Ashton-Flagg Ranch Road Corridor Study

Phase 1 – Existing Conditions Assessment

Prepared for:

United States Forest Service

Caribou-Targhee National Forest

March 2023

Prepared by:

Federal Highway Administration

Western Federal Lands Highway Division

Table of Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... 1

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

Study Area Background........................................................................................................................ 3

Corridor Study Area Context................................................................................................................ 4

Relation to Regional Transportation Network........................................................................................................... 4

Regional Visitation Trends ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Socioeconomic Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 6

Related Plans and Studies................................................................................................................................................. 7

Maintenance and Design Guidelines....................................................................................................... 8

Forest Service Road Maintenance Levels ............................................................................................ 8

Road Management Objectives for AFRR..................................................................................................................... 9

Design Criteria....................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................................11

Physical Features and Characteristics................................................................................................ 11

Topography and Setting..................................................................................................................................................11

Roadway Characteristics ..................................................................................................................................................11

User Characteristics .............................................................................................................................20

Visitation and User Types................................................................................................................................................20

Traffic Conditions ...............................................................................................................................................................21

Safety Conditions ...............................................................................................................................................................22

Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................ 22

Summer 2022 Site Visit Field Observations ...................................................................................... 27

Drainage/Erosion................................................................................................................................................................27

Geotechnical.........................................................................................................................................................................27

Data Gaps ..............................................................................................................................................................................28

Conclusion................................................................................................................................................29

Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................29

Partners and Stakeholders ..............................................................................................................................................29

Appendix A - National Wetlands Inventory ......................................................................................... 31

Appendix B - US Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC Report...................................................................... 39

Appendix C - Initial Scoping for Future Corridor Master Plan........................................................... 52
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2022, the United States Forest Service (USFS) requested assistance from the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) to conduct a multi-phase corridor study for Ashton-Flagg Ranch Road (AFRR). 

The condition of AFRR has been relatively stable for the past twenty years, despite ongoing deferred 

maintenance. However, increased visitation and changes in travel patterns for multiple uses both 

within the National Forest boundary and across the regional road network necessitate a closer 

look at the AFRR corridor.

The purposes of the Phase 1 Ashton Flagg Ranch Road Corridor Study are to:

1. Evaluate the existing maintenance levels, conditions, and vulnerabilities of the roadway; and

2. Determine the next steps for the USFS to address immediate needs and potentially advance a 

collaborative, multi-agency planning effort for the corridor.

The information contained in this report provides a snapshot of visitor use, opportunity, and 

transportation planning considerations that could be further developed as part of a future AFRR 

Corridor Master Plan. 

Need for the Study

The Caribou-Targhee National Forest (CTNF) 

adjacent to Yellowstone National Park and 

Grand Teton National Park has experienced 

significant increases in visitor use over the 

past decade. The USFS anticipates 

continued demand for access across the 

CTNF, as well as interest in alternative 

connections to National Park destinations to 

the north in Montana and to the east in 

Wyoming. Due to the area’s mountainous 

topography and abundance of protected 

public lands, few east-west roadways exist 

over the Teton range and into Yellowstone 

National Park. 

Ashton-Flagg Ranch Road (also known as 

Forest Road 261) is one of those rare eastwest travel options. The USFS operates and 

maintains the seasonally-open AFRR, shown 

in Figure 1, which connects county roads in 

Fremont County, Idaho to Grassy Lake Road 

in Wyoming. 

Figure 1: Ashton-Flagg Ranch Road Location
2

Emphasizing Maintenance Goals

Currently, the 24.5-mile corridor operates as a low-volume, unimproved Forest road and offers travelers 

a unique backcountry experience through the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The USFS does not 

intend to change the existing traveler experience and function of the roadway. Instead, there is interest 

in achieving the passenger car maintenance level that has been assigned to AFRR. The USFS Forest 

Service Road System Operations and Maintenance Handbook (FSH 7709.59) specifies maintenance levels 

for the agency’s road network to define the level of serviced provided by, and maintenance required for, 

a specific road. Road maintenance levels must be consistent with road management objectives and 

maintenance criteria. While AFRR is classified by the USFS at a maintenance level 3, meaning the 

roadway should be maintained for passage by standard passenger cars during the normal season of 

use, portions of the roadway function closer to a maintenance level 2 (maintained for high-clearance 

vehicles). 

Existing Conditions Summary

The study area for this existing conditions report encompasses the entirety of AFRR within the CTNF 

boundary, beginning at mile post (MP) 0.0 to the east and ending at MP 24.5, where the National Forest 

ends and the National Park Service administered JD Rockefeller Parkway begins. This Phase 1 report 

describes existing conditions of the roadway using available data sources, including regional traffic 

volumes, visitation trends, roadway objects, user characteristics, and environmental resources. This 

section of the report also includes an overview of field observations and roadway deficiencies that were 

documented during a project site visit that took place in July 2022. 

Next Steps and Future Corridor Planning

The USFS intends to proactively plan for the future of AFRR alongside local, state, and other Federal 

partners. At a minimum, the Forest Service has indicated the CTNF will address deferred 

maintenance on AFRR and advance upgrades to address anticipated future use and multimodal 

travel along the corridor, with a focus on meeting the stated maintenance standard. With a greater 

understanding of current conditions and maintenance objectives, the USFS can begin to address some 

of the high-level needs identified in this study through various highway funding opportunities that may 

include, but are not limited to, the Forest Service Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), FHWA Federal Land 

Access Program (FLAP), or the Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP) 

Program.

If major improvements or a significant inter-state transportation project were to be considered, a 

comprehensive multi-agency Corridor Master Plan could be initiated to further:

• Define the desired future conditions and vison for AFRR

• Engage key stakeholders and partners during the planning process

• Clearly articulate transportation demands, user expectation, and public needs 

• Identify alternatives and refine specific projects that address those long-term needs.
3

INTRODUCTION

Study Area Background

The Caribou-Targhee National Forest (CTNF) adjacent to Yellowstone National Park has experienced 

significant increases in visitor use over the past decade. The United States Forest Service (USFS) 

anticipates continued demand for access across the CTNF, including increased demand on all 

transportation connections to Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks to the north in Montana 

and to the east in Wyoming. The USFS operates and maintains the seasonally-open Ashton-Flagg Ranch 

Road (Forest Road 261), shown in Figure 2, which connects county roads in Fremont County, Idaho to 

Grassy Lake Road and Grand Teton National Park, in Wyoming. The condition of this low-volume road 

has been stable for the past few decades. However, increased visitation and changes in travel patterns 

for multiple-uses across the Greater Yellowstone area necessitate a closer look at the AFRR corridor. 

The purpose of this Phase 1 Ashton Flagg Ranch Road Corridor Study is to evaluate the existing 

conditions and vulnerabilities of the roadway and determine the next steps for the USFS to address 

immediate needs and potentially advance a collaborative multi-agency planning effort for the corridor. 

The study area for this existing conditions report encompasses the entirety of AFRR within the CTNF 

boundary, beginning at mile post (MP) 0.0 on the west end of the CTNF and ending at MP 24.5, where 

the National Forest ends and the National Park land begins. The information contained in this report 

provides a snapshot of visitor use, opportunity, and transportation planning considerations that could 

be further developed as part of a future AFRR Corridor Master Plan. Start and end points of a future 

AFRR Corridor Master Plan would be determined by the stakeholders in that planning effort.

Figure 2: Ashton Flagg Ranch Road Corridor Study Area
4

Corridor Study Area Context

Relation to Regional Transportation Network

Ashton-Flagg Ranch Road has been an east-west 

highway corridor throughout the past century, with 

early use as a mail and wagon freight route between 

Idaho towns and homesteads in Wyoming. Over time

as other routes were improved to Yellowstone National 

Park and Jackson, Wyoming, with the higher volume 

state highways paved and improved through the latter 

part of the 20th century, the AFRR corridor remained less 

developed and unpaved. The eastern segment of the 

corridor, referenced but not analyzed in this report, was 

transferred with the congressional designation of the 

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway in 1972, from 

USFS to NPS jurisdiction.1 This segment, now called 

Grassy Lake Road, is owned and maintained by the NPS. 

With proximity of the two National Parks and adjacent 

National Forests, many visitors to the Greater 

Yellowstone area travel by personal vehicle. The 

regional road network between West Yellowstone, 

Montana and Jackson, Wyoming creates a popular 

driving loop that connects the gateway towns to various 

public lands across three states (shown in Figure 3). Travelers have the option to take the eastern route 

on US 191, which is approximately 130 miles and traverses Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. 

Similarly, the 125-mile western route parallels the Wyoming/Idaho state border and US 20 cuts through 

the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in Idaho. This portion of the loop, on ID 32 and ID 33, follows the 

Teton Valley before crossing the state line into Wyoming and over the Teton Mountain range via the 

Teton Pass. Without stops or traffic, this loop takes approximately 6 hours to complete. AFRR is the 

only roadway that provides an alternative east-west roadway connection within this regional loop, a 

potential short-cut of 80 miles and bypass from congestion that builds in the traditional gateway towns 

throughout the peak summer tourist season.

1 National Park Service History eLibrary: http://npshistory.com/publications/jodr/index.htm

Figure 3: Regional Road Network
5 

Regional Visitation Trends

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans were 

flocking to public lands in record-breaking numbers. 

The two counties that AFRR traverses (Fremont County, 

ID and Teton County, WY) contain nationally significant 

public lands, including two National Parks, three 

National Forests, and a National Wildlife Refuge, all of 

which are experiencing increased and changing 

visitation. Located just east of AFRR, Yellowstone and 

Grand Teton National Parks have experienced a steady 

uptick in visitation, shown in Table 1, with both parks 

setting monthly visitation records during Summer 2021. 

Annual visitation data is not available for the CaribouTarghee National Forest. Rather, the USFS collects 

visitation data every five years through the National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. Shown in Table 2, 

visitation to the CTNF has increased since 2005. Summer visitation to Mesa Falls exceeded 280,000 day 

users between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

Year Grand Teton 

National Park

Yellowstone 

National Park

2012 2,705,256 3,447,729

2013 2,688,794 3,188,030

2014 2,791,392 3,513,484

2015 3,149,921 4,097,710

2016 3,270,076 4,257,177

2017 3,317,000 4,116,524

2018 3,491,151 4,115,000

2019 3,405,614 4,020,288

2020 3,289,638 3,806,306

2021 3,885,230 4,860,242

Table 1: Grand Teton National Park and Yellowstone National 

Park Annual Visitation

2005 2010 2015 2020

1,557,000 2,065,000 1,468,000 2,403,000

Table 2: Caribou-Targhee National Forest 5-Year Visitation

View of the Teton Range from the USFS CTNF Teton Basin 

Ranger District in Driggs, ID (Photo Credit: USFS)

Upper Mesa Falls (Photo Credit: USFS)
6

Socioeconomic Overview

AFRR links Fremont County, ID to Teton 

County, WY, serving two counties with a 

combined population of approximately

37,167 in 2021. From 2001 to 2021, the 

combined population for these counties 

increased from 30,544 residents to 37,167 

(a 21.6% increase). Teton County, WY 

experienced significantly greater 

population growth in that timeframe 

(26.3% increase), compared to Fremont 

County, ID’s 14.3% increase, shown in 

Figure 5.

In addition to population growth, the region has experienced increases in employment growth since the 

early 2000s. According to the most recently available data from the U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal 

Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Program, the total number of jobs in Fremont County, ID and 

Teton County, WY grew over 39% between 2003 and 2019. While the number of jobs on the Idaho side 

of AFRR increased by 31.8%, job creation on the Wyoming side is driving economic growth. In that 

same timeframe, Teton County, WY added over 5,800 new jobs (approximately 2,300 of which were in 

the Accommodation and Food Services sector). Table 3 provides a summary of job change over time in 

the two counties.

Fremont County, ID 

Jobs

Teton County, WY 

Jobs

Two-County 

Total

2003 2,171 14,274 16,445

2007 2,305 15,756 18,061

2011 2,567 14,985 17,552

2015 2,590 17,344 19,934

2019 2,862 20,086 22,948

Change from 

2003-2019

+691

(31.8%)

+5,812

(40.7%)

+6,503

(39.5%)

 Table 3: Job Growth - 2003 to 2019 (Source: Census LEHD)

 -

 5,000

 10,000

 15,000

 20,000

 25,000

Population Growth: 2001 to 2021

Fremont County, ID Teton County, WY

Figure 4: Population Growth - 2001 to 2021 (Source: US Census)
7

Related Plans and Studies

Various long range transportation plans, comprehensive plans, and related studies have been 

completed in recent years to define the current conditions, future vision, and transportation needs of 

the greater Yellowstone region. The following plans and studies were reviewed as part of the Phase 1 

AFRR Corridor Study.

Targhee National Forest Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Travel Plan Record of Decision

(1999)

The purpose and need of the Targhee National Forest Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Travel 

Plan (Travel Plan) is to offer a balanced range of motorized road and trail related recreation 

opportunities in the forest that is consistent with the management prescriptions adopted in the 

Revised Forest Plan. These prescriptions include standards for the miles of open roads and 

motorized trails allowed per square mile. The Travel Plan identifies which roads and trails will remain 

open to meet these road and trail density standards. In the Record of Decision, the Targhee 

National Forest provides for 1,577 miles of open motorized roads, 25 miles of seasonally restricted 

roads and 540 miles of open motorized trails. AFRR represents 24.5 miles of open motorized roads.

Yellowstone National Park Transportation and Vehicle Mobility Study (2017)

The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze data related to traffic and parking conditions at 

Yellowstone National Park in order to provide a foundation for future visitor use management and 

transportation planning. The study assessed traffic volumes, visitor trip patterns, parking utilization, 

and lodging in gateway communities. While the study largely focused on data collection and field 

observations, a few high-priority recommendations were included to respond to visitor and 

congestion management pressures. Specifically, the project team recommended a Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem Regional Visitation and Transportation Study to better understand how 

visitors travel to and from the park and how those travel patterns may affect the greater 

Yellowstone ecosystem. At the time of this report, this recommendation has not yet been 

implemented. 

Fremont County Transportation Plan (2006)

The Fremont County Transportation Plan identifies 20-year transportation issues throughout the 

county and prioritizes system projects that will improve access and safety for residents, businesses, 

and the traveling public. The final plan lists project priorities, guiding goals, objectives, and policies 

for everyday evaluation of transportation issues. 

Teton County Integrated Transportation Plan (2020 Technical Update)

The “plan scenario” that the Teton County Integrated Transportation Plan sets forth as the direction 

for future transportation improvements focuses on increasing multimodal accessibility (via increased 

transit service and more bicycle and pedestrian trips) and decreasing motor vehicle traffic volumes. 

While this plan centers on Jackson, WY and surrounding Teton County, the transportation demand 

management strategies identified will have impacts to the regional network once implemented.
8

MAINTENANCE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

The USFS Road Maintenance Management System provides a systematic process for field units to 

effectively and efficiently manage their road maintenance programs. The following sections provide 

more background on USFS road maintenance levels and management objectives.

Forest Service Road Maintenance Levels

From the USFS Forest Service Road System Operations and Maintenance Handbook (FSH 7709.59), the 

road maintenance levels are described as follows:

1. Level 1: Closed to vehicular traffic but may be available and suitable for nonmotorized 

uses. These are roads that have been placed in storage between intermittent uses. The period 

of storage must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to prevent damage to 

adjacent resources and to perpetuate the road for future resource management needs. 

Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road 

deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are "prohibit" 

and "eliminate" all traffic. These roads are not shown on motor vehicle use maps.

2. Level 2: Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic, 

user comfort, and user convenience are not considerations. Warning signs and traffic control 

devices are not provided with the exception that some signing, such as W-18-1 “No Traffic 

Signs,” may be posted at intersections. Motorists should have no expectations of being alerted 

to potential hazards while driving these roads. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of 

one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized 

uses. 

3. Level 3: Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a 

standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. The 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is applicable. Warning signs and traffic 

control devices are provided to alert motorists of situations that may violate expectations. Roads 

in this maintenance level are typically low speed with single lanes and turnouts. 

4. Level 4: Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and 

convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. 

However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is applicable. The most appropriate traffic 

management strategy is "encourage." However, the "prohibit" strategy may apply to specific 

classes of vehicles or users at certain times.

5. Level 5: Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. 

These roads are normally double lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and 

dust abated. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is applicable. The appropriate traffic 

management strategy is "encourage."

While AFRR is classified by the USFS at a maintenance level 3, meaning the roadway should be 

maintained for passage by standard passenger cars during the normal season of use, portions of the 

roadway function closer to a maintenance level 2 (maintained for high-clearance vehicles). 
9

Road Management Objectives for AFRR

The Road Management Objectives Report includes general management information for AFRR. From 

MP 0 to MP 11.1, the following maintenance levels are prescribed:

• Maintain travelway to provide for a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience and for 

protection of investment and resource values;

• Replace surfacing to the depth required for blade maintenance;

• Patch pavement potholes and perform routine pavement maintenance to protect the 

investment;

• Maintain existing shoulders commensurate with the travelway;

• Keep drainage facilities functional to prevent unacceptable resource damage;

• Brush as necessary to maintain sight distance and traffic clearance;

• Remove hazard trees; and

• Install and maintain regulatory, warning, and guide signs according to the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

From MP 11.2 to MP 24.6, the following maintenance levels are prescribed:

• Maintain once or more per year to allow for safe passage of standard passenger cars;

• Brush as necessary to maintain sight distance and traffic clearance;

• Remove hazard trees; and

• Install and maintain regulatory, warning, and guide signs according to the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

CTNF is unique in that it retains a crew of 5 to 6 employees to make improvements on USFS-owned 

roads and bridges. However, with over 1,500 miles of road within the CTNF, this small road crew is not 

able to address all maintenance needs on a consistent basis. Gravel source material for AFRR is located 

outside of the Forest. 

Design Criteria

The AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and the AASHTO Guidelines for 

Geometric Design of Low-Volume Roads specify general design principles and controls that determine 

the overall operational characteristics of a roadway. Of critical importance to determining design 

standards is the design speed. AASHTO’s manuals provide guidance for design speed based on facility 

and operating characteristics; however, some judgment is necessary. A facility’s design speed and its 

operating speed may differ. The design speed is a selected speed used to determine the various 

geometric design features of the roadway. The operating speed is the highest overall speed at which a 

driver may travel on a given section of roadway under favorable weather conditions and prevailing 

traffic conditions without at any time exceeding the safe speed as determined by the design speed.

Table 7 lists current design speeds for AFRR as a local roads in Rural Areas, according to AASHTO 

design criteria. The highway design criteria depend on terrain, area context, and daily traffic volumes. 

Based on definitions included in AASHTO’s guidance, AFRR appears to be of rural context under rolling 

terrain, with projected traffic volumes between 250 to 400 vehicles per day. This correlates to a design 

speed of 30 miles per hour.
10

Suggested maximum grades for local roads in rural areas are included in Table 8 as a function of type of 

terrain and design speed. For AFRR, the recommended maximum grade is 10%. However, AASHTO 

notes that “short lengths of grade in rural areas, such as grades less than 500 ft in length, one-way 

downgrades, and grades on low-volume roads (AADT less than 2,000 vehicles/day) may be up to 2 

percent steeper than the grades shown in the table”.

Table 5: Minimum Design Speeds for Local Roads in Rural Areas 

AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Table 4: Maximum Grades for Local Roads in Rural Areas

AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
11

EXISTING CONDITIONS

This section describes the existing roadway conditions, traffic patterns, crash trends, and user 

characteristics within the study corridor. It also includes an overview of field observations that were 

documented during a project site visit that took place in July 2022. 

Physical Features and Characteristics

Topography and Setting

This backcountry roadway begins in the farmlands surrounding Ashton, ID and ends at Flagg Ranch 

along the Grassy Lake Road. The portion of AFRR within Wyoming is flanked by Designated Wilderness, 

including the Winegar Hole Wilderness to the north and the Jedediah Smith Wilderness to the south. 

Most of the route cuts through dense forest and passes by the Grassy Lake Reservoir and Indian Lake. 

The US Bureau of Reclamation built AFRR in 1911 to haul materials from the rail station in Ashton, ID to 

the construction site of the Jackson Lake Dam on the Snake River near Moran, WY. Most of the land 

surrounding AFRR is managed by the USFS, but there is a private inholding owned by Brigham Young 

University located around MP 11. The Boy Scouts of America operate Camp Loll farther east at MP 20.

Roadway Characteristics

AFRR is a two-lane rural roadway that provides an east-west connection across the northern end of the 

Teton Range between US20 in Idaho and US191 in Wyoming. The western portion of the road is owned 

and maintained by Fremont County, Idaho. Within the Caribou Targhee National Forest boundary, the 

road is owned and maintained by the US Forest Service. After 24.5 miles, Ashton Flagg Ranch Road 

connects into the Grassy Lake Road, which is managed by the National Park Service. This study focuses 

on AFRR within the Forest Service boundaries and, for the purpose of this existing conditions 

assessment, is organized into three segments. These segments, shown in Figure 6, are characterized by 

similar conditions and are described in the following sections.

Figure 5: AFRR Segment Overview
12

AFRR Segment 1: MP 0 to MP 11.1

The general management direction for this segment of 

AFRR, which is defined in the USFS Road Management 

Objectives Report, is to “provide a moderate degree of 

user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds 

for a standard passenger car. Usually a collector road. 

Used for recreation, hunting, administrative use, personal 

use, wood products hauling, timber harvest, and fire 

protection.”

The Fremont County boundary line is at MP 7.7 and the 

County maintains the portion of road within their county by blading twice a year and occasionally 

brushing. The roadway width ranges from 22’ to 24’ and the road geometry is straight with gentle 

horizontal curvature and fairly flat, with an average 1% grade across this segment (shown in Figure 8). 

There is a short vertical climb near MP 8.7 east of Indian Lake. The gravel is consistent and minimal 

potholing. According to the CNTF engineering staff, this segment of AFRR demonstrates the preferred 

design standard for a maintenance level 3 road (see Figure 7). 

Figure 7: AFRR Segment 1 - MP 0 to MP 11.1 Elevation Profile

Figure 6: Example of Preferred Maintenance Level 3 Design 

Standard at AFRR MP 2
13

This segment of AFRR is characterized by the following road features:

• 7 intersections

• 4 turnouts

• 2 bridges

• 26 culverts

• 19 signs

Figure 9 below, and Table 4 on the following page, summarize road features between MP 0 and MP 11.1.

Figure 8: Road Features on AFRR Segment 1 - MP 0 to MP 11.1
14

MP Feature Type Description MP Feature Type Description

0 Sign Boundary (redwood) 6.005 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

0 Sign Boundary (redwood) 6.06 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

0.022 Sign Warning (aluminum) 6.1 Bridge

0.046 Sign Regulatory (aluminum) 6.524 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

0.046 Sign Warning (aluminum) 6.802 Sign Route Marker (aluminum)

0.089 Sign Route Marker (aluminum) 6.983 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

0.244 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 7.687 Sign Visitor Information (hdo plywood)

0.332 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 7.688 Intersection

0.392 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 8.202 Intersection

0.879 Sign Route Marker (aluminum) 8.206 Sign Guide (hdo plywood)

0.883 Intersection 8.282 Culvert Elliptical Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 48x72

0.888 Sign Guide (hdo plywood) 8.282 Sign Guide (hdo plywood)

1.808 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 8.313 Intersection

1.906 Sign Visitor Information (hdo plywood) 8.506 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

1.913 Turnout 8.581 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

2.059 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 8.631 Turnout

2.22 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 8.645 Sign Guide (hdo plywood)

2.425 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 8.705 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

2.577 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 9.061 Intersection

2.652 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 9.061 Sign Guide (hdo plywood)

4.138 Intersection 9.345 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

4.466 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 9.876 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

4.805 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 9.901 Intersection

4.84 Sign Route Marker (aluminum) 9.988 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

5 Bridge 10.065 Turnout

5.076 Sign Guide (metal) 10.286 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

5.175 Sign Route Marker (aluminum) 10.603 Turnout

5.528 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 10.619 Sign Guide (hdo plywood)

5.751 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 11.045 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

Table 6: Road Features on AFRR Segment 1 - MP 0 to MP 11.1
15

AFRR Segment 2: MP 11.1 to MP 19.2

The general management direction for this segment is to 

“provide a safe travelway for standard passenger cars 

driven by a prudent driver. User comfort and convenience 

are low priorities. Potholing and washboarding may occur. 

Used for recreation, hunting, administrative use, personal 

use, wood products hauling, timber harvest, and fire 

protection”. 

Beginning at MP 11.1, where AFRR crosses South Boone Creek, the roadway width reduces significantly. 

This 8-mile segment is characterized by roadway widths that range from 11’ to 18’ and the road 

geometry includes more horizontal and vertical curvature. The gravel becomes more inconsistent (see 

Figure 8) and potholing is more prevalent. Around MP 13, the road becomes narrower and there are 

sharper horizontal curves, as well as evidence of drainage concerns. Between MP 14.6 and MP 16.4 

there are very steep climbs (depicted in Figure 9), sharp horizontal curves and large rocks in the 

roadway. It is in this segment of AFRR where high clearance vehicles are recommended.

Figure 10: AFRR Segment 2 - MP 11.1 to MP 19.2 Elevation Profile

This segment of AFRR is characterized by the following road features:

• 9 intersections

• 1 turnout

• 1 bridge

• 23 culverts

• 15 signs

Figure 12 and Table 5 on the following pages describe the road features between MP 11.1 and MP 19.2.

Figure 9: Inconsistent native surface conditions at MP 21.7
16

Figure 11: Road Features on AFRR Segment 2– MP11.10 to MP 19.2
17

MP Feature Type Description MP Feature Type Description

11.271 Sign Warning (aluminum) 14.652 Intersection

11.307 Sign Warning (aluminum) 14.653 Sign Guide (hdo plywood)

11.324 Intersection 14.7 Bridge

11.332 Sign Guide (hdo plywood) 14.84 Sign Route Marker (aluminum)

11.429 Intersection 14.91 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 36x40

11.437 Sign Warning (aluminum) 14.997 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

11.701 Intersection 15.035 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

11.702 Sign Guide (hdo plywood) 15.349 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 36x40

11.702 Sign Route Marker (aluminum) 15.646 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 36x40

11.711 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 15.719 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 36x40

11.816 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 36x40 15.765 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

11.83 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 36x40 15.893 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

11.88 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 17.709 Intersection

12.1 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 17.795 Intersection

12.108 Sign Guide (hdo plywood) 18.307 Sign Guide (hdo plywood)

12.538 Sign Route Marker (aluminum) 18.312 Culvert Pipe-Arch (corrugated steel)

12.552 Sign Guide (hdo plywood) 18.312 Culvert Pipe-Arch (corrugated steel)

13.129 Intersection 18.312 Culvert Installation

13.903 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 18.443 Sign Route Marker (aluminum)

14.155 Drainage Str/Crossing - Dip 18.711 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 36x40

14.461 Intersection 18.711 Sign Guide (hdo plywood)

14.57 Intersection 18.946 Turnout

14.588 Sign Guide (hdo plywood) 19.043 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

14.592 Culvert Arch (structural steel plate) 19.057 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 36x40

14.592 Culvert Arch (structural steel plate) 19.062 Sign Guide (hdo plywood)

14.592 Culvert Installation

Table 7: Road Features on AFRR Segment 2 - MP 11.1 to MP 19.2
18

AFRR Segment 3: MP 19.2 to MP 24.6

The roadway width on the final segment of AFRR 

widens out to 22’ to 26’ and there is less horizontal and 

vertical curvature than Segment 2. The Grassy Lake 

Reservoir dam spillway is located near MP 21 (Figure 

13) and there is a steep vertical climb to the east 

between MP 22.2 and MP 22.8 (Figure 12). 

This segment has the same general management objective as Segment 2.

This segment of AFRR is characterized by the following road features:

• 17 intersections

• 3 turnouts

• 11 culverts

• 12 signs

Figure 14 below, and Table 6 on the following page, describe the road features between MP 19.2 and 

MP 24.6.

Figure 14: Road Features on AFRR Segment 2 – MP 19.2 to MP 24.6

Figure 13: AFRR at Grassy Lake Reservoir (MP 22.5)

Figure 12: AFRR Segment 3 - MP 19.2 to MP 24.6 Elevation Profile
19

MP Feature Type Description MP Feature Type Description

20.39 Turnout 23.462 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

20.447 Intersection 23.512 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

20.449 Sign Guide (hdo plywood) 23.604 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

20.686 Intersection 23.696 Intersection

20.86 Intersection 23.7 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

20.87 Intersection 23.809 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 36x40

20.893 Sign Guide (hdo plywood) 23.96 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

21.104 Intersection 24.051 Intersection

21.696 Sign Guide (hdo plywood) 24.116 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

21.696 Sign Route Marker (aluminum) 24.187 Intersection

22.139 Intersection 24.209 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

22.247 Turnout 24.26 Intersection

22.304 Sign Guide (hdo plywood) 24.314 Intersection

22.392 Intersection 24.355 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

22.4 Intersection 24.397 Turnout

22.407 Intersection 24.409 Intersection

22.417 Sign Guide (hdo plywood) 24.51 Sign Route Marker (aluminum)

22.422 Sign Warning (aluminum) 24.541 Sign Regulatory (aluminum)

22.632 Intersection 24.543 Sign Route Marker (aluminum)

22.632 Intersection 24.545 Sign Boundary (redwood)

23.24 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34 24.545 Sign Boundary (redwood)

23.301 Culvert Round Pipe (cmp - galvanized steel) 18x34

Table 8: Road Features on AFRR Segment 2 - MP 19.2 to MP 24.6
20

User Characteristics

Visitation and User Types

The USFS collects descriptive information about recreational visits to National Forests and Grasslands 

through its National Visitor Use Monitoring Program (NVUMP). In addition to producing estimates on 

visitation, the NVUMP also provides useful statistics on activity participation, demographics, visit 

duration, measures of satisfaction, and trip spending connected to the visit. The most recent Visitor Use 

Report for the CTNF was prepared using data collected in Federal Fiscal Year 2020. For this year, the 

NVUMP estimates that approximately 2,230,000 people visited the CTNF. This information is 

aggregated to the National Forest level and isn’t available at a smaller unit level (e.g., by Ranger 

District). 

The top three visitor activities within the CTNF, according to the FY2020 NVUMP data, are 

hiking/walking, developed camping, and downhill skiing. While there are various developed sites within 

the CTNF that attract many visitors, AFRR has no developed recreation sites. The study area is still a 

destination for many users seeking a more remote, backcountry experience. 

These uses include:

• Hiking and Backpacking – there are multiple trailheads located along AFRR that provide hiking 

access from CTNF into Yellowstone National Park 

• Dispersed Camping – there are no developed campsites along AFRR; however, the CTNF allows 

dispersed camping within 300’ of the road. 

• Camp Loll Boy Scout Camp – this site experiences consistent use, with visitors traveling from 

both Idaho and Wyoming

• Gravel Biking, including E-Biking – there are a few organized bicycling events that take place on 

AFRR every year

• Wagon Trail Tours – A local business has provided wagon rides along AFRR for over 70 years. 

The tour begins just west of the ID/WY state line and travels to Grassy Lake

• Snowmobiling – AFRR is a popular snowmobile route and Fremont County, ID grooms the road 

from the western CTNF boundary out to Grassy Lake

Figure 15: Summer Uses along AFRR. From Left to Right: Wagon Trail Tours, Bicycle Tours, and Camp Loll Boy Scout Camp
21

Traffic Conditions

The CTNF does not collect regular traffic counts for AFRR. Forest Service staff estimate that 

approximately 400 vehicles travel on the corridor during the peak summer season when the road is 

open to thru-traffic. The corridor is a low-volume road, but the Forest Service has observed slightly 

higher use and traffic in recent years. AFRR also experiences higher use during the summer season.

The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) and Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) 

collect annual traffic counts for roadways on their respective systems. In both states, average annual 

daily traffic volumes (AADT) on the state-owned road network have steadily increased over the past 

decade. US 20, the north-south route that connects West Yellowstone, MT to Ashton, ID, had an AADT 

of approximately 3,450 in 2012. By 2021, this number had grown to approximately 6,100 (representing a 

roughly 75% increase in AADT). Other road segments near AFRR experienced similar growth. AADT on E 

1200 Road, the local road that connects US 20 to AFRR, grew from 100 vehicles in 2012 to 490 vehicles 

in 2021. 

In Wyoming, AADT on US 101 between West Yellowstone, MT and the south Yellowstone National Park 

entrance grew from 510 to 6,590 vehicles per day. Traffic volumes south of Yellowstone along US 101 

also grew, but at a lesser rate. Figure 17 depicts the 10-year change in AADT in eastern Idaho and 

western Wyoming.

Figure 16: AADT Change in Eastern Idaho & Western Wyoming - 2012 to 2021
22

Safety Conditions

For AFRR, the Forest Service does not have any 

reported crashes for the corridor nor any anecdotal 

summaries of crashes along the corridor. Road 

material and traction can be a concern, especially in 

wet or snow conditions. Sight distance can be 

limited due to vegetation, curvature and cut slopes. 

There are not many wider areas or turnouts for 

people to pull off and the narrow roadway makes it 

difficult to pass if needed (see Figure 18). 

Environmental Setting

Water Resources

The study area corridor lies within the Boone Creek, 

Calf Creek-Fall River, Squirrel Creek, and Tule Lake-Fall River watersheds. There are many smaller stream 

crossings across the 24.5 mile roadway. The road corridor passes by numerous lakes, ponds and 

reservoirs, including: Indian Lake, Bergman Reservoir, Moose Lake, Loon Lake, Fish Lake, Lake of the 

Woods, and Grassy Lake

Wetlands receive substantial protection through federal, state, and local policies and statutes. Among 

these are the Clean Water Act and the Forest Service Aquatic Conservation Strategy. At the state level, 

projects that require federal licenses or permits and that may involve the discharge of dredge or fill 

material into wetlands are subject to a water quality certification. All of these review and permitting 

processes typically result in the implementation of measures designed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

adverse effects on wetlands. 

National Wetlands Inventory mapping data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) indicates 

that wetlands are present throughout the study area (see Appendix A). National Wetlands Inventory

maps are prepared from the analysis of high-altitude imagery and are not sufficiently accurate or 

detailed for project-level wetland determination and/or delineation. Detailed on-the-ground inspection 

of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established 

through image analysis, as well as the identification of previously unmapped wetlands.

Floodplains

Presidential Executive Order 11988, dated May 24, 1977, directs federal agencies to avoid to the extent 

possible adverse impacts associated with floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of 

development in the floodplain.

Several segments of the Ashton Flagg Ranch Road cross or lie within mapped 100-year floodplains. Any 

improvements that place fill within the regulatory floodplain will require permits from agencies with 

permitting authority; the specific agencies and permits would depend on the location and nature of the 

specific project.

Figure 17: Passing Vehicles on AFRR, July 2022
23

Fish and Wildlife

The study area provides breeding, resting, foraging, and migratory habitat for many species of fish and

wildlife. This section provides general descriptions of fish and wildlife species and habitat in the study

area, along with regulatory provisions that are not directed at individual species. 

The vegetation in the study area provides habitat for a diverse array of wildlife species. The low level of 

human development in the study area also enhances the quality of habitat for many wildlife species. 

Streams and other waterbodies in the study area provide habitat for many species of fish.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 specifies that projects, activities, permits, contracts, and

uses of NFS lands must provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities based on the

suitability and capability of the specific land area. Department of Agriculture Regulation 9500-4 directs

the Forest Service to manage habitats for all existing native and desired non-native species of fish and

wildlife to maintain viable populations of these species.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires federal agencies to review 

actions they authorize, fund, or carry out, and to ensure such actions do not jeopardize the continued 

existence of federally listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat. Several species of wildlife that are known or expected to use habitats in the study area 

are listed or proposed for listing under the ESA (Table 8). Any improvements would need to undergo 

review for compliance with the provisions of the ESA. The listing status of species and critical habitat 

can change over time; therefore, an up-to-date list of potentially affected species and critical habitats 

should be reviewed for each project. Species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA are 

listed below:

For more information, see the US Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC report included as Appendix B.

In addition to meeting requirements relating to ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat, any

projects would need to comply with Forest Service management policies and projects on NFS lands in 

the study area must also comply with the standards and guidelines for the management of certain rare 

or uncommon species, called survey and manage species. These standards and guidelines specify the 

protection of sites known to support these species, as well as requiring pre-disturbance surveys for 

some species.

Forest Service policy (Forest Service Manual 2670.3) requires the protection of habitat for USFWS

Table 9: Study Area Threatened and Endangered Species

Species Listing Status Critical Habitat Status

Canada Lynx (lynx canadensis) Threatened There are no critical habitats at this location

Grizzly Bear (ursus arctos horriblis) Threatened There are no critical habitats at this location

North American Wolverine (gulo gulo 

luscus)

Proposed 

Threatened

There are no critical habitats at this location

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

(coccyzus americanus)

Threatened There are no critical habitats at this location

Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Candidate No critical habitat has been designated for 

this species
24

species of concern, Forest Service sensitive species, and management indicator species from adverse

modification or destruction, as well as the protection of individual animals from harm or harassment as

appropriate.

The entire study area is within grizzly bear management unit.

EO 13186, dated January 17, 2001, directs federal agencies to avoid or minimize negative impacts of

their actions on migratory birds, and to take active steps to protect birds and their habitat. In response 

to this order, the Forest Service has implemented management guidelines specifying that migratory 

birds must be addressed in NEPA reviews of actions with the potential to affect migratory birds. The 

Forest Service must evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species 

of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors.

Vegetation

Native vegetation for the study area is typical for the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Data from the 

2016 National Land Cover Database indicate that coniferous forest, shrub, and wetlands are the 

predominant land cover type adjacent to AFRR (Figure 19).

Figure 18: AFRR Landcover (Source: 2016 NLCD)

Two species listed or proposed listed under the ESA are potentially found in the study area:

Cultural and Historic Resources

The National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470) is the primary federal law governing the 

preservation of cultural and historic resources in the United States. This Act established a national 

preservation program and the basic structure for encouraging the identification and protection of 

cultural and historic resources of national, state, tribal, and local significance. A key element of the 

preservation program is the NRHP, which is the federal list of historic, archaeological, and other cultural 

Species Listing Status Critical Habitat Status

Ute Ladies'-tresses (spiranthes diluvialis) Threatened No critical habitat has been 

designated for this species

Whitebark Pine (pinus albicaulis) Proposed Threatened No critical habitat has been 

designated for this species
25

resources deemed worthy of preservation. In the study area, the National Register is administered by 

the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Wyoming SHPO. Resources listed, or 

determined eligible for listing, are considered historic properties. Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings (including 

funding, licensing, or permitting the undertakings of other entities) on historic properties and stipulates 

that affected American Indian tribes must be consulted. The implementing regulations of Section 106 

also require agencies to seek ways of avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating any adverse effects on historic 

properties. Such properties are also generally afforded protection under Section 4(f) of the U.S.

Department of Transportation Act of 1966.

To comply with these regulations and with NEPA, agencies must consider the effects of proposed

projects on previously identified resources as well as resources not yet identified. In addition, in

accordance with the Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) and the Indian Graves and

Records Act (RCW 27.44), a permit must be obtained from SHPO before any excavation that will alter, 

dig into, deface, or remove archaeological resources; including American Indian graves, cairns, or glyptic

records. The State Historic Preservation Officer reviews and comments on archaeological surveys

performed on site and makes determinations regarding eligibility and effect.

In addition, U.S. Government agencies have a permanent legal obligation to exercise statutory and 

other legal authorities to protect tribal land, assets, resources, and treaty rights, as well as a duty to 

carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. The 

study area is within the usual and accustomed lands of several American Indian tribes, including the 

Shoshone-Bannock and Nez Perce tribes.

Wilderness Areas

Federally designated wilderness areas receive the government’s highest level of land protection and is 

included as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Wilderness Act of 1964 states “In 

order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing 

mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving 

no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be 

the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits 

of an enduring resource of wilderness.”

The CTNF is home to two small but significant wilderness areas, shown in Figure 20. The 123,451-acre 

Jedediah Smith Wilderness was designated in 1984 due to its unique karst limestone geology. The 

much smaller Winegar Hole Wilderness (10,721 acres) was also designated in 1984 and set aside to 

provide high quality habitat for grizzly bears. Every year from March 15th to July 1st, the National Park 

Service closes AFRR at the National Park/US Forest Service boundary to reduce user conflicts with 

grizzly bears.
26

Figure 19: CTNF Motor Vehicle Use Map - Wilderness Areas
27

Summer 2022 Site Visit Field Observations

In July 2022, a project team consisting of engineers and planners from the USFS and FHWA met in 

Ashton, ID to tour the AFRR study area corridor. The site visit goals were to:

• Observe summer visitation and user behaviors;

• Document at a high level the existing conditions and potential risk areas/challenges for 

improving the roadway; and

• Understand issues of importance to the CTNF in planning for and managing the corridor;

During the corridor tour, FHWA collected field data on asset conditions and observed 

issues/vulnerabilities (e.g., limited sight distance, potholing, drainage, etc.) that may impact future road 

design, maintenance, and repair work. The following sections describe some of these deficiencies. 

Drainage/Erosion

Improper drainage on a roadway can lead to erosion issues. Across AFRR, there was evidence of heavy 

water runoff and ponding in and along the road, especially between MP 12.5 and MP 19.5 (see Figure 

21). Low spots and evidence of water damage/heavy runoff were documented and mapped during the 

site visit and are presented in Figure 22. There are many 18” cross-drains located throughout the 

corridor. Additionally, AFRR has many small culverts and 3 bridges in place to divert water away from 

the roadway.

Geotechnical

On the eastern portion of AFRR, there are significant cut sections and bedrock that may be constraints 

to modifying the roadway. The most challenging section of AFRR to travel across is between MP 14.7 

and 16.5, due to horizontal and vertical curvatures and the existing bedrock. During the site visit, Forest 

Service staff noted that their road crew has occasionally used a mobile rock crusher to mill down this 

section of AFRR.

Figure 20: Evidence of water runoff chutes at MP 17.0 during July 2022 Site Visit
28

Figure 21: Observed Deficiencies on AFRR Between MP 12.8 and MP 24.5

Data Gaps

This report was prepared using available data sources. To develop a more robust understanding of conditions, use, and risks on AFRR, the 

USFS should consider addressing the following data gaps:

• Regional origin-destination data

• Alignment (vertical and horizontal) data to analyze curves

• Culvert assessments

• Safety risk factors

• Annual visitation

• Environmental scan
29

CONCLUSION

This Phase 1 Corridor Study evaluated the Ashton-Flagg Ranch Road to gain a better understanding of 

existing conditions, constraints, and opportunities for future maintenance and safety improvements 

needed to bring Forest Service Road #261 up to objective maintenance and service levels. Currently, the 

24.5-mile road within the larger 47 mile corridor functions as a low-volume Forest connector for high 

clearance and standard passenger vehicles, offering a typical gravel and dirt road experience through 

the more remote quarter of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Traffic conditions on the larger

regional highway system and visitation to public lands in eastern Idaho and western Wyoming suggest 

continued growth and increased summer seasonal demand throughout the AFRR corridor. With limited 

east-west connections over the Teton mountains to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, the 

AFRR’s location and current use as an alternate public land access route necessitates a closer study of 

options and consideration within long-term transportation plans.

Next Steps

This report provides a summary of current conditions and has identified high-level needs that may be 

addressed through various highway funding opportunities that may include, but are not limited to, the

Forest Service Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), FHWA Federal Land Access Program (FLAP), or the 

Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP) Program. If major improvements or a 

significant inter-state transportation project were to be considered, a comprehensive multi-agency 

Corridor Master Plan could be initiated to further:

• Define the desired future conditions and vision for AFRR

• Engage key stakeholders and partners during the planning process

• Clearly articulate transportation demands, user expectation, and public needs 

• Identify alternatives and refine specific projects that address those long-term needs.

Partners and Stakeholders

Future AFRR corridor planning, if initiated by the USFS and partner agencies, would include 

coordination and engagement with interested community partners and key stakeholders. Table 9 on the 

following page includes an initial list of entities that the USFS should consider engaging with during the 

next phase of corridor planning. This initial list is illustrative and may grow to include additional 

interested parties. These stakeholders are divided into three groups: public agencies, tribes, and other 

critical stakeholders. In Phase 2, it will be important for the USFS to develop an outreach strategy that is 

tailored to specific audiences, depending on their level of knowledge, level of interest, and awareness of 

both the planning process and the role of transportation.

Goals for engaging with public, tribal, and other critical stakeholders include:

• Establishing open lines of communication

• Soliciting input early and often from those who are interested in informing the development and 

implementation of corridor management and improvement decisions

• Providing opportunities for all interested parties to express concerns, priorities, and ideas

• Strengthening existing partnerships and forging new ones

• Reaching potential users that may be impacted by study recommendations 
30

Organizations

Public 

Agencies

Federal

• Bureau of Reclamation, USDOI 

• Federal Highway Administration, USDOT

• National Park Service (GTNP/YNP),USDOI

State

• Idaho Transportation Department

• Wyoming Department of Transportation

Local

• Ashton, ID 

• Fremont County, ID

• Teton County, WY

Tribes • Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

o And others

Other 

Critical 

Stakeholders

Private

• Flagg Ranch Businesses

• Teton Wagon Train & Horse Adventure

• Brigham Young University

Non-Profit

• Boy Scouts of America – Camp Loll

• Greater Yellowstone Coalition

Other

• General Public 

Table 10: Initial List of Community Partners and Key Stakeholders
31

APPENDIX A - NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY
AFRR Segment 1 of 7
AFRR Segment 2 of 7
AFRR Segment 3 of 7
AFRR Segment 4 of 7
AFRR Segment 5 of 7
AFRR Segment 6 of 7
AFRR Segment 7 of 7
39

APPENDIX B - US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IPAC REPORT
IPaC resource list

This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat

(collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)

jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list

may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be

directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood a

extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional sitespecific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of pr

activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS

office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section

follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional

information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location

Idaho and Wyoming

Local offi

Wyoming Ecological Services Field Off

 (307) 772-2374

 (307) 772-2358

 wyominges@fws.gov

334 Parsley Boulevard

Cheyenne, WY 82007-4178

https://www.fws.gov/office/wyoming-ecological-servi

IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Idaho Fish And Wildlife Off

 (208) 378-5243

 (208) 378-5262

1387 South Vinnell Way, Suite 368

Boise, ID 83709-1657
Endangered species

This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project

level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.

Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of t

species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a d

upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact

species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and si

conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project

area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-sp

information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary

information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of

such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal

agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can on

obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (

directions below) or from the local field office dire

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and

request an official species list by doing the followi

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospher

Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list.

Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows

species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more

information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this locatio

Mammals

1

2
Birds

Insects

Flowering Plants

Conifers and Cycads

NAME STATUS

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis

There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does n

overlap the critical habitat.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3652

Threatened

Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos horribilis

There is proposed critical habitat for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7642

Threatened

North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus

Wherever found

No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5123

Proposed Threatened

NAME STATUS

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does n

overlap the critical habitat.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911

Threatened

NAME STATUS

Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexipp

Wherever found

No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743

Candidate

NAME STATUS

Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis

Wherever found

No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159

Threatened

NAME STATUS
Critical habitats

Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endanger

species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

Migratory birds

The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds

of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn

more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ

below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird 

this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general

public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter

your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlant

Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on

your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important

information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory

bird report, can be found below.

Whitebark Pine Pinus albicaulis

Wherever found

No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1748

Proposed Threatened

Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory

birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing

appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species

Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds

https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds

Nationwide conservation measures for birds

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservationmeasures.p

1

2
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to

reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at

the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project

area.

BREEDING SEASON

Probability of Presence Summary

The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be

present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities

to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper

NAME

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but

warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential

susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development 

activities.

Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31

California Gull Larus californicus

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the

continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31

Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the

continental USA and Alaska.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9462

Breeds May 15 to Jul 15

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the

continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds May 15 to Aug 10

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos

This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but

warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential

susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development 

activities.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680

Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the

continental USA and Alaska.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914

Breeds May 20 to Aug 31

Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the

continental USA and Alaska.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002

Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 15
probability of presence breeding season survey effort no da

Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this

report.

Probability of Presence ( )

Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your

project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A

taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be us

to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in

presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also hig

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week

where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For

example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of

them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is

calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence

across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted

Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week

of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is

0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical

conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of

presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )

Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its

entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort (

Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys

performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is

expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the ba

No Data ( )

A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe

Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant

information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on a

years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle

Non-BCC

Vulnerable

California Gull

BCC Rangewide

(CON)

Cassin's Finch

BCC Rangewide

(CON)

Evening Grosbeak

BCC Rangewide

(CON)

Golden Eagle

Non-BCC

Vulnerable

Olive-sided

Flycatcher

BCC Rangewide

(CON)

Rufous

Hummingbird

BCC Rangewide

(CON)

Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any

location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in

the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding

their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be

breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be

advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present

on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified locatio

The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that

may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network

(AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried

and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersect

and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eag

(Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities 

development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not

representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your

project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in

my specified locatio
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian

Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science

datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn

more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of

Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?

To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or yearround), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at

the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has

breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some

point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in yo

project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?

Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range

anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the

continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of

the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certa

types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishi

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avo

and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more

information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and

requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore proj

For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird

species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal al

offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project revie

Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCC

Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic

Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including

migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird

tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?

If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle

Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern.

To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project

area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specifi

location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that

overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey

effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A hi

survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewe

more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack 

certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of

concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which

means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you 

knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project

activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me abo

conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your

migratory bird trust resources page.

Coastal Barrier Resources System

Projects within the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) may be subject to the

restrictions on Federal expenditures and financial assistance and the consultation requirements of t

Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). For more information, please contact the

local Ecological Services Field Office or visit the CBRA Consultations website. The CBRA webs

provides tools such as a flow chart to help determine whether consultation is required and a templa

to facilitate the consultation process.

There are no known coastal barriers at this location.

Data limitations

The CBRS boundaries used in IPaC are representations of the controlling boundaries, which are depicted on the offic

CBRS maps. The boundaries depicted in this layer are not to be considered authoritative for in/out determinations

close to a CBRS boundary (i.e., within the "CBRS Buffer Zone" that appears as a hatched area on either side of t

boundary). For projects that are very close to a CBRS boundary but do not clearly intersect a unit, you may contact the

Service for an official determination by following the instructions here: https://www.fws.gov/service/coastal-barrierresources-system-property-documentat

Data exclusions

CBRS units extend seaward out to either the 20- or 30-foot bathymetric contour (depending on the location of the

unit). The true seaward extent of the units is not shown in the CBRS data, therefore projects in the offshore areas 

units (e.g., dredging, breakwaters, offshore wind energy or oil and gas projects) may be subject to CBRA even if they 

not intersect the CBRS data. For additional information, please contact CBRA@fws.gov.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands

Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a

'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to

discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries

There are no fish hatcheries at this locatio

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)

Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of

the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

District.

Wetland information is not available at this time

This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very

large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at

this location.

Data limitations

The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information

on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery.

Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the u

of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland

boundaries or classification established through image analysi

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the

amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metada

should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may 

occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and

actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery

as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic

vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some

deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. The

habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions

Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in

different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of th

inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish t

geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities

involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, 

local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect 

activities.
52

APPENDIX C - INITIAL SCOPING FOR FUTURE CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN

The AFRR Phase 1 Existing Conditions Assessment report provides a summary of current conditions and 

has identified high-level needs that may be addressed via Forest Service Capital Improvement Project 

(CIP), FHWA Federal Land Access Program (FLAP), or Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal 

Projects (NSFLTP) Program. 

Potential Future Planning Work Summary

If major improvements or a significant inter-state transportation project on highway segments beyond 

Forest Service Road 261 are considered, a comprehensive multi-agency Corridor Master Plan could:

• Define the desired future conditions and vison for AFRR corridor from US20 to US191 

• Engage key stakeholders and partners during the planning process

• Clearly articulate transportation demands, user expectation, and public needs 

• Identify alternatives and refine specific projects that address those long-term needs.

The Corridor Master Plan will develop a comprehensive planning document that examines the current 

and future conditions of AFRR. A master planning process will be useful in this context, as the future 

needs of AFRR can be anticipated but have not been defined formally:

• Define a long-term, coordinated vision and related goals for AFRR;

• Further investigate risk areas and deficiencies affecting the study area;

• Identify transportation needs and constraints; and

• Develop a comprehensive suite of capital projects and policy recommendations that address the 

needs identified.

High-Level Corridor Master Plan Scope

Task 1 – Project Management and Coordination

A project work plan will be developed early in the Corridor Master Plan effort, which will outline the key 

project goals, procedures to guide the process including a public and stakeholder engagement strategy, 

and a detailed work schedule to maintain momentum and accountability throughout project delivery. 

Key activities for Task 1 may include:

• Establishing a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) and host PAC meetings on a regular schedule

• Creating a Public/Stakeholder Outreach Strategy and Communication Plan 

Task 2 – Community Visioning, Goal Setting, and Public/Stakeholder Outreach

Community visioning and goal setting offer residents, businesses, and other public agencies an 

opportunity to express their ideas about the future of the corridor and identify benchmarks to work 

towards. To effectively engage stakeholders, a comprehensive and strategic public engagement 

approach must be developed. Key activities for may include:

• Developing a project contact list of interested parties

• Developing news releases and newsletters to inform stakeholders of project updates

• Conducting stakeholder interviews and focus groups

• Hosting public meetings, open houses, and/or workshops
53

Task 3 – Address Data Gaps to Inform Needs Identification

There are still data gaps that remain, documented in prior sections of this report, and should be 

addressed in any future planning analyses. Options to close data gaps include:

• Utilizing safety analysis tools to perform a risk assessment of safety performance for alignment 

improvement options. 

• Collecting corridor-specific data, including traffic counts and roadway geometry

• Evaluating road, bridge, and culvert condition

• Environmental

Task 4 – Corridor Needs Identification and Alternatives Development

Using stakeholder and public input received, the USFS can begin to identify specific corridor 

transportation needs along AFRR and identify a range of system alternatives for consideration. Specific 

transportation improvement alternatives for AFRR will be explored during this Task and may include, 

but are not limited to, wayfinding signage upgrades, safety and operational improvements, contextsensitive design enhancements, bicycle facilities, etc. The final list of alternatives to be considered 

should include a range of options, from simple to complex, implementable by the partnering 

transportation agencies.

Task 5 – Final AFRR Corridor Master Plan

The Final AFRR Corridor Master Plan Report will compile the data, analysis, findings and 

recommendations from the previous tasks into a comprehensive roadmap that will assist the USFS and 

its partners in prioritizing future transportation improvements for the corridor. The report will 

summarize the planning process, including stakeholder and public involvement, data collection, needs 

identification, and transportation alternatives development. The final deliverable will include 

recommendations for implementing specific transportation solutions in response to the needs that were 

identified and the future vision that has been set forth by the USFS and other Federal, state, and local 

cooperators. The final report may include an implementation strategy that outlines the sequencing and 

phasing of capital and operational improvements that address:

• Planning-level project cost estimates

• Prioritization of projects and initiative

• Phasing of improvements

• Identification of cooperating partners and risk areas

• Narrative text to clarify how projects will be advanced