 71% 132 4.3

Dunoir 53,245 46,820 88% 15,740 30% 1,406 11.2 11,495 22% 1027 11.2

Ed Young Basin 11,341 10,804 95% 5,701 50% 906 6.3 5,215 46% 829 6.3

Fish Lake 12,746 12,520 98% 3,397 27% 1,098 3.1 3,397 27% 1098 3.1

Frye Lake 21,699 20,878 96% 4,821 22% 498 9.7 4,596 21% 475 9.7

Ghost Creek 10,744 10,425 97% 5,705 53% 1,827 3.1 2,153 20% 689 3.1

Gooseberry 10,730 9,682 90% 1,549 14% 301 5.1 1,413 13% 275 5.1

Greybull 34,619 30,029 87% 20,912 60% 1,203 17.4 5,004 14% 288 17.4

Guard Station 13,230 9,227 70% 1,847 14% 442 4.2 1,697 13% 406 4.2

Hardpan 15,219 13,361 88% 5,211 34% 1,883 2.8 0 0% 0 0.0

Hays Park 8,670 8,299 96% 4,777 55% 541 8.8 4,751 55% 538 8.8

Horse Creek 28,240 21,231 75% 8,033 28% 521 15.4 3,601 13% 234 15.4

Hunter Creek 1,596 1,110 70% 748 47% 143 5.2 18 1% 3 5.2

Ishawooa Hills 1,129 1,018 90% 890 79% 400 2.2 0 0% 0 0.0

Kirwin and 17,589 9,341 53% 3,946 22% 303 17.6 3,147 18% 258 17.6

Wood River 4,050 3,149 78% 1,396 34% 1,396 34%

Lake Creek 18,873 17,853 95% 7,000 37% 1,819 3.8 4,977 26% 1293 3.8

Little Rock 4,902 4,083 83% 3,210 65% 260 12.3 1,390 28% 113 12.3

Maxon Basin 3,794 3,750 99% 1,509 40% 348 4.3 1,509 40% 348 4.3

Meadow Creek 1,351 1,329 98% 1,151 85% 81 14.2 1,151 85% 81 14.2

Meeteetse 5,822 5,370 92% 3,247 56% 260 12.5 817 14% 65 12.5

Middle Fork 26,469 25,475 96% 9,545 36% 903 10.6 9,479 36% 897 10.6
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1306

Allotment Name Total 

Acres

Capable 

Acres

% 

Capable

Alts 

A/B/D/G 

Suitable 

Acres

Alts 

A/B/D/G 

Pct 

Suitable

Alts 

A/B/D/G 

AUMs

Alts 

A/B/D/G 

Acres per 

AUM

Alts C 

Suitable 

Acres

Alt C Pct 

Suitable

Alt C 

AUMs

Alt C 

Acres 

per 

AUM

North Fork Winter Range 4,528 3,563 79% 2,073 46% 300 6.9 0 0% 0 0.0

Parque Creek 13,426 11,624 87% 3,613 27% 568 6.4 2,257 17% 355 6.4

Pickett Creek 14,275 12,148 85% 7,030 46% 1,569 4.5 168 1% 37 4.5

Pine Willow S&G 18,301 17,950 98% 9,753 53% 208 46.9 9,753 53% 208 46.9

Piney 13,730 10,561 77% 6,935 51% 566 12.3 420 3% 34 12.3

Ramshorn 16,212 14,293 88% 4,158 26% 613 6.8 3,329 21% 491 6.8

Rand Creek 1,584 1,353 85% 391 25% 158 2.5 0 0% 0 0.0

Rennerberg 1,349 996 74% 309 23% 87 3.6 309 23% 87 3.6

Robbers Roost 50,642 44,426 88% 22,623 45% 3,893 5.8 1,314 3% 226 5.8

Rock Creek 16,832 12,355 73% 4,517 27% 1,648 2.7 639 4% 233 2.7

Sage Creek 922 655 71% 430 47% 69 6.2 0 0% 0 0.0

Salt Creek 8,264 8,224 100% 5,489 66% 2,162 2.5 5,489 66% 2162 2.5

Sawmill 9,392 8,959 95% 4,028 43% 716 5.6 2,690 29% 478 5.6

Slate Creek S&G 8,695 8,685 100% 6,027 69% 200 30.1 6,027 69% 200 30.1

South Pass 4,833 4,827 100% 2,705 56% 120 22.5 2,705 56% 120 22.5

Squaw Creek 6,302 6,115 97% 2,018 32% 190 10.6 2,018 32% 190 10.6

Sugarloaf & East Fork 19,985 16,140 81% 4,408 22% 607 7.3 4,408 22% 607 7.3

Table Mountain 13,794 11,381 83% 3,370 24% 2,006 1.7 1,834 13% 1092 1.7

Timber Creek 10,009 7,178 72% 2,329 23% 507 4.6 1,522 15% 331 4.6

Union Pass 39,777 38,304 96% 14,133 36% 2,672 5.3 12,344 31% 2334 5.3

Valley Boulder 3,376 2,181 65% 1,504 45% 138 10.9 2 0% 0 10.9

Warm Springs and 16,877 16,815 100% 5,183 31% 3,194 6.4 5,183 31% 3010 6.4

Wind River 45,297 42,256 93% 15,205 34% 14,033 31%

Washakie Needles 7,753 3,627 47% 3,627 47% 542 6.7 2,123 27% 317 6.7

Whiskey Mountain 12,423 10,993 88% 5,003 40% 133 37.6 402 3% 11 37.6

Wiggins Fork 44,550 39,030 88% 11,955 27% 2,673 4.5 5,768 13% 1290 4.5

Atlantic 19,511 14,372 74%

Bear Cr. Addition 264 179 68%

Burnt Mountain 4,190 2,493 60%

Citadel 13,050 3,462 27%

Deep Lake 6,522 1,900 29%

Fox Creek 3,978 1,198 30%

Francs Peak 14,100 1,185 8%

Hunter Cr. West 532 354 67%

Jack Creek 1,847 862 47%

Lodgepole 7,264 4,283 59%

Louis Lake 3,054 2,487 81%

Middle Wood 12,925 1,714 13%

North Fork 75,201 31,914 42%

One Mile 7,787 1,951 25%

Peat Beds 5,826 3,970 68%

Shoshone Lake 6,795 5,502 81%

South Fork 2,295 1,737 76%

Sunlight 24,822 5,563 22%

Torrey Creek 736 417 57%

Twinn Peaks 4,702 1,239 26%

West Beartooth 28,452 12,954 46%

Yellow/Steer Creek 19,164 1,258 7%

Totals and Averages 1,302,815 992,751 76% 375,368 40% 55,930 9.7 216,847 24% 31,406 9.1
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix F

1307

Allotment Name Total 

Acres

Capable 

Acres

% 

Capabl

e

Alt E 

Suitable 

Acres

Alt E Pct 

Suitable

Alt E 

AUMs

Alt E 

Acres per 

AUM

Alt F

Suitable 

Acres

Alt F Pct 

Suitable

Alt F 

AUMs

Alt F 

Acres per 

AUM

Aspen 2,099 1,807 86% 449 21% 201 2.2 449 21% 201 2.2

Atlantic City 968 968 100% 857 89% 48 17.8 857 89% 48 17.8

Bald Ridge 24,609 20,825 85% 8,526 35% 2,825 3.0 8,526 35% 2,825 3.0

Basin 69,275 56,622 82% 18,583 27% 1,530 12.1 18,583 27% 1,530 12.1

Bayer Mountain 5,626 5,056 90% 1,525 27% 191 8.0 1,525 27% 191 8.0

Bear Creek 34,909 32,667 94% 14,303 41% 2,552 5.6 14,303 41% 2,552 5.6

Beartooth and 30,327 26,143 86% 19,034 63% 1,379 18.8 19,034 63% 1,379 18.8

Face of the Mountain 8,280 7,783 94% 6,843 83% 6,843 83%

Beaver Creek 1,031 1,030 100% 666 65% 99 6.7 666 65% 99 6.7

Belknap 10,885 9,088 83% 2,597 22% 986 2.6 2,597 22% 986 2.6

Bench 28,414 18,253 64% 10,491 37% 1,249 8.4 10,491 37% 1,249 8.4

Big Creek 18,730 11,519 62% 4,770 25% 93 51.0 4,770 25% 93 51.0

Bobcat 6,515 4,981 76% 2,285 35% 146 15.6 2,285 35% 146 15.6

Bull Creek 402 379 94% 100 25% 36 2.8 100 25% 36 2.8

Carter Creek 164 149 91% 21 13% 20 1.0 21 13% 20 1.0

Community 14,993 10,497 70% 6,660 44% 575 11.6 6,660 44% 575 11.6

Cottonwood 6,687 5,726 86% 1,129 17% 195 5.8 1,129 17% 195 5.8

Crandall and 17,478 15,396 88% 4,763 27% 1,192 6.1 4,763 27% 1,192 6.1

Reef Creek 11,244 9,648 86% 2,500 22% 2,500 22%

Deer Creek 4,416 3,363 76% 1,126 26% 186 6.1 1,126 26% 186 6.1

Dick Creek 10,622 9,208 87% 3,571 34% 1,374 2.6 3,571 34% 1,374 2.6

Dickinson Park 22,140 19,471 88% 4,847 22% 896 5.4 4,847 22% 896 5.4

Doby Cliff 801 782 98% 568 71% 132 4.3 568 71% 132 4.3

Dunoir 53,245 46,820 88% 15,740 30% 1,444 10.9 15,740 30% 1,444 10.9

Ed Young Basin 11,341 10,804 95% 5,701 50% 914 6.2 5,701 50% 914 6.2

Fish Lake 12,746 12,520 98% 3,397 27% 1,098 3.1 3,397 27% 1,098 3.1

Frye Lake 21,699 20,878 96% 4,821 22% 500 9.6 4,821 22% 500 9.6

Ghost Creek 10,744 10,425 97% 5,705 53% 1,941 2.9 5,705 53% 1,941 2.9

Gooseberry 10,730 9,682 90% 1,549 14% 304 5.1 1,549 14% 304 5.1

Greybull 34,619 30,029 87% 20,912 60% 1,295 16.2 20,912 60% 1,295 16.2

Guard Station 13,230 9,227 70% 1,847 14% 446 4.1 1,847 14% 446 4.1

Hardpan 15,219 13,361 88% 5,211 34% 2,071 2.5 5,211 34% 2,071 2.6

Hays Park 8,670 8,299 96% 4,777 55% 541 8.8 4,777 55% 541 8.8

Horse Creek 28,240 21,231 75% 8,033 28% 550 14.6 8,033 28% 550 14.6

Hunter Creek 1,596 1,110 70% 748 47% 157 4.8 748 47% 157 4.8

Ishawooa Hills 1,129 1,018 90% 890 79% 440 2.0 890 79% 440 2.0

Kirwin and 17,589 9,341 53% 3,946 22% 308 17.4 3,946 22% 308 17.4

Wood River 4,050 3,149 78% 1,396 34% 1,396 34%

Lake Creek 18,873 17,853 95% 7,000 37% 1,872 3.7 7,000 37% 1,872 3.7

Little Rock 4,902 4,083 83% 3,210 65% 275 11.7 3,210 65% 275 11.7

Maxon Basin 3,794 3,750 99% 1,509 40% 348 4.3 1,509 40% 348 4.3

Meadow Creek 1,351 1,329 98% 1,151 85% 81 14.2 1,151 85% 81 14.2

Meeteetse 5,822 5,370 92% 3,247 56% 279 11.6 3,247 56% 279 11.6

Middle Fork 26,469 25,475 96% 9,545 36% 904 10.6 9,545 36% 904 10.6

North Fork Winter Range 4,528 3,563 79% 2,073 46% 330 6.3 2,073 46% 330 6.3

Parque Creek 13,426 11,624 87% 3,613 27% 589 6.1 3,613 27% 589 6.1

Pickett Creek 14,275 12,148 85% 7,030 46% 1,722 4.1 7,030 46% 1,722 3.8

Pine Willow S&G 18,301 17,950 98% 9,753 53% 208 46.9 9,753 53% 208 46.9

Piney 13,730 10,561 77% 6,935 51% 619 11.2 6,935 51% 619 11.2

Ramshorn 16,212 14,293 88% 4,158 26% 625 6.7 4,158 26% 625 6.7

Rand Creek 1,584 1,353 85% 391 25% 174 2.3 391 25% 174 2.3

Rennerberg 1,349 996 74% 309 23% 87 3.6 309 23% 87 3.6

Robbers Roost 50,642 44,426 88% 22,623 45% 4,260 5.3 22,623 45% 4,260 5.3
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1308

Allotment Name Total 

Acres

Capable 

Acres

% 

Capabl

e

Alt E 

Suitable 

Acres

Alt E Pct 

Suitable

Alt E 

AUMs

Alt E 

Acres per 

AUM

Alt F

Suitable 

Acres

Alt F Pct 

Suitable

Alt F 

AUMs

Alt F 

Acres per 

AUM

Rock Creek 16,832 12,355 73% 4,517 27% 1,789 2.5 4,517 27% 1,789 2.5

Sage Creek 922 655 71% 430 47% 76 5.7 430 47% 76 5.7

Salt Creek 8,264 8,224 100% 5,489 66% 2,162 2.5 5,489 66% 2,162 2.5

Sawmill 9,392 8,959 95% 4,028 43% 740 5.4 4,028 43% 740 5.4

Slate Creek S&G 8,695 8,685 100% 6,027 69% 200 30.1 6,027 69% 200 30.1

South Pass 4,833 4,827 100% 2,705 56% 120 22.5 2,705 56% 120 22.5

Squaw Creek 6,302 6,115 97% 2,018 32% 190 10.6 2,018 32% 190 10.6

Sugarloaf & East Fork 19,985 16,140 81% 4,408 22% 607 7.3 4,408 22% 607 7.3

Table Mountain 13,794 11,381 83% 3,370 24% 2,097 1.6 3,370 24% 2,097 1.6

Timber Creek 10,009 7,178 72% 2,329 23% 525 4.4 2,329 23% 525 4.4

Union Pass 39,777 38,304 96% 14,133 36% 2,706 5.2 14,133 36% 2,706 5.2

Valley Boulder 3,376 2,181 65% 1,504 45% 152 9.9 1,504 45% 152 9.9

Warm Springs and 16,877 16,815 100% 5,183 31% 3,212 6.3 5,183 31% 3,212 6.3

Wind River 45,297 42,256 93% 15,205 34% 15,205 34%

Washakie Needles 7,753 3,627 47% 3,627 47% 564 6.4 3,627 47% 564 6.4

Whiskey Mountain 12,423 10,993 88% 5,003 40% 145 34.4 5,003 40% 145 34.4

Wiggins Fork 44,550 39,030 88% 11,955 27% 2,811 4.3 11,955 27% 2,811 4.3

Atlantic 19,511 14,372 74% 5,740 29% 320 17.9

Bear Cr. Addition 264 179 68% 10 4% 2 5.0

Burnt Mountain 4,190 2,493 60% 1,096 26% 130 8.4

Citadel 13,050 3,462 27% 574 4% 120 4.8

Deep Lake 6,522 1,900 29% 359 6% 42 8.5

Fox Creek 3,978 1,198 30% 147 4% 39 3.8

Francs Peak 14,100 1,185 8% 241 2% 31 7.8

Hunter Cr. West 532 354 67% 327 61% 63 5.2

Jack Creek 1,847 862 47% 824 45% 110 7.5

Lodgepole 7,264 4,283 59% 1,186 16% 44 27.0

Louis Lake 3,054 2,487 81% 446 15% 100 4.5

Middle Wood 12,925 1,714 13% 511 4% 160 3.2

North Fork 75,201 31,914 42% 14,730 20% 550 26.8

One Mile 7,787 1,951 25% 421 5% 16 26.3

Peat Beds 5,826 3,970 68% 1,485 25% 180 8.2

Shoshone Lake 6,795 5,502 81% 2,087 31% 200 10.4

South Fork 2,295 1,737 76% 1,662 72% 150 11.1

Sunlight 24,822 5,563 22% 937 4% 71 13.2

Torrey Creek 736 417 57% 193 26% 18 10.7

Twinn Peaks 4,702 1,239 26% 90 2% 10 9.0

West Beartooth 28,452 12,954 46% 6,384 22% 740 8.6

Yellow/Steer Creek 19,164 1,258 7% 552 3% 72 7.7

Totals and Averages 1,302,815 992,751 76% 375,368 40% 58,382 9.3 415,370 35% 61,549 9.6
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix G

1309

Appendix G. Detail Information for Watersheds 

Functioning at Risk

The Watershed Condition 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. The classes 

are 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 

watersheds and associated resources. 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/.

The following information is detailed assessment information from the Watershed Condition Framework 

for the 16 watersheds on the Shoshone that fall in Class 2,”Functioning at Risk.” The indicators for the 

watersheds that are not in the properly functioning range are listed.

Watershed name Clarks Fork Yellowstone River –Squaw Creek code 100700060106

Total watershed acres: 22,730 Acres on Forest: 21,800

Indicators:

Water quality

ANC ≤ 20 per Gallatin Forest air quality data analysis. 

Sediment loading in Ghost and Muddy Creeks (upward 

trend).

Aquatic habitat − fragmentation 

(% of stream miles) >25%

Aquatic habitat – survey Squaw Creek impacts for 1988 wildfire

Aquatic biota – native vs. non-native species Non-native replaced native

Road – maintenance Past due

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) 10−25%

Roads – on unstable landform Few

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) >40%
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1310

Watershed name Upper Pat O’Hara Creek code 100700060504

Total watershed acres: 25,070 Acres on Forest: 12,040

Indicators:

Aquatic biota – native vs. non-native species Non-native replaced native

Riparian – condition <80% PFC

Road – maintenance Past due and some structure failure possible

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) 10−25%

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Fire Regime Condition Class – vegetation Moderate departure

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) >40%

Watershed name Brooks Lake Creek code 100800010104

Total watershed acres: 23,200 Acres on Forest: 23,200

Indicators:

Water quality

Brooks Lake Lodge algal blooms. 

Grazing on West Brooks Lake Creek (Falls Creek).

Sediment loads from historical activities on other creeks.

Aquatic habitat − fragmentation 

(% of stream miles) >25%

Riparian – condition <80% PFC

Road – open density 

(mi/sq. mi) 1–2.4

Road – maintenance Past due

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) 10−25%

Roads – on unstable landform Most

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) >40%
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix G

1311

Watershed name Wind River-Lava Creek code 100800010105

Total watershed acres: 10,800 Acres on Forest: 10,000

Indicators:

Water quality Brooks Lake Lodge algal blooms.

Sediment loads from historical activities on other creeks.

Aquatic habitat – survey Some concern with grazing but <5% of reach lengths.

Channel modification on private land.

Riparian – condition <80% PFC

Road – open density 

(mi/sq. mi) 1–2.4

Road – maintenance Past due

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) 10−25%

Roads – on unstable landform Most

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) >40%

Watershed name Wind River-Crooked Creek code 100800010107

Total watershed acres: 14,800 Acres on Forest: 5,580

Indicators:

Water quality

Brooks Lake Lodge algal blooms.

Sediment load in Wind River from private land channel 

modification.

Aquatic habitat – survey Channel modification on private land.

Aquatic biota – native vs. non-native 

species Non-native replaced native

Riparian – condition <80% PFC

Road – open density 

(mi/sq. mi) 1–2.4

Road – maintenance Past due and some structure failure possible

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) 10−25%

Roads – on unstable landform Most

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) >40%
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1312

Watershed name West Fork Long Creek code 100800010108

Total watershed acres: 14,700 Acres on Forest: 11,400

Indicators:

Water quality Sediment loads from historical activities.

Aquatic habitat − fragmentation 

(% of stream miles) >25%

Aquatic habitat – survey Historical, but on upward trend.

Riparian – condition <80% PFC

Road – open density 

(mi/sq. mi) 1–2.4

Road – maintenance Past due and some structure failure possible

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) 10−25%

Roads – on unstable landform Few

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Rangeland – condition At risk

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) >40%

Watershed name Lower Warm Spring Creek code 100800010112

Total watershed acres: 15,500 Acres on Forest: 13,900

Indicators:

Water quality Sediment loads from historical activities.

Aquatic habitat - fragmentation 

(% of stream miles) >25%

Aquatic biota – native vs. non-native 

species Non-native replaced native

Riparian – condition <80% PFC

Road – open density 

(mi/sq. mi) 1–2.4

Road – maintenance Past due

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) 10−25%

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) >40%
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix G

1313

Watershed name Middle Horse Creek-Wind River code 100800010202

Total watershed acres: 20,100 Acres on Forest: 19,800

Indicators:

Water quantity – flow Burroughs Creek water transmission line diversion.

Aquatic habitat − fragmentation 

(% of stream miles) >25%

Aquatic biota – native vs. non-native species Non-native replaced native

Road – open density 

(mi/sq. mi) 1–2.4

Road – maintenance Past due

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) >25%

Roads – on unstable landform Most

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) >40%

Watershed name Lower Horse Creek code 100800010203

Total watershed acres: 13,300 Acres on Forest: 2,200

Indicators:

Aquatic biota – native vs. non-native species Non-native replaced native

Riparian – condition <80% PFC

Road – open density 

(mi/sq. mi) >2.4

Road – maintenance Past due

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) >25%

Roads – on unstable landform Few

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Fire Regime Condition Class – vegetation Moderate departure

Rangeland – condition At risk

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) 20–40%
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1314

Watershed name Little Horse Creek code 100800010204

Total watershed acres: 11,500 Acres on Forest: 3,280

Indicators:

Aquatic biota – native vs. non-native species Non-native replaced native

Riparian – condition <80% PFC

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) >25%

Roads – on unstable landform Most

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Fire Regime Condition Class – vegetation Moderate departure

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) >40%

Watershed name Tappan Creek code 100800010205

Total watershed acres: 12,000 Acres on Forest: 2,140

Indicators:

Aquatic biota – native vs. non-native species Non-native replaced native

Riparian – condition <80% PFC

Road – maintenance Past due

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) 10−25%

Roads – on unstable landform Most

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) >40%

Watershed name Willow Creek-Little Popo Agie River code 100800030109

Total watershed acres: 18,900 Acres on Forest: 2,570

Indicators:

Aquatic biota – native vs. non-native species Non-native replaced native

Riparian – condition <80% PFC

Road – open density 

(mi/sq. mi) 1–2.4

Road – maintenance Past due and some structure failure possible

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) 10−25%

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Fire Regime Condition Class – vegetation Moderate departure

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) >40%
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix G

1315

Watershed name Middle North Popo Agie River code 100800030202

Total watershed acres: 27,400 Acres on Forest: 12,900

Indicators:

Water quality Sediment load from historical activities.

Aquatic biota – native vs. non-native species Non-native replaced native

Riparian – condition <80% PFC

Road – maintenance Past due and some structure failure possible

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) >25%

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) 20–40%

Watershed name Sand Creek-Popo Agie River code 100800030203

Total watershed acres: 15,700 Acres on Forest: 14,500

Indicators:

Water quality Sediment load from historical activities.

Aquatic habitat - fragmentation 

(% of stream miles) >25%

Aquatic biota – native vs. non-native species Non-native replaced native

Riparian – condition <80% PFC

Road – maintenance Past due

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) >25%

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) 20–40%
Shoshone National Forest Resource Management Plan Revision

1316

Watershed name Lower Middle Popo Agie River code 100800030207

Total watershed acres: 21,500 Acres on Forest: 6,780

Indicators:

Aquatic biota – native vs. non-native species Non-native replaced native

Aquatic biota – aquatic invasive species Whirling disease and didymo

Road – open density 

(mi/sq. mi) 1–2.4

Road – maintenance Past due

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) 10−25%

Roads – on unstable landform Few

Soils productivity – impacts of invasives Significant cheat grass establishment

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Fire Regime Condition Class – vegetation Moderate departure

Terrestrial invasive species Significant cheat grass establishment

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) >40%

Watershed name Roaring Fork Creek code 100800030208

Total watershed acres: 18,600 Acres on Forest: 17,100

Indicators:

Water quality Sediment load from historical activities.

Water quantity – flow Worthern and Frye Lake flow disruption.

Aquatic habitat - fragmentation 

(% of stream miles) >25%

Aquatic biota – native vs. non-native species Non-native replaced native

Riparian – condition <80% PFC

Road – open density 

(mi/sq. mi) 1–2.4

Road – maintenance Past due and some structure failure possible

Road – proximity to stream 

(% road within 300 feet of stream) 10−25%

Soil contamination – nitrogen deposition Moderate

Insect epidemic 

(% of forest land impacted) >40%
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix H

1317

Appendix H – Watershed Conservation Practices 

Handbook Design Criteria (Best Management 

Practices)

Table of Contents

11 - HYDROLOGIC FUNCTION.......................................................................................................... 1319

11.1 - Management Measure (1)......................................................................................................... 1319

11.2 - Management Measure (2)......................................................................................................... 1319

12 - RIPARIAN AREAS AND WETLANDS........................................................................................ 1319

12.1 - Management Measure (3)......................................................................................................... 1320

12.2 - Management Measure (4)......................................................................................................... 1321

12.3 - Management Measure (5)......................................................................................................... 1322

12.4 - Management Measure (6)......................................................................................................... 1322

12.5 - Management Measure (7)......................................................................................................... 1322

12.6 - Management Measure (8)......................................................................................................... 1324

13 - SEDIMENT CONTROL ................................................................................................................. 1325

13.1 - Management Measure (9)......................................................................................................... 1325

13.2 - Management Measure (10)....................................................................................................... 1326

13.3 - Management Measure (11)....................................................................................................... 1326

13.4 - Management Measure (12)....................................................................................................... 1327

14 - SOIL QUALITY.............................................................................................................................. 1328

14.1 - Management Measure (13)....................................................................................................... 1328

14.2 - Management Measure (14)....................................................................................................... 1328

15 - WATER PURITY............................................................................................................................ 1328

15.1 - Management Measure (15)....................................................................................................... 1329

15.2 - Management Measure (16)....................................................................................................... 1329

15.3 - Management Measure (17)....................................................................................................... 1330

This appendix contains a summary of the management direction that is included in the 2509.25 Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook. The handbook direction is referenced in the Forest Plan and the design 

criteria in the handbook are incorporated into all project decisions to which they apply. This summary of 

that direction is attached to the EIS to provide context to the discussion on watershed effects analysis. 

Management measures are environmental goals to protect soil, aquatic, and riparian systems. Design 

criteria are specific practices to attain the management measures using current knowledge and technology. 

Notes following the design criteria cite the effectiveness of the design criteria. The five areas covered are 

hydrologic function, riparian areas and wetlands, sediment control, soil quality, and water purity.

A 1985 agreement between the Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency mandated the 

Water Resource Evaluation of Nonpoint Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS) as official guidance to control 

nonpoint sources of water pollution. Its controls were used to construct many management measures and 

design criteria. Others are adapted from Federal and State BMPs and work of other Regions and agencies. 

“Best Management Practices” are, by definition, the most effective, practicable means of preventing or 

reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality 

goals (CDPHE 2001; WY DEQ 2001).

Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix H

1319

11 - HYDROLOGIC FUNCTION

Hydrologic function is the ability of a watershed to infiltrate precipitation and naturally regulate runoff so 

streams are in dynamic equilibrium with their channels and floodplains. Management measures and 

design criteria to protect hydrologic function apply to all actions that may impact the "sponge and filter" 

qualities of watersheds. Hydrologic function is protected by maintaining good vegetation and ground 

cover and by minimizing connected disturbed areas.

11.1 - Management Measure (1)

Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from 

damage by increased runoff.

1. Design Criteria.

a. In each watershed containing a 3-rd order and larger stream, limit connected disturbed 

areas so the total stream network is not expanded by more than 10%. Progress toward zero 

connected disturbed area as much as practicable. Where it is impossible or impracticable to 

disconnect a particular connected disturbed area, minimize the areal extent of the individual 

connected disturbed area as much as practicable. In watersheds that contain stream reaches in 

diminished stream health class, allow only those actions that will maintain or reduce 

watershed-scale Connected Disturbed Area.

b. Design the size, orientation, and surface roughness (that is. slash and other features that 

would trap and hold snow on site) of forest openings to prevent snow scour and site 

desiccation.

11.2 - Management Measure (2)

Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each activity area to prevent 

harmful increased runoff.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Maintain the organic ground cover of each activity area so that pedestals, rills, and surface 

runoff from the activity area are not increased. The amount of organic ground cover needed 

will vary by different ecological types and should be commensurate with the potential of the 

site.

b. Restore the organic ground cover of degraded activity areas within the next plan period, 

using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.

12 - RIPARIAN AREAS AND WETLANDS

Vegetation next to water bodies plays a major role in sustaining the long-term integrity of aquatic systems 

(Hynes 1970; Odum 1971). Values provided include shade, bank stability, fish cover, woody debris input, 

storage and release of sediment, surface-ground water interactions, and habitat for terrestrial and aquatic 

plants and animals. Riparian zones and wetlands must be managed with care to protect these values.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

1320

12.1 - Management Measure (3)

In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, allow 

only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem 

condition.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Allow no action that will cause long-term change to a lower stream health class in any 

stream reach. In degraded systems (that is At-risk or Diminished stream health class), 

progress toward robust stream health within the next plan period.

b. Allow no action that will cause long-term change away from desired condition in any 

riparian or wetland vegetation community. Consider management of stream temperature and 

large woody debris recruitment when determining desired vegetation community. In degraded 

systems, progress toward desired condition within the next plan period.

c. Keep heavy equipment out of streams, swales, and lakes, except to cross at designated 

points, build crossings, or do restoration work, or if protected by at least 1 foot of packed 

snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Keep heavy equipment out of streams during fish spawning, 

incubation, and emergence periods.

d. Ensure at least one-end log suspension in the WIZ. Fell trees in a way that protects 

vegetation in the WIZ from damage. Keep log landings and skid trails out of the WIZ, 

including swales.

e. Locate new concentrated-use sites outside the WIZ if practicable and outside riparian areas 

and wetlands. Armor or reclaim existing sites in the WIZ to prevent detrimental soil and bank 

erosion.

f. Manage livestock use through control of time/timing, intensity, and duration/frequency of

use in riparian areas and wetlands to maintain or improve long-term stream health. Exclude 

livestock from riparian areas and wetlands that are not meeting or moving towards desired 

condition objectives where monitoring information shows continued livestock grazing would 

prevent attainment of those objectives.

g. Keep stock tanks, salt supplements, and similar features out of the WIZ if practicable and 

out of riparian areas and wetlands always. Keep stock driveways out of the WIZ except to 

cross at designated points. Armor water gaps and designated stock crossings where needed 

and practicable.

h. Manage dry meadow and upland plant communities, including Kentucky bluegrass types, 

that have invaded into wetland/riparian areas in a manner that will contribute to their 

replacement over time by more mesic native plant communities to the extent practicable. 

Develop site-specific riparian stubble height standards or use the following default levels for 

carex and juncos species: 3-4 inches in spring-use pastures and 4-6 inches in summer or 

autumn use pastures; to leave adequate residual stubble height to retain effective ground 

cover.

i. Do not allow livestock grazing through an entire growing season in pastures that contain in 

riparian areas and wetlands. Apply short-duration grazing as practicable (generally less than 
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix H

1321

20 days) to minimize re-grazing of individual plants, to provide greater opportunity for 

regrowth and to manage utilization of woody species and reduce soil compaction. During the 

hot season (mid-to-late summer) manage livestock herds to avoid concentrating in riparian 

areas and wetlands. Apply principles of the Grazing Response Index to livestock management 

(USFS 1996a).

j. Design grazing systems to limit utilization of woody species. Where woody species have 

been historically suppressed, or where the plant community is below its desired condition and 

livestock are a key contributing factor, manage livestock through control of time/timing, 

intensity, and duration/frequency of use so as to allow for riparian hardwood growth 

extension and reproduction. Manage woody species in riparian areas to provide for stream 

temperature, bank stability and riparian habitat.

k. Maintain the extent of stable banks in each stream reach at 74% or more of reference 

conditions. Consider degree of livestock trampling and riparian vegetation utilization on or 

immediately adjacent to stream banks when timing livestock moves between units.

l. Adjust management in riparian areas and wetlands to improve detrimental soil compaction 

whenever it occurs.

m. Do not excavate earth material from, or store excavated earth material in, any stream, 

swale, lake, wetland, or WIZ.

n. Emphasize natural stabilization processes consistent with the stream type and capability 

(Rosgen and Proper Functioning Condition processes) when restoring damaged stream banks. 

Use native vegetation for stream bank stabilization whenever practicable.

12.2 - Management Measure (4)

Design and construct all stream crossings and other instream structures to provide for passage of 

flow and sediment, withstand expected flood flows, and allow free movement of resident aquatic 

life.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Install stream crossings to meet Corps of Engineers and State permits, pass normal flows, 

and be armored to withstand design flows.

b. Size culverts and bridges to pass debris. Engineers work with hydrologists and aquatic 

biologists on site design.

c. Install stream crossings on straight and resilient stream reaches, as perpendicular to flow 

as practicable, and to provide passage of fish and other aquatic life.

d. Install stream crossings to sustain bankfull dimensions of width, depth, and slope and keep 

streambeds and banks resilient. Favor bridges, bottomless arches or buried pipe-arches for 

those streams with identifiable flood plains and elevated road prisms, instead of pipe culverts. 

Favor armored fords for those streams where vehicle traffic is either seasonal or temporary, 

or the ford design maintains the channel pattern, profile and dimension.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

1322

e. Install or maintain fish migration barriers only if needed to protect endangered, threatened, 

sensitive, or unique native aquatic populations, and only where natural barriers do not exist.

12.3 - Management Measure (5)

Conduct actions so that stream pattern, geometry, and habitats maintain or improve long-term 

stream health.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Add or remove rocks, wood, or other material in streams or lakes only if such action 

maintains or improves stream and lake health. Leave rocks and portions of wood that are 

embedded in beds or banks to prevent channel scour and maintain natural habitat complexity.

b. Do not relocate natural stream channels if avoidable. Return flow to natural channels 

where practicable. Where reconstruction of stream channels is necessary, construct channels 

and floodways with natural stream pattern and geometry, stable beds and banks and provide 

habitat complexity.

12.4 - Management Measure (6)

Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns of wetlands to 

sustain their ecological function.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Keep ground vehicles out of wetlands unless protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 

2 inches of frozen soil. Do not disrupt water supply or drainage patterns into wetlands.

b. Keep roads and trails out of wetlands unless there is no other practicable alternative. If 

roads or trails must enter wetlands, use bridges or raised prisms with diffuse drainage to 

sustain flow patterns. Set crossing bottoms at natural levels of channel beds and wet meadow 

surfaces. Avoid actions that may dewater or reduce water budgets in wetlands.

c. Avoid long-term reduction in organic ground cover and organic soil layers in any wetland 

(including peat in fens).

d. When practicable, keep buried utility and pipelines out of wetlands. If such a line must 

enter a wetland, use measures that sustain long-term wetland function.

e. Avoid any loss of rare wetlands such as fens and springs.

f. Do not build firelines in or around wetlands unless needed to protect life, property, or 

wetlands. Use hand lines with minimum feasible soil disturbance. Use wetland features as 

firelines if practicable.

12.5 - Management Measure (7)

Manage stream flows under appropriate authorities to minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic 

values, fish and wildlife habitat, and to otherwise protect the environment.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix H

1323

1. Design Criteria.

a. Cooperate with water users and other interested parties to evaluate how to operate existing 

water use facilities to meet resource goals. 

b. Obtain stream flows under appropriate federal and state, legal and regulatory authorities to 

protect stream processes, aquatic and riparian habitats and communities, and recreation and 

aesthetic values. Top priority is to protect imperiled native species. Generally, this will 

include a range of flows to support desired uses and values.

c. Upon issuance of special use authorizations for new or existing water use facilities, 

include permit conditions at the point of diversion or storage, if needed, to minimize impacts 

to water dependent resources and values. One or more of the following circumstances may 

be present in any given project. Water dependent resources and values not included on this 

list may require additional consideration.

(1) When managing for physical stream processes, including channel maintenance, 

evaluate each stream on which a project is planned to ascertain what flows represent the 

amounts and timing needed to sustain these functions. Essential attributes of a properly 

functioning self-maintaining channel include providing for flows to achieve the 

following:

(a) Move the mass and sizes of alluvial sediment supplied to the channel.

(b) Maintain channel capacity by preventing terrestrial vegetative growth in the 

bed of the channel.

(c) Protect and sustain channel banks and the floodplain by maintaining healthy 

streamside vegetation.

(d) Maintain processes that sustain the relationship between the channel and the 

floodplain.

(2) When managing for aquatic biota and their habitat, evaluate each stream upon which 

a project is planned to ascertain what flows represent the amounts and timing needed to 

sustain viability of existing populations of native and desired non-native vertebrate 

species. Essential flow related attributes of sustainable habitat should achieve the 

following:

(a) Maintain the physical, biological, and chemical processes necessary for all 

life-history stages of identified species and communities.

(b) Minimize the impact of dams and diversion structures on the interaction 

between populations.

(c) Return flows to historic habitat where reintroduction potential exists.

(3) When managing for riparian habitat and communities, evaluate each stream upon 

which a project is planned to ascertain what flows and timing are needed to maintain or 

improve riparian habitat and community structure and function. These flows should be 

adequate to:
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

1324

(a) Maintain the physical, biological, and chemical processes necessary to ensure 

the sustainability and ecological integrity of identified species and communities.

(b) Maintain the magnitude, variability, and frequency of disturbance processes 

that affect community structure and function.

(4) When managing for aesthetic and recreational values, evaluate each stream upon 

which a project is planned to ascertain what flows and timing represent the amounts and 

period needed to sustain these values. These flows should be adequate to:

(a) Support flow dependent recreation uses (for example, rafting, kayaking, 

swimming).

(b) Maintain desired populations of fish species to provide for appropriate 

recreational experiences.

(c) Provide water for aesthetic enjoyment.

(d) Support special designations, including Wild and Scenic Rivers, where flowing 

water is critical to the purpose and quality of the designation.

d. Obtain water rights under federal and state law to protect stream processes, aquatic and 

riparian habitats and communities, and recreation and aesthetic values. Top priority is to 

protect imperiled native species.

12.6 - Management Measure (8)

Manage water-use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to prevent sediment and bank 

damage to streams.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Design all ditches, canals, and pipes with at least an 80% chance of passing high flows and 

remaining stable during their life.

b. Do not flush or deposit sediment from behind diversion structures into the stream below. 

Deposit sediment in a designated upland site. Vegetate or otherwise stabilize spoil piles.

c. Mitigate water imports and water disposal (including reservoir releases) so that the extent 

of stable banks, channel pattern, profile and dimensions maintain or improve long-term 

stream health in each receiving stream reach.

d. Maintain and operate water conveyance ditches and pipelines to carry their design 

volumes of water with appropriate freeboard. Keep ditches clear of vegetation, debris or other 

obstructions to minimize potential for ditch failures.

e. Conduct snow management, including snowmaking and snow-farming, in such a manner 

that prevents slope failures and gully erosion on the hillslopes and prevents adverse impacts, 

such as bank erosion and excessive sediment, in receiving streams.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix H

1325

13 - SEDIMENT CONTROL

Most sediment delivered from slopes to streams comes from roads and similar disturbed sites. 

Management measures and design criteria to control sediment come from Clean Water Act Section 404 

mandatory BMPs (33 CFR 323.4), EPA and State BMPs, and WRENSS controls. The goal is 

antidegradation and no impairment.

13.1 - Management Measure (9)

Limit roads and other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length 

consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local topography, and climate.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Construct roads on ridge tops, stable upper slopes, or wide valley terraces if practicable. 

Stabilize soils onsite. End-haul soil if full-bench construction is used. Avoid slopes steeper 

than 70%.

b. Avoid soil-disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or wet soils. Apply travel 

restrictions to protect soil and water.

c. Install cross drains to disperse runoff into filter strips and minimize connected disturbed 

areas. Make cuts, fills, and road surfaces strongly resistant to erosion between each stream 

crossing and at least the nearest cross drain. Revegetate using certified local native plants as 

practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.

d. Construct roads where practicable, with outslope and rolling grades instead of ditches and 

culverts.

e. Retain stabilizing vegetation on unstable soils. Avoid new roads or heavy equipment use 

on unstable or highly erodible soils.

f. Use existing roads unless other options will produce less long-term sediment. Reconstruct 

for long-term soil and drainage stability.

g. Avoid ground skidding on sustained slopes steeper than 40% and on moderate to severely 

burned sustained slopes greater than 30%. Conduct logging to disperse runoff as practicable.

h. Designate, construct, and maintain recreational travelways for proper drainage and armor 

their stream crossings as needed to control sediment.

i. During and following operations on outsloped roads, retain drainage and remove berms on 

the outside edge except those intentionally constructed for protection of road grade fills.

j. Locate and construct log landings in such a way to minimize the amount of excavation 

needed and to reduce the potential for soil erosion. Design landings to have proper drainage. 

After use, treat landings to disperse runoff and prevent surface erosion and encourage 

revegetation.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

1326

13.2 - Management Measure (10)

Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment discharge into streams, lakes, and 

wetlands.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Design all roads, trails, and other soil disturbances to the minimum standard for their use 

and to "roll" with the terrain as feasible.

b. Use filter strips, and sediment traps if needed, to keep all sand-sized sediment on the land 

and disconnect disturbed soil from streams, lakes, and wetlands. Disperse runoff into filter 

strips.

c. Key sediment traps into the ground. Clean them out when 50% full. Remove sediment to a 

stable, gentle, upland site and revegetate.

d. Keep heavy equipment out of filter strips except to do restoration work or build armored 

stream or lake approaches. Yard logs up out of each filter strip with minimum disturbance of 

ground cover.

e. Build firelines outside filter strips unless tied into a stream, lake, or wetland as a firebreak 

with minimal disturbed soil. Retain organic ground cover in filter strips during prescribed 

fires.

f. Design road ditches and cross drains to limit flow to ditch capacity and prevent ditch 

erosion and failure.

13.3 - Management Measure (11)

Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to control 

erosion.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Do not encroach fills or introduce soil into streams, swales, lakes, or wetlands.

b. Properly compact fills and keep woody debris out of them. Revegetate cuts and fills upon 

final shaping to restore ground cover, using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid 

persistent or invasive exotic plants. Provide sediment control until erosion control is 

permanent.

c. Do not disturb ditches during maintenance unless needed to restore drainage capacity or 

repair damage. Do not undercut the cut slope.

d. Space cross drains according to road grade and soil type as indicated below: (ex. 01). Do 

not divert water from one stream to another.

e. Empty cross drains onto stable slopes that disperse runoff into filter strips. On soils that 

may gully, armor outlets to disperse runoff. Tighten cross-drain spacing so gullies are not 

created.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix H

1327

f. Armor rolling dips as needed to prevent rutting damage to the function of the rolling dips. 

Ensure that road maintenance provides stable surfaces and drainage.

g. Where berms must be used, construct and maintain them to protect the road surface, 

drainage features, and slope integrity while also providing user safety.

h. Build firelines with rolling grades and minimum downhill convergence. Outslope or 

backblade, permanently drain, and revegetate firelines immediately after the burn. Use 

certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.

i. Use the minimum amount of sand, salt, and/or other de-icing substances (Mag-Chloride) as 

necessary to provide safe winter travel conditions. Design paved roads and parking lots to 

facilitate sand removal (that is curbs or paved ditches). Use filter strips or other trapping 

methods to reduce movement of de-icing materials into near-by water bodies. Do not deposit 

sediment into streams or on streambanks along roads.

j. During winter operations, maintain roads as needed to keep the road surface drained during 

thaws and break-ups. Perform snow removal in such a manner that protects the road and other 

adjacent resources. Do not use riparian areas, wetlands or streams for snow storage or 

disposal. Remove snow berms where they result in accumulation or concentration of 

snowmelt runoff on the road or erodible fill slopes. Install snow berms where such placement 

will preclude concentration of snowmelt runoff and will serve to rapidly dissipate melt water.

k. On roads with high/heavy traffic use, require maintenance agreements and/or use of road 

surface stabilization practices and dust abatement supplements. See FSH 7709.56 and FSH 

7709.58.

13.4 - Management Measure (12)

Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as needed, to prevent resource damage.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Site-prepare, drain, decompact, revegetate, and close temporary and intermittent use roads 

and other disturbed sites within one year after use ends. Provide stable drainage that disperses 

runoff into filter strips and maintains stable fills. Do this work concurrently. Stockpile topsoil 

where practicable to be used in site restoration. Use certified local native plants as 

practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.

b. Remove all temporary stream crossings (including all fill material in the active channel), 

restore the channel geometry, and revegetate the channel banks using certified local native 

plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.

c. Restore cuts and fills to the original slope contours where practicable and as opportunities 

arise to re-establish subsurface pathways. Use certified local native plants as practicable; 

avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Obtain stormwater (402) discharge permits as 

required.

d. Establish effective ground cover on disturbed sites to prevent accelerated on-site soil loss 

and sediment delivery to streams. Restore ground cover using certified native plants as 

practicable to meet revegetation objectives. Avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

1328

14 - SOIL QUALITY

Soil quality determines vegetation growth capability in all terrestrial ecosystems. Soil depth, structure, 

organic matter, and nutrients are critical to sustaining this potential. Management measures and design 

criteria to protect soil quality apply to all actions that may impact these soil qualities.

14.1 - Management Measure (13)

Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, 

eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15% of any activity area.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Restrict roads, landings, skid trails, concentrated-use sites, and similar soil disturbances to 

designated sites.

b. Operate heavy equipment for land treatments only when soil moisture is below the plastic 

limit, or protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil.

c. Conduct prescribed fires to minimize the residence time on the soil while meeting the burn 

objectives. This is usually done when the soil and duff are moist.

d. Allow dispersed winter motorized recreation when snow depths are sufficient to protect 

soils. Specify a minimum unpacked snow depth of 12 inches unless a site-specific analysis 

shows a different snow depth is adequate to protect soils. Allow use of snowcats or grooming 

machines when unpacked snow depths equal or exceed 18 inches. Evaluate special use permit 

conditions on a site specific basis.

14.2 - Management Measure (14)

Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and nutrients on all lands.

1. Design Criteria.

a. On soils with surface soil (A-horizon) thinner than 1 inch, topsoil organic matter less than 

2%, or effective rooting depth less than 15 inches, retain 80 - 90% of the fine (less than 3 

inches in diameter) post treatment logging slash in the stand after each clearcut and seed-tree 

harvest. Consider need for retention of coarse woody debris slash in each activity area to 

balance soil quality requirements and fuel loading concerns.

b. If machine piling of slash is done, conduct piling to leave topsoil in place and to avoid 

displacing soil into piles or windrows.

15 - WATER PURITY

Chemicals and pathogens impact water purity. Management measures and design criteria to protect water 

purity intend to avoid contamination of all waters.
Final Environmental Impact Statement – Volume III, Appendix H

1329

15.1 - Management Measure (15)

Place new sources of chemical and pathogenic pollutants where such pollutants will not reach 

surface or ground water.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Locate pack and riding stock sites (for example corrals and loading areas), sanitary sites, 

and well drill-pads outside the water influence zone (WIZ).

b. Locate vehicle service and fuel areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps 

and areas on gentle upland sites. Mix, load, and clean on gentle upland sites. Dispose of 

chemicals and containers in State-certified disposal areas.

c. Locate temporary labor, spike, logging and fire camps such that surface and subsurface 

water resources are protected. Consideration should be given to disposal of human waste, 

wastewater and garbage and other solid wastes.

15.2 - Management Measure (16)

Apply runoff controls to disconnect new pollutant sources from surface and ground water.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Install contour berms and trenches around vehicle service and refueling areas, chemical 

storage and use areas, and waste dumps to fully contain spills. Use liners as needed to prevent 

seepage to ground water. Prepare Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan per the 

requirements of 40 CFR 112.

b. Reclaim each mine waste dump when its use ends, using certified local native plants as 

practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Stabilize waste dumps and tailings in 

non-use periods to prevent wind and water erosion. If non-use will exceed one year, perform 

concurrent reclamation. Require removal or encapsulation of waste material as necessary to 

prevent contamination of nearby water bodies before operator abandons site or reclamation is 

accepted as final.

c. Prevent contaminated runoff from waste dumps and/or tailings from reaching surface 

and/or ground water. Potential techniques include use of lined ponds to catch runoff, 

diversion ditches or other runoff controls to divert runoff around waste dumps/tailings piles, 

capping or treating waste piles on site or off-site disposal of waste as appropriate. If ponds are 

used, build tailings dams with a 95% chance of containing floods (100-year event) over their 

design life. Permanently stabilize dams at final shaping.

d. Clean wastewater from concrete batching and aggregate operations before returning the 

water to streams, lakes, or wetlands.

e. Inspect equipment used for transportation, storage or application of chemicals daily during 

use period for leaks. If leaks or spills occur, report them and install emergency traps to 

contain them and clean them up. Refer to FSH 6709.11, chapter 60 for direction on working 

with hazardous materials.
Shoshone National Forest Land Management Plan Revision

1330

f. Report spills and take appropriate clean-up action in accordance with applicable state and 

federal laws, rules and regulations. Contaminated soil and other material shall be removed 

from NFS lands and disposed of in a manner according to state and federal laws, rules and 

regulations.

15.3 - Management Measure (17)

Apply chemicals using methods that minimize risk of entry to surface and ground water.

1. Design Criteria.

a. Favor pesticides with half-lives of 3 months or less when practicable to achieve treatment 

objectives.. Apply at lowest effective rates as large droplets or pellets. Follow the label 

directions. Favor selective treatment. Use only aquatic-labeled chemicals in the WIZ.

b. Use non-toxic, non-hazardous drilling fluids when practicable.