Ozark-St. Francis

National Forests

Monitoring & Evaluation Report

2000
CERTIFICATION

I have evaluated the monitoring results and recommendations in this Report. I have 

directed the Action Plans developed to respond to these recommendations be implemented 

according to the time frames indicated, unless new information or changed resource 

conditions warrant otherwise. I have considered funding requirements in the budget 

necessary to implement these actions.

When all recommended changes to the Forest Plan have been implemented, the Plan will be 

sufficient unless ongoing monitoring and evaluation identify further need for change.

___/s/ Charles S. Richmond _8/6/01___ 

CHARLES S. RICHMOND DATE

Forest Supervisor
Executive Summary

Several items from the 1999 Monitoring and Evaluation Report were nearing completion in 

2000:

• An Off-Highway Vehicle plan has been developed. 

• The St. Francis National Forest is completing an Environmental Assessment for 

development of a State Park.

• Fire planners are assessing prescribed burning needs, with plans to complete a Forest 

Plan Amendment.

Items in the 1999 Action Plan that have not been completed:

• Limits of Acceptable Change standards need to be applied on several districts.

• Rotary Ann and Cove Lake facilities are still not ready for contracting.

• Districts need information to guide them in designating old growth prescriptions.

• A fisheries management plan for the forest needs to be developed.

• Future management of Special Interest Areas needs to be resolved.

• A new implementation schedule for wildlife and range improvements needs to be 

completed.

Personnel shortages and shifting priorities have caused these items to be delayed.

A lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club, et al., in Region 8 centered around monitoring of 

Management Indicator Species (MIS). The forest compiled all known monitoring data that 

was available for the MIS on the forest and displayed this information in a document titled 

"Management Indicator Species Population and Habitat Trends". In some instances, 

monitoring will have to be expanded. In most cases, these MIS will need to be re-evaluated 

during Plan Revision.

Last year’s M & E report predicted that amendments to the Forest Plan will be necessary to 

change or clarify language on biological evaluation of PETS and MIS. As a result of the 

lawsuit, a strategy will be completed in 2001. With the impending Forest Plan Revision, an 

additional amendment may not be necessary at this time. An amendment to resolve Special 

Interest Areas is delayed until the Roadless Policy is resolved, since many of the Special 

Interest Areas coincide with the roadless areas.

There are plans to complete an amendment to restore fire dependent ecosystems on the 

forest.

Due to the outbreak of red oak borers, the forest will develop a strategy for oak 

sustainability.
OZARK-ST. FRANCIS NATIONAL FORESTS

FOREST PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................1

II. Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Results and Report Findings

A. Ecosystem Condition, Health and Sustainability.............................................. 2

B. Sustainable Multiple Forest and Range Benefits.............................................11

C. Organizational Effectiveness..........................................................................18

1. Table I – Forest Expenditures..................................................................19

2. Table II – Forest Objectives Backlogged..................................................20

3. Table III – Actual Accomplishments vs. Plan Projections........................21

III. 2000 Monitoring and Evaluation Action Plan

A. Actions Not Requiring Forest Plan Amendment or Revision.........................23

B. Actions Requiring Amendment or Revision to the Forest Plan......................24

C. Amendments to be Completed.......................................................................26

IV. Appendices

Appendix A List of Preparers

Appendix B List and Description of Plan Amendments

Appendix C Status of 1999 Recommendations and Action Plan

Appendix D Summary of Reviews

Appendix E Updated Research Needs
1 

I. Introduction 

This report documents Forest Plan monitoring and evaluation for Fiscal Year 2000 (October 1, 1999 - 

September 30, 2000). Annually, the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests review and evaluate programs and 

projects to determine if these activities met Forest Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) direction. This 

review by Forest Staff and District Rangers determines if we achieve Forest Plan goals and objectives, we 

properly implement management requirements, and environmental effects occur as predicted in the Plan. 

Section II presents monitoring and evaluation results identified in the Monitoring and Evaluation Schedule 

in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan. This section is organized by Program area and items to be monitored under 

each program. The information includes -- 

• The item being monitored. 

• Variance Allowed - The threshold of change allowed for the project or program 

from the direction set in the Forest Plan that, if exceeded, would call for further 

action. 

• Findings - Documentation of the monitoring results. 

• Recommendations - The actions that the Forest Planning Staff recommends to the 

Forest Supervisor and Leadership Team after evaluation of the Findings. The Forest 

Leadership Team then either approves or changes the recommendations. Possible 

recommendations include: (1) none, (2) increased effort to achieve the objective or 

comply with management direction and Standards and Guidelines, (3) amend the 

Forest Plan to clarify or improve resource management, or (4) further study to 

determine the best action to take. 

Section II also presents monitoring and evaluation results of Forest Plan Management Requirements. The 

information includes -- 

• The complete Management Requirement as it is shown in the Forest Plan. 

• Findings - The documented results of the monitoring efforts from previous year. 

• Recommendation - Recommended action to be taken by the Forest Supervisor to address 

results of evaluating the findings in previous year. 

In addition, the Forest Plan lists a series of goals or targets for various resources. Section II lists these goals, 

the accomplishment and recommendation to either change these Plan projections or to meet them in the 

future. 

On July 13, 2000, the Sierra Club, et al., filed a lawsuit in Region 8 of the Forest Service alleging violation of 

several laws. The controversy in this lawsuit centered around monitoring of Management Indicator Species 

(MIS). 

The lawsuit was settled on May 16, 2001, but since this M & E report covers only FY 2000, findings and 

recommendations for MIS were extrapolated from compilation of information for the settlement. This 

information is believed to be accurate for this report. Management Indicator Species are divided into these 

categories: 

 1. Demand Species, which provide important recreational and/or economic values. 

 2. Species of Concern, for which there is a concern about population numbers. 

 3. Ecological Indicators, which are tied to a particular element of biological diversity and 

 serve as surrogates for other species associated with that element. 

Section III is an action plan for items that require action. 
2 

II. Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Results 

 and Report Findings

 

 A. Ecosystem Condition, Health, and Sustainability

The subject of Ecosystem Condition, Health, and Sustainability covers a range of topics including 

terrestrial wildlife and plant habitats and populations, forest and non-forest land cover, ecosystem 

and watershed conditions, aquatic resources, and forest health issues related to forest insects, 

diseases, and disturbance factors. The sustainability of ecosystems and the components of 

ecosystems are addressed within this subject. 

 1. Wildlife and Fish 

 Mammals

 a) Species: White-tailed Deer (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Demand Species) 

Variance allowed: A white-tailed deer population of 10,000 or less, forest-wide. 

Findings: Harvest data on the Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) on the OzarkSt. Francis from 1975 - 1999 reflects a slightly increasing trend, however, harvest 

numbers have declined for the past three years. This decline could be due in part to 

the lack of early seral habitat on which this species depends. This assumption is 

supported by the fact that harvest records for private lands are increasing during the 

same three-year period. In addition, over the past three years the Ozark-St. Francis 

has been experiencing a severe drought, which could negatively impact deer 

populations. 

Recommendation: Keep as an indicator species. Create more early seral habitat. 

Continue to monitor deer populations and habitat conditions. 

 b) Species: Indiana and Gray Bats (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Species of Concern) 

Variance allowed: An Indiana Bat population of 400 or less. A Gray Bat 

population of 200,000 or less, forest-wide. 

Findings: Bat populations are above thresholds. Annual monitoring indicates stable 

or increasing populations of Indiana and Gray Bat populations. 

Recommendation: Continue to implement protective measures indicated in the 

recovery plans for these species, and monitor for these species. 

 c) Species: Gray Squirrel (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Demand Species) 

Variance allowed: A gray squirrel population of 200,000 or less, forest-wide. 

Findings: Squirrel populations are dependant upon mast crops and tend to increase 

in years that have good mast crops and decrease in years with bad mast crops. FY 

2000 is a good mast year. The increasing age-class distribution on the Ozark-St. 

Francis represents improved habitat condition for this species, and its population was 

within the threshold in FY 2000. ComPATs computer model shows increasing 

squirrel habitat capability. 

Recommendation: Continue to monitor squirrel habitat. Develop monitoring plan 

for Gray Squirrel. 
3 

 d) Species: Black Bear (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Demand Species) 

Variance allowed: A bear population of 60 or less, forest-wide. 

Findings: Ricky Eastridge, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AG&FC) Bear 

Specialist, indicates the bear population is above 2,000 and growing which is well 

above threshold levels. 

Recommendation: Keep as an indicator for demand species. 

 Birds

 e) Species: Wild Turkey (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Demand Species) 

Variance allowed: A turkey population of 8,000 or less, forest-wide. 

Findings: Monitoring of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission harvest records 

from 1975 to present show a generally increasing trend for the State as a whole as 

well as the Forest Service WMAs. The State's Brood Survey for 2000 was the second 

highest ever recorded, which would indicate an increase in the population for 2001. 

Recommendation: Continue to monitor turkey populations and habitat. 

 f) Species: Pileated Woodpecker (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Ecological Indicator) 

Variance allowed: A population of 3,800 or less, forest-wide. 

Findings: Annual monitoring and breeding bird surveys done on the Forest show 

that Pileated woodpeckers are common and increasing on the Forest. This includes 

point counts, Christmas bird counts, migration counts and biological evaluation field 

notes. 

Recommendation: Continue to monitor populations of Pileated woodpeckers. 

 g) Species: Rufous-Crowned Sparrow (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Species of Concern) 

Variance allowed: A decline in population over the past three years. 

Findings: This species is extremely rare and found only in a small area of Mount 

Magazine in very small numbers. Numbers have remained fairly constant since 1972. 

Recommendation: Continue to monitor, expand and maintain existing habitat with 

the use of prescribed burning and Wildlife Stand Improvement. Develop a 

monitoring/management plan for this species. 

 h) Species: Yellow-Breasted Chat (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Ecological Indicator) 

Variance allowed: A decline in the population for three consecutive years. 

Findings: Annual monitoring and breeding bird survey indicate a generally 

increasing trend in Yellow Breasted Chat populations. Habitat for this species 

appears to be declining due to decreasing timber management activities. 

Recommendation: Continue to monitor Chat populations and habitat. 

 i) Species: Red-Shouldered Hawk (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Ecological Indicator) 

Variance allowed: A decline in the population for three consecutive years. 

Findings: Red-Shouldered Hawks population numbers are relatively low but 

stable/slightly increasing on the forest. 

Recommendation: Continue to monitor Red-Shouldered Hawk populations and 

habitat. 
4 

 Fish

 j) Species: Smallmouth Bass (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Demand Species) 

Variance allowed: Sustained decline in water quality or population for three years. 

Findings: No water problems have been identified. Monitoring indicates excellent 

habitat conditions. Several size classes have been observed, indicating good 

reproduction and recruitment of young. 

Recommendation: Continue to monitor the population and habitat for Smallmouth 

bass. Expand the Forest Plan's monitoring scheme to include repeated measures of 

specific sites. 

 k) Species: Big Eyed Shiner, Ozark Minnow, Creek Chub (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

(MIS-Ecological Indicator) 

Variance allowed: Water quality or population for three years. 

Findings: Water quality on the forest has remained in a high quality condition. 

Population trends for these three species remain generally stable or slightly increasing. 

Recommendation: Continue to monitor populations and habitat for these species. 

Expand the forest monitoring scheme to include repeated measures at specific sites. 

 Plants

 l) Species: Ginseng (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Species of Concern) 

Variance allowed: A 10% decline in population or suitable habitat. 

Findings: Illegal collection continues. Based on field observations, there is an 

indication the population is decreasing. 

Recommendation: Place a greater emphasis on enforcement of the ginseng 

moratorium by law enforcement personnel. Develop permanent monitoring stations 

in known ginseng populations. Continue to monitor ginseng populations. 

 m) Species: Alabama Snowreath (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Species of Concern) 

Variance allowed: A 10% decline in population. 

Findings: Based on monitoring of the three known populations on the forest, 

populations appear to be stable. 

Recommendation: Continue to monitor this species. Expand monitoring with 

permanent monitoring stations. 

 n) Species: Ozark Chinquapin (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Species of Concern) 

Variance allowed: A 10% decline in population. 

Findings: Population appears to be widespread and stable. Impacted by the 

Chestnut Blight. 

Recommendation: Continue to monitor this species. Expand monitoring scheme 

to provide more quantitative measures of trends such as monitoring permanent 

transects. 

 o) Species: Climbing Magnolia (LRMP, Chapter 5) (MIS-Species of Concern) 

Variance allowed: A 10% decline in population. 

Findings: Generally found throughout the St. Francis National Forest. Appears to 

be a stable population. 

Recommendation: Continue to monitor and inventory this species. 
5 

p) Management Requirement: Develop and maintain at least four 1-5 acre 

openings, two permanent water sources, and 20% mast component (in pine 

types) per 640 acres. 

Findings: Ranger Districts are complying with this requirement as funding 

allows. 

Recommendation: None. 

q) Management Requirement: Apply old growth prescriptions to about 

13% of the Forests. 

Findings: The Forest Plan called for approximately 13% (150,000 acres) of 

old growth prescriptions to be applied during the current planning period. At 

this time, our CISC database identifies 71,760 acres under old growth 

management. 

Recommendation: In 1997, the Region published new guidelines for old 

growth management, "Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old-Growth 

Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region", Forestry 

Report R8-FR62. The Ecosystems Staff Officer should ensure that this new 

criteria for old growth status be followed to complete a preliminary inventory 

of candidate old growth stands prior to Forest Plan revision. 

r) Management Requirement: Minimize disturbance to nesting turkeys 

during the peak nesting season. 

Findings: Progress is being made in reducing disturbance. 

Recommendation: Continue to close unneeded roads with public support 

for closure and NEPA documentation/decision. 

s) Management Requirement: Develop a plan in cooperation with the 

AG&FC to manage fisheries and develop fisheries management direction for 

ponds and lakes larger than one surface acre and six feet deep. 

Findings: Individual lake management plans have been developed for 

several of the Forests' larger lakes. Management plans include information on 

fish species occurrence, relative abundance and sizes, and recommendation 

for future stocking, habitat management and regulation changes. All lake 

management plans are developed in cooperation with the AG&FC. 

Recommendation: Ecosystems Staff Officer should prepare a management 

plan for the rest of the forests' waters during Plan Revision. 

t) Management Requirement: Manipulate water levels, fertilize and control 

aquatic vegetation and install fish structures to improve fisheries habitat. 

Findings: Ranger Districts are complying with this requirement. 

Recommendation: None. 

u) Management Requirement: Identify and protect threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive plants and animals and manage habitats. 

Findings: Sensitive species were protected through Biological Evaluation 

and management decisions. Forest will develop conservation strategy 

assessments and agreements for PETS. Ranger Districts are complying with 

requirements for protecting and managing T&E species and habitats. Formal 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on the effects 

of forest management on Indiana Bats was completed during 1998. The 
6 

USFWS's opinion was that continued management under the current Forest 

Plan would not jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana Bat. 

Recommendation: None. 

v) Plan Goal: Prescribed Burning 

Accomplished: The districts burned 7,579 acres in 2000 for wildlife improvements. 

The target is 600 - 1,000 acres per year. 

Recommendation: Increase prescribed burning acreage in Revised Plan. 

w) Plan Goal: Wildlife Opening Maintenance 

Accomplished: 240 acres of wildlife openings were maintained in 2000. The target 

is 240 acres per year. 

Recommendation: Develop new implementation schedule. 

x) Plan Goal: Food Plot Maintenance 

Accomplished: 520 acres of food plots were maintained in FY 2000. The Plan 

target is 30 acres per year. 

Recommendation: The implementation schedule is too low and needs to be 

increased to reflect level that would maintain established plots. 

y) Plan Goal: Wildlife Opening Development 

Accomplished: No acres of wildlife openings were developed in FY 2000. The Plan 

target is 0 - 40 acres per year. 

Recommendation: None. 

z) Plan Goal: Food Plot Development 

Accomplished: 22 acres of food plots were developed in FY 2000. The Plan target 

is 0 - 40 acres per year. 

Recommendation: The implementation schedule needs to reflect Plan Goals. 

aa) Plan Goal: Seeding and Planting 

Accomplished: 122 acres were seeded and planted in FY 2000. The Plan target is 0 

- 40 acres per year. 

Recommendation: The implementation schedule needs to reflect Plan Goals. 

bb) Plan Goal: Wildlife Stand Improvement 

Accomplished: 553 acres were improved. The Plan target is 100 - 300 acres per 

year. 

Recommendation: Districts comply when funds are adequate. 

cc) Plan Goal: Pond Construction 

Accomplished: 6 ponds were completed. The Plan target is 0 - 50 ponds per year. 

Recommendation: Revise implementation schedule to reflect Plan Goals. 

dd) Plan Goal: Fish Cover Establishment 

Accomplished: 25 structures were completed. The Plan target is 10 structures per 

year. 

Recommendation: The plan level needs to increase to 100 structures per year. 

ee) Plan Goal: Non-structural Fish Habitat Improvement 

Accomplished: 911 acres of habitat improvement were completed. The Plan target 

is 120 acres per year. 
7 

Recommendation: The Plan level needs to reflect current and projected needs of 

400 acres per year. 

 ff) Plan Goal: Wildlife Improvement Projects to be added 

Accomplished: The Plan is not applicable to several wildlife improvement projects. 

Recommendation: The Plan needs to identify wildlife cover structures; nest 

structures; habitat improvements for sensitive species; mid-story removal and habitat 

restoration (Savanna & Glade). 

2. Range

 

a) Item: Grazing Capacity (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance allowed: 10% or less reduction in estimated stocking rate. 

Findings: All allotments stocked within grazing capacity. Demand for grazing has 

been declining. 

Recommendation: None. 

b) Item: Range Condition & Trend (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance allowed: Any major changes in condition, overgrazing, or unacceptable 

soil disturbance. 

Findings: No major changes occurred in FY 2000. 

Recommendation: None. 

c) Management Requirement: Manage range program to maintain or enhance 

resource conditions. 

Findings: Districts have indicated no significant problems. Districts have 

been checking for allotments that meet minimum use criteria and have placed 

several allotments in inactive status in FY 2000. 

Recommendation: None. 

d) Plan Goal: Prescribed Burning for Forage Improvement 

Accomplished: The districts burned 0 acres for forage improvement in FY 2000. 

The Plan target is 2,000 acres per year. 

Recommendation: The implementation schedule needs to reflect shift of grazing to 

improved pastures. 

e) Plan Goal: Bush-hogging for Range Improvement 

Accomplished: 2,000 acres were bush-hogged by permittees as a term of their 

contract. The Plan target is 2,000 acres per year. 

Recommendation: The Plan needs to assess use and decrease acreage. 

f) Plan Goal: Pasture Fertilization 

Accomplished: Permittees fertilized 1500 acres. The Plan target is 1,000 acres per 

year. 

Recommendation: Plan needs to assess use and decrease acreage. 

g) Plan Goal: Seeding Pastures for Forage Improvement 

Accomplished: 65 acres of pasture were seeded for forage improvement. The Plan 

target is to seed 1,000 acres per year for forage improvement. 

Recommendation: The Plan needs to reflect current and projected needs. 
8 

h) Plan Goal: Fencing 

Accomplished: 1.2 miles of fencing were completed. The Plan target is seven miles 

of fencing per year. 

Recommendation: The Plan needs to assess maintenance and replacement of 

fencing, rather than new miles. 

i) Plan Goal: Pond Construction 

Accomplished: 2 ponds were constructed. The Plan target is 10 ponds per year. 

Recommendation: Reduce in Plan to reflect current and projected needs. 

j) Plan Goal: Corral Construction 

Accomplished: One corral was constructed in FY 2000. The Plan target is two 

corrals per year. Portable corrals improve resource conditions versus permanent 

corrals. 

Recommendation: The Plan needs to assess this activity. 

k) Project: Conversion of Fescue Pasture to Native Species 

Accomplished: 200 acres received weed treatment. 

Recommendation: The districts need to proceed with conversion for ecological and 

livestock health and reproductive reasons. 

3. Soil, Water and Air

a) Item: All Ground Disturbing Activities That Have the Potential to Adversely 

Affect Soil Productivity. (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Minimum of 80% of an activity area will be left in a 

condition that does not decrease vegetative productivity following a soildisturbing activity. 

Findings: Field reviews in a sample of 10 units by the soil scientist and 

district personnel found that soil disturbance was within the standard. 

Recommendation: None. 

b) Item: All Ground Disturbing Activities That Have the Potential to Adversely 

Affect Water Quality and Riparian Areas. (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Deviation from water quality standards for designated 

uses or Best Management Practices not achieving desired condition. 

Findings: In road maintenance and construction, stream crossing, and 

timber sale projects, BMPs achieved their desired results, with some 

exceptions. Erosion control measures were not always properly applied to 

protect soil and water. Some road construction and maintenance projects did 

not adequately protect water quality due to inadequate implementation of 

BMPs. 

Recommendation: BMPs need to be emphasized in planning and 

implementing projects especially relative to drainage structure placement upslope of stream crossings. Enforce erosion control clauses to reduce runoff 

during the construction phase of projects and during inactive periods of the 

contract. Project Inspectors on roads and sale administrators on timber sales 

should use a checklist to assure protective measures are applied. 
9 

c) Item: Water Quality Monitoring of at Least One Harvest Site Each Year. 

(LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Significant impacts to the channel or biological indicators 

that exceed water quality standards. 

Findings: Monitoring BMP implementation on two timber sales showed 

most BMPs were implemented and effective. One road reconstruction 

project was monitored that did not have adequate erosion control installed 

through wet weather. Two prescribed burn units were monitored. Drainage 

from firelines into stream channel was a concern. 

Recommendation: Burn plans should address fireline location and erosion 

control. Forest Hydrologist will help districts identify streams that need 

protection during project planning. Districts and engineering technicians 

should improve design, location, and inspection of erosion control structures. 

d) Item: Soil and Water Resource Improvements (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: A 30% project treatment area failure or deviation from 

water quality standards for designated uses. 

Findings: No major problems exist. 

Recommendation: None. 

e) Item: Herbicide Application Where There is a Risk of Off-Site Movement. 

(LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Information showing persistent off-site movement. 

Findings: Water samples were collected below eight silviculture projects in 

which herbicide had been applied. Samples were collected at the same sites 

during three storms to assure there was no off-site movement. In 2000, there 

were no detectable levels of Triclopyr or Glyphosate in any sample. 

Recommendation: None. 

 f) Item: Water Quality at Developed Swimming Areas (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance allowed: When monitoring indicates that water quality does not 

meet established State and Federal Standards for E. coli and fecal coliform 

bacteria. 

Findings: The Forest has coordinated with the Arkansas Department of 

Health regarding methodology, reporting, and 2000 results. In 1998, the state 

of Arkansas began monitoring public contact waters for E. coli bacteria. The 

Ozark-St. Francis monitors six of their beaches for this organism and 

continues monitoring for fecal coliform at the other five. The only beach 

closure was at Barkshed on North Sylamore Creek. 

Recommendation: The Forest should continue to coordinate with the 

Department of Health to comply with the standards and efficiently protect 

users. 

g) Item: Water Quality, Quantity and Timing in Selected Representative 

Drainage Basins (Baseline Monitoring). (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Any downward trend or lack of upward trend to achieve 

goals and objectives. 

Findings: No downward trends have been detected. 

Recommendation: Coordinate with the state water quality agency and the 

University of Arkansas to use their water chemistry data, map source 

watersheds on GIS and begin broad scale analysis of existing conditions. 
10 

h) Item: Air Quality (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Air quality standards not being met, and air quality 

values being impaired. 

Findings: Fire Management Officer reviewed prescribed fire and smoke 

management plans to assure that activities met standards. The Forest 

continued ozone monitoring at Deer. All measurements were within National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. The Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) site at Deer continues to gather visibility 

data. 

Recommendation: Continue to work with the State of Arkansas on 

voluntary smoke management guidelines utilizing staff air specialist (Ouachita 

NF). 

i) Management Requirement: Maintain and enhance soil, water, air and 

related values through the use of Best Management Practices and other 

techniques including erosion control plans, vegetation filter strips, and 

management of the transportation system. 

Findings: Floodplain and riparian values are considered in most 

construction and maintenance plans; however, many existing Forest system 

roads, adjacent to streams or in floodplains, impact water quality during 

annual floods. Drainage ditches that lead into streams are relocated if they are 

identified as a problem and funds are available. Erosion control plans are 

developed for all projects; however, they are sometimes not effective or are 

not properly installed. Road inventories across the forest have identified 

roads no longer needed for management. They will be closed as funding 

allows. 

Recommendation: Districts should inventory stream crossings and 

floodplain roads and correct problems as funding permits. Use available 

technology and larger rock to construct roads across streams. Project 

inspectors need to provide feedback and make recommendations to their 

supervisors when erosion control measures are not effective, so that 

corrective actions can be taken. Erosion control measures need to be 

incorporated during construction. 

4. Protection

a) Item: Fire Management Planning and Analysis (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Significant deviations from Fire Management Action 

Plan. 

Findings: The Fire Management Action Plan is current and provides 

direction for all Forest fire policies. Prescribed burning continues to grow on 

the National level. Forest backlog is due to low acre accomplishment during 

the early years of the plan. Prescribed burn accomplishments are currently 

listed in several program areas: wildlife, range, timber stand improvement, 

and fuel treatment. 

Recommendation: Fire Management will update, as necessary, the Fire 

Management Analysis to meet the needs of both the Ozark-St. Francis and 

Ouachita National Forests. Districts should achieve their prescribed burn 

targets annually. Oversight of fire management activities should be moved 

into one program. Investigate elevating the 30,000-acre cap on prescribed 

burning to better address ecological and fuel treatment needs. 
11 

b) Item: Fire Suppression (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Significant deviations from Fire Management Action 

Plan objectives. 

Findings: There were 64 fires in FY 2000, burning 2,014 acres. This is about twice 

as many acres burned as in FY1999. 2000 was a record drought year in Arkansas. 

Recommendation: None. 

c) Item: Insect or Disease Symptoms and Damage (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Determination that a pest population is likely to exceed 

endemic stages. 

Findings: State and Private Forestry and the Arkansas State Plant Board 

continue to monitor Gypsy Moth populations. Oak decline and oak borer are 

becoming widespread across the Forest. Scientists from the Forest Health 

Protection Unit of the Forest Service established permanent monitoring plots 

in 1999 and re-inventoried them and prepared a report in FY 2000. The 

Forest inventoried damaged areas on one district in FY 2000 and plans to 

complete aerial surveys over the most heavily impacted areas on the Forest in 

FY 2001. 

Recommendation: The Forest should develop a strategy for oak 

sustainablity using the most current scientific and silvicultural techniques. 

 B. Sustainable Multiple Forest and Range Benefits

Sustainable Forest and Range Benefits are centered on the multiple forest products 

(commercial and noncommercial), services (such as recreation settings), and outputs (such as 

potable water) which provide a variety of benefits. This section addresses relationships of a 

growing society's needs for forest products and sustaining biological and social values within 

the capability of southern ecosystems. 

 1. Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness 

a) Item: Developed and VIS Site Use (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Annual use at a specific site less than 5% or more than 45% of 

theoretical capacity. A total use variance of 15% at 5-year intervals. 

Findings: The new information reporting systems are being incorporated into one 

system called Infrastructure 1.5. 

Recommendation: None. 

b) Item: Dispersed Area Use (LRMP, Chapter 5)

Variance Allowed: When use by ROS class varies more than 15% at end of 

first 5-year Plan interval, and when trails, streams and special areas show 

excessive use or resource damage. 

Findings: The Bayou and Sylamore Districts are still in the process of 

determining the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC). The Buffalo District 

has applied the LAC process for wilderness areas. 

Recommendation: Bayou and Sylamore Districts need to determine 

whether Buffalo District LAC standards apply to their wilderness areas. 
12 

c) Item: Developed Site and Facility Condition (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Deterioration or vandalism at greater than normal rate. 

Findings: Deterioration and vandalism occurred at about normal rates. 

Recommendation: None. 

d) Item: Dispersed Recreation Opportunity Classes (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: 15% ROS acreage change. 

Findings: Review of ROS forest-wide in FY 2000 indicates changes did not 

approach 15% in ROS Classes forest-wide. 

Recommendation: None. 

 e) Item: Off-Highway Vehicle Impacts (LRMP, Chapter 5)

Variance Allowed: Documented user conflicts, photographic record of 

resource damage, and/or observation of public safety hazards. 

Findings: The Forest identified several areas of resource damage, developed 

rehabilitation plans, and continued to work with user groups to develop trails 

or sign existing trails and to establish a network of OHV trails. Mill Creek 

ATV area is currently open, and planning work has begun on the Lee Creek 

System. 

Recommendation: Forest will continue to work with user groups to identify 

potential areas for development of future trails. Forest Supervisor has formed 

small group to analyze effects and make recommendations. A strategy to deal 

with impacts is being developed. 

f) Item: Visual Quality (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Projects that fail to meet adopted Visual Quality 

Objectives (VQO's). 

Findings: Forest continued to comply with VQO's. 

Recommendation: Include new Scenery Management System guidelines in 

the Forest Plan revision. 

g) Item: Potential Wild and Scenic River Protection (LRMP, Chapter 5)

Variance Allowed: Activity affecting free-flowing character or values. 

Findings: Comprehensive River Management Plans and Forest Plan 

Amendment #7 established Wild and Scenic River Management Areas and 

river corridors. Amendment #8 to the Forest Plan includes the goal, values, 

management direction, and standards for the six designated wild and scenic 

rivers. 

Recommendation: None. 

h) Item: Heritage Resource Compliance and Protection (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Non-compliance with 36 CFR 800 and Forest 

Management Requirements. 

Findings: New National Historic Preservation Act regulations were made 

final this year. These new regulations require negotiation of new 

Programmatic Agreements with the State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) and the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). 

Recommendation: Forest Archeologist will continue to work with SHPO 

and THPO on developing appropriate agreements. They will continue to 

complete inventory, evaluation and protection programs under current 

agreements until new ones are developed. 
13 

i) Item: Wilderness (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Soil movement or exposure and/or vegetation loss 

reaches Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC). 

Findings: The districts are still in the process of developing the LAC 

standards. LAC has been completed for wilderness areas included in Wild 

Scenic River corridors. 

Recommendation: When the districts have completed developing LAC 

standards, include as part of the Forest Plan revision. 

j) Management Requirement: Use Executive Orders, regulations, FSM, and 

Forest Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Direction Statement to manage OHV 

use. 

Findings: The Forest continued to work with user groups to identify and 

establish OHV use areas. The Forest coordinated with the Arkansas Game & 

Fish Commission to include "Tread Lightly" in hunter education programs, 

materials and other media. The Forest has not finished implementation of 

the public affairs plan to inform the public of OHV policy and opportunities, 

since the inventory process is not completed. There is a road closure order 

for all closed roads. 

Recommendation: Forest will continue to work with user groups to identify 

potential areas for development of trails. The OHV team is working on 

implementing the overall OHV plan. 

k) Management Requirement: Manage trail system to provide a variety of 

opportunities. 

Findings: The Forest has met annually with the Ozark Highlands Trail 

Association (OHTA) to coordinate maintenance and construction needs. 

OHTA members routinely maintain almost all sections of the Ozark 

Highlands Trail. 

Recommendation: None. 

l) Management Requirement: Inventory and classify caves as they are 

discovered and maintain file in each district office. 

Findings: The Sylamore Ranger District developed a MOU in 1997 with 

"The Association for Arkansas Cave Studies, Inc." (AACS). This MOU (three 

years) allows AACS to assist the Forest Service in first entry inventories of 

caves and their contents. Information is updated bi-annually or as needed. 

There is a forest-wide Challenge Cost Share Agreement to monitor 

undeveloped caves with known TES species. Caves that are recreational are 

monitored by a permit system. Monitoring of cave ecosystems and 

undeveloped cave habitat is done as funding allows. 

Recommendation: None. 

m) Management Requirement: Manage Wild and Scenic Rivers on the 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory to maintain or enhance suitability. 

Findings: The Forest Plan was amended in December 1993, to provide a 

special management area for the six rivers that were designated by Congress. 

The Forest completed comprehensive management plans for each river and 

completed Amendment #8 to the Forest Plan. 

Recommendation: None. 
14 

n) Management Requirement: Preserve wilderness character; manage for 

present and future wilderness use and enjoyment (Management Area 1). 

Findings: The Forest administered wilderness areas according to Plan 

direction. 

Recommendation: None. 

o) Management Requirement: Maintain present developed site range and 

quality for public enjoyment in Management Area 3. 

Findings: Maintenance of developed sites continues at reduced service 

levels. The Forest started the analysis process to determine feasibility of 

partnership with State Parks to manage and improve recreation facilities on 

the St. Francis. The Forest installed one "Sweet Smelling Toilet" on the 

Forest in FY 2000. 

Recommendation: The Public Services Staff Officer and St. Francis District 

Ranger should complete feasibility recommendations for the St. Francis. 

Contracts need to be awarded for Rotary Ann and Cove Lake rehab projects. 

Work needs to be completed at Long Pool Campground rehab. 

p) Management Requirement: Provide and maintain safe attractive facilities 

at administrative sites (Management Area 6). 

Findings: Districts continue to maintain safe, attractive facilities at 

administrative sites by promptly repairing broken or unsafe items and 

maintaining the landscaping. The group campground at Blanchard Springs is 

completed. The walkway at the picnic area at Alum Cove Day-Use Site is 

being restored. 

Recommendation: None. 

q) Management Requirement: Protect and enhance Special Interest Area 

values (Management Area 7). 

Findings: The Districts monitored use and resource damage at Special 

Interest Areas throughout the Forest. Based on the results of monitoring, the 

Buffalo District will complete surveys for NEPA analysis and scope future 

management direction for Sam's Throne. The Forest needs to finalize 

boundaries of proposed additions to Special Interest Areas, as described in 

Amendment 5. 

Recommendation: Continue inventory and evaluation of Special Interest 

Areas. Amend Forest Plan as decisions are made. 

r) Plan Goal: Trail Construction 

Findings: In FY 2000, the Forest constructed/reconstructed four miles of 

trail compared to 12 miles anticipated in the Plan. Through FY 2000, the 

Forest has built 139 miles of trail instead of the 20 miles anticipated in the 

Plan. 

Recommendation: Complete Brock Creek and Lee Creek trails. 

s) Plan Goal: FY 2000 Challenge Cost-Share Partnerships 

Findings: In FY 2000, partnerships continue with Friends of Lake 

Wedington and Friends of the St. Francis. 

Recommendation: None. 
15 

t) Plan Goal: Scenic Byways 

Findings: The FY 93 recommendation that all management planning for the 

Scenic Byways be completed in FY 94 has still not been accomplished. 

Recommendation: The contract to construct a new restroom, improve 

picnic facilities, parking and overlooks along Scenic 7 Byway scheduled to be 

let in 1997 needs to be completed. 

u) Plan Goal: Protection of Heritage Resources 

Findings: The Forest Archeologist did not develop a plan for site protection 

because revision of the Forest Plan has been delayed. The Forest continues 

to monitor known sites for vandalism and continues to investigate reports of 

vandalized sites. 

Recommendation: None. 

v) Plan Goal: Ozark Interpretive Association (OIA) 

Findings: OIA's 2000 sales were $127,336. 

Recommendation: None. 

w) Plan Goal: Developed Site Administration 

Findings: In FY 2000, the Forest continued the Recreation Fee 

Demonstration Project (RFDP) as a forest-wide program. Fourteen 

developed sites were included in the project. The resulting fees collected 

$746,495 under the RFDP rules, returned $704,674 to the Forest. Funds 

($754,358) were to be spent refurbishing and improving the fee areas. 

Recommendation: Continue RFDP on the Forest, especially since 95% of 

collections now return to the Forest. Seek additional areas to bring into the 

program by improving the facilities. 

x) Plan Goal: Heritage Resource Inventory of 12,000 acres per year as 

projected in the Forest Plan. 

Findings: Archaeologists completed fieldwork on all FY 99 and some FY 

2000 projects. 

Recommendation: Program goal should be to comply with NEPA and 

Section 106 with a balance between inventory, evaluation, protection, 

management and interpretation rather than 12,000-acre inventory activity level 

annually. Forest Archeologist should remove inventory activity level as a 

point to monitor during Plan revision. 

2. Timber

a) Project: Total Volume Offered (Volume Sold) (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: 15% at 5-year intervals. 

Findings: FY 92 M & E Report recommended selling no more than an 

average of 9.6 million cubic feet (MMCF) annually for the remainder of the 

plan period. Volume sold in FY 2000 complies with this recommendation. 

The Forest Plan established an Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) for the 14 year 

Plan period of 124.8 MMCF. The total volume sold through the first 14 years 

(FY 87 - FY 2000) is 112.3 MMCF or 85% of the planned amount for this 

period. The downfall is due to reduced volumes sold in FY 90 - FY 95 as a 

result of administrative appeals, lawsuits and reduced funding for subsequent 

years. 
16 

The Forest sold 7.7 MMCF in FY 90, 4.1 MMCF in FY 91, 7.8 MMCF 

in FY 92, 7.2 MMCF in FY 93, 7.4 MMCF in FY 94, and 6.7 MMCF in 

FY 95 compared to a projected annual average of 9.6 MMCF as 

established by the ASQ. Total volume offered is within the allowable 

15% variance after 14 years. Target allocation for FY 2001 is expected 

to be 6.4 MMCF. 

Recommendation: None. 

b) Item: Silvicultural Exams and Prescriptions (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: 15% at 5-year intervals. 

Findings: After 14 years implementing Plan direction, the Forest has 

accomplished 59% of the planned acreage. Shortfall is due to inadequate 

funding and personnel allocations. Districts will continue to examine and 

prescribe the maximum acreage possible within approved funding levels. 

Forest staff will continue requesting adequate funding in out-year program 

budgets. 

Recommendation: None. 

c) Item: Reforestation (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: 15% at 5-year intervals. 

Findings: After 14 years of operation under the Plan, 59,623 acres have 

been reforested compared to a projected 71,280 acres. This is 84% of 

planned. The 3,511 acres reforested in FY 2000 was below the Plan 

projection of 4,820 acres. Shortfall was due to inadequate funding and 

personnel allocations. 

Recommendation: Districts will continue to reforest the maximum acreage 

possible within approved funding levels. 

d) Item: Regeneration (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: 15% at 5-year intervals. 

Findings: During the 14 years of the Plan, the Forest sold 35,026 even-aged 

regeneration acres compared to a projected 59,500 acres, 59% of the acreage 

planned. Use of uneven-aged harvest methods has been considerably lower 

than planned. Hardwood group selection cutting was at 26% of planned and 

pine selection cutting was at 35% of planned after 14 years. The Forest 

planned no pine selection for the first four years because it was not listed as 

an appropriate cutting method in the original Plan but was approved under 

the Amended Plan in FY 91. 

Recommendation: The Forest Supervisor and Ecosystems Staff Officer 

will continue to provide districts with information on acres sold by type of 

cut. District Rangers will use this information to guide decisions to better 

comply with LRMP goals. 

e) Item: Timber Stand Improvement (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: 15% at 5-year intervals. 

Findings: TSI accomplishment is well below planned acreage. 

Recommendation: The Ecosystems Staff Officer will analyze and develop 

new TSI goals as part of the Plan revision. 
17 

f) Item: Maximum Size Limits (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: None. Maximum size limits should not conflict with 

achieving Forest Plan objectives and desired future condition. 

Findings: No areas have exceeded limits stated in the Forest Plan, which are 

50 acres for pine and 30 acres for hardwood regeneration areas. 

Recommendation: None. 

3. Minerals and Geology 

a) Item: Oil and Gas Leases (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Effects that do not meet Forest Management 

Requirements for soil and water; departure from authorizing document terms 

and conditions. 

Findings: The accomplishments for 2000 were below the Plan level. Area 

Consents have been updated. 

Recommendation: Technical Services Staff Officer will continue to monitor 

lease demand and revise projected Plan outputs during Plan revision. 

4. Lands 

a) Item: Special Use Permits (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Violation of permit requirements. 

Finding: Special Use inspections indicated few deviations from permit 

requirements. Administrative actions corrected any violations. 

Recommendation: None. 

b) Item: Land Exchange (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: Compliance with Land Adjustment Plan. 

Finding: The 1993 M & E Report recommended a Plan Amendment to 

adjust projected land exchange acreage to more realistically reflect existing 

opportunities. The Forest has delayed this action until Plan revision. At the 

end of 2000, the Forest was still below projected Plan level due to lack of land 

exchange funds. 

Recommendation: None. 

c) Item: Property Boundary Locations (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: 15% variance from annual goal (average of 100 miles per 

year over Plan period). 

Finding: For 2000, the variance from the annual goal was 38%. Funds have 

been inadequate to meet the planned target in property line locations. 

Recommendation: During Plan revision, adjust the projected property 

boundary location activity to a level based on anticipated needs. 

d) Item: Property Boundary Maintenance (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: 10% variance from annual goal. 

Finding: For 2000, the variance from the annual goal was 72%. 

Recommendation: Continue to re-adjust out-year budget to reflect the 

financing of maintenance on a 10-year interval. 
18 

e) Item: Rights-of-Way (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: +20% of cases require condemnation. 

Finding: The Forest has condemned no Rights-of-Way in the past 14 years 

and is acquiring needed R-O-W for National Forest management on as 

needed basis from willing landowners. 

Recommendation: None. 

5. Facilities 

a) Project: Road Reconstruction and Construction - Comparison of projected 

average annual construction/reconstruction vs. actual accomplishments in 

miles. (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: 15% at 5-year intervals. 

Findings: In FY 2000, the amount of road construction and reconstruction 

was 14% (11 miles) of that predicted in the Forest Plan (79 miles per year). 

For the 14-year period (1987-2000), the amount was 62% of that predicted 

(49 miles vs. 79 miles) per year. 

Recommendation: During Plan revision, the Forest Engineer will revise the 

road reconstruction/construction estimate to reflect anticipated resource 

management activities. 

C. Organizational Effectiveness 

This section addresses agency and cooperator related inputs and constraints: changes in laws 

regulations, and policy and the agency's ability to respond to emerging issues and changing conditions 

to implement the Forest Plan. 

Monitoring and evaluation allows the Forest Supervisor to improve compliance with management 

requirements and to identify and schedule Forest Plan amendments or revisions, where needed, to 

improve resource management. The Forest began the Forest Plan revision process in 1993. In 

coordinating this process with the Ouachita and Mark Twain National Forests in 1994, it became 

apparent that most of the first Phase of revision (the analysis of the management situation--AMS) 

could be accomplished more efficiently if the three Forests combined resources. 

In the fall of 1995, as budgets and the workforce continued to decline, the revision was postponed. 

In early 1996, the Ozark-St. Francis, Ouachita, and the Mark Twain National Forests started the 

Ozark/Ouachita Highland Assessment. Final documents from this Assessment were distributed in 

2000. In 1997, Congress prohibited forests from spending funds for Plan Revisions, postponing 

revisions until final Planning regulations are issued. Exceptions are for Forests where Plans were 

already underway, and a Notice of Intent (NOI) had been issued. The Ozark-St. Francis National 

Forests will begin Plan Revision in FY 2002. 

Monitoring and evaluation of various items indicate some are not meeting the outputs predicted in 

the existing Plan. The original intent was to update or change these items during Forest Plan 

Revision. The Forests will continue to identify critical changes and modify the existing plan through 

amendments, where necessary. 
19 

TABLE I

ACTUAL FOREST EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO FOREST PLAN BUDGET 

 FOREST PLAN ACTUAL 2000

ACTIVITY BUDGET1 EXPENDITURES

 

Timber $4,344,000 $4,261,000 

Wildlife / Fish / PETS 761,000 678,000 

Recreation/ Wilderness / Heritage2 1,873,000 2,471,000 

 

Law Enforcement 0 60,000 

Fire 1,405,000 1,439,000 

Lands 395,000 404,000 

Minerals 268,000 209,000 

Engineering 2,505,000 3,423,000 

Soil / Water / Air 365,000 107,000 

General Administration 1,815,000 1,363,000 

Range 80,000 118,000 

Ecosystem Inventory, 

Monitoring, Planning3

1,237,000 961,000 

TOTAL $15,048,000 $15,494,000 

 1The figures in this column represent about 3 percent above 1998 "Level 3” budget which was based 

 on “Level 3” funding in 1996. 

 2Recreation/Wilderness/Heritage includes recreation and trail construction funds. 

 3The category for Ecosystem Inventory, Monitoring, and Planning for forest-wide inventory 

 and monitoring was created in 1996. It includes expenditures of Soil, Water, Air, Wildlife, 

 Range and Recreation, as well as Administration and Land Management Planning. 
20 

TABLE II

FOREST PLAN OBJECTIVES BACKLOGGED 

 

 ACTIVITY UNITS BACKLOG

 

Recreation 

*Water System each 1 

*Flush Toilets each 1 

Campground area 5 

Swim Site Expansion area 2 

 

Range 

Pond Construction structures 120 

Burning acres 28,200 

Brush Hogging acres 23,700 

Fertilization acres 9,300 

Seeding acres 14,550 

Fencing miles 90 

Corral Construction structures 27 

 

Timber 

Examination & Prescription acres 641,051 

Soil, Water, & Air 

Watershed Maintenance acres 616 

 

Lands 

Property Line Location miles 869 

Landline Maintenance miles 595 

 

Fuel Treatment 

**Prescribed Burning acres 8,263 

 

Wildlife 

Wildlife Stand Improvement acres 0 

Wildlife Opening Maintenance acres 38 

Pond Fertilization acres 0 

Pond Construction structures 24 

 * Projects funded in FY 93; planning and design in progress. 

 **Prescribed Burn program is progressing toward Forest Plan Objectives. See Table III. 
21 

TABLE III

Comparison of actual accomplishments by each fiscal year to the total activities proposed in the Forest Plan. 

This table displays the Forest's progress in reaching total to date. Since 2000 is the fourteenth year of the 

Plan, and the Plan objectives were based on a 10-year period, projections were extended proportionally. 

ACTIVITIES UNITS LRMP Ob1 FY87-FY96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY2000 % PLAN 

RECREATION 

 Use Administration PAOT-D na 12.6 MM 1.3 MM 1.3MM 1.4MM 1.4MM na 

 Trail 

 -Construction/Reconstruct. miles 114 141.5 10 2 4 4 142% 

 -Maintenance miles na 142.5 75 128 144 144 na 

 Cultural Resource 

 -Inventory acres 156,000 181,145 20,384 25,464 19,722 19,722 171% 

 -Evaluation sites na 112 26 42 36 36 na 

Wilderness Administration PAOT-D 1,736,800 1,339,000 133,600 133,600 133,600 133,600 108% 

 

WILDLIFE & FISHERIES 

 Prescribed Burning acres 10,400 18,713 1,738 3,583 5,860 7,579 360% 

 Wildlife Opening Maint. acres 2 ,717 1,749 78 320 384 240 102% 

 Food Plot Maint. acres 312 1,948 308 60 538 520 1,081% 

 Wildlife Opening Dev. acres 338 959 34 38 59 0 322% 

 Food Plot Dev. acres 78 1,127 61 21 7 22 1,587% 

 Wildlife Stand Improvement acres 1,404 330 225 447 812 553 169% 

 Seeding and Planting acres 260 2,117 1,661 170 461 122 1,743% 

 Pond Construction structures 416 377 30 18 25 6 110% 

 Fish Cover Dev. structures 130 322 7 12 15 25 293% 

 Pond Fertilization acres 1,560 858 30 200 375 911 152% 

 

RANGE 

 Prescribed Burning acres 26,000 1,250 66 30 295 0 6% 

 Brush Hogging acres 26,000 2,698 800 160 500 2,000 24% 

 Fertilization acres 13,000 2,898 800 0 500 1,500 44% 

 Seeding acres 13,000 167 20 40 85 65 3% 

 Fencing miles 91 7 0 2 5 1.2 17% 

 Pond Construction structures 130 18 0 7 3 2 23% 

 Corral Construction structures 26 1 0 0 1 1 12% 

 

SOIL AND WATER 

 Watershed Improvements acres 325 419 20 27 48 30 167% 

 Watershed Maintenance acres 1,664 767 25 10 10 10 49% 

 Soil & Water Inventory acres na 134,174 10,000 8,080 8,000 4,000 na 

 

% Plan = % of Forest Plan Accomplished to Date 

na = not assigned 

LRMP Obj = Objectives set by Forest Plan 

PAOT-D = (People at One Time capacity) X (number of Days recreation site is open). 

1 14 year LRMP objective. 
22 

 TABLE III continued

ACTIVITIES UNITS LRMP Ob1 FY87-FY96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 2000 % PLAN

TIMBER2 

 Timber Vol. Offered MCF 124,800 85,562 9,971 8,177 7,070 6,952 94%

 Timber Vol. Sold MCF 124,800 81,531 8,173 10,308 6,621 4,803 89%

 Reforestation 

 -Hardwood acres 26,600 17,567 1,028 1,086 1,712 132 81%

 -Pine acres 40,350 26,282 2,727 2,946 2,764 3,379 94%

 TSI 

 -Hardwood acres 20,800 12,896 869 1,146 1,425 1,171 84%

 -Pine acres 83,800 24,030 1,943 1,258 1,073 1,951 36%

 EAM Cutting (Ac. Sold) 

 -Pine Clearcutting acres 20,150 8,767 47 0 0 0 44%

 -Hardwood Clearcutting acres 14,000 8,838 5 0 0 0 63%

 -Pine Seedtree acres 10,300 6,755 1,933 1,236 817 454 109%

 -Pine Shelterwood acres 5,400 862 301 331 295 247 38%

 -Hardwood Shelterwood acres 5,500 2909 41 544 367 269 75%

 UAM Cutting (Ac. Sold) 

 -Hardwood Group Selection acres 54,600 12,354 516 12,354 889 152 48%

 -Pine Selection acres 27,000 6,841 625 1,743 760 385 38%

 Pine/Hardwood Thinning acres 82,600 50,241 7,011 6,026 4,784 5,974 90%

 Exam. & Prescription acres 1,430,000 767,843 56,677 32,705 13,283 32,719 63%

 

FUEL TREATMENT 

 Prescribed Burning acres 65,000 30,143 8,205 11,123 20,266 22,583 142%

 

ROAD WORK 

 Reconstruction/Construction miles 1,021 535 62 38 37 11 67%

 

LANDS & MINERALS 

 Mineral Leases3 Leases 3,388 6,814 60 31 42 32 206%

 Land Acquisition4 acres 5,616 18,710 557 769 1,361 529 390%

 Land Exchange acres 10,400 3,016 334 143 1,074 329 47%

 Boundary Location miles 1,300 503 13 9 6 4 41%

 Landline Maintenance miles 2,600 1,853 41 42 70 0 77%

 Right of Way Acquisition number na 210 10 11 3 8 na

 

% Plan = % of Forest Plan Accomplished to Date 

na = not assigned

LRMP Obj = Objectives set by Forest Plan

EAM Cutting (Ac. Sold)= Even-Aged Management (Acres Sold)

UAM Cutting (Ac. Sold) = Uneven Age Management (Acres Sold)

MBF = Thousand Board Feet

MCF= Thousand Cubic Feet

TSI = Timber Stand Improvements

1 14 year LRMP objective. LRMP OBJ Column for Timber represents a weighted average of 4 years under the original 

 Forest Plan and 10 years under the amended Forest Plan.

2 Hardwood and Pine Selection acres are gross stand acres.

3 Energy and non-energy processed.

4 Includes 20 acres donated and 75 acres drug forfeiture lands transferred to USA in 1998, and 40 acres donated in 1999.
23 

III. 2000 Monitoring and Evaluation Action Plan 

This section flows out of the findings and recommendations made in the previous section. It 

lists the actions to be taken, including forest plan amendments or revision. 

A. Actions Not Requiring Forest Plan Amendment

 or Revision

 

1. Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness

a) Action: Continue to work with the State Historic Preservation Office, the 

Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and the Advisory Council on approval of 

Programmatic Agreements and continue to complete a site evaluation and site 

protection program to complement the inventory program. (See 

recommendation 1h, page 12) 

Responsibility: Forest Archaeologist 

Completion Date: On-going 

b) Action: Continue the Recreation Fee Demonstration Project and bring 

additional sites into the program by improving the facilities. 

(See recommendation 1w, page 15) 

Responsibility: Public Services Staff Officer 

Completion Date: On-going 

2. Wildlife, Fish and Range

a) Action: Make an annual count of the bats and install gates on the caves, if 

necessary. (See recommendation 1b, page 2) 

Responsibility: District Rangers with Indiana or Gray Bat Colonies 

Completion Date: On-going 

b) Action: Continue to minimize disturbance to turkeys during nesting. 

(See recommendation 1r, page 5) 

Responsibility: District Rangers 

Completion Date: On-going 

3. Timber

a) Action: Continue to provide Districts with information to guide decisions on 

type of harvest and volume sold, to conform with goals of the Land 

Management Plan. (See recommendation 2d, page 16) 

Responsibility: Ecosystems Staff Officer & Forest Supervisor 

Completion Date: Each fiscal year 
24 

4. Soil, Water, and Air 

a) Action: Coordinate procedures to monitor Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) and provide feedback to improve BMP implementation. Timber 

sales on each district will be monitored for BMP implementation. (See 

recommendations 3b, page 8; 3c, page 8; and 3i, page 10) 

Responsibility: Forest Soil Scientist & Forest Hydrologist 

Completion Date: On-going 

b) Action: Include BMPs in design and construction of stream crossings. 

(See recommendations 3b, page 8; and 3i, page 10) 

Responsibility: District Rangers & Technical Services Staff Officer 

Completion Date: On-going 

c) Action: Coordinate with the Arkansas Department of Health for consistency 

in monitoring swim areas. (See recommendation 3f, page 9) 

Responsibility: Forest Hydrologist 

Completion Date: On-going 

d) Action: Inventory and correct problems at stream crossings. Project 

inspectors need to provide feedback when erosion control measures are not 

being effective. Better, more timely, erosion control measures need to be 

applied, especially if construction leaves bare soil over the winter months. 

(See recommendation 3i, page 10) 

Responsibility: District Rangers, engineering technicians 

Completion Date: On-going 

5. Protection 

a) Action: Due to outbreak of red oak borers, the Forest should develop a 

strategy for oak sustainability, using the most current scientific and 

silvicultural techniques. (See recommendation 4c, page 11) 

Responsibility: Ecosystem Staff Officer 

Completion Date: FY 2001 

B. Actions Requiring Amendment or Revision

to the Forest Plan

1. Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness

a) Action: Incorporate monitoring systems for recreation activities and include 

Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) for Wilderness Areas. 

(See recommendations 1b, page 11; and 1i, page 13) 

Responsibility: Public Services Staff Officer, Forest Landscape Architect 

Completion Date: Plan Revision 

b) Action: Include new Scenery Management System guidelines in Plan 

Revision. (See recommendation 1f, page 12) 

Responsibility: Forest Landscape Architect 

Completion Date: During Plan Revision 
25 

c) Action: Remove acreage of heritage resource inventory as a Forest Plan 

monitoring requirement and establish a site evaluation activity level. 

(See recommendation 1x, page 15) 

Responsibility: Public Services Staff Officer 

Completion Date: During Plan Revision 

2. Wildlife, Fish and Range

a) Action: Develop appropriate monitoring systems and goals for a number of 

habitat types and species. (See recommendations on pages 2 - 7) 

Responsibility: Ecosystems Staff Officer 

Completion Date: On-going, to be included in Plan Revision 

3. Timber

a) Action: Revise the TSI activity level to reflect changing needs for TSI. 

(See recommendation 2e, page 16) 

Responsibility: Ecosystems Staff Officer 

Completion Date: Plan Revision 

4. Facilities

a) Action: Revise the road reconstruction/construction activity schedule to 

reflect that this activity need is a result of resource management decisions. 

(See recommendation 5a, page 18) 

Responsibility: Technical Services Staff Officer 

Completion Date: Plan Revision 

5. Lands and Minerals

a) Action: Revise the projected lease activity level to reflect demand changes. 

(See recommendation 3a, page 17) 

Responsibility: Technical Services Staff Officer 

Completion Date: Plan Revision 

b) Action: Adjust the projected land exchange, property boundary location and 

property boundary maintenance levels to reflect more realistic activity level. 

(See recommendations 4b, c and d, page 17) 

Responsibility: Technical Services Staff Officer 

Completion Date: Plan Revision 
26 

C. Amendments to be Completed

1. Amendment Description: PETS Amendment - This amendment proposes a change in the 

way biological evaluations are completed. It proposes changes to the language that was 

added through Amendment #4. 

Responsibility: Forest Planners 

Proposed Date of Completion: FY 2000 

Status: A strategy paper will be completed in 2001 to assess the necessity of a Plan 

Amendment. 

2. Amendment Description: MIS Amendment – This amendment proposes additional 

clarification regarding selection and monitoring of Management Indicator Species. 

Responsibility: Ecosystems Staff Officer and Watershed and Planning Staff Officer 

Proposed Date of Completion: FY2000 

Status: A strategy paper will be completed in 2001 to access the necessity of a Plan 

Amendment. 

3. Amendment Description: SIA Amendment – Amendment 5 to the Forest Plan committed 

the Forest to evaluate additional Special Interest Areas. (See recommendation 1q, page 14) 

Responsibility: District Rangers and Watershed and Planning Staff Officer 

Proposed Date of Completion: FY 2000 

Status: The Roadless Policy included many of the proposed SIAs. Until the controversy 

over these rules clears, it will be difficult to resolve the SIAs. 

 4. Amendment Description: Restoration of fire dependent ecosystems. 

Responsibility: Fire Management Officer and Forest Planners 

Proposed Date of Completion: FY 2000 
27 

APPENDIX A

FOREST INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM 

Names and positions of the Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Interdisciplinary Team who contributed to 

this report. 

Steve Best Forest Wildlife Biologist 

Richard Bowie Forest Landscape Architect 

 

Jack Davis Planner 

 

Duane Dipert Watershed and Planning Staff Officer 

 

Howard Freerksen Ecosystems Staff Officer 

 

Cary Frost Planner 

 

Roger Fryar Fire Management Officer 

 

Deryl Jevons Planner 

 

Ron Klouzek Technical Services Staff Officer 

 

Gary Knudsen Public Services Staff Officer 

 

Connie Lee Resource Support Assistant 

 

Connie Neff Forest Hydrologist 

 

Len Weeks Forest Soil Scientist 

 
28 

APPENDIX B

LIST AND DESCRIPTION OF PLAN AMENDMENTS 

1. Added language to the Forest Plan on southern pine beetle. (1987) 

2. Clarifies the process and schedule for suitability studies for rivers eligible for consideration 

for inclusion in the National Rivers System. (1987) 

3. Designated a corridor along the Ozark Highlands trail and changed the Visual Quality 

Objective. (1989) 

4. Incorporated the methods and tools available for use in the Final EIS on vegetation 

management in the Ozark/Ouachita Mountains. (1990) 

5. Resolves appeals to the Forest Plan, committing the Forest to different water monitoring, 

examination of Special Interest Areas, inventory of forest roads, modification of timber 

management techniques, etc. (1991) 

6. Designated Dismal Hollow as a Research Natural Area. (1990) 

7. Established corridors for six wild and scenic rivers. (1993) 

8. Added the standards and guidelines, management direction, and goals and objectives from 

the wild and scenic river plans. (1996) 

9. Classifies acquired lands from 1986 to 1998 into management areas. (1999) 
29 

APPENDIX C

STATUS OF 1999 RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLAN 

Many of the recommendations from the 1999 Monitoring and Evaluation Report (Part III A) are on-going 

activities. 

Other recommendations (Part III B) will require Plan Amendment or Revision. Delay of Forest Plan 

Revision may result in an increasing number of recommendations to be included in Plan Amendments. 

Many recommendations are not critical, but are listed so they can be included in the revised Forest Plan. 

Following are the status of Actions that have a completion date other than "on-going" or "Plan Revision": 

a) Action: Determine if Buffalo District Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) 

standards apply to the situation on Bayou and Sylamore Districts. Buffalo 

Ranger District needs to apply to their situation. (See recommendation 1b, 

page 11) 

Responsibility: Bayou, Sylamore, Buffalo District Rangers 

Completion Date: FY 2001 

Status, FY 2000 M & E Report: Nothing has been done. 

b) Action: Assist the St. Francis National Forest in completing analysis for 

partnership with State Parks at Bear Creek Lake Recreation Area and other 

recreation facilities on that forest. (See recommendation 1o, page 14) 

Responsibility: Public Services Staff Officer, St. Francis Deputy Ranger 

Completion Date: FY 2001 

Status, FY 2000 M & E Report: Partnership well developed, EA for 

development of Mississippi River State Park underway, and Rotary Ann and 

Cove Lake still not ready for contracting. Long Pool Campground nearing 

completion in 2000. 

c) Action: Provide Districts with information to guide them in designating old 

growth prescriptions on 13% of the Forest. Correct CISC database to 

account for discrepancies between prescriptions and database. (See 

recommendation 1q, page 5) 

Responsibility: Ecosystems Staff Officer; Watershed and Planning Staff 

Officer, District Rangers 

Completion Date: FY 2000 and on-going 

Status, FY 2000 M & E Report: This has not been done. One planner 

position vacant. 

d) Action: Develop fisheries management plan for forest and for ponds and 

lakes larger than one acre and six feet deep. (See recommendation 1s, page 5) 

Responsibility: Fisheries Biologist 

Completion Date: FY 2002 

Status, FY 2000 M & E Report: None. Fish Biologist position vacant. 
30 

e) Action: Forest Supervisor will form ID Team to develop plan for OffHighway Vehicle (OHV) use on the forest to identify potential areas for 

development of OHV trails and implement Forest policy for OHV use. (See 

recommendation 1j, page 13) 

Responsibility: Forest Supervisor 

Completion Date: A team was formed in 1999 - recommendations due FY 

2001. 

Status, FY 2000 M & E Report: Recommendations were developed in FY 

2000. 

f) Action: Complete surveys to determine future management direction for 

proposed additions to Special Interest Areas. (See recommendation 1q, page 

14) 

Responsibility: District Rangers and Forest Planners 

Completion Date: FY 2001 

Status, FY 2000 M & E Report: The Forest Service Road Policy has 

delayed 

completion. 

g) Action: During Plan Revision consider revision of plant and animal 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) to incorporate species that are better 

ecological indicators. (See recommendations 1m, n, and o, page 4) 

Responsibility: Ecosystems Staff Officer 

Completion Date: FY 2001 

Status, FY 2000 M & E Report: Biologists started working on a strategy in 

FY 2000. 

h) Action: Develop a new implementation schedule for wildlife and range 

improvements. (See recommendations on pages 6 - 8) 

Responsibility: Ecosystems Staff Officer 

Completion Date: FY 2001 

Status, FY 2000 M & E Report: None. 

i) Action: Determine the appropriate scale at which fire dependent ecosystems 

should be restored and develop Forest-wide management plan for restoring 

these communities. (See recommendations 1v, page 6; and 4a, page 10) 

Responsibility: Forest Planners and Fire Management Officer 

Completion Date: FY 2001 

Status, FY 2000 M & E Report: Fire planners are assessing prescribed 

burning needs. A Forest Plan Amendment should be prepared. 
31 

APPENDIX D 

SUMMARY OF REVIEWS 

Fire Management provides functional assistance/fire readiness reviews on each Ranger District prior to both 

the spring and the fall fire season. 

A Regional Office Fleet Monitoring Review was conducted for six of the seven districts on the Ozark-St. 

Francis National Forests and the Cass Job Corps Center on September 18-22, 2000. (See public files letter 

7130 dated October 26, 2000, for letter transmitting final RO Monitoring Trip Report to districts/Cass Job 

Corps Center.) 

Three OIG Reviews - June 1, 2000 

KV Review - July 2000 

Timber Activity Review - August 2000 
32 

APPENDIX E 

UPDATED RESEARCH NEEDS 

Research needs previously identified: 

• Evaluate the role of fire dependent habitats such as glades and savannas in the overall health of the 

upland hardwood ecosystem. 

• Basic information on reptiles and amphibians of Ozark National Forest including occurrence, habitat 

relationships, special needs and suspected limiting factors. (on-going) 

• Habitat relationships of PETS Species on the Ozark and St. Francis National Forests. 

• Evaluation of minimum early successional habitat needs to support viable populations of early 

succession obligate birds such as Prairie Warblers, Yellow-breasted Chats and Blue-winged Warblers. 

• Effects of silvicultural practices on flora and fauna in upland hardwoods with emphasis on PETS and 

Neotropical migratory birds. The study design for Neotropical birds should be similar to the 

Ouachita National Forest study but conducted in upland hardwood habitat. 

• Importance of down and dead wood to wildlife in the Ozark and St. Francis National Forests. 

• Evaluation of habitat needs for riparian dwelling wildlife of the Ozark and St. Francis National 

Forests. 

• Basic information on how fires affect wildlife habitat in upland hardwood ecosystems. 

• Basic inventory information on mollusks of the Ozark National Forest. This information is urgently 

needed since it has been discovered that the Zebra mussel is found in Lake Dardanelle. (on-going) 

• Evaluation of habitat improvements for Neotropical Migrant and Native Birds. Improvements such 

as nest boxes, snag creation, and understory and midstory manipulation would be evaluated to see 

how effective they are in increasing bird populations. 

• Evaluation of silvicultural activities on Cerulean Warbler habitat. 

• Habitat use by endangered bats that inhabit Ozark National Forest caves. (on-going) 

• Effects of ATVs on reproductive success of wildlife on the Ozark National Forest. 

• Life history of the Longnose Darter (ecology and reproductive biology). 

• Importance of seasonal streams to reproduction of fish in the Boston Mountains. 

• Evaluation of stream habitat improvements on Smallmouth Bass in the Boston Mountains. 
33 

Prescribed burning effects on hardwoods and on soil productivity, characteristics, and nutrient cycling. 

• Minimizing smoke impacts from prescribed burning activity. 

• Growing season burning effects. 

• The importance of fire to the hardwood ecosystem. 

• Ecological consequences of not regenerating hardwood stands within the next 50 to 150 years. 

• Effects of prescribed burning in hardwood Forests on T & E species, specifically the Indiana Bat and 

the Red Bat.

Research Needs From Mid-Plan Review

During the Mid-Plan Review in 1991, the Planning Team reviewed existing and planned research and 

developed additional research needs to be included in the Plan. Cooperative research with the 

University of Arkansas at Monticello, the Forest Experiment Stations, the Ouachita National Forest, 

and other partners on many projects is still underway. Future research topics recommended during 

the Mid-Plan Review were: 

1. Large-scale, multi-resource studies to determine effects of different management practices on 

ecosystems. 

 2. Prescribed burning effects on soil productivity, characteristics, and nutrient cycling. 

 3. Public expectations of uneven-aged timber management. 

4. Document resource demands, specific to the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests for water, 

recreation, wildlife, and minerals. 

 5. Riparian area fish and wildlife needs (habitat dependent species.). 

 6. Old growth needs-- 

!"dependent species. 

!"treatments for dependent species. 

!"definition of Ozark-St. Francis National Forests old growth 

vegetation. 

!"description of Pre-European settlement environment. 

 7. Habitat needs for neo-tropical migrants. 

 8. Habitat relationships of protected, endangered, threatened, and sensitive wildlife species. 

9. Authenticated habitat capability models for management indicator and other selected species. 
34 

 10. Recreation marketing, customer surveys and analysis for-- 

!"dispersed recreation 

!"developed recreation 

!"wild and scenic rivers 

!"scenic byways 

!"wilderness use 

Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or disability are welcome to use and enjoy all 

facilities, programs and services on the USDA. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency policy 

and should be reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20050.