DOCSLIB.ORG

Structural Geology of the Caddo Gap Area, Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas Martin Messmer [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Structural Geology of the Caddo Gap Area, Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas Martin Messmer Messmerml@Jacks.Sfasu.Edu Stephen F. Austin State University SFA ScholarWorks Electronic Theses and Dissertations 5-2018 Structural Geology of the Caddo Gap Area, Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas Martin Messmer [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etds Part of the Geology Commons, and the Tectonics and Structure Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Repository Citation Messmer, Martin, "Structural Geology of the Caddo Gap Area, Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas" (2018). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 173. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etds/173 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Structural Geology of the Caddo Gap Area, Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This thesis is available at SFA ScholarWorks: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etds/173 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY OF THE CADDO GAP AREA, OUACHITA MOUNTAINS, ARKANSAS By Martin Lee Messmer, Bachelor of Science Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Stephen F. Austin State University In partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY May, 2018 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY OF THE CADDO GAP AREA, OUACHITA MOUNTAINS, ARKANSAS By Martin Lee Messmer, Bachelor of Science APPROVED: _________________________________________ Dr. Chris Barker, Thesis Director _________________________________________ Dr. R. LaRell Nielson, Committee Member _________________________________________ Dr. Melinda Faulkner, Committee Member _________________________________________ Dr. I-Kuai Hung, Committee Member __________________________________ Pauline Sampson, Ph.D. Dean of Research and Graduate Studies ABSTRACT The Caddo Gap quadrangle is located on the southern margin of the Benton Uplift, the orogenic core of the Ouachita Mountains. Recent field mapping focused on delineating stratigraphic and structural relationships in the southern part of the quadrangle to improve existing reconnaissance-scale maps of the area. New structures were discovered that provide further information about the structural evolution of the Ouachita fold and thrust belt. Field work included mapping the three informal members (Lower, Middle and Upper) of the Arkansas Novaculite. Major folds within the study area include the Nelson Mountain Anticline and two synclinal folds (“South Caddo Mountain” and “Arrowhead Mountain”) where south-dipping Novaculite has been folded around very sharply in map view, resulting in a “fishhook.” The backthrust interpretation for Strawn Mountain (Haley et al., 2009) was found to be more structurally complex than previously proposed. Analysis of the Nelson Mountain Anticline shows it is steeply inclined and gently plunging: the calculated mean axial plane (n = 104) is 276°, 78°SW (N84°W, 78°SW) and mean fold axis is 22°, 101° (22°, S79°E), similar to the reconnaissance-scale findings of Evansin (1976). Two fishhook folds, both located at the west ends of east-west ridges of Arkansas Novaculite, have similar geometries. The mean axial planes are 290°, 71°SW (N70°W, 71°SW) and 289°, 81°SW (N71°W, 81°SW) and average fold axes are 37°, 125° (37°, S55°E) and 40°, 117° (40°, S63°E). i Previously unmapped, northeast-trending strike-slip faults in the Arkansas Novaculite were discovered on the east-west “South Ridge” immediately south of and adjacent to the South Caddo Mountain fold. This style of faulting differs significantly from previous regional interpretations (Haley et al., 2009) which instead show South Caddo Mountain juxtaposed against the north side of the South Ridge by thrust faulting. Field mapping found no evidence for thrust faulting on South Caddo or Arrowhead Mountains. An alternative hypothesis is that late-stage, northwest-directed compression formed left-lateral strike-slip tear faults that cut obliquely through the regional structures of the Caddo Mountains. This style of faulting better explains the fishhook drag folds and the strike-slip faults on the South Ridge, with Strawn Mountain backthrusts accommodating the northwest-directed compression on the north limb of the Nelson Mountain Anticline. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. Chris Barker, of the Department of Geology at Stephen F. Austin State University, supervised and reviewed this thesis study, assisted with field work and provided many useful discussions concerning this study. My thanks go also to thesis committee members Dr. R. LaRell Nielson and Dr. Melinda Faulkner of the Department of Geology, and Dr. I-Kuai Hung, Professor of GIS of the College of Forestry and Agriculture at SFA. I would like to thank Robert Davidoff (retired) and Catherine Kilgore, Chief of the Division of Minerals Evaluation, U.S. Department of Interior for their support throughout this study. I also appreciate the support of Bekki White, Director and State Geologist, and Doug Hanson, Geologist, of the Arkansas Geological Survey. Much appreciation goes to the Clingman-Jones Family Association who generously allowed access to their private land holdings. My thanks go also to Daniel Goodwin, Attorney, of Gill Ragon Owen, P.A., Little Rock, Arkansas, for coordinating permission to access lands owned by SPHS Holdings, LLC. I greatly appreciate the help of Chad Moore and Tom Moore of Caddo Gap, Arkansas, who kindly provided me access, guidance, and use of their all-terrain vehicle to map their private land holdings within the study area. And a special thanks and love to my family, especially my wife, Jessica Messmer, for their patience, encouragement and support during this study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1 Introduction................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................... 1 Location .......................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 11 Introduction............................................................................................................... 11 Field Work ................................................................................................................ 11 GIS Mapping and Analysis ....................................................................................... 13 Structural Analysis .................................................................................................... 16 Previous Works ............................................................................................................. 16 CHAPTER 2 Stratigraphy................................................................................................. 27 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 27 Womble Formation ....................................................................................................... 31 Bigfork Chert ................................................................................................................ 33 Polk Creek Shale ........................................................................................................... 34 Blaylock Sandstone ....................................................................................................... 35 Missouri Mountain Shale .............................................................................................. 36 Arkansas Novaculite ..................................................................................................... 38 Lower Chert and Shale Member ............................................................................... 39 Lower Novaculite Member ........................................................................................ 42 Middle Chert and Shale Member .............................................................................. 45 Upper Novaculite Member ........................................................................................ 47 Upper Chert and Shale Member ............................................................................... 49 Stanley Shale ................................................................................................................. 51 Jackfork Sandstone ....................................................................................................... 52 CHAPTER 3 Regional Geology ....................................................................................... 53 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 53 iv Precambrian History ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fishing Opportunities Ouachita National Forest
    FISHING OPPORTUNITIES Page 1 of 27 IN THE RA-24 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST FISHING OPPORTUNITIES Page 2 of 27 IN THE RA-24 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST This page intentionally left blank FISHING OPPORTUNITIES Page 3 of 27 IN THE RA-24 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST RIVERS ....................................Page • Ouachita........................................................3 • Fourche LaFave ...........................................4 • South Fork Fourche LaFave.......................4 • Little Missouri ..............................................5 • Poteau............................................................6 • Glover............................................................6 • Caddo ............................................................7 • Cossatot.........................................................7 • Mountain Fork .............................................8 • Petit Jean.......................................................9 LAKES/PONDS ………………Page…..Location (Quad) • Dry Fork Lake..............................................10....................C-15 • Cedar Lake ...................................................11....................C-3 • Hunter's Pool ...............................................12....................K-3 • Lake Sylvia ...................................................13....................C-18 • Moss Creek Pond .........................................14....................A-11, A-12* • Rock Creek Lake..........................................14....................B-17 • Little Bear Creek
    [Show full text]
  • FISHING OPPORTUNITIES in the OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST Page 1 of 24
    FISHING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST Page 1 of 24 FISHING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST FISHING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST Page 2 of 24 RIVERS Ouachita Fourche LaFave South Fork Fourche LaFave Little Missouri Poteau Glover Caddo Cossatot Mountain Fork Petit Jean LAKES-PONDS Quad Map Location Dry Fork Lake ..............................................C-15 Cedar Lake ...................................................C-3 Hunter's Pool ...............................................K-3 Lake Sylvia ...................................................C-18 Moss Creek Pond .........................................A-11, A-12* Rock Creek Lake ..........................................B-17 Little Bear Creek Lake ................................C-16 Cove Creek Lake ..........................................B-16 Huston Lake .................................................B-17 Macedonia Pond ...........................................D-10 North Fork Lake ..........................................E-10 Shady Lake ...................................................G-8 Caddo Pond ..................................................F-12, F-13, G-12* Crooked Branch Lake .................................C-3 John Burns Pond ..........................................D-11 Mauldin Ponds ............................................E-11 Old Forester Pond ........................................C-10 Story Pond ....................................................D-12 Cedar Creek Lake
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register Volume 32 • Number 119
    FEDERAL REGISTER VOLUME 32 • NUMBER 119 Wednesday, June 21,1967 • Washington, D.C. Pages 8789-8845 Agencies in this issue— Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Agriculture Department Atomic Energy Commission Business and Defense Services Administration Civil Aeronautics Board Consumer and Marketing Service Fédéral Aviation Administration Federal Communications Commission Federal Highway Administration Federal Home Loan Bank Board Federal Maritime Commission Food and Drug Administration Geological Survey Interstate Commerce Commission Land Management Bureau Navy Department Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Administration Detailed list o f Contents appears inside. Subscriptions Now Being Accepted SLIP LAWS 90th Congress, 1st Session 1967 Separate prints of Public Laws, published immediately after enactment, with marginal annotations and legislative history references. Subscription Price: $12.00 per Session Published by Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration Order from Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 ¿vONAt.*- r r i i r O M l W SW D E P IC T E D Published daily, Tuesday through Saturday (no publication on Sundays, Mondays, or r r J l E i l r l I l i E l l I ^ I E l f on the day after an official Federal holiday), by the Office of the Federal Register, National $ Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration (mail address Nations Area Code 202 ^ Phone 962-8626 Archives Building, Washington, D.C. 20408), pursuant to the authority contained in the Federal Register Act, approved July 26, 1935 (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C., Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Saline County Xenolith and Surrounding Area
    A.G.E.S. Brochure Series 005 State of Arkansas Arkansas Geological Survey Bekki White, State Geologist Geology of the Saline County Xenolith and surrounding area By J. Michael Howard Illustrations and photos by Angela Chandler _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Xenolith – “ a foreign inclusion in an igneous rock.” Glossary of Geology American Geological Institute 1987 (from the Greek words Xenos, meaning guest or stranger, and Lithos, meaning stone.) _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Introduction Located in Saline County, Arkansas, at the south edge of the community of Bauxite, this natural outcrop of nepheline syenite contains several geologically interesting features, including a xenolith. Sloping west, the outcrop encompasses about one-quarter acre near the center of section 21, Township 2 South, Range 14 West. In early 1990, the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) donated the outcrop along with approximately five surrounding acres of land to the Arkansas Geological Commission so that the site can be preserved for educational purposes. Outcrop of nepheline syenite at xenolith locality. History of the site The outcrop and its geologic features were first described by J. Francis Williams in 1891 in The Igneous Rocks of Arkansas, Arkansas Geological Survey Annual Report for 1890, Volume II. Williams discussed the outcrop and xenolith in some detail and included a sketch of the xenolith (see title page). However, for many years the outcrop location remained unknown to most scientists. In the late 2 1960’s employees in the mining division of ALCOA, suspecting that the site was on their property, began a concerted search. Soon afterward the outcrop was rediscovered and was visited by a staff member of the Arkansas Geological Commission, who in turn told Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • AGS Strategic Plan FY 2018-19
    ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FY 2018 – FY 2019 STRATEGIC PLAN MISSION: The Arkansas Geological Survey (AGS) is a non-regulatory agency that is responsible for the collection and dissemination of unbiased and sound geologic data and information pertaining to the State of Arkansas for the public, private industry, academia, and government agencies as well as local, municipal, county, state, and federal officials, regulators, and decision makers for over 160 years. VISION: The AGS’s vision is to educate the citizens of Arkansas about the importance of geology and how it affects their everyday lives by providing accurate geological information by cost-effective methods to promote the development and effective management of the state’s rock, mineral, fossil fuel, and water resources while protecting the environment; all in a transparent manner. CORE VALUES: In order to achieve the AGS’s mission and vison statements of serving the geologic needs of the citizens of Arkansas, the AGS’s geologic staff and support personnel prescribe to the following core values: Results: research and provide our customers with geological information pertaining to the State’s groundwater, mineral, and energy resources in an efficient and responsive manner; Education: educate and provide geological expertise to the public, private industry and government agencies, identify rocks, minerals and fossils for the public, give educational and outreach presentations; Efficiency: provide in the most efficient and cost effective manner to the public and private industry
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Arkansas Arkansas Geology Commission
    Geology of Arkansas Arkansas Geology Commission Rocks are generally placed into 1 of 3 major categories: igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary. Igneous rocks have solidified from molten or partly molten mineral matter. Metamorphic rocks have been altered in the solid state from some pre-existing condition in response to significant changes in temperature, pressure, or chemical environment. Sedimentary rocks are composed of particles of sediment, which are derived by the weathering and/or the erosion of pre-existing rock. Most surficial rocks in Arkansas are sedimentary, but there are some igneous rocks (with adjacent contact metamorphic rocks) and very low grade regional metamorphic rocks in Arkansas also. A sedimentary rock consists of two components: the particles and the cement that holds them together. However, the unconsolidated sediments of eastern Arkansas are considered sedimentary rocks. Sedimentary rocks are classified as clastic (rocks made up of grains of sand, silt, and clay) or chemical (rocks made up of shell fragments, saline water deposits, and other materials that are deposited from solution). The most common clastic sedimentary rocks are shales, siltstones, and sandstones. The most common chemical sedimentary rocks are limestone and dolostone. To understand how sedimentary rocks form, we must account for the processes that create the original particles of sediment, the mechanisms of sediment transport, the processes of deposition or precipitation of a given sediment, and what has happened to the sediment over time. By studying rocks and depositional systems (the processes by which sediments are deposited), geologists recognize that most of the sedimentary rocks in the Paleozoic Highlands of Arkansas are marine.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleozoic 3: Alabama in the Paleozoic
    UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA GY 112: Earth History Paleozoic 3: Alabama in the Paleozoic Instructor: Dr. Douglas W. Haywick Last Time The Paleozoic Part 2 1) Back to Newfoundland 2) Eastern Laurentian Orogenies (Appalachians) 3) Other Laurentian Orogenies (Antler, Ouachita) (web notes 25) Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) Even though this coastline of Laurentia was a passive continental margin, a plate tectonic boundary was rapidly approaching… A B A B Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) The resulting Taconic Orogeny first depressed the seafloor Laurentia (localized transgression) and A Island arc then pushed previously deposited passive continental B margin sediments up into thrust fault mountains. Baltica There was only minimal metamorphism and igneous A intrusions. B Middle Ordovician Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) Laurentia Baltica Middle Ordovician Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) Laurentia Baltica Middle Ordovician Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) The next tectonic event (the Acadian Orogeny) was caused Laurentia by the approach of Baltica A B Baltica A B Baltica Baltica Late Ordovician Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) The Acadian Orogeny was more extensive and more intense (metamorphism and A lots of igneous intrusions) B A B Early Devonian Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) The Acadian Orogeny was more extensive and more intense (metamorphism and lots of igneous intrusions) Early Devonian Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) Lastly, along comes Gondwanna and…. …well you get the idea. A B B A B Mississippian Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) Lastly, along comes Gondwanna and…. …well you get the idea. A B B A B Pennsylvannian Suture zone Laurentia (Paleozoic North America) Lastly, along comes Gondwanna and…. …well you get the idea.
    [Show full text]
  • Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003
    Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003 Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team Arkansas Field Office 601 North University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 Oklahoma Field Office 2727 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74114 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment ii 12/2003 Table of Contents Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment............................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................4 Ecoregional Boundary Delineation.............................................................................................................................................4 Geology..........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Soils................................................................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Fatmucket (Lampsilis Powellii I
    Arkansas Fatmucket (Lampsilis powellii I. Lea, 1852) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office Conway, Arkansas 5-YEAR REVIEW Arkansas Fatmucket (Lampsilis powellii I. Lea, 1852) I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Methodology used to complete review Public notice of the initiation of this 5-year review was given in the Federal Register on September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53127-53129) and a 60 day comment period was opened. During the comment period, we did not receive any additional information about Arkansas fatmucket (Lampsilis powelllii) other than specific information from biologists familiar with the species. This review was completed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Arkansas Field Office. Arkansas fatmucket only occurs in the state of Arkansas. Literature and documents on file at the Arkansas Field Office were used for this review. All recommendations resulting from this review are a result of thoroughly reviewing the best available information on the Arkansas fatmucket and the reviewer’s expertise as one of the leading authorities on this species. Comments and suggestions regarding the review were received from Arkansas Field Office supervisors and peer reviews from outside the Service (see Appendix A). No part of the review was contracted to an outside party. B. Reviewers Lead Region – Southeast Region: Nikki Lamp, (404) 679-7118 Lead Field Office – Conway, Arkansas: Chris Davidson, (501) 513-4481 C. Background 1. Federal Register Notice initiating this review: September 8, 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Review of 14 Southeastern Species. (71 FR 53127) 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Atoka Rocks of Northern Arkansas
    Pre-Atoka Rocks of Northern Arkansas GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 314-H Pre-Atoka Rocks of Northern Arkansas By SHERWOOD E. FREZON and ERNEST E. CLICK SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 314-H Thickness, lithofacies, and geologic history of potential oil and gas producing rocks of Paleozoic age in northern Arkansas UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1959 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U. S. Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows: Frezon, Sherwood Earl, 1921- Pre-Atoka rocks of northern Arkansas, by Sherwood E. Frezon and Ernest E. Glick. Washington, U. S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959. iii, 171-189 p. maps, diagrs., table. 30 cm. (U. S. Geological Sur­ vey. Professional paper 314-H. Shorter contributions to general geology) Part of illustrative matter fold, col., in pocket. Bibliography: p. 186-187. 1. Geology Arkansas. 2. Rocks, Sedimentary. 3. Geology, Strati- graphic Paleozoic. i. Glick, Ernest Earwood, 1922- joint author, n. Title. (Series: U. S. Geological Survey. Professional paper 314-H. Series: U. S. Geological Survey. Shorter contribu­ tions to general geology) 551.7209767 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. CONTENTS Page Abstract .__----_ ---_-_._--._---__-_-____ 171 Stratigraphy Continued Page Introduction. ___ ___________________________________ 171 Probable latest Mississippian and early
    [Show full text]
  • University of Texas at Arlington Dissertation Template
    CHEMOSTRATIGRAPHY AND PALEOCEANOGRAPHY OF THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION, SOUTHERN FORT WORTH BASIN, TEXAS, USA by JAMES DANIEL HOELKE Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN GEOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON AUGUST 2011 Copyright © by James Hoelke 2011 All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Harry Rowe, for his patience, time and energy during these past few years. I have learned much from him. This thesis would not have been possible without him. Second, I would like to thank the members of my graduate committee, Dr. Andrew Hunt and Dr. Robert Loucks, for the knowledge and insight you have provided in class and in conversations. I would also like to thank Dr. Christopher Scotese for assistance and advice with paleogeographic maps. I would also like to thank several members of the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology. I would like to thank especially Dr. Stephen Ruppel for providing core access and material support for this project as well as advice. I would also like to thank James Donnelly, Nathan Ivicic, Kenneth Edwards, and Josh Lambert for core handling assistance. I want to thank Henry Francis and Andrea Conner at the Kentucky Geological Survey for providing geochemical analyses. I would also like to thank some members of our geochemistry research group. Niki Hughes provided substantial assistance especially with calibrations and great encouragement. I would also like to thank Jak Kearns, Pukar Mainali, Krystin Robinson, and Robert Nikirk for their help.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2007 Monitoring Report As Conversions Are Completed and Data Is Available
    100 Years of Caring for the Land and Serving People The Ouachita National Forest celebrated the forest centennial in 2007. The Ouachita National Forest, originally called the Arkansas National Forest, was created through an executive order issued by President Theodore Roosevelt on December 18, 1907. At first, the Arkansas National Forest consisted solely of reserved public domain lands (part of the Louisiana Purchase) south of the Arkansas River. The 1911 Weeks Law, which authorized Federal purchase of forest lands in the eastern part of the United States, was later used to add thousands of acres of cutover or farmed out lands to the national forest. The largest increases in national forest ownership occurred from 1933 to 1941. In April 1926, President Coolidge changed the name of the Arkansas National Forest to the Ouachita National Forest. He also proposed expanding the national forest and fulfilled this proposal in December 1930 by extending the Ouachita National Forest into Oklahoma. Today, the Ouachita National Forest consists of nearly 1.8 million acres located in thirteen Arkansas counties and two Oklahoma counties. It is the largest and oldest national forest in the Southern Region of the United States. The Forest includes 60 recreation areas, 6 wilderness areas, 2 national wild and scenic rivers, 700 miles of trails, several scenic byways, many special interest (botanical, scenic) areas, abundant historic and prehistoric resources, and habitat for nine federally listed and hundreds of other plant and animal species. It also provides timber and other forest products to the Nation; offers diverse hunting and fishing opportunities; and is the source of high quality drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people in Arkansas and Oklahoma.
    [Show full text]