Draft Environmental United States Department of Assessment Agriculture Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Ozark-St. Francis National Forest Boston Mountain Ranger District Main Division

Franklin County Arkansas

Responsible Official William Dunk District Ranger Boston Mountain Ranger District

For Information Contact: Boston Mountain Ranger District 1803 North 18th St Ozark, AR 72949 Forest Service August 2016

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410;

(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or

(3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

2 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE...... 5 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 NEED FOR ACTION...... 8 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 9 DECISION FRAMEWORK ...... 15 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ISSUES ...... 15 OBJECTION OPPORTUNITIES ...... 16 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ...... 18 ALTERNATIVE 1 – PROPOSED ACTION ...... 18 ALTERNATIVE 2 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...... 27 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 31 TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS ...... 31 OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES ...... 42 Recreation ...... 42 Smallmouth Bass Fishery ...... 44 OTHER RIVER VALUES ...... 46 Scenic values ...... 46 Free-Flowing Condition ...... 47 Water Quality ...... 48 Soils, watershed, in-stream conditions and riparian corridor ...... 51 OTHER BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 53 Neotropical Migratory Birds: ...... 54 Management Indicator Species (MIS): ...... 54 OTHER SOCIAL RESOURCES ...... 67 Human Health and Safety ...... 67 HERITAGE RESOURCES ...... 69 4.0 COMPARISON OF PROJECT ANALYSIS TO MANAGEMENT GOALS ...... 72 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 74 6.0 REFERENCES ...... 75 7.0 APPENDICIES ...... 82

3 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES

TABLES Table 1. Resource Elements, Existing Condition, Desired Future Condition, and Proposed Action 14 Table 2.Summary of Road Actions in Project Area 27 Table 3. MIS Species, Habitat Requirements and Population Trends 55

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Vicinity Map 7 Figure 2. Big Eddy Access 21 Figure 3. Bibb’s Access 22 Figure 4. Coon Foot Access 23 Figure 5. Spirits Access 24 Figure 6. Blevin’s Access 25 Figure 7. Shoe Access 26 Figure 8. Transportation Network of the Project Area from 2015 Motor Vehicle Use Map. 33 Figure 9. Existing user-created parking area at Blevin’s Access Site in December 2012. 34 Figure 10. Illegal OHV use within the channel of the Mulberry River at Blevin’s Access near Spirits Creek 35 Figure 11. View from the Mulberry River of Coon Foot Access site in December 2012. 36 Figure 12. Coon Foot Access near turnoff from Royal Oak Road at FSR 95758C facing west in December 2012. 36 Figure 13. Channelized road leading to Mulberry River at Bibb’s Access Site (March 2013). 37 Figure 14. Road at Bibb’s Access looking north on FDR 95758D in December 2012. 38 Figure 15. Parking Area at Bibb’s Access in December 2012. 38 Figure 16. Mulberry River at Big Eddy (2010). 39 Figure 17. Access Road into Big Eddy, looking toward Shore’s Lake Road. 40 Figure 18. Dispersed camping site at Big Eddy. 40 Figure 19. Disturbed area and unauthorized opening at Big Eddy (2011). 41 Figure 20.Channelized section of corridor downstream of Big Eddy probably created in the 1920s for agriculture. 51

4 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION

DOCUMENT STRUCTURE

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. The EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that would result from the proposed action, and alternative to the proposed action. The document is organized into six sections:

1.0: Introduction: This section includes detailed information about the purpose and need for the project, an overview of the Forest Service’s proposal that addresses the purpose and need, and a summary of the public involvement process.

2.0: Comparison of Alternatives: This section describes the proposed action alternative in detail and provides alternatives to the proposal. The section also includes design criteria, or mitigation measures that are taken to reduce or prevent potential adverse effects of an action.

3.0: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: In this section the potential environmental impacts of each of the alternatives are examined. The section is organized by the environmental resource being examined. Throughout the Environmental Assessment there are references to project area and analysis area. • Project area is the area where work would be performed such as the locations for the proposed river access sites. • Analysis area describes the area of influence of an activity for a particular resource. This varies depending on the resource being discussed. For example, the analysis area for aquatic species effects analysis would include the waters within the project area as well as the waters downstream that might be impacted by project activities.

4.0: Comparison of Project Analysis to Management Goals: This section compares the analysis in Chapter three to management goals as prescribed by the Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (1996).

5.0: Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

6.0: References: This section provides a list of references and data sources used in the analysis.

7.0: Appendices: The appendices include larger maps with more detail and other information used to support the analysis presented in the EA.

5 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

INTRODUCTION

Description of the Area

In 1992 the Mulberry River was designated as a Wild and Scenic River by Congress. The area encompassing the Mulberry River Corridor (excluding private inholdings) is managed by the Forest Service to enhance and protect the outstandingly remarkable values and unique qualities of the river and its surroundings. The corridor lands under Forest Service jurisdiction are managed to provide recreation opportunities within the capability of the resources, protect the free-flowing condition of the river, and preserve and enhance values for which the river was designated.

The Mulberry River is a free flowing river originating in the Ozarks south of Fallsville and flowing south westerly through the Ozark National Forest (Figure 1) to its confluence with the Arkansas River south of Mulberry, Arkansas. It drains a total of 367 square miles inside the forest boundary. On the Boston Mountain Ranger District the Mulberry River flows for over 17 miles from Highway 23 at Turner Bend to the Forest Proclamation boundary south of Fern about seven miles upstream of its confluence with the Arkansas River. The project area is the corridor within the Boston Mountain Ranger District that encompasses the land around the Mulberry River. This totals 9545 acres less 1442 acres of private property inside the corridor for a total of 8103 acres of Forest Service Wild and Scenic River corridor.

Recreation and the smallmouth bass fishery are the two outstandingly remarkable values identified for the Mulberry River. The primary recreation activities are floating/canoeing, camping, fishing and swimming.

6 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 1. Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Vicinity Map

7 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project NEED FOR ACTION

The Boston Mountain Ranger District of the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, USDA Forest Service is proposing to designate access areas on Forest Service lands within the Mulberry River Wild and Scenic River corridor in Franklin County, Arkansas. These proposed actions are referred to as the Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project.

Managed access points on the Mulberry River would contribute toward an ongoing cooperation among the Forest Service, landowners, state and local representatives, educators, and other knowledgeable people who care about the Mulberry River Corridor to preserve our heritage and maintain a safe and healthy environment on the river.

Recreation and Road Access Recreational use of the Mulberry River has steadily grown over the past thirty years. This is in part due to the proximity of Fayetteville and Fort Smith. The Fayetteville – Spingdale – Rogers and Fort Smith Metropolitan Statistical Areas, from which the majority of the users originate, are the second and third largest in the state with a combined population of approximately 780,000 ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_metropolitan_areas (accessed 8 July 2015)). Visitation to the project area continues to increase annually.

There are eight commonly used access points on National Forest lands upstream of State Highway 23 and six below. The Mulberry River Assessment (2010) recommends four additional access points to address safety concerns and alleviate congestion during peak usage when general public access burdens private access points.

The Mulberry River Corridor today is suffering from intensive unmanaged use. A hodge- podge of dispersed campsites, user-created trails and litter are increasingly common. A key source of watershed disturbance is from the proliferation of user-created trails in the corridor. Often times the river bed is used as a transportation corridor by off- highway vehicles (OHVs) during low flows. These uses cause resource damage to riparian areas, change the structure and stability of channel reaches and increase erosion resulting in the deposition of excess sediment into the Mulberry River.

The Big Eddy dispersed area, among the most popular destinations for campers and floaters, is a highly visible example of an unmanaged area. Degraded resource conditions including bare, exposed ground bereft of vegetation, compacted soils, user-created trails, and erosion are common features in this section of the corridor. Other unmanaged areas used for camping/picnicking, and/or vehicle parking along the river corridor are present near Blevin’s, Coon Foot, and Bibb’s Accesses.

Conditions within the corridor have deteriorated from the time when the river was designated in 1992 and will continue to decline without managed access for the public.

8 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project The Forest Service is mandated by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect the resources. The designation and improvement of existing access areas are needed to provide safe and well defined areas for visitor access to the river within the corridor. This will also protect and preserve the outstandingly remarkable values for which the Mulberry River was designated for generations to come.

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

The Revised Land and Resources Management Plan (RLRMP) for the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests (hereafter referred to as the Forest Plan) sets the overall guidance for managing the land and resources of the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. This document is available on the web at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm8_042809.pdf The Management Area inside the Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project is 1.C. Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. This management area is managed to enhance and protect the outstandingly remarkable values and unique qualities of each river and its surroundings. The rivers will be preserved in a free-flowing condition for the benefit, use, and enjoyment of present and future generations. Priorities and standards for the project area are as follows:

Priorities (RLRMP 2-39)

o Manage designated wild and scenic river sections to perpetuate their free- flowing condition and designated classifications, and to protect and enhance their outstandingly remarkable values and water quality.

o Manage designated wild and scenic rivers according to their Comprehensive River Management Plan.

o Review public access needs.

Standards (RLRMP 3-23, 3-24)

• MA1.C.-1 Any project proposals which could affect a Wild and Scenic River will be evaluated against the appropriate river’s management plan to assure that the proposal does not conflict with characteristics or classification which qualified the river for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System.

• MA1.C.-2 No management activities will be proposed that may compromise the outstandingly remarkable value(s), potential classification, or free- flowing character until designated or released from consideration.

9 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project • MA1.C.-3 A management plan is completed and followed for all Wild and Scenic Rivers. (Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Management Plan (1996)).

• MA1.C.-19 Ensure new wildlife or fish habitat improvements contribute to maintaining or improving the outstandingly remarkable values.

• MA1.C.-24 Motorized vehicles may only cross at designated crossings. They may not travel up and down the river channel.

The actions proposed were developed as part of a multi-year analysis to look beyond the immediate demands of the few to anticipate the interests and needs of future generations as well as to address the needs of the area based on current conditions and on the goals and standards established by the Forest Plan. The interdisciplinary team proposing these actions consists of foresters, biologists, archaeologists, a recreation specialist, engineering technician, and fire management officers. The environmental analysis of this project is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Forest Plan.

In accordance with section three of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Ozark National Forest developed a Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Management Plan (1996) (available at: http://www.rivers.gov/documents/plans/mulberry-plan.pdf ) that provides direction for managing the forest lands within corridor boundaries. The Forest also has a Mulberry River Assessment (2010) that evaluated the then current conditions to help determine needs for the Mulberry River Corridor within the Pleasant Hill and Boston Mountain Ranger Districts. These documents are part of the project file and available for review at the district office.

The Forest coordinates with the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas Forestry Commission, Arkansas Department of Health, Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and Arkansas Natural and Scenic Rivers Commission, to assess and prevent future impacts to the water quality of the Mulberry River.

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: In April 1992, Congress designated six Wild and Scenic Rivers on the Ozark National Forest, including the Mulberry River. The act requires that the corridor sufficiently protect the outstandingly remarkable values which caused the stream to be included in the wild and scenic river system.

Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act directs us to protect designated rivers from the harmful effects of water resources projects. It requires evaluation of federally assisted water resources projects and a determination by the river-administering agency. The Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council’s Wild and Scenic

10 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Rivers Act: Section 7 technical report (2004) defines terms, provides an interpretation of the standards in this provision, and includes suggested procedures to evaluate the effects of proposed water resources projects.

The flowchart from the Wild and Scenic Rivers website http://www.rivers.gov/documents/section7/process-flowchart.pdf describes the analysis level required for evaluating different types of projects both within and outside of wild and scenic corridors. The Forest Service is directed to use applicable parts of Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic River Act to determine if the proposed actions would result in indirect effects that invade the corridor, or unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreation, or fish and wildlife values present. The USDA Forest Service is the federal agency responsible for the evaluation. However, because this project is not proposing any action that would affect the free flowing characteristics defined as “existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprapping, or other modification of the waterway (within the ordinary high watermark of the main river)” a written evaluation is not required.

The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology determined the beneficial uses for which the water quality of the rivers should be maintained and protected. For the Mulberry River, these uses are fisheries, primary contact recreation, and public, industrial and agricultural water supply.

The demand for Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) riding opportunities has increased dramatically across the nation in recent years. In recognition of the fact that one of the key threats facing the nation’s forests today is unmanaged recreation, especially natural resource impacts from OHVs, the Forest Service, including the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, implemented the 2005 Travel Management Rule (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf). All national forests are required to designate which roads, trails, and areas (where appropriate) are suitable for off-highway vehicle use by publishing Motorized Vehicle Use Maps (MVUMs). These maps identify designated routes that provide a variety of opportunities for Off Road Vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts across the Forests. The National Travel Management Rule defines OHVs as “any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain.” The national policy applies to all classes of motor vehicles except aircraft, watercraft and over-snow vehicles. This includes 4-wheelers, 3-wheelers, dirt bikes and utility vehicles (UTVs) such as mules or Rangers.

Public involvement is an important part of the on-going analysis of roads, routes and trails in updating and changing the route system. The MVUM is expected to be revised and published in April of each year. The most current maps are posted to the web or are available at no charge at the nearest Forest Service office. The most current Boston Mountain Ranger District map is online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5422432.pdf.

11 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

OHV use is also regulated by state laws. This applies to roads not under Forest Service jurisdiction. It is the rider’s responsibility to comply with these regulations. The following statutes in the Arkansas Traffic Law manual covers OHVs: 27-21-102, 27-21- 103, 27-21-105, 27-21-106, 27-21-107, and 27-21-108. (https://www.arkansashighways.com/act300/AR%20Motor%20Veh%2011E.pdf)

The Endangered Species Act (1973): Authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; requires federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat. Section 7(a) (1) of the act identifies the affirmative conservation duties of agencies and requires all federal agencies to carry out programs aimed at recovery of listed species.

Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations, selection of management indicator species (MIS) during development of forest plans is required. MIS are selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities. They are used during planning to help compare effects of alternatives and as a focus for monitoring. Where appropriate, MIS represent the following groups of species (36 CFR 219.19 [a] [1]):

 Threatened and endangered species on state and federal lists  Species with special habitat needs  Species commonly hunted, fished or trapped  Non-game species of special interest  Species selected to indicate effects on other species of selected major biological communities. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Additionally, federal agencies are required to follow the implementing regulations of the ACHP set forth in 36 CFR Part 800. Specifically, 36 CFR Part 800 requires that State Historic Preservation Offices and federally-recognized Tribes be consulted about any undertaking that has the potential to affect historic properties and/or properties of religious or cultural significance at the earliest possible stage in the planning process. Protocols for cultural resource reviews, surveys, and reporting are specified by a Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the U.S. Forest Service, relevant federally-recognized Tribes, and State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) of Arkansas and Oklahoma, signed in 2006 and extended in 2011, 2012, and 2013.

12 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project The Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) , Sec. 2 [16 U.S.C, 529] directs the Secretary of Agriculture to "develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the several products and services obtained therefrom. "In the administration of the national forests due consideration shall be given to the relative values of the various resources in particular areas." The intent of the Act is for the Forest Service to provide a broad array of natural resource uses and outputs, while protecting the land and resource base, in this case the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Mulberry Wild & Scenic River. The fishery is managed by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, but the Forest Service has oversight responsibility and an obligation to "protect and enhance" the resources. Emphasis is placed on providing and protecting quality fishing experiences and the unique fish habitats managed by the Forest Service. The agency manages the fisheries component of the Mulberry River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976.

13 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Table 1. Resource Elements, Existing Condition, Desired Future Condition, and Proposed Action Resource Element Existing Condition Desired Condition Proposed Action • Quality recreation experiences, • Gating and increased public blocking and/or • Illegal user- safety rehabilitating created trails are • Increased scenic illegal trails to threatening forest integrity of landscape protect integrity resources • of Wild and Recreation and Recreation Fisheries protected Scenic Corridor • OHV use on as extraordinary some roads resource values • Designate roads presents safety • as open to all hazard Vehicle use patterns comply with vehicles or

designated managed highway access routes and vehicles only. parking areas • Riparian corridors • Gates and • Parts of the intact and stable blocking riparian corridor • Vehicle use patterns structures to Wildlife are deteriorating comply with protect corridors due to illegal designated managed • Rehabilitate OHV use access routes and user-created parking areas open areas • Corridor has the minimal trail and/or road system needed to access the river • Closure and • Vehicle use patterns obliteration of • User created comply with user-created trails in corridor designated managed Watershed trails. run along and access routes and • Designate within channel parking areas managed • Develop a culture of access points responsible use through managed access to designated areas • Pave up to two and a half miles of Shores Lake Road West of Highway 23 • Road • Users have safe and maintenance legal access that is in • Construction line with sustainable and/or • Existing illegal activities compatible reconstruction user-created with Wild and Scenic of existing Roads/ access areas are River designation access areas Access not sustainable • Vehicle use patterns • Close and for watershed comply with rehabilitate resources designated managed illegal roads and access routes and trails parking areas • Construct or convert suitable existing open areas used for access into defined access areas.

14 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project DECISION FRAMEWORK

The decision to be made is to approve the management activities as proposed, defer all activities until another time, approve portions of the proposed alternative, require additional information from the Interdisciplinary Team if the information presented is not adequate to make a decision, or require the development of an Environmental Impact Statement or other National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ISSUES

Scoping is defined by the National Environmental Policy Act as “an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed, and for identifying the issues related to a proposed action.” Scoping continues throughout project planning and analysis. The key issues associated with this project were identified through this public scoping process, which included input from Forest Service specialists, other government agencies, and private individuals.

In September 2010 the district first released an information package for this project proposing two alternatives for a put-in location on the Mulberry River. Site one was below the Highway 23 Bridge on the west side of the river in the small game area. Site two was located further downstream at the “Big Eddy” dispersed recreation location off Shore’s Lake Road. Most of the people who responded were in favor of some kind of access on Highway 23.

We analyzed the possible alternatives with due consideration of public input (including adjacent land owners) which was overwhelmingly in favor of an access on Highway 23. After re-surveying the ownership of lands in the corridor the Forest Service was unable to consider a Highway 23 alternative because its jurisdiction is along the west side of the river only. Forest Service ownership does not go to the center line of the river in that area and therefore there is no legal entry to install a river access at that location.

In June 2013 another information packet describing the proposed actions analyzed in this assessment was made available to the public. Over three hundred letters describing the project were mailed to local landowners and businesses as well as tribal governments, groups, and organizations with interest in the Mulberry River. The Forest Service also hosted an open house in August 2013 in which people were given an opportunity to ask questions and give their input on the opportunities and problems associated with providing access to a diverse range of people in balance with the total recreation and other resource capability of the Mulberry River Corridor. We received seventeen comments on the proposal which are a part of the project file and may be viewed at the district office.

Most of the concerns people had about the project involved conflicts between landowners and campers over trespass and litter, the ‘right’ to motorized access

15 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project through and along the corridor versus concerns about resource damage caused by OHV users, concern that promoting access on the south side of the river would increase traffic disturbing local residents, concerns about blocking previously used access to traditional spots along the corridor and safety of floaters. The Forest hosted an open house meeting in March of 2013 to address these concerns and explain the details of the proposal.

We believe the proposed actions best address these multiple and often conflicting concerns. The reality is that over the last thirty years increasing resource impacts, growing use trends, and social conflicts have been occurring more frequently and are endangering the values for which the Mulberry was designated as a Wild and Scenic River. It is reasonable to expect that conditions will not improve without taking appropriate timely management actions directed at addressing these issues. We hope to facilitate a culture of awareness and responsibility of diverse publics to preserve the valuable natural resources that the Mulberry River provides.

OBJECTION OPPORTUNITIES

This project is subject to administrative review under 36 CFR 218 Project-Level Pre- decisional Administrative Review Process, Parts A and B.

The legal notice of the availability of this document in the Southwest Times Record (the newspaper of record for projects on the Boston Mountain Ranger District of the Ozark National Forest) starts the 30-day Notice and Comment period. Specific written comments about this project as defined by 36 CFR 218.2 should be within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the district ranger to consider. It is the responsibility of all individuals and organizations to ensure that their comments are received in a timely manner.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however we will not be able to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.

An objection period, if required, will follow the regulation found in 36 CFR 218.7. For objection eligibility (36 CFR 218.5), only those who have submitted timely, specific written comments during any designated opportunity for public comment may file an objection. Issues to be raised in objections must be based on previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project and attributed to the objector, unless the issue is based on new information that arose after a designated opportunity to comment (36CFR 218.8(c)).

16 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Our mailing address is: U.S. Forest Service, 1803 N 18th Street, Ozark, AR 72949. You may also call, or email your comments to: comments-southern-ozark-stfrancis- [email protected]. Please state “Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project” in the subject line when providing electronic comments, or on the envelope when replying by mail. If you have questions on this environmental, the proposal or the analysis decision process, please call William Dunk, district ranger, at 479-667-2191.

17 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project 2.0 ALTERNATIVES

This section presents a detailed description of the proposed action and the no action alternative. The proposed action alternative was developed by the Interdisciplinary Team of specialists in response to issues and opportunities identified in the area.

ALTERNATIVE 1 – PROPOSED ACTION

Over the past six years the Forest Service has developed a set of actions to meet the need in this area for managed access and protection of the resources of the Mulberry River so that future generations may continue to enjoy it. We have identified key points along the river where management actions would do the most good in achieving recreational access while protecting resources and providing for public safety.

Managing the river corridor to protect and preserve the outstandingly remarkable values (recreation and smallmouth bass fishery) for which the river was designated is a priority in the Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Corridor. In order to achieve this, healthy forests and watersheds, diversity of plant and animal species, safe and suitable access to the forest, a balance of traditional and emerging recreational opportunities, and continued local economic support are the long-term goals which we believe this proposed action would accomplish.

RIVER ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

The project proposal includes six potential access locations listed in order from upstream to downstream: Big Eddy, Bibb’s Access (Jethro), Coon Foot Access (Anvil), Spirits Creek, Blevin’s Access (Black Gold), and Shoe (Wilson Lane) (Figures 2-7).

Big Eddy Access

• Construct a river access site by converting an existing open area (at old rock crusher site) currently used as an undeveloped parking area into defined graveled parking area (0.7 acres-south parking) with barriers such as fencing, large boulders and/or gates. • Construct road from FSR 1501 to existing open area (old rock crusher site). • Construct a loading and unloading loop road originating at rock crusher site parking area by converting existing old road templates into Forest Service level 2 system roads linked to Forest Service Road 1501A (0.4 miles). This loop will be for drop off and pick up access. • Reconstruct/relocate existing old road template leading to Big Eddy pool area and construct a defined graveled parking area (0.6 acres-north parking). Install barriers such as fencing, large boulders and/or gates around parking area.

18 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project • Install vault style restroom as funding allows. • Rehabilitate and/or armor existing footpaths leading to river from parking areas. • Decommission and/or rehabilitate all other user-created roads, trails, or open areas associated with this access area. • Reconstruct and pave 2.5 miles of Shores Lake Road (FDR 1501) from Highway 23 to the west.

Bibb’s Access

• Construct a river access site by converting two existing open areas currently used as undeveloped parking areas into defined graveled parking areas (0.3 acres each totaling 0.6 acres) with barriers such as fencing, large boulders, and/or gates. • Reconstruct and maintain existing roads (FSR 95758F and 95758D). These roads and parking areas would be designated as open to all vehicles. • Rehabilitate and/or armor existing footpaths leading to the river from parking areas. • Decommission and/or rehabilitate all other user-created roads, trails, or open areas associated with this access area.

Coon Foot Access

• Construct a river access site by converting one existing open are currently used as an undeveloped parking area into a defined graveled parking area (0.5 acres) with barriers such as fencing, large boulders, and/or gates. • Rehabilitate and/or armor existing footpaths leading to the river from parking areas. • Reconstruct and maintain existing road (FSR 95758D) leading to parking area. This road and parking area would be designated as open to all vehicles. • Rehabilitate and armor existing footpath leading to the river. • Decommission and/or rehabilitate all other user-created roads, trails, or open areas associated with these accesses.

Spirits Access

• Construct a river access site by converting one existing open area currently used as an undeveloped parking area into defined graveled parking area (0.6 acres) with barriers such as fencing, large boulders, and/or gates. • Reconstruct and relocate a portion of the existing road (FSR 1501C) leading to parking area. This road and parking area would be designated as open to highway vehicles only. • Rehabilitate and/or armor existing footpath leading to the river from parking areas. • Decommission and/or rehabilitate all other user-created roads, trails, or open areas associated with this access point.

19 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Blevin’s Access

• Construct a river access site by converting one existing open area currently used as an undeveloped parking area (0.6 acres) and reconstructing one existing gas well pad (0.6 acres - no longer in use) into defined graveled parking areas with barriers such as fencing, large boulders, and/or gates. • Install vault style restroom as funding allows. • Reconstruct FSR 95758A. • Forest Service Roads 4504 and 95758A would be designated as open to all vehicles. • Rehabilitate and/or armor existing footpaths leading to the river from parking areas. • Decommission and/or rehabilitate all other user created roads, trails, or open areas associated with this access point.

Shoe Access

• Construct a river access site by converting an existing open area into defined graveled parking area (0.5 acres) with barriers such as fencing, large boulders and/or gates. • Reconstruct a portion of Forest Service Road 95431H. • Construct a loading and unloading loop road originating at parking area by extending Forest Service Road 94531H. This loop will be for drop off or pick up access. • Install vault style restroom as funding allows. • Rehabilitate and/or armor footpath leading to river from drop-off loop. • Decommission and/or rehabilitate all other user created roads, trails, or open areas associated with this access.

20 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 2. Big Eddy Access

21 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 3. Bibb’s Access

22 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 4. Coon Foot Access 23 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 5. Spirits Access 24 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 6. Blevin’s Access

25 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 7. Shoe Access

26 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Table two shows a summary of roads actions in the project area. For a more detailed listing of roads and access see appendix A.

Table 2. Summary of Road Actions in Project Area

Activity Miles

Decommissioning 21.51 Reconstruction/relocation 7.75 New Construction 0.57 Close 3.52

ALTERNATIVE 2 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

This alternative proposes no activity that would move the area toward the desired conditions described in the Forest Plan. No resource activities would be carried out. Routine management outside the scope of the proposed actions would continue at the present level including road maintenance, fire protection, timber management, and law enforcement.

MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS & MITIGATION MEASURES (DESIGN CRITERIA)

Design criteria are an integral part of the action alternative and serve to minimize the impacts of activities on natural resources. In addition to best management practices (BMPs) and legal requirements, these measures will be applied during implementation. The design criteria will apply to the action alternative.

Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), management plans are central to agency management because they define the methods and levels of protection for river Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs), and conversely the levels of use and development that river ORVs can tolerate. Section 10(a) of the WSRA requires an administering agency to manage each congressionally designated component of the National System in a manner that protects and enhances the river’s ORV for which it was designated. The administering agency has broad discretion to manage recreation activities and type of use so as to achieve the desired recreation experience and protect and enhance ORVs. This discretion may include restricting or prohibiting a recreational activity, a number of recreational activities or, perhaps in rare circumstances, all recreation use within a section (subsection) of the designated component. Through the institution of restrictions or prohibitions in certain sections of the river, the administering agency may balance recreation uses of the river corridor to protect and enhance all ORVs, preserve free-flowing conditions, and protect water quality. Any limitations need to be based on achieving the desired conditions for recreation and

27 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project protection and enhancement of the ORVs, preservation of the free-flowing condition, and the protection of water quality.

Some of the standards and guidelines applicable to this project are summarized below. This list is not all-inclusive. The documents referred to should be referenced for a complete list. Applicable standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan, the Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Management Plan (1996), and the mitigation measures and management requirements of the Best Management Practices (BMP) Guidelines for Water Quality Protection (Arkansas Forestry Commission 2002) would be applied as appropriate for this project.

Recreation Management - Scenic And Recreational Segments standards (S) and guidelines (G) (Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Management Plan, 1996). [S] - Developed recreation areas managed in accordance with forestwide "Developed Recreation Areas" standards. [S] - Facility development reflects Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for River Management – USDA Forest Service-2003). Trails - Scenic Segments (Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Management Plan, 1996). [S] - New motorized trails prohibited within the corridor. [G] - New non-motorized trails permitted if they meet objectives for the Wild and Scenic River and the specified outstandingly remarkable values.

Trails - Recreational Segments (Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Management Plan, 1996). [G] - New motorized and/or non-motorized trails may be allowed if they meet objectives for the Wild and Scenic River and the specified outstandingly remarkable values.

Watershed/Soils - Scenic and Recreational Segments (Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Management Plan, 1996).

[G] - Limit stream channel and bank improvements to protection of life, property, and outstandingly remarkable values. Use materials for rehabilitation work that meet the ROS classification.

Wildlife/Fisheries/Riparian areas - Scenic Segments (Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Management Plan, 1996). [S] - Ensure new wildlife or fish habitat improvements contribute to maintaining or improving the outstandingly remarkable values. [G] - Maintain existing wildlife and fish habitat improvements that do not conflict with the objectives for that river segment.

Wildlife/Fisheries/Riparian areas - Recreational Segments (Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Management Plan, 1996). [G] - Provide habitat attracting wildlife and fisheries compatible with human activity.

28 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project [G] - Maintain existing wildlife and fish habitat improvements that do not conflict with the objectives for that river segment.

Transportation/Access - Scenic and Recreational Segments (Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Management Plan, 1996). [S] - Motorized vehicles may only cross at designated crossings. They may not travel up and down the river channel. [G] - Maintain or reconstruct existing roads serving private land and those authorized for National Forest Management. Manage existing National Forest roads and proposed new construction to protect and enhance the river corridor.

29 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Heritage Resources

Protection Measures for Historic Properties - Action Alternative The following measures only apply to cultural resource sites that are unevaluated, eligible for listing, or listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

Site Avoidance during Project Implementation Mitigation measures include establishing clearly defined site boundaries and buffers around archeological sites where activities that might result in disturbance and routing proposed activities away from historic properties. Buffers would be of sufficient size to ensure that site integrity is not compromised.

Other Protection Measures If it is not feasible or desirable to avoid an historic property that may be harmed by a project activity, then the following steps would be taken: (1) In consultation with the Arkansas SHPO, the site(s) would be evaluated against NRHP significance criteria (36 CFR 60.4) to determine eligibility for the NRHP. The evaluation may require subsurface site testing (2) In consultation with the Arkansas SHPO, relevant federally-recognized Tribes, and if required with the ACHP, mitigation measures would be developed to minimize the disturbance effects on the site (3) The agreed-upon mitigation measures would be implemented prior to initiation of activities having the potential to affect the site.

Discovery of Cultural Resources during Project Implementation Although cultural resources surveys were designed to locate all NRHP eligible archeological sites and components, these may go undetected for a variety of reasons. Should unrecorded cultural resources be discovered, activities that may be affecting that resource would halt immediately; the resource would be evaluated by an archaeologist, and consultation would be initiated with the SHPO, tribes and nations, and the ACHP, to determine appropriate actions for protecting the resource and mitigating disturbance. Project activities at that locale would not resume until the resource is adequately protected and until agreed-upon mitigation measures are implemented with SHPO approval.

30 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS

The Forest Transportation System is defined as the system of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and airfields on National Forest System lands (36 CFR 212.1). System roads are the roads that the Forest Service has determined are necessary for public access to National Forest land or are needed to administer the National Forest. Maintenance levels are defined by the USDA Forest Service Handbook (FSH) as the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific road. System Roads are maintained at 5 levels, as described in FSH 7709.58:

Road maintenance level 5. Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These roads are normally double-lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. The appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.”

Road maintenance level 4. Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The most appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.” However, the “prohibit” strategy may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times.

Road maintenance level 3. Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in standard passenger cars. User comfort and convenience are low priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts, and spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either “encourage” or “accept.” “Discourage” or “prohibit” strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users.

Road maintenance level 2. Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high-clearance vehicles.

Road maintenance level 1. Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to

31 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are “prohibit” and “eliminate.”

Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class or construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for non-motorized uses.

Maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads are passenger roads that are regularly maintained. Maintenance level 2 roads are normally logging roads that are maintained when needed, and typically maintenance is included in timber contracts to accommodate high clearance vehicles.

Existing Conditions The area is readily accessible to publics travelling along the scenic byway of Highway 23 at Turner Bend and locals from the Cass community. Forest Development Road 1501 (Shores Lake Road) and State Highway 215 provide access to the river for approximately 29 miles. State Highway 215 stretches from about three miles below the river's head to Arkansas Highway 23 at Turner's Bend.

There are no designated (Off Highway Vehicle) OHV trails within the corridor on National Forest lands. Despite this, there are numerous unauthorized user created trails, utilizing pipeline and power line rights-of-ways, closed roads, and stream beds. The cumulative impact of many OHV users in the watershed is having a negative impact on water quality, scenic value, riparian habitat and instream habitat in the wild and scenic corridor. For further information on road status before and after project implementation see appendix A. in this document.

32 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 8. Transportation Network of the Project Area from 2015 Motor Vehicle Use Map.

33 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project The Shoe access location is the most downstream access point in the Mulberry Watershed Improvement and Access Project. The road leading into it, FDR 95431H is of native materials (dirt) and very rough. Several user-created access roads run along the corridor in this area.

The Blevin’s Access features two very large unarmored open areas (Figure 6). One area about an acre in size was the site of an FBI investigation in 2010 and was cleared of vegetation. The area was replanted in pines in 2013 but this has since been destroyed by unauthorized OHV access through the area. OHV users often ford the river from here and adjacent riverfront private property to get to the Spirits Creek Access site on the north side of the Mulberry River (Figure 7).

Figure 9. Existing user-created parking area at Blevin’s Access Site in December 2012.

34 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 10. Illegal OHV use within the channel of the Mulberry River at Blevin’s Access near Spirits Creek

The Coon Foot Access location (also known as Anvil Hole) (Figures 8 and 9) is a popular dispersed site with locals. The site is bare ground in most locations. A large boulder in the parking area has been sprayed with graffiti as of March of 2013.

35 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 11. View from the Mulberry River of Coon Foot Access site in December 2012.

Figure 12. Coon Foot Access near turnoff from Royal Oak Road at FSR 95758C facing west in December 2012.

36 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Bibb’s Access, another popular access location, contains a number of unauthorized user-created trails; including, a channelized trail leading directly into the river which, when saturated, deposits excess sediment (Figure 10). The user-created road leading into the site is dirt-based and not well maintained (Figure 11). Similarly the parking area is bare ground and not armored (Figure 12).

Figure 13. Channelized road leading to Mulberry River at Bibb’s Access Site (March 2013).

37 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 14. Road at Bibb’s Access looking north on FDR 95758D in December 2012.

Figure 15. Parking Area at Bibb’s Access in December 2012.

38 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project The Big Eddy site is near several paths through the corridor which have been widened by unauthorized vehicle use. One of these roads was gated in a previous project and the opening in the corridor was turned into a wildlife food plot. During low flows, vehicles have been observed parking within the channel on the gravel beds in Figure 13. Access roads that lead to Big Eddy are typically bare ground and cross small tributaries (Figure 14). Dispersed camping consists of bare areas with informal fire rings (Figure 15).

Figure 16. Mulberry River at Big Eddy (2010).

39 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 17. Access Road into Big Eddy, looking toward Shore’s Lake Road.

Figure 18. Dispersed camping site at Big Eddy.

40 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 19. Disturbed area and unauthorized opening at Big Eddy (2011).

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: The conversion of bare disturbed landings into graveled parking areas as well as reconditioning of roads in the vicinity of Big Eddy, Spirits Creek, Bibb’s, Coon Foot, and Blevin’s Accesses, would enhance reliable and safe access to the river. Paving the first section of Shore’s Lake road from Highway 23 to Big Eddy would likely lead to an increase in some traffic from scenic drivers. The access areas would need to be maintained to facilitate year-round access to river sites and protect resource values. Road maintenance and construction activities would be needed to improve access for a variety of uses while protecting the river's values.

Activities would include, but not be limited to, clearing of incidental vegetation in already disturbed areas, removing stumps, placing and compacting fill, spot gravel, and placement of aggregate rock material on road surfaces to prevent rutting.

Cumulative effects: By implementing these actions we would be encouraging the creation of a culture of shared responsibility to ensure that the outstandingly remarkable values for which the Mulberry River was designated would be preserved for current and future generations.

Limiting unauthorized motorized travel would reduce displacement, erosion, rutting, gullying, and resulting sediment caused by repeated off-road recreational riding.

41 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Likewise, a reduction in the miles of user-created roads would decrease sediment and run-off caused from these features.

Over time, user created roads would decrease resulting in a more reliable and sustainable transportation and access network in the Mulberry River corridor. The decommissioning of redundant user created roads and bare spaces would help restore the corridor to a more natural functioning riparian area capable of filtering water, providing wildlife habitat, and maintaining stability and productivity of area soils. The Spirits Project, expected to be implemented in 2016, would help augment this effect on the riparian area by the closing of an unauthorized road running parallel to a Forest Service Road that accesses Spirits Creek at the Mulberry River.

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: User-created parking areas at access points along the Mulberry River and the roads that lead to them would become less reliable due to lack of design and durability and not meet the needs of the public. Overland flows over unarmored openings would increase the potential for erosion of riparian corridor soils. This could lead to increased sedimentation within the Mulberry River.

Cumulative effects: Over the past thirty years recreational use of the river has steadily grown. This has been reflected in the proliferation of unauthorized or otherwise illegal roads, trails, camping and parking areas created by river users over the years. These unmanaged features would have increasing potential to become unsafe and would continue to lead to resource damage such as erosion and sedimentation, water quality and wildlife and fisheries habitat degradation, and vegetation loss. There is no reason to suppose this trend would not continue if management actions are not taken now to correct this.

OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES

Recreation and the smallmouth bass fishery are the two outstandingly remarkable values identified for the Mulberry River. The primary recreation activities are floating/canoeing, camping, fishing and swimming. In 1995, the Mulberry River was given "Quality Stream" status by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) based on the occurrence of at least 200 smallmouth bass per river mile. The Mulberry River is one of only nine streams in Arkansas to be selected for an outstanding smallmouth bass fishery.

Recreation

Existing Condition Recreational use of the river has steadily grown over the past thirty years. Recreational use, as related to the river corridor, includes: floating/canoeing, kayaking, swimming, camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, illegal off-highway vehicle driving, bird watching, and

42 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project scenic driving. Most water-related use occurs between the canoe launch points: Little Mulberry, Wolf Pen, High Bank, Redding, Big Eddy, and Campbell Cemetery on National Forest lands; and Byrd's, Turner Bend, and Wayfarer's on private land.

Based on information from local permitted outfitter-guides, about half of the people who float the Mulberry River bring their own boats or canoes. The rest of the users rent canoes from outfitters on the river. The Forest Service has not yet established any use restrictions on the river. Outfitters are permitted to rent as many canoes or boats as demand allows. Use is regulated by: water level, number of rental boats and canoes available, and number of available parking places available at access points. Use potentially occurs during almost every month throughout the year with peak use from March through May.

The 36 miles upper section of the Mulberry from ... to Big Eddy Hollow is classified as recreational. The section of the Mulberry River from Big Eddy downstream to the Forest boundary (19.4 miles) is classified as scenic. Recreational river areas are readily accessible by road or railroad, may have some shoreline development, and may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. They provide outstanding opportunities for people to enjoy a wide variety of river-oriented recreation opportunities in an attractive setting. The rivers are readily accessible by roads. Transportation facilities may parallel the river for long stretches. There is a low need for visitors to rely on their personal physical abilities and primitive recreation skills within these areas. The sights and sounds of other visitors are evident, and opportunities to encounter other visitors are moderate to high.

A river segment classification does not represent the values for which it was added to the National System. For example, a “recreational” river segment denotes a level of in- corridor and water resources development and does not necessarily mean that the recreation resource has been determined an Outstandingly Remarkable Value (ORV). Similarly, a recreational classification does not imply that the river will be managed for recreational activities. For example, there are rivers in the National System paralleled by a road and hence classified as recreational for which the ORV is the fish resource.

Wildlife Habitat Management The Small Game Area is a destination for hunters and wildlife viewers within the Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Corridor.

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Recreation use patterns such as activity participation, timing and frequency within the corridor would not be expected to change with the implementation of this alternative. Location, however, would be expected to change. Visitor impressions would be expected to become more positive, and use conflicts less frequent. People who have traditionally camped out overnight at Big Eddy may not like the change to a day use area. However, this change may attract other users who

43 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project would otherwise avoid the area because of the concentrations of small groups of rowdy users. This may eventually resolve potential use conflicts by the influx of users creating a more rule-abiding social environment.

Cumulative effects: Activities that have occurred in the project area in the recent past include vegetation management activities, prescribed burning, recreational uses, utility right-of-way (ROW) maintenance, and road maintenance. Activities that are currently occurring in the analysis area include vegetation management, recreational uses, and maintenance of ROWs and roads.

Reasonably foreseeable activities that may occur in the project area include vegetation management activities, prescribed burning, recreational uses, ROW maintenance, road maintenance, and impacts from pest and disease outbreaks, changes in private land use patterns, construction of new ROW; treatments of non-native invasive species, and new trail development.

Overall, visitor satisfaction would continue to increase as user conflicts are reduced due to active management within the corridor. Information would be available for visitors on recreation opportunities. Visitors would rely on the private sector for most of the local camping opportunities. The proposed recreation management activities would improve recreation experiences in the project area.

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: The continued proliferation of user-developed trails and bare areas would increase the unacceptable resource and social issues which are prevalent at the present time.

Cumulative effects: User conflicts would continue to accrue with this alternative leading to less overall visitor satisfaction.

Smallmouth Bass Fishery

Existing Condition Largemouth, spotted, and smallmouth bass are all found in the Mulberry River and are popular sport fish. The smallmouth bass is more of a specialist in flowing cool water streams with low turbidity and thus an indicator of high quality stream habitat.

In 1995, the Mulberry River was given "Quality Stream" status by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) based on the occurrence of at least 200 smallmouth bass per river mile. The Mulberry River is one of only nine streams in Arkansas to be selected as an outstanding smallmouth bass fishery.

Optimal smallmouth bass riverine habitat includes cool, clear streams with abundant shade, cover, and deep pools with moderate current and gravel or rubble substrate.

44 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project The primary concerns for smallmouth bass habitat in the Ozark National Forest are pools deep enough to support refugia, turbidity from excess sedimentation, sediment deposition in interstitial spaces decreasing suitable habitat for spawning, adequate canopy cover to maintain water temperature regimes, and impacts on riparian stability from roads and trails.

Aquatic macroinvertebrates which include immature insects are an important component of the food web of which smallmouth bass are apex predators. Smallmouth bass feed primarily on crayfish and smaller fishes. The maintenance of healthy populations of prey requires aquatic macroinvertebrates as a food source. The Mulberry River has high diversity indices for macroinvertebrates including numerous taxa that are indicators of excellent water quality. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality identified 29 species of fish during sampling of the Mulberry River. Thirteen of the fish species were sensitive species (data available at: https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/techsvs/env_multi_lab/water_quality_station.aspx#displa y ).

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: The most direct potential threat to smallmouth bass habitat and food/spawning sources is increased sedimentation of the river caused by accelerated erosion in riparian areas. The potential for increased sedimentation into the Mulberry River increases during high flows. The rehabilitation and/or reclamation of unsustainable campsites and user-created trails would protect the riparian corridor by stabilizing vegetation and allow water to seep into the ground instead of flowing directly into the river. This would filter sediment and lead to enhancement of habitat and food sources for the smallmouth bass.

Cumulative effects: Smallmouth bass populations would be expected to continue to be sustainable and remain one of the Outstandlingly Remarkable Values for which the Mulberry River was designated.

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: The increased frequency of user-created campsites which also contain segments of user-created trail that connect directly to the water’s edge would provide a means for eroded soil to be transported directly into the river. The closer the sites are to the river, the less chance there is for vegetation and litter to trap soil particles. This would lead to degradation of habitat for the smallmouth bass and less reproduction overall. Bankside areas would have more of a propensity to erode into the river instead of forming over cut banks that contribute to stream shading which promotes quality instream habitat and helps stabilize temperature regimes.

Evidence of off-road vehicle activity is readily apparent in riparian areas especially in the corridor downstream of Campbell’s Cemetery. In moderately used areas, this consists of visible tracks, while in heavily used areas vegetation has become completely

45 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project denuded. Hurricane Creek, where it enters the Mulberry River on private lands has unstable banks in an area where OHVs typically drive up and down the channel when it is dry (Brown 2004). With the addition of possible greater sediment influxes from the mouth of Spirits Creek, this pattern of increased bank instability is likely to continue and lead to a decrease in habitat quality.

Cumulative effects: Increased sedimentation resulting from accelerated erosion in the corridor would continue to contribute to degradation of smallmouth bass habitat, food sources, and spawning opportunities. Temporally, impacts that may not be apparent in a “snapshot” in time might be more evident upon repeated assessment over longer lengths of time. This might be especially true of subtle but cumulative impacts, such as a lower hatching rate of eggs due to increased siltation (Berkman and Rabeni 1987).This may include declines in smallmouth bass habitat and spawning due to their intolerance for siltation and increases in more tolerant top predators such as the green sunfish which would compete for food resources with juvenille smallmouth bass. This would trend toward a decline in sustainable populations of this prize gamefish in the Mulberry River.

Instream habitat would be expected to decline as well as long as sites such as Big Eddy continue to experience parking within the channel. Pool habitat quality would decline as more sediment is deposited in pools downstream causing residual pool depths to decrease and channels to widen.

OTHER RIVER VALUES

Scenic values Scenic river areas are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. Occasional roads may reach or bridge the river and there may be designated parking areas and trailheads. Trail users may include hikers, mountain bikers, horseback riders, and motorized vehicle enthusiasts.

Scenic Management System The Forest Plan adopted a Scenic Management System (SMS) to assist in inventory and management of the aesthetic values of Forest lands (FEIS for the RLRMP pages 3-372 to 3-379). Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) are the desired levels of excellence based on sociological and physical characteristics of an area. The proposed activities associated with this project occur within an SIO area classified as high. A high valued landscape character “appears” intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident.

46 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Existing Condition The section of the Mulberry River from Big Eddy downstream to the Forest boundary (19.4 miles) is classified as scenic. Currently, scenery impacts within the river corridor come from soil compaction, erosion and vegetation damage associated with dispersed camping and the proliferation of user-created trails; trash accumulation; and erosion associated with undesignated parking (figures 6-12, and 14-16).

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: The diversity of vegetative species would be enhanced with this alternative. Enhancement opportunities would include spring flowers and fall color. Views of special features along the river corridor would be enhanced. The historic character of the river, rock fences, openings and grass areas would add to the vegetative diversity and add variety along the river corridor. Improvement actions would rehabilitate actively eroding banks which would otherwise threaten other forest investments such as roads or private land.

Occasional nonnative invasive plant eradication can have short-term negative impacts to scenery but improves the long-term scenery resource as native species recover and enhance the naturally appearing landscape

Direct short-term impacts include clearing, grading and construction activities including removal of vegetation in already disturbed areas to improve parking areas and access routes. Existing and new structures would be more visible to vehicular and pedestrian traffic along 1501 (Shore’s Lake Road) and only occasionally observed from the Mulberry River.

Cumulative effects: The proposed recreation management activities would improve scenic experiences in the project area. These activities are not expected to have any negative effects on scenic attractiveness and would meet the required SIOs in the project area. As time passes, natural processes (like insects, disease and storm events) or other management practices, such as wildlife opening maintenance would minimally affect the scenery of the area.

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Not taking actions now would do nothing to diminish the negative visual impacts described in the existing conditions within the Wild and Scenic Corridor.

Cumulative effects: Negative visual impacts would be expected to proliferate with increases in use of user-created roads from the OHV using recreating public.

Free-Flowing Condition The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) requires that the managing agency preserve the free flowing condition and protect the water quality of designated rivers. This section

47 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project analyzes the effects of all alternatives on the river’s free flowing condition and water quality. Section 16 (a) of the WSRA defines “free-flowing” as “existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway.”

Existing Condition As required by the WSRA, at the time of designation in 1992, the Mulberry River was flowing in its natural condition without impoundment from its origin in section 32 T13N, R 23W headwaters to the Ozark National Forest Boundary for 56 miles.

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is applied if a project requires construction within the bed or banks of the designated river. Examples of water resource projects include dams, fish habitat structures or boat ramps. No water resources projects are proposed in any alternative; therefore, none would affect the free-flowing condition of the Mulberry Wild and Scenic River. All alternatives and past, present and foreseeable projects are not water resources projects; therefore, the free-flowing conditions of the Mulberry WSR would be preserved.

Cumulative effects: No cumulative effects would occur since no direct or indirect effects would occur.

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: No water resources projects are proposed in this alternative; therefore, it would not affect the free-flowing condition of the Mulberry Wild and Scenic River. All alternatives and past, present and foreseeable projects are not water resources projects; therefore, the free-flowing conditions of the Mulberry WSR would be preserved.

Cumulative effects: As there are no direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Water Quality Under the Clean Water Act, Arkansas is required to publish a 305(b) monitoring report that summarizes water quality conditions for state waters, available at http://www2.adeq.state.ar.us/water/branch_planning/303d/pdfs/integrated_wqmar_20 140401.pdf). If a stream does not have high enough water quality to meet its designated beneficial uses, it is listed as not supporting or impaired based on the presence of certain pollutants. Streams that are not supporting their designated beneficial uses are added to the state’s 303(d) list of impaired streams. When a stream is added to the 303(d) list, a total maximum daily load (TMDL) document is often produced that outlines the levels of pollutant loading that allow the stream segment or water body to support its designated beneficial uses. It also allocates pollutant loadings among point and nonpoint pollutant sources.

48 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Existing Conditions: In addition to its federally designated Wild and Scenic River status, the Mulberry River and its tributaries have various classifications developed by the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology for the beneficial uses for which the water quality of the rivers should be maintained and protected. For the Mulberry River, these uses are fisheries, primary contact recreation, and public, industrial and agricultural water supply.

One segment of the Mulberry River upstream of the project area was listed on the 303(d) list in 2008 because of high pH values. The most recent report (AR 2014) states that the natural variations due to local geologic and other physical conditions were not taken into account at the time of the sampling that and the non-attainment reading was only slightly below the state standard. In the process of developing a TMDL, the state collected an aquatic life assessment of the Mulberry River which indicated that there is no impairment to the aquatic community; therefore, fisheries designated uses are fully supported (AR 2014).

The Mulberry River is classified as Extraordinary Resource Waters (ERW) by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Extraordinary Resource Waters are …”a combination of the chemical, physical and biological characteristics of a water body and its watershed which is characterized by scenic beauty, aesthetics, scientific values, broad scope recreation potential and intangible social values.” (Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission Regulation 2.3.02).

Sediment is the primary pollutant of concern in this watershed. Fine sediments (<2 mm in diameter) such as silts and sand are a natural part of streams; however, an excess of stored sediment in stream substrate is detrimental to aquatic habitat. Excess fine sediment in stream systems fills interstitial space between larger rocks and reduces the amount of available fish and macroinvertebrate habitat. Fine sediments also reduce oxygen circulation in backwater and increase difficulty for aquatic organism emergence from substrate materials. Fine sediment enters the channels when moving water erodes detached soils.

In the early 1900s through the 1930s when the landscape was cleared for agriculture some roads were traditionally located adjacent to stream channels and although stabilized to varying degrees, continue to be sources of sediment. Improved road drainage with increased number of culverts, dips or lead-out ditches have helped to limit concentrated water flow and sediment delivery to the streams. These past efforts to close and improve roads benefited water quality. However, streambank erosion, primarily from recreation use, timber harvest, temporary and unimproved roads, residential developments on private inholdings along the corridor and residual effects of past management continue to be sources of sediment to the Mulberry River.

49 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Improvements to sites and vegetation clearing would be limited to already disturbed areas within the Mulberry River Corridor. By following BMP guidance and mitigation measures discussed earlier, bank stability would be protected and excess sediment deposition would not occur. The water quality of the river would exceed the standards set by the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.

Cumulative effects: Currently, Turner Bend Fields, an adjacent cemetery on private lands, water, gas lines, and power lines in the area, as well as maintenance on right of ways at Highway 23 and Shores Lake road, are maintained by mowing and tree trimming. These activities cause some minor soil disturbance to the corridor including minor erosion and sedimentation. Adherence to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs and site-specific design criteria would continue to protect water quality in the proposed project area and in this portion of the Mulberry River.

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Leaving conditions as they are would not protect the resources from unmanaged recreation in the Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Corridor. No actions to harden or rehabilitate parking areas or to maintain and develop safe and ecologically responsible access areas would occur. Increases in streambank erosion would be expected to occur. Instream habitat would be directly affected through increase of sediment loads to the Mulberry River which would adjust through lateral migrations. As this occurs, the river would lose the ability to transport sediment and the channel would become wider and shallower leading to a loss of water and habitat quality.

Cumulative effects: Past land uses over the last 100 years have resulted in erosion, sediment and alluvial deposits in the river. Farmers cleared most of the trees from the floodplain, constructed drainage ditches (figure 17) and very narrow buffer strips along the Mulberry River which have contributed to past bank erosion and channel separation.

Currently, improved road drainage with increased number of culverts, dips, or lead-out ditches have helped to limit concentrated water flow and sediment delivery to the tributaries of the Mulberry River. These past efforts to close and improve roads benefited water quality. However, with the added effect of increasing levels of irresponsible recreation use expected with this alternative, along with residential developments and residual effects of past management, sediment would increase. This may lead to degraded water quality, fishing values, and recreational values in the Mulberry River.

50 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Figure 20.Channelized section of corridor downstream of Big Eddy probably created in the 1920s for agriculture.

OTHER PHYSICAL RESOURCES

Soils, watershed, in-stream conditions and riparian corridor This section addresses how the alternatives may compact and displace soils in the project area and how this may affect water quality, stability, erosion, and sedimentation of area streams.

Existing Conditions

The analysis area is in the Boston Mountains physiographic region of the Ozark Plateau (Interior Highlands). Most of the area is of the Bloyd shale formation with a small swath of Atoka formation. These formations are composed of Pennsylvanian age sandstone and shale. The landtype association is the Mesic Atoka Mountain Uplands: the highest uplands of the Boston Mountains. The rugged land surface form is characterized by moderately dissected uplands with broad ridges and sharply defined narrow valleys. The narrow flat ridges are highly dissected by stream networks. Valley

51 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project floodplains are narrow with alternating shale slopes and resistant sandstone benches. Most of the soils are well drained and formed in residuum and colluvium from loamy and clayey material that weathered from sandstone and shale. Permeability ranges from very slow in the moderately deep clayey soils on the sideslopes to moderately rapid in the shallow loamy soils on the ridgetops. The sandy loam soils along the streams have moderate fertility.

The Mulberry River corridor contains a variety of native upland and riparian vegetation communities which support high biological diversity. These lands historically were cleared for agriculture and sheep farming and there are still effects on the landscape from these practices. Some land is still cleared for residential and private camping and floating areas. High canopy cover predominates the headwater streams of the Spirits Creek subwatershed in which the Mulberry River resides, except where some gaps are created by dead oaks. Riparian vegetation includes multiple seral stages of paw-paw, black cherry, oaks, hickory, and spicebush (Brown et al., 2003).

The Spirits Creek subwatershed features many gravel and dirt roads that cross creeks and sometimes run within them in the Mulberry River Corridor and along the lower elevations of Spirit’s Creek (Brown et al., 2003). Unpaved dirt roads are the main contributors to stream sedimentation along with user-created trails and campsites.

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Erosion and sediment originating from user-created trails and campsites, as well as other areas with chronic erosion, would be lessened through rebabilitation and designation of appropriate access sites. The reclaimation of redundant user created roads and other disturbed areas would improve the functioning of the riparian corridor to filter sediment.

Overall, the activities proposed in this project would have minimal disturbance on soil resources. Effects would be localized in terms of disturbance from construction and reconstruction activities.

Erosion would decrease once initial restoration activities improving already disturbed areas are completed. However, there would be periodic erosion from maintenance activities. Adherence to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs and site-specific design criteria would reduce adverse effects to soils in the area.

Cumulative effects: Restoring native vegetation and associated plant communities would lead to stable plant cover that would help reduce soil erosion and sedimentation into the Mulberry River in the long-term. This would maintain high absorption capacity, ground cover and filtering capacity of the soils along stream banks. The roots from trees and other vegetation over time would add stability to banks, especially during periods of high water flow and allow them to undercut naturally. This would reduce the potential for excessive channel erosion and protect water quality.

52 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Leaving conditions as they are would not protect soils or in- stream conditions from unmanaged recreation in the Mulberry River Wild and Scenic Corridor. No actions to harden or rehabilitate parking areas or to maintain and develop safe and ecologically responsible access areas would occur. Increases in streambank erosion would be expected to occur. Instream habitat would be directly affected through increase of sediment loads to the Mulberry River which would adjust through lateral migrations. As this occurs, the river would lose the ability to transport sediment and the channel would become wider and shallower leading to a loss of water and habitat quality.

Cumulative effects: Impacts from past sediment sources are expected to continue from existing roads, past farming and other practices that placed roads along stream margins and have altered stream channels. The proliferation of user-created trails would continue. As a result, they would be periodically eroded during storm and flood events and become more entrenched over time, as well as more efficient at eroding and delivering sediment. Over time this would lower the absorption capacity of riparian areas and contribute to unstable banks that are more susceptible to aggradation and degradation within the Mulberry River. Both of these conditions decrease instream habitat for smallmouth bass and other fishes.

OTHER BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Wildlife, fish, and plant species and their habitats in the analysis area are managed in cooperation with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. The state wildlife management agencies main responsibilities are to set policy for hunting and fishing regulations and law enforcement programs. The Natural Heritage Commission is responsible for collecting and maintaining information on rare plants, animals and natural communities in Arkansas. The Forest Service is responsible for managing fish and wildlife habitat conditions. The following discussion focuses on the habitat conditions that support wildlife populations and fisheries.

Existing Conditions

For the purpose of the terrestrial wildlife habitat analysis, the analyzed area is the Mulberry River Corridor. The analysis area consists of fescue fields with mature hardwood riparian forest surrounding the Mulberry River. The riparian corridor includes various species of hardwood (oak/hickory), shortleaf-pine, hackberry, black gum and sycamore.

The fields in the analysis area are predominately fescue with a large amount of Serecia lespedeza intermixed. Both of these species are non-native invasive species (NNIS) and need to be eradicated. Fescue is harmful to wildlife, particularly deer. Fescue contains a fungi which can cause digestion problems (fescue toxicosis) in deer (USDA

53 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project 2007). Habitat is good in the riparian corridors for a variety of wildlife species, but fair to poor for deer due to the presence of NNIS.

Detailed information about the effects of the alternatives on each species is provided in the Biological Assessment/Evaluation. Summaries are provided here.

Neotropical Migratory Birds:

In the southeastern region of the United States, according to the FWS Breeding Bird Survey Data, populations of 19 species of Neotropical migratory birds have been found to be significantly declining. Declining species are associated with forest interior habitat, as well as edge, brush, and open habitats (Hunter et al., 1992).

The Boston Mountain Breeding Bird survey route has been conducted since 1993 with several Neotropical migratory bird species being noted each year. The Region 8 Landbird Strategy has been implemented on the Boston Mountain Ranger District with breeding birds being recorded by habitat type since 1997. In addition, 25 permanent bird survey points have been maintained yearly on the Boston Mountain Ranger District. Results of these surveys are in district files located in Ozark, AR.

Management Indicator Species (MIS):

MIS is a planning and monitoring tool that reflects a way to analyze a change in conditions. MIS generally fall into three broad categories:

• Demand species are those species that provide important recreational and/or economic values. • Species of concern are those species for which there is a concern about their population numbers. • Ecological indicators are species that are tied to a particular element(s) of biological diversity and serve as surrogates for other species associated with that element(s).

A MIS Report on population data including population trends has been updated regularly since 2001 for the Ozark- St. Francis National Forests. This document is a part of the analysis file and was used for analysis of effects to MIS species associated with implementation of project alternatives. The most current (2013) MIS Report contains some but not all of the current MIS as selected for the Forest Plan. Seventeen species were selected as MIS for the Ozark National Forest from the planning team review of the list of vertebrate species dependent upon forest habitats (USDA Forest Service, 2005).

54 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

The following table shows Ozark National Forest MIS species pertinent to the analysis area, the habitat type they represent, and population trends (USFS 2013, NatureServe, 2015). From the Forest MIS list, seven species have potential habitat based on occurrence records and/or habitat requirements within the analysis area.

Table 3. MIS Species, Habitat Requirements and Population Trends

Species MIS Type Habitat Requirements Population Trend Northern ecological pine and oak woodland and decreasing bobwhite indicator native grasslands Whitetail deer demand mosaic of forest age classes increasing Black bear demand remote habitat with mature forest increasing component with intermixed 0-5 year old regeneration Wild turkey demand mature forest with open areas decreasing containing grasses/forbs/soft mast Northern parula ecological communities associated with stable indicator forests in riparian areas Pileated ecological large snags stable woodpecker indicator Smallmouth demand cool water stream communities stable bass

55 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Northern Bobwhite Quail Historically, quail thrived on lands that are now part of the Ozark National Forest due to the significant amount of oak savanna, oak woodland, and glade habitat that was maintained by periodic fire. As farms failed and fire prevention became the norm, a much thicker forest replaced those once maintained by fire or grazing. Although this species is widespread throughout Arkansas, population numbers are very low. During the last decade the population has continued a steady decline (Fowler, 1992).

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Designation of access points and associated activities should have little to no impact on this species as it is likely not going to be found in the river corridor.

Cumulative effects: Overall bob-white quail populations are expected to remain around current levels with forest-wide management activities combined with actions occurring on private lands.

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: None.

Cumulative effects: None.

Eastern Wild Turkey Good turkey habitat includes mature stands of mixed-hardwoods, groups of sawtimber- sized conifers, relatively open understories, scattered clearings, well-distributed water, reasonable freedom from disturbance, and adequate area (USFS, 1980). During the first few weeks after hatching, turkey poults require large amounts of protein supplied primarily by insects found in grassy openings.

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Designation of access sites and associated activities should have little to no impact on this species as it is not likely to be found in the river corridor.

Cumulative effects: Current trends in habitat quality and quantity on nearby private lands are likely to continue. Local population trends should increase in the short-term (10 years), however, overall turkey habitat capability would remain stable with forest- wide management activities combined with actions occurring on private lands.

56 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: It is expected that with the No-Action alternative there would be little change to local turkey populations.

Cumulative effects: None.

White-tailed Deer White-tailed deer thrived on the Ozark National Forest due to a diversity of habitat types, historic maintenance of deer browse by fire, and the adaptability of this species. Today, deer continue to flourish on the Forest and adapt as habitat and land use changes continue to occur in the area.

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: None.

Cumulative effects: None.

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: None.

Cumulative effects: None.

Black Bear Black bears have a preference for large expanses of woodland and forested areas and historically were widely distributed. Today, black bears are largely restricted to more remote, less accessible mountainous areas, nearly impenetrable thickets, and forested areas along watercourses. The distribution of black bears has been largely restricted/influenced by encroaching development and habitat conversion (e.g., agriculture). Early-successional stands provide the high protein foods needed in the post-denning period. Regeneration areas also provide the high-energy food used throughout the breeding season and alternative food sources for fall and winter during years of mast failure. If they are of sufficient size, new stands (5 to 10 years old) also provide excellent escape cover.

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: There could be a slight increase in disturbance to individual bears due to activities associated with designating access. Local black bear populations and patterns of use may be slightly affected; however, disturbance would likely be short- term. Bears customarily adjust their patterns to new environments.

Cumulative effects: Black bear populations are expected to continue to increase over time. There are no known negative cumulative effects to this species with implementation of the proposed action when combined with actions occurring on both Forest Service and private lands.

57 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: It is expected that this alternative would have little to no effects on the black bear. Local populations would likely remain stable.

Cumulative effects: Cumulatively, there should be no effect to the overall population with the no-action alternative when combined with projects on both Forest Service and private lands.

Pileated Woodpecker The pileated woodpecker was selected as a MIS to represent snag-dependent species and species requiring older forests. Breeding bird surveys in the Ozark-Ouachita physiographic province suggest that populations of the pileated woodpecker trended downward from the 1960s until the mid-1980s and have stabilized or trended slightly upward since then. Population and habitat trends for this species are dependent on stand age and snag abundance where suitable habitat occurs.

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Implementation of the Proposed Action would produce little change to this bird’s habitat. During project implementation very few trees would be removed. The Mulberry River riparian corridor taken as a whole provides habitat for this woodpecker. Local populations of this species should remain stable and forest-wide populations should not be affected.

Cumulative effects: When combined with increased development and stand clearing on nearby private property, a local decrease in suitable habitat may occur.

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: This alternative may have positive long-term effects on the pileated woodpecker as current forest types in the project area continue to age and snag abundance (presumably) increases. It is not expected that local populations of this species would experience a decline and forest-wide populations should not be affected.

Cumulative effects: When combined with increased development and stand clearing on nearby private property, a local decrease in suitable habitat may occur.

Northern Parula The northern parula prefers coniferous or mixed woodlands primarily associated with riparian communities. This species is common on the Ozark National Forest and flourishes in areas where mature woodlands in which trees draped with moss like lichens or Spanish moss are found.

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Implementation of this alternative should have no effect on the northern parula because habitat is poor for this species in the Mulberry River corridor.

58 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Cumulative effects: Because this species is considered common and because suitable adjacent and nearby habitat is present on both public and private lands, there would be no known cumulative effects to this species.

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Because habitat for this species is poor in the Mulberry River corridor there would be no direct or indirect effects of the no action alternative on this species.

Cumulative effects: Because there would be no direct or indirect effects, there will be no known cumulative effects to this species with the no action alternative.

Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES)

White Nose Syndrome White-nose syndrome (WNS) is a disease affecting hibernating bats. Named for the white fungus that appears on the muzzle and other parts of hibernating bats, WNS is associated with extensive mortality of bats in eastern North America. First documented in New York in the winter of 2006-2007, WNS has spread rapidly across the eastern United States and Canada, and the fungus that causes WNS has been detected as far south as Mississippi.

Bats with WNS act strangely during cold winter months, including flying outside in the day and clustering near the entrances of hibernacula (caves and mines where bats hibernate). Bats have been found sick and dying in unprecedented numbers in and around caves and mines. WNS has killed more than 5.7 million bats in eastern North America. In some hibernacula, 90 to 100 percent of bats have died.

Many laboratories and state and federal biologists are investigating the cause of the bat deaths. A newly discovered fungus, Pseudogymnoascus destructans, or pd, (formerly Geomyces destructans), has been demonstrated to cause WNS. Scientists are investigating the dynamics of fungal infection and transmission, and searching for a way to control it (USDI-FWS, 2014).

A low level of the fungus that causes white-nose syndrome in bats has been detected in two north Arkansas caves in 2013. Approximately twelve bat deaths due to WNS have occurred in Arkansas at this time (Sasse 2015).

Ozark big-eared bat The Ozark big-eared bat is generally associated with caves, cliffs, and rock ledges in well drained, oak-hickory forest. Maternity caves and hibernacula occur in a number of different surroundings, from large continuous blocks of forest, to smaller forest tracts interspersed with open areas. Clark (1993) found that adult female Ozark big-eared bats from maternity colonies preferred to forage along woodland edges. By foraging

59 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project along woodland edges the bat may benefit from a less cluttered environment, but cover is nearby and prey densities are high.

Foraging habitat for the Ozark big-eared bat is fair within the analysis area, particularly in the riparian areas and in the fields. Bat mist surveys conducted during June of 2011 did not catch this bat species within the analysis area. Bluff line surveys in the analysis area (USFWS 2010), did not find this species of bat or the preferred bluff line habitat that this bat favors. Favorable winter habitat is found approximately four miles west of the analysis area (USDA 2011).

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: No activities are planned that would impact either bluff lines or caves favored by this species.

Cumulative effects: All activities with the proposed alternative are consistent with the RLRMP. In the Biological Assessment dated July 28, 2005, the Forest Wildlife Biologist (with concurrence from the USFWS), determined that the Ozark big-eared bat is “not likely to be adversely affected” from standard forest management, as long as the Revised Forest Plan guidelines and mitigations are followed. Implementation of forest- wide standards for the protection of caves, karst habitats, and riparian areas will help protect needed hibernacula sites as well as potential foraging sites for these species. This constitutes compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with respect to future activities carried out on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. As described in the “Effects” section above, it is the determination of the BAE that the proposed action is “Not likely to adversely affect” the Ozark big-eared bat when combined with actions that occur on both private and Forest Service lands (USDA 2015).

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: This alternative will likely not change the habitat for this species in the analysis area. Natural conditions would continue to occur-such as continued maintenance of open fescue fields. There would be no direct or indirect effects with implementation of this alternative.

Cumulative effects: There would be no known cumulative effects with the no action alternative when combined with activities that occur on private and Forest Service lands (USDA 2015).

Indiana bat The Indiana bat is known to roost in the snags of 23 tree species and rarely roosts in living trees. Twelve of these are likely to develop loose exfoliating (peeling) bark, a preferred roost location by Indiana bats. Many of these trees are found in stream valleys and lowlands and are infrequently encountered in upland pine and pine- hardwood timber stands where the dominant tree species is shortleaf pine. The potential habitat includes all Forest Service acres in Arkansas. The analysis area provides limited suitable summer foraging and roosting habitat for the Indiana bat near

60 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project the riparian corridor. Suitable winter habitat is located to the west of the project area. Bat mist surveys conducted during June of 2011 did not catch this bat species within the analysis area. Bluff line surveys in the analysis area (USFWS 2010), did not find this species of bat or the preferred bluff line habitat that this bat favors (USDA 2011).

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: No activities are planned that would impact either bluff lines or caves favored by this species. Forest-wide standards, which require a vegetation buffer of 200 feet around all caves, would provide for the protection of all existing or discovered bat caves.

Cumulative effects: All activities in the proposed action are consistent with the RLRMP. In the Biological Assessment dated July 28, 2005, the Forest Wildlife Biologist (with concurrence from the FWS), determined that the Indiana bat is “not likely to be adversely affected” from standard forest management, as long as the Forest Plan guidelines and mitigations are followed. Implementation of forest-wide standards for the protection of caves, karst habitats, and riparian areas will help protect needed hibernacula sites as well as potential foraging sites for these species. This constitutes compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with respect to future activities carried out on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. As described above, it is the determination of the BAE that the proposed action is “Not likely to adversely affect” the Indiana bat when combined with actions that occur on private and Forest Service lands (USDA 2005, 2015).

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Natural conditions would continue to occur-such as continued maintenance of the fescue fields. There would be no direct or indirect effects with implementation of this alternative.

Cumulative effects: There would be no known cumulative effects with the no action alternative when combined with activities that occur on both private and Forest Service lands (USDA 2015).

Gray bat Gray bats are cave residents throughout the year, although different caves are usually occupied in summer than winter. Few individuals are found outside caves. They hibernate primarily in deep vertical caves with large rooms that act as cold air traps (Harvey 1989). Gray bats forage primarily over water along rivers or near lake shores. Most foraging occurs within 5 km of the surface. The greatest threat to the species is vandalism by people during the winter while bats are in caves, or in the summer, when maternity cave sites could be disturbed. Winter hibernacula are scattered over the north portion of the state, but the largest known hibernacula is on the Sylamore Ranger District, where several hundred thousand bats gather in caves to spend the winter. Summer roost sites are more scattered and can vary from one year to the next. This bat can occur on any Ozark National Forest district with the possible exception of the Magazine Ranger District, which is south of the Arkansas River. The analysis area

61 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project provides limited suitable summer foraging habitat. Suitable winter habitat is located to the west of the project area. Bat mist surveys conducted during June of 2011 by ASU did not capture any gray bats. Bluff line surveys in the analysis area (USFWS 2010), did not find this species of bat or the preferred bluff line habitat that this bat favors. Favorable winter habitat is found very near the analysis area approximately six miles to the west and this bat has been seen flying over the Mulberry River foraging (USDA 2011).

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: No activities are planned that would impact either bluff lines or caves favored by this species. Forest-wide standards, which require a vegetation buffer of 200 feet around all caves, would provide for the protection of all existing or discovered gray bat caves. Vegetation treatments in the fields would create more open foraging habitat for this species.

Cumulative effects: As described above, it is the determination of the BAE that the proposed action is “Not likely to adversely affect” the gray bat when combined with actions occurring on both private and public lands. The proposed action is consistent with the RLRMP (USDA 2005 and 2015).

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Natural conditions would continue to occur-such as continued maintenance of the fescue fields, which will have no effect to this bat. There would be no direct or indirect effects with implementation of this alternative.

Cumulative effects: There would be no known cumulative effects with the no action alternative when combined with activities that occur on both private and Forest Service lands (USDA 2015).

American burying beetle The American burying beetle appears to be a habitat generalist with a slight preference for grasslands (grasses and forbs) and open understory. Considering the broad geographic range formerly occupied by the beetle, it is unlikely that vegetation or soil type were historically limiting. Carrion availability, and not habitat at a population scale, may be the greatest factor determining where the species can survive. The preference of this insect for areas of grasses and forbs (as would be found in early forest stage cover habitat, open pine or hardwood woodlands) is not unexpected since many of the largest assemblages of appropriately sized small mammals and birds occur in these areas and their carcasses afford the beetle egg laying/brooding habitat (Hedrick 1993, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 1995, USFWS 1995). Numerous surveys have failed to document the occurrence of this species north of the Arkansas River in Arkansas. Habitat in the analysis area is excellent for this species (USDA 2015).

62 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this beetle with the proposed action as they have not been found in the fields (USDA 2011).

Cumulative effects: It is the determination of the BAE that the proposed action would have “No effect” on the American burying beetle when combined with actions that could occur on private and public lands (USDA 2005a and 2015).

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Natural conditions would continue to occur-such as continued maintenance of the fescue fields, which should result in no effects to the American burying beetle. There would be no direct or indirect effects with implementation of this alternative.

Cumulative effects: There would be no known cumulative effects with the no action alternative when combined with activities that occur on both private and Forest Service lands (USDA 2015).

Geocarpon Geocarpon prefers eroded areas in grasslands called "slicks" or "slickspots". Bare soil over sandstone, slicks are high in salinity and may be the remains of ancient Pleistocene lakebeds. It is not known if these slicks are renewed by fire or flooding or if they eventually disappear. If they are renewed, then Geocarpon may be a pioneer species or one of the first plants to take root in a newly cleared habitat (USFWS 2010). This species has been found in only four Arkansas counties including Franklin County. This plant appears to be confined south of the Arkansas River and is not close to the Forest. There is no potential habitat in the analysis area for this plant (USDA 2011).

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Field surveys failed to note the presence of this species or its habitat in the project area. Therefore there would be no negative effects to this species with this alternative.

Cumulative effects: When combined with activities that occur on private and public lands, there would be no known cumulative effects to this plant with the proposed project as it has not been found on the Forest (USDA 2015).

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Natural conditions would continue to occur which would have little to no direct or indirect impacts on this plant as none are known to occur within the analysis area.

Cumulative effects: There would be no known cumulative effects with the no action alternative when combined with activities that occur on both private and Forest Service lands (USDA 2015).

63 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Bald eagle This species, recently de-listed as a threatened species, but still on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list, has been noted in the project area and is a common winter visitor to Frog Bayou, Lake Fort Smith, Shores Lake and the Mulberry River. Normal forest management activities that take place well away from nest and communal roost areas and are well removed from large rivers, impoundments and other significant foraging areas, have little or no impacts on transient wintering bald eagles. This bird has been noted along the Mulberry River in the analysis area (USDA 2015).

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Any eagles in the area during project implementation activities would likely move away temporarily to avoid the noise and traffic. All treatments proposed will not affect any known roost sites.

Cumulative effects: When the effects of the proposed actions are combined with potential effects of all other planned or anticipated projects on both public and private lands, there would be no cumulative impacts. The proposed action would not impact individuals, cause a decline in populations, affect the federal listing, or cause loss of viability to this avian species (USDA 2015).

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Natural conditions would continue to occur which would have no direct or indirect impacts on the bald eagle with implementation of the no action alternative.

Cumulative effects: There would be no known cumulative effects with the no action alternative when combined with activities that occur on both private and Forest Service lands (USDA 2015).

Ozark chinquapin This species was listed as sensitive because it is threatened with destruction by a fungal disease. It was not found in the analysis area during field surveys in 2011. The Ozark chinquapin is fairly common on the Boston Mountain Ranger District. Most trees are small, resulting from stump sprouts, with very few surviving to the age of producing seed.

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: The proposed actions would have no impact on this tree.

Cumulative effects: When the effects the proposed project are combined with potential effects of all other planned or anticipated projects on both public and private lands, there would be no known cumulative impacts on this species (USDA 2015).

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: There would be no direct and indirect negative impacts to this tree with this alternative as it was not found in the analysis area.

64 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Cumulative effects: When the effects of the proposed project are combined with potential effects of all other planned or anticipated projects on both public and private lands, there would be no known cumulative impacts on this species (USDA 2015).

Eastern small-footed bat This species prefers hibernating in caves or mines. In Arkansas, it is known in small numbers from only a few caves in the Ozarks. The distribution of this bat is from eastern Canada south to Alabama and west to Oklahoma. It is uncommon throughout most of its range. The potential habitat for this species is all Forest Service acres except the St. Francis, approximately 900,000 acres. This bat occurs in Newton, Searcy, Franklin, Logan and Stone Counties in Arkansas. Very little is known about feeding habits or reproduction in this species. This bat tends to hibernate near cave entrances; hence it may be vulnerable to freezing in abnormally severe winters. The most serious threat to this cave-dwelling bat is human disturbance during hibernation (NatureServe 2004). This bat species was not captured during bat mist netting surveys in June of 2011 by Arkansas State University. Habitat within the project area is fair for this species (USDA 2015).

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: None.

Cumulative effects: None.

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: None.

Cumulative effects: None.

Ozark Spiderwort This plant is endemic to the Ozark Mountains of Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arkansas and the Ouachita Mountains of western Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma. The species is considered relatively secure despite some documented declines due to construction of dams/impoundments. There are no known immediate range wide threats such as habitat conversion. Numerous local potential threats are housing developments, roadway construction and maintenance, and herbicide use (MO NHD 1994, Watson 1989). This plant was not found during field surveys in 2011, however, there is potential habitat in the analysis area (USDA 2015).

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: The development of access sites could have negative direct and indirect impacts to this plant by incidental uprooting of individual plants. Field surveys failed to note the presence of this species in the project area. Herbicide treatments as proposed in this alternative could have negative direct and indirect impacts to individual species; however, known sites of this plant are not in areas proposed for treatments.

65 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Cumulative effects: Implementation of the proposed alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause cumulative impacts, such as a declining trend to the Ozark spiderwort’s federal listing or loss of viability (USDA 2015).

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Natural conditions would continue to occur which would have little to no direct or indirect impacts on this plant as none are known to occur within the analysis area.

Cumulative effects: There would be no known cumulative effects with the no action alternative when combined with activities that occur on both private and Forest Service lands (USDA 2015).

Southern lady-slipper This plant is known to occur in twelve Arkansas counties and possibly others (Smith 1988). The preferred habitat for this plant consists of moist floodplains along creeks and on rich moist slopes. The biggest threat to the plant is collection for commercial sale and digging for replanting in wildflower gardens. The plant appears to be able to tolerate certain timber management activities. Some, such as thinning are beneficial. This plant was found adjacent to the project area (USDA 2015).

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: This species is protected by the inclusion of a management prescription area, riparian corridors, in the Forest Plan. This management area encompasses 100 feet on each side of perennial streams. In addition, Streamside Management Zones range from 50 to 150 feet for all water sources. These areas would further protect this plant from any potential negative impacts from the proposed actions. The incidental rehabilitation work associated with developing already disturbed access areas has a very low risk of direct harm to this species through uprooting because plants are not likely to be found in already disturbed areas. The known sites for this plant have been recorded and will be protected during management activities, so there should be no direct or indirect impacts to this plant because the site was evaluated fully for the presence of this plant (USDA 2015).

Cumulative effects: Implementation of the proposed alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause cumulative impacts, such as a declining trend to the southern lady slipper’s federal listing or loss of viability (USDA 2015).

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Natural conditions would continue. There would be no negative direct or indirect effects with implementation of this alternative.

Cumulative effects: There would be no known cumulative effects with the no action alternative when combined with activities that occur on both private and Forest Service lands (USDA 2015).

66 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Nuttall’s Cornsalad This plant is restricted to western Arkansas. It was formerly reported in eastern Oklahoma; however, occurrences have not been confirmed there recently. It has not been found on Ozark-St Francis National Forests. The district has limited potential habitat along stream bottoms in mixed hardwood stands. Main threats to this species include the use of chemical herbicides and fertilizers, the loss of field margin refuges, decline of traditional systems of crop rotation, earlier harvests, and the introduction of aggressive crop plants. Habitat for this plant is fair in the analysis area, although it was not found during field surveys in 2011 and has never been found on the Forest.

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: This plant generally occurs in riparian areas which are protected according to Forest Plan guidelines (3-37). Activities associated with access development could harm individual plants through direct uprooting, however this plant was not found in the analysis area.

Cumulative effects: Implementation of the proposed action would have no cumulative impacts to this plant when combined with actions that could occur on both private and public lands (USDA 2015).

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Natural conditions would continue to occur which would have no direct or indirect impacts on this plant with implementation of the no action alternative.

Cumulative effects: There would be no known cumulative effects with the no action alternative when combined with activities that occur on both private and Forest Service lands (USDA 2015).

OTHER SOCIAL RESOURCES

Human Health and Safety The Forest Service strives to provide visitor experiences including recreation facilities that are safe for the public to use and enjoy. The designation of access sites would be maintained to a standard that would provide for user safety. Beyond that it is the users’ responsibility to make use of the facilities in a safe and prudent manner as well as having appropriate personal protective equipment.

Flash floods occur along the Mulberry River and have entrapped campers and hikers. White water canoeing has the potential to be a hazardous outdoor recreation activity. Other hazards include hypothermia, floating obstacles (e.g., overhanging limbs, willow thickets, large boulders), and strong rapids. Diving, alcohol consumption and inexperienced boaters have contributed to injuries and some deaths on the Mulberry River. Conflicts between recreationists and local landowners may be potentially dangerous.

67 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Existing developed recreation areas on the Mulberry River such as Redding, Wolf Pen, and Campbell Cemetery are maintained at a higher or more stringent safety standard than the general forest area. These areas are inspected for hazardous trees, slip/trip/fall hazards, as well as for other situations which could be hazardous to the public. Those developed sites within the flash flood zone of the river have conspicuous signs warning the public of this danger.

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: There is coordination with search and rescue teams and the County Sheriff's offices to respond to crises on the river and within the corridor. When necessary, flash flood warning signs would be posted at the entrance to developed recreation sites. Brochures and bulletin boards would address the issue of flash flooding. The Forest Service continues to comply with regulations regarding safety in developed recreation sites.

Whitewater canoeing is inherently a dangerous sport. All brochures and bulletin boards would address this risk. Public information boards would promote actions to lower the risk of personal injury, such as having equipment in good condition, not boating when the river is 4.5 feet or higher as measured by the gage maintained at Turner Bend (http://turnerbend.com/river-level-details/), leaving the river during rising water or storms, using Coast Guard approved personal floatation devices, not consuming alcohol or drugs while boating, and knowing your abilities and skill levels. Annual safety inspections would be conducted at all developed recreation sites. Unsafe conditions would be corrected. Vehicle traffic would be controlled by speed limits, state vehicle laws, and National Forest regulations. The Forest Service coordinates vehicle traffic control measures with state and law enforcement.

Cumulative effects: Overall with the increased awareness of the role everybody plays in preserving the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Mulberry Wild and Scenic River there would likely be a cultural shift over time towards an increased emphasis on safety.

Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Safety and health would continue to decrease in the area if no action is taken.

Cumulative effects: With the implementation of the no action alternative, there would not be an increased awareness of the role everybody plays in preserving the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Mulberry Wild and Scenic River. As conditions continue to deteriorate there would likely not be a cultural shift over time towards an increased emphasis on safety.

68 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

HERITAGE RESOURCES

A cultural resource review and inventory was conducted during the planning process for this proposed project to identify historic properties. The findings of this survey were reported to the Arkansas SHPO and relevant-federally recognized Tribes. Cultural resource inventories have identified some archeological sites located along the Mulberry River corridor. The majority of sites are located outside areas of potential effects. Some sites are located near proposed designated access points. One site, located on private property, is considered eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and would be protected from effects of this undertaking. Sites with undetermined eligibilities would also be protected. One site is not eligible for nomination to the National Register, so no protection measures are warranted.

Effects from Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: The access points identified for management are natural access points used by the public historically and currently. These have varying degrees of resource damage from natural causes (flooding) and unmanaged public use (unauthorized OHV trails and camping). Designation of these areas provides opportunities to better control access to and use of these areas. Ground-disturbance should be minimal. Parking areas would be placed in areas already cleared of vegetation. Large rocks or boulders would be brought in to boundary parking areas and close unauthorized trails. Unauthorized trails would be revegetated where possible. One area (Blevin’s Access) would be replanted with pine to replace trees removed during FBI criminal investigations.

All the areas identified for management were inspected and tested for cultural resources during fieldwork in 2011-2012. However, it must be noted that because of the high potential that the Mulberry River corridor has for containing cultural resources, it is recommended that additional testing and evaluation may be necessary prior to implementation of rehabilitation work, with subsequent reporting and consultation at that time.

Shores Lake Road #1501 is currently maintained by Franklin County under a county road maintenance agreement. It is anticipated that any future road reconstruction and paving would be funded, planned, and conducted by state/federal highway departments, similar to what occurred on Hwy 215 east of Hwy 23. This report and project notification is not intended to clear, for purposes of National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106, this future road reconstruction and paving. Not enough information is available at this time to sufficiently evaluate effects.

With the implementation of these recommendations and mitigation measures, no adverse effects on historic properties located within the project area should occur.

Contingencies: Proposed Activity Locations Not Yet Known/Inadvertent Discoveries/Sacred Sites: Some activities may require additional planning prior to

69 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project implementation. Should additional cultural resource surveys and/or site testing be required, work would be done and consultation completed prior to implementation.

Should any additional heritage resources be discovered during project implementation, the Zone or Forest Archeologist would be notified immediately and appropriate mitigation measures would be prescribed in consultation with the SHPO and our Tribal partners.

There may be American Indian sacred sites or landscapes currently unknown to the Forest. The Forest consults with our Tribal partners to ensure that American Indian sacred sites and landscapes are identified, assessed, and considered in project planning and implementation.

There is currently a geoarcheological study underway on the Ozark National Forest conducted by Andrew Gottsfield, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Kansas. The Mulberry River corridor contains three of Gottsfield’s testing sites – two along the Mulberry River in the Turner Bend Small Game Area and one near the Bibb’s access point. Analysis of data collected at these two locations is pending. Because of the minimal ground-disturbance proposed herein, it is not anticipated that analysis of data from these testing locations would alter the recommendations presented here. However, should additional information become available that warrants a change to recommendations included in this report, an addendum would be prepared and submitted.

Proposed improvements to and management of access points can impact cultural resources. Improved access and visibility to the forest landscape increases the potential for damage from natural and human action (i.e. flood events, impacts of illegal or inappropriate OHV usage, and looting). However, resource damage is occurring currently from natural causes (flooding and erosion) and unmanaged public use (unauthorized OHV trails and camping), and the proposed activities are designed to address the resource damage that is occurring. With the implementation of the recommendations and mitigation measures, no adverse effects on historic properties located within the project area should occur. Cultural resources that are currently impacted by natual causes and human use should benefit from the activities proposed here.

Cumulative effects: The greatest risks for archeological sites on the Forest come from unmanaged and unmonitored resources. Planned management and restoration activities benefit the cultural landscape by controlling intrusive vegetation, excessive accumulation of fuel load and risk of wildfire, and managing recreational use (i.e. dispersed campsites, OHV usage of roads and trails). The federal presence that results from the implementation of project activities would be expected to benefit cultural resources over time by increasing opportunities for the monitoring of sites for looting and vandalism, thus assisting with enforcement of federal protection laws.

70 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Effects from No Action Alternative Direct and indirect effects: Resource damage is occurring from natural and human action (i.e. flood events, unauthorized OHV use). Proposed activities are designed to improve and stabilize resource conditions. With the No Action alternative, historic properties would continue to degrade.

Cumulative effects: Although the no action alternative would eliminate risk of inadvertent effects to cultural resources from planned activities, it would result in a marked increase in potential damage from unmanaged and unmonitored resources. Cultural resources currently being negatively affected by unmanaged OHV use would continue to degrade. The lack of federal presence in the area could be expected to increase the potential for damage to cultural resources from looting, vandalism, and other illegal or unmanaged use of the Forest.

71 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project 4.0 COMPARISON OF PROJECT ANALYSIS TO MANAGEMENT GOALS

1. Protect and/or enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified as Recreation and Smallmouth Bass Fishery. Both of these values are protected in the analysis for this project (pages 37-42).

2. Establish measurable indicators and standards for biophysical and social conditions, monitor effectively the condition of those indicators, and implement management policies and programs to prevent degradation of riparian resources and visitor experiences. Indicators and standards are addressed in the management plan for the Mulberry Wild and Scenic River (1996) while monitoring and implementation are critical elements in the analysis for this project (pages 26-27).

3. Provide for plant and animal community diversity and maintain healthy functioning ecosystems as the foundation to sustaining long-term productivity. Maintain habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial species inhabiting the Mulberry River corridor. These attributes are major components of the purpose and need for this project and are addressed throughout the analysis in this ea.

4. Recognize and respond to the socio-economic effects of management strategies. Recognize the varied needs of the public to be partners and to participate in managing the river corridors through example, awareness, interaction, and communication. These goals have been addressed through scoping and development of the proposal. This project will not be possible without the involvement of the public and interaction with Forest Service personel (pages 16-17, 37-40, 49).

5. Emphasize user education and information. Establish new regulations only when other methods (e.g. personal contacts, information and education) are not effective, and ensure that any regulations established are enforceable. This proposal includes elements meant to educate the public and increase awareness of the role that all users have to insure that the outstandingly remarkable values of the Mulberry River are to be presertved for future generations.

6. Develop and maintain a working relationship among landowners adjacent to the river, local and state governments, private and commercial users, interested resource groups, and the Forest Service to help achieve the above goals in the Mulberry River corridor. This has been accomplished through scoping and in interactions with the Mulberry River Society made up of interested publics and landowners interested in preserving the Mulberry River and its cultral and natural atttributes.

7. Privately developed recreation opportunities are encouraged. Expansion of Federal recreation areas is discouraged without the participation of private partners. This proposal does not encourage Federal recreation area expansion without private

72 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project landowner participation. The proposal acknowledges the important role that privately developed recreation has in the enjoyment of the Mulberry River values.

73 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Jobi Brown: NEPA Coordinator/ Biologist/ID Team Leader– Boston Mountain Ranger District

William Dunk: District Ranger - Boston Mountain and Mt. Magazine Ranger Districts

John Lane: Former District Recreation Program Manager – Boston Mountain Ranger District

Rhea Whalen: Former Wildlife Biologist – Boston Mountain Ranger District

Chip Stokes: GIS Technician - Boston Mountain and Mt. Magazine Ranger Districts.

Jimmy Lindsay: Forester– Boston Mountain Ranger District

Mike Hennigan: Former Timber Management Assistant – Boston Mountain Ranger District

Dr. Mary Brennan: Zone Archeologist – Pleasant Hill and Boston Mountain Ranger Districts

James Bicknell: Zone Special Uses – Pleasant Hill and Boston Mountain Ranger District

Scott Mayner: Lead Timber Marker – Boston Mountain Ranger District

The following is a list of agencies and persons who were consulted during this analysis:

State Historic Preservation Office, Little Rock, AR

Resource Staff in the Forest Service Supervisor’s Office, Russellville, AR: Terry Krasko, Steve Duzan, and Dr. David Jurney

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office, Conway, AR

Tribal Governments

74 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project 6.0 REFERENCES

Tiered Documents

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989. Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation Management in the Ozark/Ouachita Mountains (VMEIS), Vol. I and II. Management Bulletin R8-MB 23.

_____. 2005a. Revised Land and Resources Management Plan; Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. Russellville, AR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Region.

______. 2005b. Final Environmental Impact Statement to the Revised Land and Resources Management Plan; Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. Russellville, AR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Region.

***************** Agnew, L.J., S. Lyon, P. Gerard-Marchant, V.B. Collins, A.J. Lembo, T.S. Steenhuis, and M.T. Walter. 2006. Identifying hydrologically sensitive areas: Bridging the gap between science and application. Journal of Environmental Management. 78: 63-76.

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. 2016. Water quality data available at https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/techsvs/env_multi_lab/water_quality_station.aspx#Display

Arkansas Forestry Commission. 2002. Best Management Practices Guidelines for Water Quality Protection. 56 pp.

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2001. Strategic Quail Management Plan.

Baker, J.C. and W.C. Hunter. 2002. Effects of Forest Management on Terrestrial Ecosystems. In: Wear, D.N. and J.G. Greis, eds. Southern Forest Resource Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, North Carolina: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 pp.

Brown, J.A. 2004. Lower Hurricane Creek Stream Stability Survey. Unpublished report for the USDA Forest Service.

Brown, J.A, R. Odegard, and B. Culver 2003. Spirits Creek Channel Stability Survey. Unpublished report for the USDA Forest Service.

Burroughs, E. R., Jr. and J.G. King 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads, General Technical Report INT-264. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, 21 pp.

Clark, B. 1994. Soils, Water, and Watersheds, p.V-1 - V13 in: Melanie Miller (ed.) Fire Effects Guide. National Wildfire Coordinating Group.

75 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Clinginpeel, A. and M.A. Crump. 2005. Sedimentation Model for the Boston Mountains/Ozark Highlands. Unpublished. Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Supervisors Office, Russellville, AR.

Dissmeyer, G.E., ed. 2000. Drinking water from forests and grasslands: a synthesis of the scientific literature. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-39. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 246 pp.

Douglass, J.E. and W.T. Swank. 1975. Effects of management practices on water quality and quantity: Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, North Carolina. In: Municipal Watershed Management Symposium Proceedings, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, NE-13, pp 1-12.

Duggan, T. 2013. Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and Culture: Combs, Cass and Eastern Railroad. http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net

Ehrenfeld, J.G., P. Kourtev, and W. Huang. 2001. Changes in soil functions following invasions of exotic understory plants in deciduous forests. Ecological Applications. 11(5): 1287-1300.

Environmental Protection Agency 2012. http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html accessed 3 December 2012.

Foti, T. and M.S. Deval. 1994. Herbaceous Plant Biodiversity of Stands in the Ouachita and Ozark National Forests. Pages 50-60 in J.B. Baker, comp. Ouachita Mountains: Pretreatment Conditions and Preliminary Findings. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Rep. SO-112, New Orleans, LA.

Foti, T.L. and M. Spetich. 2004. Upland Hardwood Forests and Related Communities of the Arkansas Ozarks in the Early 19th Century. In: Spetich, M.A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Upland Oak Ecology Symposium: History, Current Conditions, and Sustainability. GTR-SRS-73. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. pp 3- 9. Available at http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/6470

Fox, S.F, P.A. Shipman, R.E. Thill, J.P Phelps, and D.M. Leslie. Jr. 2002. Amphibian Communities Under Diverse Forest Management in the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-74. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. pp. 164-173.

Fralish, J.S. 2004. The Keystone Role of Oak and Hickory in the Central Hardwood Forest. In: Spetich, M.A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Upland Oak Ecology Symposium: History, Current Conditions, and Sustainability. GTR-SRS-73. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. pp 3-9. Available at http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/6470

76 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Gorham, B. 1999. Final Report: The 1999 Arkansas Land-Use/Land-Cover Project, Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/arlulc99/final_report.htm

Heath, L.S., J.E. Smith, and R.A. Birdsey. 2003. Carbon trends in U.S. Forestlands: a context for the role of soils in forest carbon sequestration. In (Eds.) Kimble, J.M., L.S. Heath, R.A. Birdsey, and R. Lal. The Potential of U.S. Forest Soils to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. CRC Press, New York. 35-45pp

Hornbeck, J.W., and W.T. Swank. 1992. Watershed ecosystem analysis as a basis for multiple-use management of eastern forests. Ecological Applications. 2(3): 238-247.

Hull, G. 2003. Black Mountain and Eastern: An Arkansas Mountain Railroad. Arkansas Railroader, Vol. 34, No. 9, pg. 12-15.

Jacobson, R.B. and A. Primm. 1994. Historic Land-Use Changes and Potential Effects On Stream Disturbance in the Ozark Plateaus, Missouri. USGS Open-File Report 94- 233. Rolla, MO. 95 pp.

Jones, J.A., and D.A. Post. 2004. Seasonal and successional streamflow response to forest cutting and regrowth in the northwest and eastern United States. Water Resources Research 40:W05203.

Lawson, E.R. 1986. Effects of forestry practices on water quality in the Ozark-Ouachita highlands, In eds. Blackmon, B.G., Proceedings Forestry and Water Quality: A mid- south symposium, Little Rock, AR.

Lawson E.R. and L.H. Hileman. 1982. Nutrient distributions in runoff from Ouachita mountain watersheds. In proceedings second biennial southern silviculture research conference. Jones E.P. ed., Atlanta, GA., USDA FS southeastern forest experimental station p. 477-482.

Lawson, E.R., T.L Rogerson, and L.H. Hileman. 1985, Water quality of stormflows from hardwood forested catchments in the Boston Mountains, presented 5th Central Hardwood Forest Conference, Urbana, IL April, 1985. p.215-221

Lynch, J.A. and S.C. Edwards. 1991. Long term implications of forest harvesting on nutrient cycling in central hardwood forests. Proceedings of the eighth central hardwoods forest conference.

Mackay, D.S. and L.E. Band. 1997. Forest ecosystem processes at the watershed scale: dynamic coupling of distributed hydrology and canopy growth. Hydrological Processes, 11:1197-1217.

Maharaj, V. and J. Carpenter. 1999. The Economic Impacts of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Viewing on National Forest Lands. Report prepared for: Wildlife, Fish, and

77 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Rare Plants, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Appendix 11 and Appendix 12, pp. 40-41.

McDonnell, J.J. 2003. Where does water go when it rains? Moving beyond the variable source area concept of rainfall-runoff response. Hydrological Processes. 17: 1869-1875.

McDougal, L. A.; K. M. Russell; and K. N. Leftwich, eds. 2001. A Conservation Assessment of Freshwater Fauna and Habitat in the Southern National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, Georgia. R8-TP 35 August 2001.

Miller, J.H. 2003. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests: A Field Guide for Identification and Control. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. USDA, Forest Service. Southern Research Station. Available at http://www.invasive.cor/weeds/usfsr8

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 2004. Effects of heavy equipment on physical properties of soils and on long-term productivity: a review of literature and current research. Technical Bulletin No. 887. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Franklin County, AR Available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov accessed [08/27/2013].

National Wild Turkey Federation 2010. http://www.nwtf.org/nwtf_newsroom/press_releases.php?id=12898

Owen, W. 2010. Best Management Practices for Selecting and Using Management Indicator Species. USDA Forest Service, WO, Washington, DC.

Patric, J.H., I.O Evans, and J.D Helvey. 1984. Summary of sediment yield data from forested land in the US: Journal of Forestry, v. 82(2), p. 101-104.

Rogerson, T.L. and E.R Lawson. 1982, Hydrological characteristics of mixed hardwood watersheds in the Boston Mountains, in ed. Muller, R.N. Proceedings of the Fourth Central Hardwood Forest Conference. University of Kentucky, Lexington KY pg. 344- 349.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pogosa Springs, Colorado. 389 pp.

Sabo, G.; A.M. Early; J.C. Rose; B.A. Burnett; L. Vogele and J.P. Harcourt 1990. Human Adaptation in the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series 31, Fayetteville.

78 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project Schuler, J.L. and H.O. Liechty 2005. Seed bank emergence following prescribed burning in the Ozark Highlands. Pages 516-524 in proceedings of the 16th Central Hardwoods Forest Conference.

Schroeder, R.L. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: eastern wild turkey. Biol. Rep. 82(10.106). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife Service. 33 pp.

Smith, E.B. 1988. An Atlas and Annotated List of the Vascular Plants of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. 2012. www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssurgo (accessed October 2012).

Stanturf, J.A., D.D. Wade, T.A. Waldrop, D.K. Kennard and G.L. Achtemeier. 2002. Fire in Southern Forest Landscapes. Pages 607-630 in: Wear, D.M. and J. Greis (eds). Southern Forest Resource Assessment. Gen. Tech. Report SRS-53. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Asheville, NC. Available at: http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/index.htm

Stednick, J.D. 2000. Timber management. In: Dissmeyer, G.E., ed. Drinking water from forests and grasslands; A synthesis of the scientific literature. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, General Technical Report SRS-39. Ashville, N.C.: 103-119.

Stuart, G.W. and P.J. Edwards. 2006. Concepts about forests and water. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 23:1, 11-19.

Swank, W.T. 1968. The influence of rainfall interception on streamflow. Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station U.S.D.A Forest Service, Asheville, North Carolina.

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1988. Forest access roads: design, maintenance, and soil loss. In: Swank, W.T.; Crossley, D.A., Jr., eds. Forest hydrology and ecology at Coweeta. Ecological Studies, Vol. 66. New York: Springer-Verlag: 313-324.

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissel. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology. 14(1): 18-30

USDA Forest Service. 1991a. Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement on Thirteen Rivers in the Ozark National Forest. Southern Research Station, Management Bulletin R8-MB 55, 232 pp.

_____. 1991b. Riparian forest buffers; function and design for protection and enhancement of water resources. NA-PR-07-91. _____. 1995a. Southern Region Annual Fire Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Region.

79 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project ______1995b. Agricultural Handbook 701. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management.

____. 1996. Mulberry River: Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. Ozark National Forest, Russellville, Arkansas.

_____. 1999. Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment: Aquatic Conditions. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report SRS-33, Report 3 of 5, 317 pp.

_____. 2001. Gucinski, H; M J. Furniss, R R. Ziemer, and M H. Brookes, editors. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR- 509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 pp.

____. 2003. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for River Management (v.120803)

____. 2006. Programmatic Agreement among USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas and Oklahoma, Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Arkansas, the State Historic Preservation Officers of Arkansas and Oklahoma, Oklahoma State Archeologist, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Federally Recognized Indian Tribes Concerning the Management of Historic Properties on National Forest Lands in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Russellville, AR.

______.2013a. BAE specialist report.

USDA COE 2016. – water discharge data available at http://www.swt- wc.usace.army.mil/webdata/gagedata/MLBA4.current.html,

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 2013. Soils surveys available at: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/arkansas/

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2015. Biological Opinion dated July 24, 2015 for activities affecting the northern long-eared bat on southern region national forests.

Walter, M.T., M.F. Walter, E.S. Brooks, T.S. Steenhuls, J. Boll, and K. Weiler. 2000. Hydrologically sensitive areas: variable source area hydrology implications for water quality risk assessment. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 55(3):277-284

Watson, L.E. 1989. Status survey of Tradescantia ozarkana, Ozark spiderwort, in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory, Norman. 8 pp.

Weeks, M.L 1995. Soil Disturbance Monitoring on the Ozark-St.Francis N.F.s. 1993- 1995. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest Service. Russellville, AR.

80 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project _____. 2002. Soil Disturbance Monitoring on the Ozark National Forest 1996-2002. Monitoring Data. USDA Forest Service. Russellville, AR.

81 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project 7.0 APPENDICIES

82 Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project APPENDIX A. Table of Road Actions Associated with Project Activities

ID Road Status Before Project Implementation Road Status After Implementation Action Miles 1501A 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.38 1501A 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.17 1501C 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.13 95431H 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Decommission Decommission 0.27 U5426003 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.09 U5426004 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Decommission Decommission 0.08 U5426005 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.18 U5426008 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.17 U5426010 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.20 U5426011 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.37 U5427001 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Decommission Decommission 0.04 U5427003 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Decommission Decommission 0.05 U5427005 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.12 U5427006 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.06 U5427007 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.11 U5427008 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.03 U5427009 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.09 U5427012 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Decommission Decommission 0.32 U5427013 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Decommission Decommission 0.16 U5427017 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.02 U5427018 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.13 U5427019 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.04 U5427020 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Decommission Decommission 0.11 U5427023 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.28 U5427026 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.06 U5427028 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.27 U5427030 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.04 U5427031 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.40 U5427032 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.15 U5427033 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.04 U5430003 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.27 U5430005 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.25 U5430009 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.22 U5430011 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.34 U5430014 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.15 U5430015 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.10 U5430016 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.13 U5430017 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.07 U5430018 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.01 U5430019 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.28 U5430020 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.05 U5430021 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.05 U5430022 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.08 U5430024 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.16 U5430029 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.02 U5430034 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.08 U5431002 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.47 U5431003 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.10 U5431004 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.05 U5431005 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.08 U5431006 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.11 U5431007 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.08 U5431008 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.15 U5431010 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.02 U5431016 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.18 U5431017 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.29 U5431018 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.24 U5431019 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.35 U5431020 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.66 U5431024 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.01 U5431026 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.03 U5431028 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Decommission Decommission 0.08 U5431029 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.31 U5431031 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.21 U5758008 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.04 U5758010 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.05 U5758011 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.32 U5758012 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.45 U5758013 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.50 U5758014 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.07 U5758015 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.06 U5758016 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.05 U5758017 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.12 U5758018 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Decommission Decommission 0.48 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Decommission Decommission 0.17 TOTAL 12.51

1501 4 - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT Reconstruction-Pave 2.50 1501A 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Reconstruction/Relocation 0.06 1501C 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Reconstruction/Relocation 1.39 1501D 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Reconstruction/Relocation 0.61 95431H 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Reconstruction/Relocation 0.66 95758A 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Reconstruction/Relocation 0.21 95758D 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Reconstruction/Relocation 0.12 95758D 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Reconstruction/Relocation 0.78 95758F 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Reconstruction/Relocation 1.28 U5758014 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Reconstruction/Relocation 0.14 TOTAL 7.75

95431H 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Construction 0.26 NEW 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Construction 0.19 NEW 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Construction 0.07 NEW 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Construction 0.05 TOTAL 0.57

95426G 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Close 0.25 95426N 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Close 0.30 95430J 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES Close 0.86 95758D 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Close 1.49 95758D 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Close 0.62 TOTAL 3.52