Environmental Assessment For Upper Kiamichi River Wilderness Private Access Road
August 2013
Responsible Agency: US Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest
Responsible Official: Liz Agpaoa, Regional Forester Southern Region
For Further Information Contact: Bill Pell, Planning, Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Staff Officer 501-321-5320
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1
Purpose of and Need for the Action ...... 2
Scope of Analysis ...... 3
Issues ...... 3
Decision to Be Made ...... 5
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 5
Alternative Design ...... 6
Alternatives Documented in Detail ...... 7
Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 10
Summary Comparison of Alternatives...... 11
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 12
Cultural Resources ...... 12
Wilderness Character ...... 18
Scenic Quality ...... 22
Soils and Water Quality ...... 24
Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, & Sensitive (PETS) Species...... 27
Habitat and Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 28
Terrestrial Species ...... 31
CHAPTER 4: PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED ...... 36
CHAPTER 5: LITERATURE CITED ...... 37
Listing of Figures & Tables
Figure 1 Location of Private Inholding, LeFlore County, Oklahoma...... 2 Figure 2 Proposed Action ...... 8 Figure 3 Locations of Existing and Proposed Special Use Authorizations within Wilderness...... 17
Reference for Forest Plan Design Criteria by Management Area (Table 1.1) ...... 3 Comparison of Issues/Effects by Alternative (Table 2.1) ...... 11 Proposed Road Location Soil Types (Table 3.1) ...... 24 Estimated Sediment Loading by Alternative (Table 3.2) ...... 25 Estimated Sediment Loading in Watershed (Table 3.3) ...... 26 Cumulative Effects on Water Quality (Table 3.4) ...... 26 Management Indicator Species (Table 3.5) ...... 29
Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
Introduction
In January 2007, the Forest Service accepted a special use application from a private individual, Paul Dobbs, to construct a graveled surface road to provide motorized vehicle access private land within the Upper Kiamichi River Wilderness (private land is the “white” space inside the red circle in the map on the following page). After preliminary reviews were conducted on-site and it became apparent that road construction through the wilderness would have to traverse some very steep, rugged terrain, the parties tried to negotiate a land exchange that would move the private inholding into public ownership (and eliminate the request for road construction). Years of negotiations yielded no land exchange proposal acceptable to both parties.
On April 14, 2008, a letter containing a detailed proposed action and announcing the 30-day notice-and-comment period, pursuant to 36 CFR 215, was mailed to the Oklahoma Ranger Districts’ public mailing list. A legal notice was published on April 16, 2008, in the Tulsa World requesting comments on the proposed action. The project has been published in the Ouachita National Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) each quarter since October 2007.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) of the proposed special use authorization was completed in May 2012. In June 2012, Regional Forester Liz Agpaoa selected the No Action Alternative from the EA and issued a Decision Notice. This decision denied the applicant permission to build and maintain a road through the Upper Kiamichi Wilderness. The June 2012 Decision was withdrawn by the Regional Forester to evaluate an additional non-motorized alternative in this EA.
Proposed Action
The proposed action requested by the property owner is to construct an all-weather gravel road to provide motorized vehicle access to private land. The road would be designed to standards comparable to Forest Service Maintenance Level 2 (FSH 7709.59, Chapter 60, Section 62.32) and provide motorized access by vehicles suitable to this design standard. This proposed road would be located in part of the SE¼ Section 33 and the SW¼ Section 34, T3N-R26E, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. The total area directly affected by road construction would be approximately 5 acres. The road would be approximately 5,300 feet long across National Forest System Lands with a 10- 12 foot running surface. Clearing limits for construction would average 40 feet. Where slopes exceed 20 percent, the clearing width would extend up to 100 feet. If approved, the Forest Service would issue an authorization for construction, maintenance and use of the new road.
Page 1 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Figure 1—Location of Private Inholding, LeFlore County, Oklahoma Construction would be governed by the terms of a special use authorization, which would have to be in compliance with all applicable Federal and state laws. The maximum road right-of-way corridor, including clearing limits, would be 40 feet in portions of the corridor. Due to steep terrain, slopes greater than 20 percent would require up to 100 feet of clearance. If the proposed action were selected, a detailed engineering design would be prepared. Approved engineering plans for road construction would specify the aggregate (type or source and amount of gravel) surface, actual road width, construction/clearing width, maintenance requirements, gate specifications, and road facilities (such as culverts) permitted. Final clearing widths would not exceed those evaluated in this EA.
Purpose of and Need for the Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to issue a permit for construction and maintenance of a private road across National Forest System land to Paul Dobbs’ 160-acre tract, which is surrounded by the congressionally designated Upper Kiamichi River Wilderness. Mr. Dobbs desires to build a cabin or house on the tract and to gain year-round motorized roaded access. Current access to the property is via remnants of an old (and currently non-designated) foot trail or cross country; there is no road access to the property. According to 36 CFR §251.111, “Access means the ability of landowners to have ingress and egress to their lands. It does not include rights-of-way for power lines or other utilities. Adequate access means a route and method of access to non-Federal land that provides for reasonable use and enjoyment of the non-Federal land consistent with similarly situated non-Federal land and that minimizes damage or disturbance to National Forest System lands and resources.”
Page 2 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Scope of Analysis
Relevant Planning Documents
The following documents directly influence the scope of this environmental analysis.
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Ouachita National Forest (RLRMP or Revised Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service, 2005a) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2005b) Biological Evaluation prepared for this proposal (USDA Forest Service, 2009)
The Revised Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activities for the Ouachita National Forest. The forest management direction, communicated in terms of Desired Conditions (RLRMP, pp. 6-26); Strategies (RLRMP, pp. 27-72); and Design Criteria (RLRMP, pp. 73-123) that apply to the forest lands identified in this proposal are incorporated by reference.
REFERENCE FOR FOREST PLAN DESIGN CRITERIA BY MANAGEMENT AREA (TABLE 1.1) Management Area Forest Plan Reference 1. Wilderness Part 3, p. 98 19. Winding Stair Mountain Recreation National Area* Part 3, p. 112 (NRA) and Associated Non-Wilderness Designations
*in this location, a 200 feet-wide strip between the Talimena Scenic Drive and the Wilderness boundary that is part of the NRA
The Scoping Process
On February 19, 2007, the Forest Service accepted the Dobbs application for roaded access. On April 14, 2008, a letter containing a detailed proposed action and announcing the 30-day notice- and-comment period, pursuant to 36 CFR 215, was mailed to the Oklahoma Ranger Districts’ public mailing list. A legal notice was published on April 16, 2008, in the Tulsa World requesting comments on the proposed action.
Two responses were received during the 2008 30-day notice and comment period. A comment was received from a member of the Ouachita Timber Purchasers Association that is addressed below under “potential issues” not studied in detail. A comment from the Oklahoma Biological Survey stated they have no record of elements of concern at or near the proposed road location.
Issues
1) Construction of the proposed road may impact cultural resources. Through a survey, it was discovered the original proposed road location traverses cultural resource sites. This issue is addressed through modification of the original proposed action and alternative development. All alternatives were modified slightly to avoid impacts to cultural sites.
Page 3 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
2) The proposed alternatives may conflict with legal requirements associated with access to private land and wilderness. The potential for conflict exists between satisfying the legal requirements for providing adequate access (36 CFR §251.111) while preserving wilderness character. This issue is evaluated by comparison with all designated wilderness on National Forest System Lands and related case law.
3) Construction, maintenance and use of the proposed road may impact wilderness character. The potential impact to wilderness character was identified as a concern of the Region and the Ouachita National Forest. This issue is addressed through alternative development. All alternatives address effects on the various elements of wilderness character.
4) The proposed activities may affect Scenic Quality. The potential impacts of road construction and existence of a “permanent” road on scenic quality within the wilderness is addressed by evaluating Scenic Integrity Objectives.
5) The proposed activities may affect Soil and Water Quality. The potential impacts of road or trail construction and maintenance on soils and water quality are evaluated by modeling sediment loading in the affected 6th level watershed.
6) The proposed activities may affect Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) Species. Within the proposed road corridor (trail corridor in one alternative), suitable habitat exists for the endangered American Burying Beetle. The potential impact to PETS species are evaluated in the Biological Evaluation and summarized in this EA.
Potential issues that were considered, but determined to not require detailed analysis are described below:
1) U.S. Forest Service regulation 36 CFR 251.114(f)(1) requires a demonstrated lack of any existing rights or routes of access available by deed or under State or common law prior to the issuance of a special use authorization for access to non-Federal land. A review of the relevant deeds and laws showed a lack of any existing rights or routes of motorized access to the Dobbs property. The availability of non-motorized access and the applicability of a state law pertaining to rights of access along section lines are discussed in Chapter 2.
2) Construction of the proposed road may set a precedent that impacts timber harvesting. A representative of the Ouachita Timber Purchasers Association indicated a concern that a precedent will be set, leading to more roads in other wildernesses. The group is concerned that if wilderness appears to be no different than the general forest area, then someone may decide to designate all areas as wilderness, thereby eliminating timber harvest. This comment is considered to be conjectural in nature and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. Legal requirements for nominating and designating wilderness also do not support this idea.
Page 4 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
3) Impacts on Civil Rights and Minority Groups. The proposed actions would impact minority groups and women in the same manner as all other groups in society. The proposed actions will not violate the civil rights of consumers, minority groups or women.
4) Violation of Federal, State, and Local Laws not Addressed by Issue 2 (described on previous page) No additional federal, state or local laws were identified that might conflict with the proposed action or alternatives.
5) Impacts on Unique characteristics of the geographic area. There are no parklands, prime farmlands, wild & scenic rivers, ecologically critical areas, floodplains, or jurisdictional wetlands within the proposed road corridor.
6) Impacts on Public Health and Safety. The actions proposed would have no effect on public health or safety. Use of the constructed road as a motorway would be restricted to the special use permittee.
Decision to Be Made
The Regional Forester will decide whether or not to grant a special use permit for Mr. Dobbs to construct, maintain, and use a road, as outlined in his special use application. Pursuant to 36 CFR 251.110(c) and (d) and 251.114, the Regional Forester will decide what means of access (1) is “adequate to secure [him] the reasonable use and enjoyment of [his] land” and (2) complies with applicable laws, including having the least lasting impact on wilderness character.
Page 5 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Alternative Design
Technical Requirements and Monitoring for Action Alternatives (including the Proposed Action)
Technical requirements to minimize impacts on the environment, as well as any monitoring requirements, would be included as specific items or clauses in the special use authorization. Specific monitoring actions and maintenance requirements would be outlined and documented in the special use authorization.
General requirements (determined by the Forest Service) are detailed here:
The actual road width would be the minimum necessary to accommodate motorized travel. The actual clearing width would be the minimum necessary for road construction and would not exceed 40 feet except where noted due to steep slopes. Road design would be under Forest Service oversight. Contract design would be subject to Forest Service approval. The design process, including preliminary investigation, would not place any material outside of the right of way. To guard against unauthorized use, a gate would need to be installed at permit holder’s expense near the entrance off the Scenic Drive and kept closed and locked at all times (except for brief opening and closing required for permittee access); motor vehicle traffic going around the gate on either side would also be prohibited and may need to be physically restricted through fencing or other means. The gate and any associated signs would need to be designed to minimize impacts on scenic values. Road construction would be allowed only outside of spring and fall Plethodon migratory periods (foggy or rainy nights in early to late spring and fall) to reduce potential direct impacts to individual Rich Mountain salamanders (a sensitive species). Cut trees would need to be chipped, removed, or used to help limit downslope movement of materials, in order to minimize visual impacts. Pit-run gravel from the local area would be used for the road surface. Alignment of the road would be closely allied with landform to reduce the amount of earthwork required. Vegetation clearing limits would be identified on the ground immediately adjacent to the edge of grading activities prior to construction. Slope rounding would be utilized to blend landform modifications. All culvert ends would be shaped to the slope of the ground surface.
Page 6 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study
Access by historic routes: A field search was conducted for a possible historic motor vehicle access route from the southeast, via a washed-out bridge crossing a tributary of the Upper Kiamichi River. This route was deemed impassable; furthermore, the route does not appear to have ever extended to or provided roaded access to the Dobbs tract. A thorough field review and records search provided no evidence that the Dobbs tract itself ever had roaded access.
Portions of a former foot trail corridor are evident from the Talimena Scenic Drive almost due south to and (on historic maps) across the Dobbs tract. This trail is identified on the 1990 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Map of Record as Forest Trail 63. There is no identifiable road prism associated with this trail. Due to extreme steepness, this trail route was determined not suitable for roaded access because it would not meet the requirements of 36 CFR 251.114(f)(2), which mandates that “the route is so located and constructed as to minimize adverse impacts on soils, fish and wildlife, scenic, cultural, threatened and endangered species, and other values of the Federal land.”
Access along abutting section line: Oklahoma Statue Title 69 Section 1201 (1991) allows landowners to request access to landlocked property along section lines. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because the terrain traversed by the section lines is very steep, and the location of an abutting section line for road construction would not minimize adverse environmental impacts (per 36 CFR 251.114[f] [2]). Additionally, while section line access is a theoretical alternate means of access, it has not been requested or approved and thus is not being considered further.
Access by new road construction from southern approach: An alternate road location approaching from the south was considered. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because the approach is limited by very steep terrain and would necessitate crossing the Ouachita National Recreation Trail, which could create user conflicts. Like the previous alternative, this one would not meet the requirements of 36 CFR 251.114(f)(2).
Alternatives Documented in Detail
Modified Proposed Action (Gravel Surface): The Forest Service accepted an application from a private individual (Paul Dobbs) for a special use permit to construct a graveled surface road that would provide motor vehicle access to private land surrounded by the Upper Kiamichi River Wilderness. The proposed road location is in part of the SE¼ Section 33 and the SW¼ Section 34, T3N-R26E, LeFlore County, Oklahoma. The total area directly affected by the proposed road would be approximately 5 acres. The road would be approximately 5,300 feet long across National Forest System Lands with a 10-12 foot running surface. Clearing limits for construction would average 40 feet. Where slopes exceed 20 percent the clearing width would extend up to 100 feet. The proposed action is to construct an all-weather gravel road to access private land. If the proposed action is selected, the Forest Service would issue an authorization for construction, use, and maintenance of the road.
Page 7 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Proposed Action
N R26E
T3N
T2N
0 0.5 Miles Private Inholding Proposed Road
Figure 2—Proposed Action Construction of the road would require use of heavy equipment, including one or more bulldozers, dump trucks, and either a “hammer-hoe” (a very large jack hammer mounted on a trackhoe) or explosives to dislodge areas of solid sandstone ledge and bedrock along the proposed route.
The Forest Service estimates that approximately 4 to 6 inches of pit-run gravel from the local area would be placed along the road surface. Little fill dirt would be required due to the existing surface rock. The resulting route would be an out-sloped road with a 10- to 12-foot running surface within the approximately 40 foot clearing width.
Erosion control netting would be installed on all cut-and-fill slopes within the soil surface as per manufacturer’s instructions. Low-contrasting mulch/soil retention material would be placed over topsoil and netting. Seeding would consist of Forest Service approved grasses and wildflowers spread at a rate of one pound per 2,000 square feet and sown as recommended by the supplier.
The original Proposed Action was slightly modified to address Issue 1—Construction of the proposed road may impact cultural resources—by slightly relocating approximately 650 feet of the original proposed route in order to avoid cultural resource sites.
Page 8 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Alternative A (No Action): Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed action would not be implemented (a special use permit to construct, use, and maintain a road for motorized vehicles would not be authorized). The property would continue to be accessible by foot traffic or pack animal. Access would be on remnants of the non-designated foot trail or cross-country or both.
Alternative B (Porous Paving Surface): Under this alternative, a porous paving surface road would be constructed rather than a gravel surface road. This alternative would simulate the appearance of a natural surface road but would also provide stability like an aggregate (gravel) surface road. This alternative, like the Modified Proposed Action, modifies the route to avoid the cultural resource site. The same method of construction as described in the Modified Proposed Action would be used for this type of road. The only difference is there would be no gravel placed and, because there would be very little fill available on site due to rock surface of the proposed route, some type of fill would need to be hauled in. The cost for construction of this road would include an additional $3.00 per square foot for the porous paving material. This alternative was developed to help address Issue 3 (Construction of the proposed road may impact wilderness character.)
Porous paving such as PermaTURF® or Grasspave would be installed on the road bed and drainage ditches in order to provide a solid foundation for grassed areas subject to erosion, ruts, and run off. These porous paving systems would provide load bearing strength while protecting vegetation root systems from compaction. The void spaces within the entire cross-section would enable root development and storage capacity for rainfall from storm events. Storm water accelerated from road construction would be slowed in movement through and across these paving surfaces, which would deposit suspended sediment and increase time for water to discharge. The result would be a more natural drainage pattern. All porous pavers would be installed as designated in the final road design plans and as per manufacturer’s instructions.
Erosion controlling netting would be installed on all cut and fill slopes within the soil surface as per manufacturer’s instructions. Low-contrasting mulch/soil retention material would be placed over topsoil and netting. Seeding would consist of Forest Service approved grasses and wildflowers spread at a rate of one pound per 2,000 square feet and sown as recommended by the supplier. If Alternative B is selected, the Forest Service would issue an authorization for construction, use, and maintenance of the road.
Alternative C (Non-Motorized Trail Access to the Subject Inholding) Selection of Alternative C would result in construction of a Class 3 (see design parameters in FSH 2309.18, Section 23.11 - Exhibit 01), natural surface trail designed and maintained for access by non-mechanized means to the inholding through Upper Kiamichi Wilderness. It would follow the same corridor identified for the proposed access road, but the maximum clearing width for the trail would be 36-60” inches and the maintained tread width would be 1-2 feet.
This alternative differs from the No Action Alternative in that the No Action Alternative would provide solely for unimproved (non-designated trail or cross country) access by foot, mule, horse, or other animal.
Page 9 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
The proposed road would continue onto private land after it leaves National Forest System land, where the road would likely extend another 0.5 miles. A cabin would be constructed on the private land and would likely result in an additional half acre of disturbance. This construction on private land would result in approximately 3-acres of disturbance on the private land.
No additional reasonably foreseeable future actions have been identified on National Forest System lands whose effects could combine with those described in this EA.
Approximately 75 acres of storm damaged forest were harvested in 2009 within the watershed, south of the Wilderness. The effects of this salvage action were included in the aquatic cumulative effects model.
Page 10 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Summary Comparison of Alternatives
COMPARISON OF ISSUES/EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE (TABLE 2.1) Alternative Modified Proposed Action and Alternative A (No Action) Alternative C Issue/Effect Criterion B 1) Impacts on cultural resources No Impact No Impact No Impact 2) Compliance with legal Provide Adequate Access Yes Yes Yes requirements associated with Minimize Wilderness access to private land and No Yes No wilderness Impacts Untrammeled Moderate Impact No Impact Minor Impact Natural Moderate Impact No Impact Minor Impact 3) Impacts on wilderness Undeveloped High Impact No Impact Minor Impact character Solitude or Primitive and High Impact No Impact Minor Impact Unconfined Recreation 4) Impacts on Scenic Quality Moderate Impact No Impact Minor Impact Acres of Soil No Longer Suitable for Vegetative 5 0 < 1 Production 5) Impacts on Soils and Sediment from Road Water Quality 41.5 tons 0 > 0 but < 41.5 Construction Risk to Aquatic Beneficial Low Low Low Uses 6) Impacts on Proposed, Determination of Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) Species1&2 Determination of Impact Impact Ind Impact Ind Impact Ind 7) Impacts on Management Effect on Forest-wide Indicator Species population trends No Impact No Impact No Impact (MIS) 3 1 NLAA: “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (Threatened and Endangered species determination) 2 Impact Ind: “May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” (sensitive species determination) 3 Neither positive nor negative effect
Page 11 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Introduction The primary analysis tool used to estimate the effects of implementation of the alternatives in a quantitative way was the Aquatic Cumulative Effects (ACE) model, which was used to estimate the cumulative impacts of sedimentation from road construction and use
Cultural Resources
Current Conditions Cultural resource inventory was carried out by heritage resource personnel from December 2007 to June 2008. The survey of the area resulted in the documentation of one previously unrecorded prehistoric archaeological site. A cultural resource report documenting the results of the inventory was mailed to the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). On August 21, 2008, the SHPO concluded there would be no effect to the subject site and no further action as a Section 106 activity is warranted.
Issue 1. Construction of the proposed road may impact cultural resources. The boundary for the analysis was a survey area of approximately 5 acres.
Modified Proposed Action (Gravel Surface) - Effects The Proposed Action was slightly modified to address Issue 1 (impacts to cultural resources). Approximately 650 feet of the original proposed route location would be relocated. The re-directed portion of the route would be moved from the original location a distance specified by the Archeologist in order to avoid cultural resource sites.
Alternative A (No Action) Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed action would not be implemented. No road construction would occur. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on cultural resources.
Alternative B (Porous Paving Surface) - Effects Under this alternative, a porous paving surface road would be constructed rather than a gravel surface road. The location would be the same as the Modified Proposed Action.
Alternative C (Trail) Under Alternative C, a relatively narrow trail would be constructed in a manner that avoids cultural resource sites. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on cultural resources.
Page 12 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Compliance with Legal Requirements
Issue 2. Compliance with legal requirements associated with access to private land and wilderness.
Current Conditions The Wilderness Act of 1964, as enacted September 3, 1964, and amended October 21, 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), specifies that “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.” It directs that wilderness areas “shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character….” It goes on to define wilderness in these terms: “In contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, [wilderness] is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitations, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which [among other provisions] (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily but the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; and (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” With a few exceptions, the Wilderness Act prohibits roads. The Act specifies, however, that adequate access be provided to owners of private lands completely surrounded by wilderness. This provision was also spelled out in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), which specifies in Section 1323(a), Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe, the Secretary shall provide such access to nonfederally owned land within the boundaries of the National Forest System as the Secretary deems adequate to secure to the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment thereof: Provided, That such owner comply with rules and regulations applicable to ingress and egress to or from the National Forest System. The implementing regulations that govern how the Forest Service should strive to balance the requirements of the Wilderness Act and ANILCA are found in 36 CFR 251, Subpart D, including the following definitions and provisions: Access means the ability of landowners to have ingress and egress to their lands. It does not include rights-of-way for power lines or other utilities. Adequate access means a route and method of access to non-Federal land that provides for reasonable use and enjoyment of the non-Federal land consistent with similarly situated non-Federal land and that minimizes damage or disturbance to National Forest System lands and resources. 36 CFR 251.111
Page 13 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
In issuing a special-use authorization for access to non-Federal lands, the authorized officer shall authorize only those access facilities or modes of access that are needed for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the land and that minimize the impacts on the Federal resources. The authorizing officer shall determine what constitutes reasonable use and enjoyment of the lands based on contemporaneous uses made of similarly situated lands in the area and any other relevant criteria. 36 CFR 251.114(a)
In addition to the other requirements of 36 CFR 251.111 and 251.114(a), the following factors (based on the Wilderness Act and ANILCA) must be considered before authorizing access to non-federally owned lands over National Forest System lands which are components of the National Wilderness Preservation System:
The use of means of ingress and egress which have been or are being customarily used with respect to similarly situated non-Federal land used for similar purposes (36 CFR 251.114(g)(1));
The combination of routes and modes of travel, including nonmotorized modes, which will cause the least lasting impact on the wilderness but, at the same time, will permit the reasonable use of the non-federally owned land (36 CFR 251.114(g)(2));
The examination of a voluntary acquisition of land or interests in land by exchange, purchase, or donation to modify or eliminate the need to use wilderness areas for access purposes (36 CFR 251.114(g)(3)).
For this review the following definitions/principles were applied:
Webster’s Dictionary defines customarily as 1) based on or established by custom; 2) commonly, practiced, used or observed.
For purposes of this application, the phrase “similarly situated” refers to private inholdings within wilderness on the Ouachita National Forest.
FSM 2320.5 defines valid existing rights as those property rights in existence on the date of wilderness designation or on such date as provided for in the particular Act that designated an area as wilderness; that were created by a legally binding conveyance, lease, deed, contract, or other document; or as otherwise provided by Federal law.
The phrase “similar purposes” in this instance implies residential use (Dobbs states in his application that the proposed road would be used to access a primary residence).
Page 14 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
A review of ingress and egress which have been or are being customarily used with respect to similarly situated non-Federal land used for similar purposes was conducted in the Upper Kiamichi Wilderness and other wilderness on the Ouachita National Forest.
In the Upper Kiamichi Wilderness, landowners who had existing roaded access to their property prior to wilderness designation were allowed to continue accessing their property via motor vehicle after signing for a key to open a gate. A special use permit was issued to Robert Morrison authorizing road maintenance and use of a pre-existing road now within the Upper Kiamichi Wilderness that provides access to his 20-acre inholding (fig. 3). This 1997 permit authorizes motorized access to a recreational cabin on a road that existed before the wilderness was established.
Since 1988, at least four inholdings within Upper Kiamichi Wilderness were acquired by the Forest Service, eliminating the potential need for roaded access to these properties. Locks and gates at the wilderness boundary have been changed, and remaining inholders (owners of land surrounded by National Forest System Lands) were informed by letter that they needed to apply for special use permits if they desired to maintain or claim some form of roaded access to their properties. None have done so.
No permits have been granted to construct a road within any wilderness inside the Ouachita National Forest. The Morrison special use permit (allowing him to maintain a low-development road (one without a constructed road prism) that existed prior to wilderness establishment) is the sole permit in place affecting wildernesses of the Ouachita National Forest. Consideration was given to allowing use of another preexisting road in another wilderness on the Ouachita National Forest (see Downs tract in Blackfork Mountain Wilderness, Figure 3), but the inholder never completed the permitting process.
The practice of allowing motorized access to private lands that had roaded access at the time of wilderness designation (applied on the Ouachita National Forest) is consistent with practices nationwide. A review of National Forests included in the National Wilderness Preservation System found that motorized vehicles were only allowed on roads that existed prior to the area’s wilderness designation. The review found no cases of new road construction (and associated motorized access) where roads did not exist prior to wilderness designation except in the rare instance where a new road was authorized by wilderness legislation.
As noted, the Wilderness Act and ANILCA provide guidance on the questions of access to nonfederal lands completely surrounded by congressionally designated wilderness. The case law applying ANILCA’s access provision to nonfederal lands outside of Alaska is limited. However, the April 2, 2002 Findings and Recommendations of United States
Page 15 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Magistrate Judge in Johnson v. USFS, 1:00-cv-00217-JDS (D. MT, May 9, 2002, aff’d 9th Cir. March 12, 2004) are instructive:
“The Wilderness Act and ANILCA provide [the inholder] a right of access adequate for the reasonable use and enjoyment of its property…. ANILCA, 16 U.S.C. § 3210(a), vests the Secretary with the discretionary authority to determine what type of access is adequate, and in making this determination, the Wilderness Act directs the Secretary to allow the same kind of access that has been or is being customarily enjoyed by other similarly situated areas.” Id. at 13.
“ANILCA…does not guarantee the cheapest access, only adequate access.” Id. at 20.
“In reviewing the [proposal for roaded access], the Forest Service was required to evaluate what type of access would be adequate for the landowner, would most minimally impact Forest Resources, and would comport with the limitations on man-made activities imposed by the Wilderness Act, including the Act’s prohibition against permanent roads and motorized traffic. In conducting its evaluation, the Forest Service considered the reasonable uses of the property, the environmental impacts upon the wilderness area, and the expenses of road construction. The Forest Service’s decision to deny the proposal was based on a consideration of relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Id. at 21.
Wilderness on the Ouachita National Forest served as the bounds for consideration of legal requirements compliance.
Proposed Action (Gravel Surface) and Alternative B—Effects (Issue 2) Construction of an all-weather road under the action alternatives may enhance the use and enjoyment of the private land under consideration; however, road construction would result in permanent and irretrievable loss of wilderness character (see Wilderness Character section below for effects). The ID Team used a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide process (http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=MRDG) and developed a proposed alignment of the road, with technical requirements to be included in the permit that would best meet the minimum method or tool if road construction were allowed in this case, within the constraints of law and agency policy. In all known instances affecting national forest units of the National Wilderness Preservation System (including the single instance on the Ouachita National Forest), road access to surrounded inholdings has been authorized by the Forest Service only where the road in question existed and was in use prior to wilderness designation. Allowing new road construction through a designated wilderness would be contrary to the agency’s customary interpretation and application of the laws and regulations pertaining to access and wilderness management.
Alternative A (No Action) – Effects (Issue 2) Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed action would not be implemented. No
Page 16 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal road construction would occur. This alternative would preserve wilderness character, as directed in the Wilderness Act, and the landowner (Dobbs) would still have reasonable access using means (e.g., pack animal or helicopter for transport of building materials; cross country on foot via remnants of old trail or overland without use of a trail) not involving motorized access through the wilderness. Alternative A is consistent with the pertinent laws (including the Wilderness Act and ANILCA) and implementing regulations pertaining to access and wilderness management. This alternative would therefore comply with the legal requirement that Mr. Dobbs continue to have adequate access to his property while minimizing impacts on the wilderness.
Alternative C (Trail) – Effects (Issue 2) Under Alternative C, a trail would be constructed instead of a road but within the same corridor. This alternative would have minor effects on wilderness character, and the landowner (Dobbs) would still have reasonable access using means (e.g., on foot, pack animals or helicopter for transfer of building supplies) not involving motorized access through the wilderness. Alternative C is consistent with the pertinent laws (including the Wilderness Act and ANILCA) and implementing regulations pertaining to access and wilderness management. This alternative would therefore comply with the legal requirement that Mr. Dobbs continue to have adequate access to his property while minimizing impacts on the wilderness.
Downs Tract
Dobbs Tract Dobbs Tract
Morrison Tract
Figure 3— Locations of Existing (Morrison) and Proposed (Dobbs) Special Use Authorizations within Wilderness (Downs’ road access proposal was abandoned years ago)
Page 17 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Wilderness Character
Current Conditions The Upper Kiamichi Wilderness, a 10,800-acre area located in eastern Oklahoma, is noted for its rugged terrain, plant variety, and inaccessibility. This wilderness lies almost entirely on the southern aspect of Rich Mountain. A hiking trail (the Ouachita National Recreation Trail) enters the wilderness from the east at the Arkansas State line and descends Rich Mountain heading westerly until it exits the wilderness.
The typical wilderness experience involves an appreciation of natural environments, opportunities to travel and live in a primitive way in an undisturbed environment, chances to be alone or with like individuals, and freedom from rules, regulations, and the pressure of daily life (Johnson, Hall and Cole, 2005). In a study of visitor characteristics in a proxy wilderness (Caney Creek Wilderness in western Arkansas), visitors indicated that naturalness was the dimension that most influenced their attainment of a wilderness experience, equal to or more than that of social indicators such as crowding or group contacts (Watson, Williams, Roggenbuck and Daigle, 1995). Hikers are the largest user group, with most use occurring on the Ouachita National Recreation Trail. Use of the trail appears to have increased in recent years, particularly on the segment from the Passabe Trailhead to the branches of the Upper Kiamichi River. Hunters use the trail and off-trail portions of the wilderness during the fall deer season and the spring turkey season.
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a method for classifying types of recreation environments, activities and “experience opportunities” or for specifying recreation setting objectives desired in discrete land units. Classes range from Primitive to Urban. The Upper Kiamichi Wilderness is classified as follows:
Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM): Area characterized by a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of 2,500 or more acres. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present but are subtle. Motorized use is not permitted. There is a moderately high probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans, independence, closeness to nature, tranquility, and self-reliance through the application of woodsman and outdoor skills in an environment that offers challenge and risk.
Issue 3. Construction of the proposed road may impact wilderness character. The Upper Kiamichi Wilderness boundary is the context used for the analysis of effects on wilderness character. The Wilderness Act of 1964, under Use of Wilderness Areas, Section 4(b), describes the primary direction for wilderness stewardship as follows: “each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area.” The effects of management actions on wilderness character are evaluated using the four qualities defined in “Applying the Concept of Wilderness Character to National Forest Planning, Monitoring, and Management” (Landres, et al., 2008):
Page 18 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Untrammeled Quality The Wilderness Act, Section 2(c) states that wilderness is “hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.” Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation. The untrammeled quality concerns actions that intentionally manipulate or control ecological systems. Actions that intentionally manipulate or control ecological systems inside wilderness degrade the untrammeled quality of wilderness character
Natural Quality One of the central themes throughout the 1964 Wilderness Act is that wilderness should be free from the effects of “an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization “and that the “earth and its community of life…is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions” (Sections 2(a) and 2(c), respectively).Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization.
Undeveloped Quality Wilderness is defined in Section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act as “an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation,” with “the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” Wilderness retains its primeval character and influence and is essentially without permanent improvement or modern human occupation. Building infrastructure of any kind within wilderness causes the area to become occupied and modified.
Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation The Wilderness Act states in Section 2(c) that wilderness has “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” Meanings of solitude range from a lack of seeing other people to privacy, freedom from societal constraints and obligations, and freedom from management regulations (Hall 2001) and attributes such as separation from people and civilization. Primitive recreation has generally been interpreted as travel by non-motorized and non-mechanical means but also encompasses reliance on personal skills to travel and camp in an area, rather than reliance on facilities or outside help (Roggenbuck 2004). “Unconfined” encompasses attributes such as self-discovery, exploration, and freedom from societal or managerial controls (Hendee and Dawson 2002).
For the purpose of this analysis, the following approach is used:
Type of effect—Impacts were evaluated in terms of whether they would be beneficial (enhance one or more of the qualities of wilderness character) or adversely affect one or more of the qualities of wilderness character.
Context—Local effects are those that occur at site-specific locations within the wilderness. Regional effects would be impacts to a wilderness character quality on adjacent lands.
Page 19 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Intensity—The intensity of the impact considers whether the effect to wilderness character is negligible, minor, moderate, or major. Negligible effects are considered not detectable to the visitor and therefore expected to have no discernible outcome. Minor effects are slightly detectable though not expected to have overbearing results on wilderness character. Moderate effects would be clearly detectable to the visitor and could have an appreciable effect on one or more aspects of wilderness character. Major effects would have highly noticeable influence on the visitors experience and could permanently alter more than one aspect of wilderness character.
Duration—The duration of the effect considers whether the impact would occur in a short-term or long-term period. Short-term effects on solitude, for example, would be temporary in duration, such as an encounter while traveling or camping. A long-term effect would have lasting influence on the wilderness character, such as an impression from noticeable ecological impacts (natural quality) or the permanent closure of an area. Long-term physical effects to the wilderness character are 10 to 20 years or more in duration.
Alternative A (No Action) – Effects (Issue 3)
Under the No Action Alternative, the Modified Proposed Action would not be implemented. No special use permit would be issued, and no road construction would occur. This alternative would preserve (have no effect upon) wilderness character, as directed by the Wilderness Act and as described above.
Modified Proposed Action and Alternative B – Effects (Issue 3)
Untrammeled Quality – Although road construction would alter the bio-physical environment by removing vegetation and soil/substrate within the construction area of the road corridor, the intent of the action is not to control or manipulate the biophysical environment. Based on the criteria previously defined, road construction, maintenance and use were rated as having a “moderate” effect on the untrammeled quality of this wilderness.
Natural Quality – Ecological systems would remain substantially free from the effects of modern civilization. Biophysical processes, such as fire regimes, would be changed, although minimally, due to the changes in vegetative pattern. Physical resources, specifically soil and water quality, would be negatively and permanently affected to a minor degree due to changes to the slope of the land and the water run-off patterns (refer to these sections later in this chapter). Plant and animal species and communities would be negatively affected to a minimal degree (refer to these sections later in this chapter); these effects would be limited primarily to the disturbance area within the road corridor, although downslope movement of materials and altered waterflows could affect some species. Based on the criteria previously defined, road construction, maintenance and use were rated as having a “moderate” effect on the ecological processes and natural character of this wilderness.
Page 20 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Undeveloped Quality Construction of a permanent road would adversely affect the undeveloped quality of wilderness character. The road would constitute a permanent occupation and modification which would degrade the primeval character and influence of the wilderness area. This local action would have a highly noticeable influence on visitor experiences and may alter permanently the undeveloped wilderness character. Based on the criteria previously defined, road construction, maintenance and use were rated as having a “high” impact on the undeveloped quality of this wilderness.
Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality Construction of a permanent road would introduce attributes of civilization, societal controls and the use of motorized vehicles within the wilderness. All of these outcomes would adversely affect the qualities of solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation and not only have long-term, major influence on visitor experiences but also permanently alter these qualities of wilderness character. Based on the criteria previously defined, road construction, maintenance and use were rated as having a “high” impact on opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.
Alternative C – Effects (Issue 3)
Untrammeled Quality—Although trail construction would alter the bio-physical environment by removing vegetation and soil/substrate within the construction area of the trail corridor, the intent of the action is not to control or manipulate the biophysical environment. The effects on the untrammeled quality of this environment due to trail construction are rated “minor.”
Natural Quality—Ecological systems would remain substantially free from the effects of modern civilization. Biophysical processes, such as fire regimes, would be changed, although minimally, due to the changes in vegetative pattern. Physical resources, specifically soil and water quality, would be negatively and permanently affected to a minor degree due to changes to the slope of the land and the water run-off patterns (refer to these sections later in this chapter). Plant and animal species and communities would be negatively affected to a minimal degree (refer to these sections later in this chapter); these effects would be limited primarily to the disturbance area within the trail corridor. The effects ecological processes and natural quality due to trail construction are rated “minor.”
Undeveloped Quality—Although construction of a permanent trail would adversely affect the undeveloped quality of wilderness character and would constitute a permanent occupation and modification which would degrade the primeval character and influence of the wilderness area, trails are considered an acceptable improvement in Wilderness (Forest Service Manual 2300, Amendment 2300-90-2, 2323.13f). However, trail construction and maintenance would have a noticeable influence on visitor experiences and may alter permanently the undeveloped wilderness character, at least locally. The effects on the undeveloped quality of this wilderness due to trail construction are rated “minor.”
Page 21 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation Quality—Construction of a permanent trail would introduce some minor attributes of civilization and societal controls within the wilderness. All of these outcomes may adversely affect the qualities of solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation, but, because trails are not atypical in Wilderness, the influence of this trail on solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation would be minor.
Scenic Quality
Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) are desired levels of scenic excellence based on physical and sociological characteristics of an area. They refer to the degree of acceptable alterations to the landscape character. SIOs range from very high to low.
The SIO assigned to Wildernesses is described as follows:
Very High: Generally provides for only ecological changes in natural landscapes and complete intactness of landscape character.
With the exception of the southern boundary, the National Forest System land within and immediately surrounding the Upper Kiamichi Wilderness is assigned the following SIO:
High: Human activities are not visually evident to the casual observer. Activities may only repeat attributes of form, line, color, and texture found in the existing landscape character.
Concern levels are a measure of the degree of public importance placed on landscapes viewed from travelways and use areas. Concern levels range from 1 (high) to 3 (low). The northern border of the Wilderness lies 200 feet south of the Talimena Scenic Drive, a Concern Level 1 road.
Upper portions of the Wilderness can be seen directly from Highway 63 along its southern border. The majority of the Wilderness can be viewed in part from the vistas located along the Talimena Scenic Drive. The proposed activities would not be visible from the Ouachita National Recreation Trail.
Page 22 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Issue 4. Construction of the proposed road may impact scenic quality of the area.
Modified Proposed Action (Gravel Surface) – Effects (Issue 4)
Although design criteria for this project would require permit provisions to remediate any material outside of the right of way (due to the relatively steep and boulder/cobble-rich slopes the road would have to be constructed through), it is possible that considerable downslope movement of dislodged materials would occur, introducing anthropogenic changes to the wilderness well outside the clearing limits for the road itself. The texture of gravel surfacing material could contrast with surrounding rocks and boulders.
The proposed road would eliminate a 40-foot wide swath of oak woodlands and forests. Some of the oaks (and occasional shortleaf pines), though stunted, appear to be quite old. The history of tree cutting and/or removal along the proposed route is unknown, but the very low productivity and “harshness” of the sites through which the proposed route passes suggest that at least portions of the route pass through woodlands have not been greatly disturbed by humans in the past. Cutting trees to allow construction of the road would obviously change the character of this vegetation and introduce another visual (as seen by a cross-country hiker or hunter) and ecological impact on wilderness character.
The intersection of the proposed road with the Talimena Scenic Drive would be clearly visible to auto tourists. A gravel surface road would contrast with the existing landscape character. Some segments (approximately 0.5 mile) of the road would be seen from the Chaha Vista, a developed vehicle pull-off/scenic overlook located west of the proposed road location.
Alternative A (No Action) – Effects (Issue 4)
Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed action would not be implemented. No road construction would occur. There would be no direct effects on scenic quality from road construction, but indirect and cumulative effects from the denial of roaded access may include periods of helicopter use if Dobbs were to construct a cabin on the private parcel using this means of transport.
Alternative B (Porous Paving Surface) – Effects (Issue 4)
Under this alternative, a porous paving surface road would be constructed rather than a gravel surface road. The effects on wilderness character would be the same as the Proposed Action; however, the impacts to scenic quality, while permanent, would be mitigated slightly by following the design criteria for this Alternative detailed in Chapter 2. Specifically, as seen closely by a hiker or hunter, vegetated road surfaces and drainage ditches would contrast much less with the existing landscape character than a gravel surface road. While less intrusive, the road would still be obvious.
Page 23
Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
If vegetation fails to grow, the constructed road would contrast with the existing landscape.
Alternative C – Effects (Issue 4)
While far less intrusive on scenic character than a road, a constructed trail would still be obvious to visitors and would contrast with the existing landscape. These would constitute minor direct effects on scenic quality; more noticeable indirect and cumulative effects on scenery from the denial of roaded access could include periods of helicopter use if Dobbs were to construct a cabin on the private parcel using that means of transport.
Soils and Water Quality
Current Conditions
Soil types in the proposed road location include the following:
PROPOSED ROAD LOCATION SOIL TYPES (TABLE 3.1) Soil Water Potential Map Hydric Runoff for Compaction Unit # Soil Map Unit Name Soil Rating Erosion Hazard Clebit-Carnasaw-Pirum complex, 40 4 to 35% slope No Moderate Moderate Moderate Pirum-Carnasaw-Caston 79 complex, 35 to 60% slope No Rapid Severe Slight Pirum-Octavia-Panama complex, 83 35 to 60% slope No Rapid Severe Slight
The Clebit-Carnasaw-Pirum unit consists of shallow to deep, loamy-skeletal, clayey and loamy soils on tops of upper sideslopes of mountains with northerly aspects. The unit is dry to droughty. Management concerns include surface stones, moderate potential erosion hazard, moderate potential for compaction, and shallow depth of Clebit soils.
The Pirum-Carnasaw-Caston unit and the Pirum-Octavia-Panama unit consist of moderately-deep and deep, loamy, clayey and loamy-skeletal soils on steep sideslopes of mountains. Included are small areas of rock outcrop. The units are dry. Management concerns include surface stones, steep slopes and a severe potential erosion hazard.
The headwaters of Pashubbe Creek begin immediately downhill of the proposed road location (see fig. 2). To the east of the proposed road are the headwaters of an unnamed tributary of the Kiamichi River. The Dobbs tract and proposed road location lie within 6th level subwatershed number 111401050101 (Pashubbe Creek – Kiamichi River). There are no source waters (untreated water from streams, rivers, lakes or underground aquifers that is used to provide public drinking water, as well to supply private wells used for human consumption) within this subwatershed. The Kiamichi River is currently listed by the state of Oklahoma as an impaired waterbody due to Enterococcus (bacteria) and lead.
Page 24 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Issue 5. Construction of the proposed road may impact soils and water quality.
The area of disturbance was the bound used to analyze the impact on soils. The 6th level watershed served as the bound for effects analysis of sediment on water quality.
Modified Proposed Action (Gravel Surface) – Effects (Issue 5)
The presence of roads commits a soil resource for a purpose other than vegetative production, and where roads occupy formerly productive land, they affect site productivity. Forest roads affect site productivity by removing and displacing topsoil, altering soil properties, changing microclimates, and accelerating erosion. Under this alternative, 5 acres of soils would no longer be suitable for vegetative production. Construction of the proposed road would result in approximately 5 acres of exposed soil, resulting in an estimated 41.54 tons of sediment the first year. See Table 3.2 below. Sedimentation from the road would decline in subsequent years.
Alternative A (No Action) – Effects (Issue 5)
Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed action would not be implemented. No road construction would occur. There would be no direct or indirect effects on soils or water quality.
Alternative B (Porous Paving Surface) – Effects (Issue 5)
The effects would be the same as the Proposed Action.
Alternative C (Non-Motorized Trail Access) – Effects (Issue 5)
The effects would be less than the Proposed Action or Alternative B but greater no Alternative A.
ESTIMATED SEDIMENT LOADING BY ALTERNATIVE (TABLE 3.2) FROM AQUATIC CUMULATIVE EFFECTS MODEL Exposed Soil Sediment Alternative (Acres) (Tons from Construction) Proposed Action & Alternative B 5 41.54 Alternative A - No Action 0 0 Alternative C - Trail <1 >0 but <41.54
Cumulative Effects
To determine cumulative impacts of sediment from management actions, the Aquatic Cumulative Effects (ACE) model was used (Clingenpeel and Crump, 2005). ACE analyzes the past, present, and proposed activities for sediment yield. The model was developed for the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma and is specific to
Page 25 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
the physiographic zones within the Ouachita National Forest. The Dobbs tract and proposed road location lie within 6th level watershed number 111401050101 (Pashubbe Creek – Kiamichi River). For this analysis, it is assumed that approximately 1.5 miles of road construction (across National Forest System land and private tract) and 0.5 acres of site clearing for the homestead would occur. These activities are included in the Proposed Action and Alternative B. Table 3.3 displays the modeling results for this watershed. The ACE model does not include coefficients for trail construction.
ESTIMATED SEDIMENT LOADING IN WATERSHED (TABLE 3.3) Sediment in Tons Per Year Reasonably Undisturbed Past Present Proposed Foreseeable No Watershed (Baseline) (Committed) Action & Alt C (Planned) Action Condition Activities Activities Alt B Activities >0 but 1,788 2,991 65 315 64 0 <65
The ACE model assigns a risk rating of low, medium, or high for adverse effects to aquatic beneficial uses. This risk assessment is based on the percent of increase over the annual sediment delivered in an undisturbed watershed condition that proposed actions would result in when combined with past, present and planned activities.
The model predicts that the Proposed Action or Alternative B, when added to the past, present, and future activities within the watershed, would result in a 178% increase over the annual sediment delivered in an undisturbed watershed condition (see Table 3.4). This level of sediment increase would decline in subsequent years. This sediment increase is rated as a “low” risk, indicating minimal adverse effects from sediment increases to aquatic beneficial uses. Alternative C would produce a smaller percent increase compared to an undisturbed watershed than the other action alternatives would, but because the model doesn’t incorporate construction of trails for non-motorized use, it is not possible to say how much smaller the percent increase would be. The risk level to water quality from Alternative C would be low or very low.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY (TABLE 3.4) Past Past + Present Baseline + Present + Future (Past) + Future +Proposed Percent Increase over Undisturbed Watershed 167 175 178 Risk Level Low Low Low
If the proposed action or alternative B were not implemented, there would be an increase of 175% over the annual sediment delivered in an undisturbed watershed condition. This would be due to existing features, such as roads, and ongoing and planned management
Page 26 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal activities within the watershed. There would be no cumulative effects on water quality from the No Action Alternative.
Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, & Sensitive (PETS) Species
Current Conditions
Current threatened and endangered species lists maintained by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 2002 Regional Forester's list of Sensitive Species were reviewed by the district wildlife biologist. A biological evaluation (BE) for the proposed action was prepared in January 2009 and concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife Service was received on January 29, 2009.
The federally endangered American burying beetle (ABB) is not known to occur within the proposed project area but suitable habitat is present. The sensitive Rich Mountain Salamander, Ozark chinquapin, Ouachita goldenrod, Ozark spiderwort and Ozark least trillium are not known to occur within this proposed project area but there is suitable habitat present. No other PETS species are known to occur or have suitable habitat present within the proposed project area.
Issue 6. Construction of the proposed road may impact Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species.
The bounds for the analysis of PETS is the proposed project area (an area approximately 40 ft. wide and 5,300 ft. in length), the probable area of disturbance on the private tract (approximately 40 ft. wide and approximately .5 miles in length and .5 acres for a homestead), and the total amount of available species-dependent habitat within the Oklahoma Ranger District.
Modified Proposed Action (Gravel Surface) – Effects (Issue 6)
As documented in the BE, the proposed action (gravel surface) is not likely to adversely affect the ABB. In regard to sensitive species, the BE found that a gravel surfaced road may impact individual Rich Mountain salamanders, Ozark chinquapin, Ouachita goldenrod, Ozark spiderwort, and Ozark least trillium, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. .
Alternative A (No Action) – Effects (Issue 6)
ABB, Rich Mountain Salamander, Ozark Chinquapin, Ozark Spiderwort, Ouachita Goldenrod and Ozark Least Trillium
There would be no direct or indirect effects to any of these species through implementation of the no action alternative. Because there would not be any activities taking place, there would be nothing to directly or indirectly impact these species or their habitat.
Page 27 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Implementation of the no action alternative would not result in any cumulative effects upon these species. The road would not be built and therefore there would not be any habitat modification or removal. There are no other known actions on private lands that would add to cumulative effects.
Alternative B (Porous Paving Surface) – Effects (Issue 6)
As documented in the BE, Alternative B (porous paving surface) is not likely to adversely affect the ABB. In regard to sensitive species, the BE found that a porous paved surface road may impact individual Rich Mountain salamanders, Ozark chinquapin, Ouachita goldenrod, Ozark spiderwort, and Ozark least trillium, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. There are no other reasonably foreseeable future actions on private lands that would add to cumulative effects.
Alternative C (Trail) – Effects (Issue 6)
Alternative C (trail construction) is not likely to adversely affect the ABB. In regard to sensitive species, trail construction and maintenance may impact individual Rich Mountain salamanders, Ozark chinquapins, Ouachita goldenrods, Ozark spiderworts, and Ozark least trilliums but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for any of these species and is likely to have lesser impacts than the other action alternatives. There are no other reasonably foreseeable future actions on private lands that would add to cumulative effects.
Habitat and Management Indicator Species (MIS)
Current Conditions
Terrestrial habitat conditions within the proposed project are in mid-to-late seral stages, with virtually no early seral conditions currently available. Mid-to-late seral habitat conditions dominate the proposed road site. The quality of habitat is considered good, occurring primarily as hardwood forest types.
The Revised Forest Plan (p. 61) identifies 24 management indicator species (MIS) that are representative of the full array of habitats needed by native plant and animal species inhabiting the national forest. Table 3.5 lists the terrestrial and aquatic MIS that could be affected by the proposed actions. Species with no known occurrence within the project area or for which suitable habitat is absent were not selected as MIS for this project.
Page 28 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (TABLE 3.5) Selected as MIS for Common Name Scientific Name Primary Reason(s) for Selection Project (Yes/No) Terrestrial MIS To help indicate effects of management Northern Colinus on public hunting demand and to help No bobwhite virginianus indicate effects of management on the pine-oak woodland community Odocoileus To help indicate effects of management White-tailed deer Yes virginianus on public hunting demand Eastern wild Meleagris To help indicate effects of management Yes turkey gallapavo on public hunting demand To help indicate effects of management on recovery of an Endangered species No (Action Red-cockaded Picoides borealis and to help indicate effects on area is outside woodpecker Management management of shortleaf pine-bluestem Area 22)1 woodland community To help indicate effects of management Pileated Dryocopus on mature forests and snags and snag- Yes woodpecker pileatus dependent species To help indicate effects of management Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea Yes on mature forest communities To help indicate effects of management Dendroica Prairie warbler on early successional component of No discolor forest communities Ponds and Lakes Lepomis Bluegill No macrochirus To help indicate management effects on Lepomis Redear sunfish health of ponds and lakes and demand No microlophus for recreational fishing Micropterus Largemouth bass No salmoides Arkansas River Valley Streams (Action area occurs outside of the Arkansas River Valley Ecoregion*) Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis No* Central Campostoma To help indicate effects of management No* stoneroller anomalum on aquatic habitat and water quality in Etheostoma Redfin darter streams within the Arkansas River No* whipplei Valley Ecoregion Lepomis Green sunfish No* cyanellus Lepomis Longear sunfish No* megalotis
Page 29 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Selected as MIS for Common Name Scientific Name Primary Reason(s) for Selection Project (Yes/No) Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregion Streams (Action area occurs outside of the Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregion**) Aphredoderus Pirate perch No** sayanus Central Campostoma To help indicate effects of No** stoneroller anomalum management on aquatic habitat and Creek Erimyzon water quality in streams within the No** chubsucker oblongus Gulf Coast Plain Ecoregion Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus No** Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis No** Ouachita Mountain Ecoregion Streams Central Campostoma No stoneroller anomalum No (Glover Etheostoma Johnny darter & Mountain nigrum Fork Rivers only) Orangebelly Etheostoma No darter radiosum Etheostoma Redfin darter No whipplei Northern Fundulus No studfish catenatus To help indicate effects of management Northern hog Hypentelium on aquatic habitat and water quality in No sucker nigricans streams within the Ouachita Mountain Lepomis Ecoregion. Green sunfish No cyanellus Lepomis Longear sunfish No megalotis Luxilus Striped shiner No chrysocephalus Micropterus Smallmouth bass No dolomieu No (Glover Percina Channel darter & Mountain copelandi Fork Rivers only) Forest-wide To help indicate the effects of No (Is not a Micropterus ‘Demand’ Smallmouth bass management on meeting public fishing dolomieu species within demand in streams the action area). 1 – Action area is the local area of disturbance that would result from the action.
Page 30 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Previous Forest-wide trends for the MIS species selected for this project will be discussed individually, based on the Revised Forest Plan FEIS, as well as the “Summary and Analysis of Data Pertaining to Management Indicator Species for the Ouachita National Forest” (USDA Forest Service, 2008). These documents summarize monitoring information for MIS species over the past decade, while providing an assessment of each MIS species’ current status and conservation needs.
Terrestrial Species
White-tailed deer: Based on annual spotlight survey data collected between 1990 to present, average deer density has varied from a low of 29 deer per square mile in 2001, to 65 deer per square mile in 2006. The average density for the Forest for this period is 45 deer per square mile. This level exceeds Forest Plan objectives of an optimum population of 25 deer per square mile. These data indicate that deer density on the Forest has no significant trend.
Eastern wild turkey: Over the past decade, the number of turkey poults per hen has varied from a low of 1.45 poults per hen in 1993, to a high of 3.7 poults per hen in 1997. The average number of poults per hen in 2007 was 1.99 for the Ouachita Region. There is not a significant trend indication at this time. Spring turkey harvest has increased from 1,631 in 1994, to 3,691 in 2002. Harvest data has dropped since 2002; 2007 harvest data indicated a total of 2,163 turkeys for the Ouachita Region. The Breeding Bird Survey data for the Ozark-Ouachita Plateau indicate a 3.5 % increase in the turkey population from 1966 to 2006. Overall, habitat capability trends are stable, with an average habitat capability for the years 1994-2002 of 14,686 birds, above the Plan projection of 14,426.
Turkey harvest and Breeding Bird Survey data would indicate an overall positive trend in the turkey population whereas the number of poults per hen does not show a significant trend. However, there is some decline in turkey harvest in the time period of 2002-2007. The average habitat capability is relatively stable and slightly above the Revised Forest Plan projection.
Pileated woodpecker: Population trend and habitat capability data are mixed. The Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a slight downward trend of –0.6 % for the period of 1966 – 2006 for the Ozark-Ouachita Plateau but more recent data for the period of 1980- 2006 shows an upward trend of +1.3 %. The Phase II research data on the occurrence and abundance of the Pileated woodpecker within pine and pine-hardwood forest types indicate an upward trend for the pine and pine-hardwood types on the Forest. The current population density and habitat capability exceed the Forest Plan population objectives. The Pileated woodpecker and its habitat appear to be secure within the Forest.
Scarlet tanager: The Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a nonsignificant increasing trend of + 1.2 % for the period of 1966 – 2006, and + 3.3 % for the time period of 1980 – 2006 for the Ozark-Ouachita Plateau, and a nonsignificant decline of –0.1% throughout its range survey-wide. Data are supporting a conclusion of a nonsignificant increasing population trend within the Ozark-Ouachita Plateau where mature hardwood and mixed
Page 31 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal types are represented. The scarlet tanager has a nonsignificant increasing population trend within the Ozark and Ouachita Plateau and is secure within its overall range.
Management Indicator Species.
The effects analysis is bound by a (an area approximately 40 ft. wide and 5,300 ft. in length), the probable area of disturbance on the private tract (approximately 40 ft. wide and 2,500 ft. in length and .5 acres for a homestead), and forest-wide trends of species.
Proposed Action (Gravel Surface) - Effects
White-tailed Deer No direct effects would be expected to occur to the white-tailed deer from any of the proposed actions. Deer are mobile animals and would be able to get out of the way of any road easement construction activities.
Negligible indirect effects would be expected to occur through project implementation. Approximately 5 acres of habitat would be removed as a result of the road construction. The graveled road would create and maintain an edge effect, but the road itself would not allow for the growth of grasses, legumes, and scattered shrubs that white-tailed deer use as a food source.
There would be minor cumulative effects expected from the implementation of the proposed project. The proposed road would cross onto private land after it leaves National Forest land, where the potential exists for the road to extend an additional 0.5 miles including the construction of a house. The total construction on private land would remove approximately 3 acres of available habitat. The construction of a graveled road could provide some edge effect, but the graveled road and the house site itself would not allow for any growth of grasses, legumes, and scattered shrubs to provide a food source for the white-tailed deer. However, this would be miniscule compared to the total district-wide habitat available to the white-tailed deer. No other projects are planned to occur within the proposed project location.
Eastern Wild Turkey Direct effects are possible to the eastern wild turkey. Road construction has the potential to directly affect turkey nests. If the construction of this road takes place during late spring and early summer it is possible that nests and eggs that are in the direct pathway of construction could be destroyed by heavy equipment. Likewise, nest disturbance from these activities could cause nest abandonment. However, the chance of a nest being in the area is slim because habitat within the proposed project area is not quality nesting habitat.
Negligible indirect effects would be expected to occur through project implementation. Approximately 5 acres of habitat would be removed as a result of the road construction. The graveled road would create and maintain an edge effect, but the easement road itself
Page 32 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal would not allow for the growth of ground cover, hardwood brush, grasses, legumes, and scattered shrubs that eastern wild turkeys use for nesting, food, and protection.
There would be minor cumulative effects expected from the implementation of the proposed project. The proposed road would cross onto private land after it leaves National Forest land, where the potential exists for the road to extend an additional 0.5 miles including the construction of a house. The total construction on private land would remove approximately 3 acres of available habitat. The construction of a graveled road could provide some edge effect, but the graveled road and the house site itself would not allow for any growth of ground covering vegetation to provide areas for nesting, food, and protection. However, this would be Negligible compared to the total district-wide habitat available to the eastern wild turkey. No other projects are planned to occur within the proposed project location.
Pileated Woodpecker Direct effects to pileated woodpeckers are possible from the proposed construction of a graveled road. Pileated woodpeckers nest in snags and road construction in the vicinity of an active nest could cause an impact. Construction equipment may knock over and remove snags containing active nests that are directly in the pathway of the proposed road. Direct effects to pileated woodpeckers would be expected to be a minimal occurrence and have negligible effects to the population.
Minor indirect effects could occur to the pileated woodpeckers. The proposed graveled road construction would remove individual standing trees, which would take these trees out of the potential foraging and/or nesting base. However, the effects of the Proposed Action on snags/cavity trees available as foraging and nesting sites for the pileated woodpecker would be expected to be minimal. There would be minor cumulative effects expected from the implementation of the proposed project. The proposed road would cross onto private land after it leaves National Forest land, where the potential exists for the road to extend an additional 0.5 miles including the construction of a house. The total construction on private land would remove approximately 3 acres of available habitat. The construction of a graveled road and house site has the potential to impact standing snags directly in the pathway causing minimal effects to potential nests and foraging sites. However, this would be Negligible compared to the total district-wide habitat available to the pileated woodpeckers. No other projects are planned to occur within the proposed project location.
Scarlet Tanager Direct effects are possible to the scarlet tanager. Graveled road construction has the potential to directly affect this species, particularly its nests. If a tree directly within the pathway of construction were cut which contains an active nest, the nest, eggs, and/or young would be destroyed. This would be expected to be a minimal occurrence. Adult birds would be expected to escape unharmed and move to undisturbed habitat, possibly re-nesting. Nest disturbance from these activities could also cause nest abandonment.
Minor indirect effects could occur to the scarlet tanagers. The proposed graveled road construction may remove individual trees, which have the potential for nesting sites.
Page 33 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
However, the effects of the proposed action on available nesting areas for the scarlet tanager would be expected to be minimal.
There would be minor cumulative effects expected from the implementation of the proposed project. The proposed road would cross onto private land after it leaves National Forest land, where the potential exists for the road to extend an additional 0.5 miles including the construction of a house. The total construction on private land would impact approximately 3 acres of available habitat. The construction of a graveled road and house site has the potential to impact trees directly in the pathway causing minimal effects to potential nests and nesting sites. However, this would be Negligible compared to the total district-wide habitat available to the scarlet tanager. No other projects are planned to occur within the proposed project location.
Species Trend Effects: The Proposed Action (graveled surface) would have no impact on the Forest-wide trends for any of these species.
Alternative A (No Action) – Effects (Management Indicator Species)
White-tailed Deer, Eastern Wild Turkey, Pileated Woodpecker and Scarlet Tanager There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to these MIS through implementation of the no action alternative. Because there would not be any activities taking place, there would be nothing to impact these species. The habitat would remain intact and continue to be available to these species on both National Forest and private land.
Species Trend Effects: The no action alternative would have no impact on the Forest- wide trends for any of these species.
Alternative B (Porous Paving Surface) – Effects (Management Indicator Species)
White-tailed Deer and Eastern Wild Turkey Direct effects for Alternative B (porous paving surface) would be the same as the proposed action (gravel surface) and would have the same effects on any of these species.
The proposed construction of 5 acres of a porous paved surface road would have slightly positive indirect effect on these species. The porous paved surface road would create and maintain an edge effect and the easement road itself would allow for the growth of planted grasses, and legumes that these species could use as a food source.
There would be minor cumulative effects expected from the implementation of the proposed project. The construction of a porous paved surface road could provide some edge effect and allow for the growth of planted grasses, and legumes. However, the house site would not allow for any growth of grasses and legumes, which would not provide a food source. This would be Negligible compared to the total district-wide habitat available to these species. No other projects are planned to occur within the proposed project location.
Page 34 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Pileated Woodpecker and Scarlet Tanager Direct, indirect and cumulative effects for Alternative B (porous paving surface) would be the same as the proposed action (gravel surface) and would have the same effects on both the pileated woodpecker and the scarlet tanager.
Species Trend Effects: The porous paving surface alternative would have no impact on the Forest-wide trends for any of these species.
Alternative C – Effects (Management Indicator Species)
There would be little or no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on these MIS through implementation of Alternative C. Habitats for these species would remain essentially intact and continue to be available to these species on both National Forest and private land.
Species Trend Effects: Alternative C would have no impact on the Forest-wide trends for any of these species.
Page 35 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Chapter 4: Persons and Agencies Consulted
Forest ID Team Dan Benefield Wildlife Biologist Bubba Brewster Civil Engineer Lisa Cline ID Team Leader Meeks Etchieson Heritage Program Manager Ron Krupa Forest Landscape Architect (now retired) Tim Oosterhous Forest Recreation Program Manager (now district ranger) Chris Ham Forest Recreation Program Manager Bill Pell Team Leader, Planning, Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Bert Pelletier Zone Archeologist Randy Sander Resource Assistant
Regional Office Review Team George Bukenhofer TES Program Manager (now retired) Deborah Caffin and Wilderness/Dispersed Recreation Specialists Jimmy Gaudry Michael Gryson and Regional Special Use Coordinators Jim Twaroski Suzanne Krieger Hydrologist Melissa Twaroski Archeologist/Heritage Program Manager
Agencies United States Fish and Wildlife Service Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory, Oklahoma Biological Survey
Page 36 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
Chapter 5: Literature Cited
Clingenpeel, J. Alan and Michael A. Crump. 2005. A manual for the Aquatic Cumulative Effects Model. Ouachita and Ozark, St. Francis National Forests.
Hall, T.E. 2001. Hikers’ perspectives on solitude and wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness 7(2):20–24.
Hendee, J.C. and C.P Dawson. 2002. Wilderness management: stewardship and protection of resources and values, third edition. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. 640 p.
Johnson, B., Hall, T. and Cole, D., (2005). Naturalness, Primitiveness, Remoteness and Wilderness: Wilderness Visitors’ Understanding and Experience of Wilderness Qualities: University of Idaho.
Landres, Peter, et al. 2008. Applying the Concept of Wilderness Character to National Forest Planning, Monitoring, and Management. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-217WWW.
Lippe, M.V. and I. Kowarik. 2006. Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as a driver of plant invasions. Conservation Biology 21: 986-996.
Roggenbuck, J.W. 2004. Managing for primitive recreation in wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness 10(3):21–24.
USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Forest Service, Southern Region, Management Bulletin R8-MB 124 A.
USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Forest Service, Southern Region, Management Bulletin R8-MB 124 B.
USDA Forest Service. 2008. A Summary and Analysis of Data pertaining to Management Indicator Species for the Ouachita National Forest. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.
Page 37 Upper Kiamichi Wilderness Private Road Construction Proposal
USDA Forest Service. 2009. Biological Evaluation of Proposed Paul Dobbs Road Easement Special Use Permit. Ouachita National Forest, Oklahoma Ranger District.
Watson, A. E., Williams, D. R., Roggenbuck, J. W, and Daigle, J. (1992). Visitor characteristics and preferences for three national forest wildernesses in the South. (USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-455, 27p). Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station.
Page 38