DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment For Environmental Assessment for Upper Lake Winona Project Responsible Agency: US Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Responsible Official: Megan Moynihan, District Ranger PO Box 189 – 8607 Hwy 7 N Jessieville, AR 71949 For Further Information Contact: Paula Homan, NEPA Planner (501) 984-5313 ext. 107 This project is subject to subparts A and B of 36 CFR Part 218 Project-Level Predecisional Administrative Review Process (objection process); it is not authorized under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA). 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. April 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 ...................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................... 1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose of and Need for the Action ................................................................................ 3 Scope of This Environmental Analysis ........................................................................... 6 Relevant Planning Documents ........................................................................................ 6 History of the Planning and Scoping Process ................................................................. 6 Issues .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Decisions to Be Made ........................................................................................................ 7 CHAPTER 2 ...................................................................................................................... 8 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................... 8 Alternative Design ............................................................................................................. 8 Alternatives to be Documented in Detail ........................................................................ 8 Technical Requirements................................................................................................ 12 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study ..................................... 16 Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ............................ 16 Summary Comparison All Alternatives........................................................................ 17 CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................... 19 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .... 19 Analysis Methods ............................................................................................................ 19 Cultural and Historical Resources ................................................................................ 22 Recreation, Scenery, Wilderness, Roadless Areas ....................................................... 23 Local Economy and Financial Efficiency ..................................................................... 25 Transportation and Infrastructure ............................................................................... 26 Soil Resource ................................................................................................................... 28 i Water Quality .................................................................................................................. 31 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................ 34 Management Indicator Species and Habitat (MIS) ..................................................... 36 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species (PETS) ........................... 56 Public Health and Safety ................................................................................................ 77 Climate Change ............................................................................................................... 80 CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................... 83 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED ............................................................... 83 CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................... 84 REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................. 84 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 92 Appendix A: Activities by Compartment and Stand .................................................. 92 Appendix B: Project Maps .......................................................................................... 115 ii LISTING OF FIGURES & TABLES ULWP Vicinity Map (Figure 1) ....................................................................................... 2 Existing Conditions Contrasted to the Desired Conditions (Table 1.1) ....................... 4 Stands With a Limited Operating Season (Table 2.1) ................................................. 14 Summary Comparison of Management Activities by Alternative (Table 2.3) .......... 17 Summary Comparison of Effects on Environment by Alternative (Table 2.4)......... 18 Comparison by Financial Efficiency (Table 3.1) .......................................................... 26 Comparison of Proposed Action and Allowable Soil Loss (Table 3.2) ...................... 30 Sediment Delivery By Alternative (Table 3.3) .............................................................. 33 Current Age Class Distribution by Forest Type (Table 3.4) ....................................... 34 Post-Harvest Age Class Distribution Pine Types (Table 3.5) ..................................... 36 Potentially Affected Management Indicator Species (Table 3.6) ............................... 38 Terrestrial MIS and Associated Purposes (Table 3.7) ................................................. 39 Aquatic MIS and Associated Purposes (Table 3.8) ...................................................... 54 Herbicide LD50 and Toxicity Risk to Birds (Table 3.9) .............................................. 62 Herbicide LD50 and Toxicity Risk to Insects (Table 3.10) ......................................... 65 iii Upper Lake Winona Project Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action Proposed Action Included in this area are the Lake Winona Research Natural Area (280 acres) and the Alum Fork Experimental Forest (4,658 acres). These special areas are administered by the National Forest with scientific and educational uses coordinated through the Southern Research Station. The Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District, in collaboration with the Southern Research Station, proposes to implement the following management activities (acreages are approximate)*: Seedtree regeneration harvest – 245 acres Commercial thinning – 2,720 acres Large group selection - 252 acres (thinning between large group selection – 906 acres) Small group selection - 159 acres (thinning between groups 712 acres) Single tree selection – 899 acres Site preparation – 1,555 acres* Hand plant shortleaf pine seedlings (if necessary) – 1,555 acres Underplanting if necessary – 400 acres Pre-commercial thinning or release non-harvest areas – 2,396 acres* Stand improvement-midstory removal– 2,566 acres* Stand improvement- release – 1,555 acres* Ecosystem prescribed burning – 15,959 acres Fire line construction – 2.4 miles
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003
    Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003 Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team Arkansas Field Office 601 North University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 Oklahoma Field Office 2727 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74114 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment ii 12/2003 Table of Contents Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment............................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................4 Ecoregional Boundary Delineation.............................................................................................................................................4 Geology..........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Soils................................................................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    Job Number 012318 Tier 3 Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 3 The Environmental Division reviewed the referenced project and has determined it falls within the definition of the Tier 3 Categorical Exclusion as defined by the ARDOT/FHWA Memorandum of Agreement on the processing of Categorical Exclusions. The following information is included for your review and, if acceptable, approval as the environmental documentation for this project. The proposed project would replace two bridges on Highway 7 over the Middle Fork of the Saline River in Garland County (Site 1) and Dry Run Creek in Perry County (Site 2), both within the boundary of the Ouachita National Forest. Total length of the project is approximately 0.5 mile. A project location map is enclosed. The existing roadway consists of two 11’ wide paved travel lanes with 2’ wide gravel shoulders at Site 1 and 2’ wide paved shoulders at Site 2. Existing right of way width averages 132’. Proposed improvements retain the two 11’ wide paved travel lanes, but increase the shoulder width to 6’ (2’ paved). The average proposed right of way width will be 187’ at Site 1 and 132’ at Site 2. Approximately 2.3 acres of additional permanent easement and 0.5 acre of temporary construction easement will be required for this project. To maintain traffic during construction, the Middle Fork Saline River bridge (Site 1) will be replaced using a temporary detour located 60’ east (downstream) of the existing bridge while the new bridge is constructed on the existing alignment. The Dry Run Creek bridge (Site 2) will be replaced approximately 80’ east (upstream) of the existing bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of May 1968 in South Arkansas
    Floods of May 1968 in South Arkansas GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1970-A Prepared in cooperation with the Arkansas State Highway Commission Floods of May 1968 in South Arkansas By R. C. GILSTRAP FLOODS OF 1968 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1970-A Prepared in cooperation with the Arkansas State Highway Commission u. s. s. s. WATER RESOURCES DIVISION ROLL A, MO. RECEIVED APR 101972 AM PM 7|8|9|10|ll|12[li2i3i4i5|6 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1972 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. GS 76-185107 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1 (paper cover) Stock Number 2401-1214 CONTENTS Page Abstract................................................................................................................................... Al Introduction.................................................................. ....................................................... 1 Acknowledgments................................................................................................................ 3 Definitions of terms and abbreviations...... .......... ........................................................... 3 Precipitation.................. .................................................................................................... 4 Floods..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Status of the Kiamichi Shiner, Nottropis Ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae) Henry W
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 59 Article 20 2005 Distribution and Status of the Kiamichi Shiner, Nottropis ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae) Henry W. Robison Southern Arkansas University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Robison, Henry W. (2005) "Distribution and Status of the Kiamichi Shiner, Nottropis ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae)," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 59 , Article 20. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol59/iss1/20 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 59 [2005], Art. 20 Distribution and Status of the Kiamichi Shiner, Notropis ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae) Henry W. Robison Department ofBiologicalSciences, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, AR 71754-9354 Correspondent: [email protected] Abstract The Kiamichi shiner, Notropis ortenburgeri, a diminuitive,silvery, upland stream fish in southwestern Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma was studied from 1999-2001 to determine its distribution, habitat, and conservation status in Arkansas and Oklahoma.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of December 1971 in Western Arkansas
    STATE OF ARKANSAS ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL COMMISSION WATER RESOURCES SUMMARY NUMBER 8 FLOODS OF DECEMBER 1971 IN WESTERN ARKANSAS By R. C. Gilstrap U.S. Geological Survey Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Arkansas State Highway Commission and Arkansas Geological Commission Little Rock, Arkansas 1973 STATE OF ARKANSAS Dale Bumpers, Governor Arkansas Department of Commerce Arkansas Geological Commission Donald V. Allen, Di rector of Commerce Norman F. Williams, State Geologist II CONTENTS Page Abstract---- 1 Introduction 2 Precipitation 3 Flood frequency 8 Floods 9 White River basin 9 Arkansas River basin 13 Red River basin 18 Little River basin 18 Ouachita River basin 20 Flood damage 24 Selected references 26 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Map showing locations of flood-determination sites and precipitation stations 6 2. Graph showing cumulative precipitation in western Arkansas 7 3-5. Discharge-rainfall-runoff hydrograph for- 3. Buffalo River near St. Joe 1? 4. Big Piney Creek near Dover 16 5. Ouachita River near Mount Ida 22 TABLES Page Table 1. Precipitation, in inches, at National Weather Service stations in western Arkansas, December 1-10, 1971 4 2. Slimmary of flood stages and discharges 10 3. Estimated flood damage in report area 25 IV FLOODS OF DECEMBER 1971 IN WESTERN ARKANSAS By R. C. Gilstrap ABSTRACT Heavy rains of December 1971 in western Arkansas caused record-breaking floods on many streams. Heavy rains began on December 8 and continued to December 10. The heaviest rain fell from the afternoon of December 9 to the early morning of December 10.
    [Show full text]
  • FOURCHE LAFAVE BRIDGE HAER AR-67 Arkansas Bridges 2005 AR-67 Spanning Fourche Lafave River at State Highway 7 Nimrod Vicinity Perry County Arkansas
    FOURCHE LAFAVE BRIDGE HAER AR-67 Arkansas Bridges 2005 AR-67 Spanning Fourche Lafave River at State Highway 7 Nimrod vicinity Perry County Arkansas PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240-0001 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD FOURCHE LAFAVE RIVER BRIDGE HAER No. AR-67 Location: Spanning Fourche Lafave River at State Highway 7, Fourche Junction (formerly Boggs Corner), Nimrod vicinity, Perry County, Arkansas UTM: 15.486067.3867720, Nimrod Dam, Arkansas Quad. AHTD#: 01160 Structural Type: Concrete arch Construction Date: 1941 Designer: Arkansas State Highway Commission Builder: Luten Bridge Company, Little Rock, Arkansas Owner: State of Arkansas Use: Vehicular bridge Significance: The Fourche Lafave River Bridge is significant for its association with the Luten Bridge Company and the development of the Arkansas highway system in the first half of the twentieth century. It is an excellent example of 1930- 40s era reinforced concrete bridge construction and is one of twelve Luten-design bridges identified in the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department historic bridges database. Project The Arkansas Historic Bridges Recording Project is part of the Information: Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), a long-range program that documents historically significant engineering sites and structures in the United States. HAER is administered by the Heritage Documentation Programs Division of the
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Road Guide to Arkansas State Highway 10
    STATE OF ARKANSAS ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BEKKI WHITE, DIRECTOR AND STATE GEOLOGIST ROADSIDE GEOLOGY SERIES 02 Geologic Road Guide to Arkansas State Highway 10 A Geotour of the Southern Arkoma Basin Fold Belt And Related Ouachita Mountain Tectonic Zones by Richard R. Cohoon, Ed.D., P.G., Emeritus Professor of Geology Jason A. Patton, Ph.D., P.G., Associate Professor of Geology Victor K. Vere, Ph.D., P.G., Emeritus Professor of Geology Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas 2017 ii STATE OF ARKANSAS Asa Hutchinson, Governor ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Bekki White, Director and State Geologist COMMISSIONERS Dr. Richard Cohoon, Chairman .................................................................................Russellville William Willis, Vice-Chairman .................................................................................Hot Springs Gus Ludwig ......................................................................................................................Quitman Ken Fritsche ................................................................................................................Greenwood William Cains ...................................................................................................................... Altus Quin Baber ........................................................................................................................ Benton David Lumbert ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Compartments 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315
    Fourche Mountain Environmental Assessment - Poteau-Cold Springs Ranger District - Ouachita National Forest ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FOURCHE MOUNTAIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT UNIT COMPARTMENTS 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315 SCOTT AND POLK COUNTIES, ARKANSAS RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: DISTRICT RANGER, PO BOX 417, BOONEVILLE, AR 72927 JULY 2016 FIGURE 1: FOREST SERVICE ROAD Q13 - PHOTO BY DAVA BAUER, USDA FOREST SERVICE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DONNA S. REAGAN POTEAU-COLD SPRINGS RANGER DISTRICT, PO BOX 417, BOONEVILLE, AR 72927, 479-675-4743 EXT. 107 This project is subject to subparts A and B of 36 CFR Part 218 Project-Level Predecisional Administrative Review Process (objection process); it is not authorized under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA). Page 1 of 106 Fourche Mountain Environmental Assessment - Poteau-Cold Springs Ranger District - Ouachita National Forest USDA Non-Discrimination Policy Statement DR 4300.003 USDA Equal Opportunity Public Notification Policy (June 2, 2015) 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.
    [Show full text]
  • John L. Harris Education
    JOHN L. HARRIS EDUCATION: August 1986 University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee Ph.D. Zoology. Dissertation: Systematics, Distribution, and Biology of Fishes Currently Allocated to Erimystax (Jordan), a Subgenus of Hybopsis (Cyprinidae). August 1977 Northeast Louisiana University Monroe, Louisiana M. S. Biology. Thesis: Fishes of the Mountain Province Section of the Ouachita River from the Headwaters to Remmel Dam. May 1975 Southern Arkansas University Magnolia, Arkansas B. S. Biology. Minor: Chemistry EMPLOYMENT: September 1990 to Arkansas State University present Department of Biological Sciences State University, Arkansas Adjunct Assistant Professor of Biology. Curator of Fishes and Mollusks, ASU Museum of Zoology; prepare grant proposals, direct graduate students in their thesis and dissertation research projects, primarily regarding freshwater mussel taxonomy, systematics, distribution, conservation status, and ecology. October 1980 to Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department February 2011 Environmental Division (retired) Little Rock, Arkansas Assistant Division Head. Environmental research director and principal investigator for water quality monitoring, construction impact assessment, and wetland ecosystem analysis. Thirty years experience in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assessment and documentation including Environmental Impact Statement preparation. September 1977 to University of Tennessee October 1980 Department of Zoology Knoxville, Tennessee Graduate Teaching Assistant. Taught General Biology, General Biology Lab, Ichthyology Lab, and Ecology Lab. September 1975 to Northeast Louisiana University May 1977 Department of Biology Monroe, Louisiana Graduate Teaching Assistant. Taught General Botany Lab, General Zoology Lab, and Ornithology Field Lab. PROFESSIONAL HONORS AND AWARDS 2007 Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society. William J. Clench Memorial Award for “singular accomplishments and long-term contributions that have advanced the natural history and understanding of freshwater mollusks”.
    [Show full text]
  • Dammed Arkansas: Early Developments in How Arkansas Came to Be a Dammed State, 1836-1945 Mary Suter University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2013 Dammed Arkansas: Early Developments in How Arkansas Came to Be a Dammed State, 1836-1945 Mary Suter University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the United States History Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Suter, Mary, "Dammed Arkansas: Early Developments in How Arkansas Came to Be a Dammed State, 1836-1945" (2013). Theses and Dissertations. 891. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/891 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. DAMMED ARKANSAS: EARLY DEVELOPMENTS IN HOW ARKANSAS CAME TO BE A DAMMED STATE, 1836-1945 Dammed Arkansas: Early Developments in How Arkansas Came to Be a Dammed State, 1836-1945 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History by Mary C. Suter Indiana University at South Bend Bachelor of Arts in History, 1979 The George Washington University Master of Arts in Museum Studies, 1981 August 2013 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. __________________________________________ Dr. Jeannie M. Whayne Dissertation Director _______________________________________ ____________________________________ Dr. Elliott West Dr Patrick Williams Committee Member Committee Member ABSTRACT The need to manage the rivers of Arkansas has been a driving force in developments that have resulted in dramatic changes to the geographical “face” of Arkansas over the last 200 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix “A”: Biological Evaluation
    Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix “A”: Biological Evaluation BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (with PETS Checklist) of Ecosystem Management Activities Wildcat Hollow Project Area Barnhart, Bear Creek West and Brogan Watersheds (Compartments 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488) Fourche Unit of the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest Yell County, Arkansas by Mary Lynn Mentz, MS and Sarah Thompson, MS Wildlife Biologists Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District P.O. Box 459 Danville, AR 72833 479-495-2844(voice) 479-495-7231 (fax) [email protected] [email protected] April 2012 2012 1 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Project Area Description and Location The Wildcat Hollow Project Area is located in the western portion of the Fourche Unit of the Jessieville- Winona-Fourche
    [Show full text]
  • Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Arkansas
    MAGNITUDE AND FREQUENCY OF FLOODS IN ARKANSAS by Scott A. Hodge and Gary D. Tasker U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4224 Prepared in cooperation with the ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GORDON P. EATON, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey, WRD Earth Science Information Center 401 Hardin Road Open-File Reports Section Little Rock, AR 72211 Box 25286, MS 517 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................. 3 General setting ........................................................................... 4 Rood data ............................................................................... 5 Magnitude and frequency of floods at gaging stations ......................................... 8 Magnitude and frequency of floods at ungaged sites on streams draining less than 7,770 square kilometers............................................................................ 8 Basin characteristics................................................................ 8 Regression analysis ............................................................... 32 Peak discharge equations for Region A .............................................
    [Show full text]