Ozark-St. Francis 

National Forests 

Monitoring & Evaluation Report 

2001 

 
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 4/5/02

CHARLES S. RICHMOND DATE 

Forest Supervisor

 
Executive Summary 

Several items from the 2000 Monitoring and Evaluation Report were completed in 2001: 

• The St. Francis National Forest prepared an Environmental Assessment for development of a 

State Park. 

• Fire planners have assessed prescribed burning needs. It was determined that a Forest Plan 

amendment is not needed. 

• Two plan amendments were completed. Amendment 10 allows access to new campgrounds in 

Sam's Throne Special Interest Area. Amendment 11 allocates 300 acres of Management Area 8 

to Management Area 3 on the St. Francis National Forest for the State Park proposal. 

Items in prior Action Plans that have still not been completed: 

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

• Rotary Ann and Cove Lake facility designs are being finalized for contracting in 

FY 2002. 

• A fisheries assessment and management plan for the forest has been started. 

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

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

The 1999 M & E report predicted that amendments to the Forest Plan would be necessary to change or 

clarify language on biological evaluation of PETS and MIS. As a result of a lawsuit, a strategy was 

completed in 2001. With the start of the Forest Plan Revision, an additional amendment may not be 

necessary at this time. An amendment to resolve proposed Special Interest Areas is delayed until the 

Roadless Area Policy is resolved, since many of the proposed Special Interest Areas coincide with the 

roadless areas. 

Due to the increase in "oak decline," the forest has developed a strategy for oak sustainability and hired a 

full-time Oak Sustainability Coordinator. 

 
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..........................................12 

C. Organizational Effectiveness........................................................................19 

1. Table I – Forest Expenditures...............................................................20 

2. Table II – Forest Objectives Backlogged...............................................21 

3. Table III – Actual Accomplishments vs. Plan Projections.....................22 

III. 2001 Monitoring and Evaluation Action Plan 

A. Actions Not Requiring Forest Plan Amendment or Revision.......................24 

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 Prior Recommendations and Action Plan 

Appendix D Summary of Reviews 

Appendix E Updated Research Needs 

 
I. Introduction 

This report documents Forest Plan monitoring and evaluation for Fiscal Year 2001 (October 1, 2000 - 

September 30, 2001). 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 on monitoring of Management 

Indicator Species (MIS).

The lawsuit was settled on May 16, 2001, and findings and recommendations were compiled in a report. 

This report divided Management Indicator Species 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. 

1 
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. The Forest Plan projected a 

number of accomplishments in various resource activities. During Plan revision, there will 

probably be a greater emphasis on meeting ecological needs rather than a numerical target, 

such as wildlife openings. 

 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 

Ozark-St. Francis from 1975 - 2000 reflects a stable population. However, 

because of changes in season length and bag limits over the years, it makes it 

difficult to develop a clear picture of the deer population. Incidental observations 

for field biologists from Game & Fish and Forest Service would indicate a lower 

than normal population. In addition, it is not known what impact the oak decline 

problem will have on deer habitat.

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

Monitor oak decline impacts. Reinitiate deer spotlight surveys on the forest and 

continue to monitor deer populations and habitat condition. 

 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: None. 

 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 2001 is a fair mast year. The increasing age-class distribution on the OzarkSt. Francis represents improved habitat condition for this species, and its 

population was within the threshold in FY 2001. ComPATs computer model 

shows increasing squirrel habitat capability. Not sure of impacts from oak decline. 

Recommendation: None. 

2 
 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. Bear harvest was at a high of 210 for the Ozark Zone. 

Recommendation: None. 

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 2001 

would indicate an increase in the population for 2002. The impact from oak 

decline is not known; however, the loss of oak will have a negative impact. 

Recommendation: None. 

 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. Oak decline will temporarily improve habitat. 

Recommendation: None. 

 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: None. 

 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 stable 

trend in Yellow Breasted Chat populations. Habitat for this species appears to be 

declining due to decreasing timber management activities. However, oak decline 

could increase habitat for this species. 

Recommendation: None. 

 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: None. 

3 
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: None. 

 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: None. 

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. Permanent plots were 

established; however, some of them have been illegally harvested. 

Recommendation: None. 

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. Permanent monitoring stations 

have been developed. 

Recommendation: None. 

 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: None. 

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: None. 

4 
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: 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 Forest Plan called for approximately 13% (150,000 acres) 

of old growth prescriptions to be applied during the current planning 

period. The CISC database identifies 71,760 acres under old growth 

management. Coupled with the acres in wilderness and special interest 

areas the Forest has met this goal. 

Recommendation: None. 

r) Management Requirement: Minimize disturbance to nesting turkeys 

during the peak nesting season. 

Findings: Progress is being made in reducing disturbance. 

Recommendation: None. 

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. A forest-wide plan as been started, which includes streams.. 

Recommendation: None. 

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 USFWS's opinion was that continued management under the 

current Forest Plan would not jeopardize the continued existence of the 

Indiana Bat.

Recommendation: None. 

5 
v) Plan Goal: Prescribed Burning 

Accomplished: The districts burned 7,073 acres in 2001 for wildlife 

improvements. The Plan projects 600 - 1,000 acres per year, which is lower 

than ecological needs. 

Recommendation: None. 

w) Plan Goal: Wildlife Opening Maintenance 

Accomplished: 665 acres of wildlife openings were maintained in 2001. 

The Plan projects 240 acres per year. 

Recommendation: None. 

x) Plan Goal: Food Plot Maintenance 

Accomplished: 1,012 acres of food plots were maintained in FY 2001. 

The Plan projects 30 acres per year, which is lower than ecological needs.

Recommendation: None. 

y) Plan Goal: Wildlife Opening Development 

Accomplished: 12 acres of wildlife openings were developed in FY 2001. 

The Plan projects 0 - 40 acres per year. 

Recommendation: None. 

z) Plan Goal: Food Plot Development 

Accomplished: No food plots were developed in FY 2001. The Plan 

projects 0 - 40 acres per year. 

Recommendation: None. 

aa) Plan Goal: Seeding and Planting 

Accomplished: 265 acres were seeded and planted in FY 2001. The Plan 

projects 0 - 40 acres per year. 

Recommendation: None. 

bb) Plan Goal: Wildlife Stand Improvement 

Accomplished: 228 acres were improved. The Plan projects 100 - 300 acres 

per year. 

Recommendation: None. 

cc) Plan Goal: Pond Construction 

Accomplished: 47 ponds were completed. The Plan projects 0 - 50 ponds 

per year. 

Recommendation: None. 

dd) Plan Goal: Fish Cover Establishment 

Accomplished: No structures were completed. The Plan projects 10 

structures per year. 

Recommendation: None. 

6 
ee) Plan Goal: Non-structural Fish Habitat Improvement 

Accomplished: 365 acres of habitat improvement were completed. Six miles of 

stream improvement on the Boston Mountain district. The Plan projects 120 

acres per year. 

Recommendation: None. 

ff) Plan Goal: Wildlife Improvement Projects to be added 

Accomplished: The Plan is not applicable to several wildlife improvement 

projects. 

Recommendation: The Plan revision 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 2001. 

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 2001. 

Recommendation: None. 

d) Plan Goal: Prescribed Burning for Forage Improvement 

Accomplished: The districts burned 0 acres for forage improvement in FY 2001. 

The Plan projects 2,000 acres per year. 

Recommendation: None. 

e) Plan Goal: Bush-hogging for Range Improvement 

Accomplished: 690 acres were bush-hogged by permittees as a term of their 

contract. The Plan projects 2,000 acres per year, which is higher than needed. 

Recommendation: None. 

f) Plan Goal: Pasture Fertilization 

Accomplished: Permittees fertilized 490 acres. The Plan projects 1,000 acres per 

year, which is higher than needed. 

Recommendation: None. 

7 
g) Plan Goal: Seeding Pastures for Forage Improvement 

Accomplished: 105 acres of pasture were seeded for forage improvement. 

The Plan projects to seed 1,000 acres per year for forage improvement. 

Recommendation: None. 

h) Plan Goal: Fencing 

Accomplished: 6.7 miles of fencing were completed. The Plan projects 

seven miles of fencing per year, but should assess maintenance and 

replacement rather than miles. 

Recommendation: None. 

i) Plan Goal: Pond Construction 

Accomplished: No ponds were constructed. The Plan target is 10 ponds 

per year. 

Recommendation: None. 

j) Plan Goal: Corral Construction 

Accomplished: No corrals were constructed in FY 2001. The Plan target 

is two corrals per year. Portable corrals improve resource conditions 

versus permanent corrals. 

Recommendation: None. 

k) Project: Conversion of Fescue Pasture to Native Species 

Accomplished: 70 acres received weed treatment. 

Recommendation: None. 

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 soil-disturbing activity. 

Findings: Field reviews in a sample of seven 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. 

8 
Recommendation: BMPs need to be emphasized in planning and 

implementing projects especially relative to drainage structure placement 

up-slope 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. 

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 seven projects showed 

most BMPs were implemented and effective. In a few cases, water bars 

were directed into stream channels. Three prescribed burn units were 

monitored. Drainage from firelines into a stream channel was a concern in 

one of the units. 

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 four 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 

2001, there were no levels of Triclopyr or Glyphosate in any sample. 

Recommendation: Monitor pasture or invasive weed herbicide projects for 

water quality. 

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 occurrence of beach closures was low this season with the 

only ones at Barkshed on North Sylamore Creek and Lake Wedington. 

Recommendation: The Forest should continue to coordinate with the 

Department of Health to comply with the standards and efficiently protect 

users. 

9 
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. Complete a 5th level watershed analysis in 2002 

for water quality and flow issues. 

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 are identifying roads no 

longer needed for management. They will be closed as funding 

allows. 

Recommendation: Districts should inventory stream crossings and 

floodplain roads and prioritize these projects with available 

watershed funds. Use available technology and large 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. 

10 
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 currently being revised. 

The prescribed burning program continues to grow on the Forest and 

National level. Prescribed burn accomplishments are currently listed in 

several program areas: wildlife, range, timber stand improvement, and fuel 

treatment. 

Recommendation: Fire Management has updated the National Fire 

Management Analysis System (NFMAS) for the Ozark-St. Francis 

National Forests. The 30,000-acre cap on prescribed burning is currently 

being reviewed by the USFWS. The National Fire Plan initiative is being 

implemented on the Forest with an emphasis on suppression and fuels 

management in the wildland-urban interface. A fuels assessment analysis 

is underway to address changing fuel profiles as a result of oak mortality. 

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

Variance Allowed: Significant deviations from Fire Management Action 

Plan objectives. 

Findings: There were 40 fires in FY 2001 burning 187 acres. This is well below 

acres burned in FY 2000. 

Recommendation: Continue in efforts to implement elements of the 

National Fire Plan. Respond to oak mortality based on fuels assessment 

findings. 

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 completed aerial surveys over the most heavily impacted areas on 

the Forest in FY 2001. The forest created a position for an Oak 

Sustainability Coordinator. 

Recommendation: The Forest should continue to implement this strategy

for oak sustainability using the most current scientific and silvicultural 

techniques. 

11 
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: Further development of the Limits of Acceptable Change 

has ceased. 

Recommendation: This process is the responsibility of the 

Wilderness Coordinator, a position that does not exist on the Forest. 

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 

and developed rehabilitation plans. Mill Creek ATV area is

currently open and planning work has begun on the Lee Creek 

System. 

12 
Recommendation: Forest needs to work with user groups to identify 

potential areas for development of future trails. The Road Analysis 

Process (RAP) will inventory existing use areas, determine effects, work 

with user groups, and designate that trails with no impact are occurring or 

can be mitigated. 

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. The new Scenery 

Management guidelines need to be evaluated during Plan revision. 

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 in 2000. These regulations require negotiation of new Programmatic 

Agreements with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). 

Recommendation: None. 

i) Item: Wilderness (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

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

reaches Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC). 

Findings: LAC has been completed for wilderness areas included in Wild 

Scenic River corridors. Further development of LAC has ceased pending

Plan Revision. 

Recommendation: Filling a Wilderness Coordinator position would 

enable this process to continue. 

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

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

use. 

Findings: The Forest needs to continue to work with user groups to 

identify and establish OHV use areas. There is a road closure order for all 

closed roads.

Recommendation: Forest needs to work with user groups to identify 

potential areas for development of trails. The OHV team needs to follow 

up on inventory and designations of trail system. 

13 
k) Management Requirement: Manage trail system to provide a 

variety of opportunities. 

Findings: The Forest should meet 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. Work continued on Brock 

Creek Multi-Use Trail and Sylamore Mountain Bike Trail. Little 

progress made on Lee Creek OHV Trail. 

Recommendation: None. 

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

discovered and maintain file in each district office. 

Findings: 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 administered Wild and Scenic Rivers 

according to Plan direction. 

Recommendation: None. 

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 completed the analysis process to 

determine feasibility of partnership with State Parks to manage and 

improve recreation facilities on the St. Francis and has begun the 

special use permit. Work was completed at Long Pool Campground 

rehab. 

Recommendation: The Public Services Staff Officer and St. Francis 

District Ranger should complete special use permit for the St. 

Francis. Contracts need to be awarded for the Rotary Ann rehab 

project. 

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. 

14 
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 2001, the Forest constructed/reconstructed four miles of 

trail. 

Recommendation: Complete Brock Creek and Lee Creek trails. 

s) Plan Goal: FY 2001 Challenge Cost-Share Partnerships 

Findings: In FY 2001, partnerships continue with Friends of Lake 

Wedington and Friends of the St. Francis. 

Recommendation: None. 

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 (Rotary Ann). 

u) Plan Goal: Protection of Heritage Resources 

Findings: Planned protection for specific sites. Continuous monitoring of 

vandalism. Developing plan for protection of cave and rock shelter sites.

Recommendation: None. 

v) Plan Goal: Ozark Interpretive Association (OIA) 

Findings: OIA's 2001 sales are unknown at this time due to changes in 

staffing. 

Recommendation: None. 

w) Plan Goal: Developed Site Administration 

Findings: In FY 2001, 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 

$706,301 under the RFDP rules, returned $671,701 to the Forest. Funds 

($734,337) 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. 

15 
x) Plan Goal: Heritage Resource Inventory of 6,500 acres completed as 

project needs. 

Findings: Archaeologists completed inventory on 6,500 acres, 14 

projects with ten sites and six sites eligible for Historical Register. 

Three sites were stabilized. 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. 

Recommendation: None. 

 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 2001 complies with 

this recommendation. 

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

15 year Plan period of 168 MMCF. The total volume sold through the 

first 15 years (FY 87 - FY 2001) is 117.0 MMCF or 70% of the 

planned amount for this period. The downfall is due to reduced 

volumes sold in FY 90 – FY 95 and FY 99-FY 2001 as a result of 

administrative appeals, lawsuits and reduced funding for subsequent 

years. 

The Forest sold 9.6 MMCF in FY 90, 4.9 MMCF in FY 91, 8.7 

MMCF in FY 92, 8.9 MMCF in FY 93, 7.6 MMCF in FY 94, 

and 8.6 MMCF in FY 95 compared to a projected annual average 

of 12.0 MMCF as established by the ASQ. Total volume offered 

is not within the allowable 15% variance after 15 years. Target 

allocation for FY 2002 is expected to be 9.6 MMCF. 

Recommendation: None. 

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

Variance Allowed: 15% at 5-year intervals. 

Findings: After 15 years implementing Plan direction, the Forest has 

accomplished 56% 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. 

16 
c) Item: Reforestation (LRMP, Chapter 5) 

Variance Allowed: 15% at 5-year intervals. 

Findings: After 15 years of operation under the Plan, 62,565 acres have been 

reforested compared to a projected 72,300 acres. This is 87% of planned. 

The 2,942 acres reforested in FY 2001 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 15 years of the Plan, the Forest sold 35,801 even aged 

regeneration acres compared to a projected 62,250 acres, 58% of the acreage 

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

than planned. Hardwood group selection cutting was at 25% of planned and 

pine selection cutting was at 37% of planned after 15 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: None. 

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

Variance Allowed: 15% at 5-year intervals. 

Findings: TSI accomplishment is well below Plan projections. 

Recommendation: None. 

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 were below the Plan level. Area Consents 

have been updated. 

Recommendation: None. 

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. 

17 
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. The Forest is below projected Plan level due to lack of funds 

to complete land adjustments necessary to meet the projected plan 

level. 

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: 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: Funds have been inadequate to meet the planned target in 

property line locations. 

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

financing of maintenance on a 10-year interval. 

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: The amount of road construction and reconstruction was 

less than projected in the Plan primarily due to timber sale need 

changes. 

Recommendation: During Plan revision, Engineering will revise the 

road reconstruction/construction estimate to reflect anticipated 

resource management activities. 

18 
C. Organizational Effectiveness 

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

regulations, 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. 

The Forest has planned to develop a Vision 2005 organizational structure, but this has not been 

accomplished. 

19 
TABLE I

ACTUAL FOREST EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO FOREST PLAN BUDGET 

FOREST PLAN ACTUAL 2001

ACTIVITY BUDGET1 EXPENDITURES

Timber $4,437,000 $4,452,000

Wildlife / Fish / PETS 777,000 971,000 

Recreation/ Wilderness / Heritage2 1,912,000 2,231,000

Law Enforcement 0 96,000 

Fire 1,435,000 2,167,000

Lands 404,000 475,000

Minerals 274,000 306,000

Engineering 3,619,000 3,502,000

Soil / Water / Air 373,000 267,000 

General Administration 1,854,000 472,000 

Range 82,000 180,000

Ecosystem Inventory, 

Monitoring, Planning3

1,264,000 1,363,000

TOTAL $16,431,000 $16,482,000

 1The figures in this column represent about a 3 percent annual increase 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 4

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 729,531 

Soil, Water, & Air

Watershed Maintenance acres 616 

Lands

Property Line Location miles 889 

Landline Maintenance miles 795 

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 2001 is the fifteenth 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 FY2001 %

PLAN 

RECREATION

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

Trail

 -Construction/Reconstruct. Miles 122 141.5 10 2 4 4 4 136%

 -Maintenance miles na 142.5 75 128 144 144 144 na 

Cultural Resource

 -Inventory acres 167,000 181,145 20,384 25,464 19,722 19,722 19,722 171% 

 -Evaluation sites na 112 26 42 36 36 36 na 

Wilderness Administration PAOT-D 1,860,800 1,339,000 133,600 133,600 133,600 133,600 133,600 108% 

WILDLIFE & FISHERIES

 Prescribed Burning acres 11,100 18,713 1,738 3,583 5,860 7,579 225 340% 

Wildlife Opening Maint. acres 2,900 1,749 78 320 384 240 665 118% 

 Food Plot Maint. acres 330 1,948 308 60 538 520 1,012 1,329% 

Wildlife Opening Dev. acres 360 959 34 38 59 0 12 306% 

 Food Plot Dev. acres 84 1,127 61 21 7 22 0 1,474% 

Wildlife Stand Improvement acres 1,500 330 225 447 812 553 228 173% 

 Seeding and Planting acres 280 2,117 1,661 170 461 122 265 1,713%

 Pond Construction struct 450 377 30 18 25 6 47 112% 

 Fish Cover Dev. struct 140 322 7 12 15 25 0 272% 

 Pond Fertilization acres 1,670 858 30 200 375 911 0 142% 

RANGE

 Prescribed Burning acres 28,000 1,250 66 30 295 0 0 6% 

 Brush Hogging acres 28,000 2,698 800 160 500 2,000 690 24% 

 Fertilization acres 14,000 2,898 800 0 500 1,500 490 44% 

 Seeding acres 14,000 167 20 40 85 65 105 3% 

 Fencing miles 100 7 0 2 5 1.2 6.7 22% 

 Pond Construction struct 140 18 0 7 3 2 0 21% 

 Corral Construction struct 30 1 0 0 1 1 0 10% 

SOIL AND WATER

 Watershed Improvements acres 348 419 20 27 48 30 42 168% 

Watershed Maintenance acres 1,689 767 25 10 10 10 10 49% 

 Soil & Water Inventory acres na 134,174 10,000 8,080 8,000 4,000 8,000 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 15 year LRMP objective. 

22 
 TABLE III continued

ACTIVITIES UNITS LRMP Ob1 FY87-'96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 2000 FY 2001 % PLAN

TIMBER2

 Timber Vol. Offered MCF 183,000 85,562 9,971 8,177 7,070 6,952 8,170 69%

 Timber Vol. Sold MCF 183,000 81,531 8,173 10,308 6,621 4,803 5,403 64%

 Reforestation

 -Hardwood acres 33,000 17,567 1,028 1,086 1,712 132 485 67%

 -Pine acres 46,650 26,282 2,727 2,946 2,764 3,379 2,243 86%

 TSI

 -Hardwood acres 24,000 12,896 869 1,146 1,425 1,171 1,468 79%

 -Pine acres 93,800 24,030 1,943 1,258 1,073 1,951 1,807 34%

 EAM Cutting (Ac. Sold)

 -Pine Clearcutting acres 22,850 8,767 47 0 0 0 0 38%

 -Hardwood Clearcutting acres 16,000 8,838 5 0 0 0 0 55%

 -Pine Seedtree acres 11,700 6,755 1,933 1,236 817 454 642 101%

 -Pine Shelterwood acres 6,600 862 301 331 295 247 35 31%

 -Hardwood Shelterwood acres 6,500 2909 41 544 367 269 197 67%

 UAM Cutting (Ac. Sold)

 -Hardwood Group Selection acres 49,000 12,354 516 12,354 889 152 626 55%

 -Pine Selection acres 33,000 6,841 625 1,743 760 385 656 33%

 Pine/Hardwood Thinning acres 95,600 50,241 7,011 6,026 4,784 5,974 4,647 83%

 Exam. & Prescription acres 1,665,000 767,843 56,677 32,705 13,283 32,719 32,242 56%

FUEL TREATMENT

 Prescribed Burning acres 70,000 30,143 8,205 11,123 20,266 22,583 27,786 %

ROAD WORK

 Reconstruction/Construction miles 1,100 535 62 38 37 11 33 65%

LANDS & MINERALS

 Mineral Leases

3 Leases 3,600 6,814 60 31 42 32 10 194%

 Land Acquisition

4 acres 6,000 18,710 557 769 1,361 529 60 366%

 Land Exchange acres 11,100 3,016 334 143 1,074 329 0 44%

 Boundary Location miles 1,400 503 13 9 6 4 5 39%

 Landline Maintenance miles 2,800 1,853 41 42 70 0 70 74%

Right of Way Acquisition #'s na 210 10 11 3 8 5 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 15 year LRMP objective. LRMP OBJ Column for Timber represents a weighted average of 5 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. 2001 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 

No new actions were identified in FY 200l. There are other actions that have been identified in 

previous Monitoring and Evaluation Reports that are on-going or have not been completed. (See 

Appendix C) 

B. Actions Requiring Amendment or Revision

to the Forest Plan

No new actions were identified in FY 2001. 

24 
C. Amendments to be Completed

1. Amendment Description: PETS Amendment - This potential 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 2002/2003 

Status: Region has prepared a programmatic amendment to VMEIS, which is in draft 

format (FY 2002). This may result in an amendment to the Forest Plan. 

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: N/A 

Status: A review and analysis were completed in FY 2001. No changes in MIS species 

were recommended at this time. Further analysis will be done during Plan revision.

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 2002 

Status: SIAs included in inventoried roadless areas will be analyzed during Plan revision. 

Decision will be made in FY 2002 about how to resolve proposed SIAs outside roadless 

areas. 

25 
APPENDIX A

FOREST INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM 

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

this report are listed below. 

Steve Best Forest Wildlife Biologist 

Richard Bowie Forest Landscape Architect 

Jack Davis Planner 

Duane Dipert Watershed and Planning Staff Officer 

Cary Frost Planner 

Roger Fryar Assistant Fire Team Leader 

Rick Golden Forest Fisheries Biologist 

Greg Hatfield Ecosystems Staff Officer 

Deryl Jevons Planner 

Kathy King Writer/Editor 

Ron Klouzek Technical Services Staff Officer 

Gary Knudsen Public Services Staff Officer 

Connie Neff Forest Hydrologist 

Len Weeks Forest Soil Scientist 

26 
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) 

10. Allows access to the new campgrounds in Sam's Throne SIA. (2001) 

11. Allocates 300 acres of management area 8 to management area 3 on the St. Francis 

National Forest. (2001) 

27 
APPENDIX C

STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLAN FROM PREVIOUS 

MONITORING AND EVALUATING REPORTS 

Many of the recommendations from previous Monitoring and Evaluation Reports (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 from previous Monitoring and Evaluation Reports: 

1. Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness

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 12 and 1i, page 13) 

Responsibility: Bayou, Sylamore, Buffalo District Rangers 

Completion Date: No completion is anticipated pending either Plan 

Revision or filling of Wilderness Coordinator position. 

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 is well developed; EA for 

development of Mississippi River State Park is completed; Rotary Ann and 

Cove Lake are still not ready for contracting; Long Pool Campground was 

completed in 2001. 

c) 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 13) 

Responsibility: Forest Archaeologist 

Status, FY 2001 M & E Report: On-going 

d) 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 

Status, FY 2001 M & E Report: On-going 

28 
e) Action: Complete Rotary Ann facilities. (See recommendation 

1t, page 15) 

Responsibility: Technical Services Staff Officer; Watershed and Planning Staff 

Officer, District Rangers 

Completion Date: FY 2000 and on-going 

Status, FY 2001 M & E Report: Planned completion in 2002. 

f) Action: Forest Supervisor will form ID Team to develop plan for Off-Highway 

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. 

No potential areas have been identified for development 

2. 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 17) 

Responsibility: Ecosystems Staff Officer & Forest Supervisor 

Status, FY 2001 M & E Report: Ongoing each fiscal year. 

 3. Wildlife, Fish and Range 

a) 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: This has been started and includes streams. The 

Fish Biologist position was vacant in 2001 (filled in 2002). 

b) 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, pages 4) 

Responsibility: Ecosystems Staff Officer 

Completion Date: Plan revision 

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

2000. 

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

improvements. (See recommendations on pages 6 - 8) 

Responsibility: Ecosystems Staff Officer 

Completion Date: Plan revision 

Status, FY 2000 M & E Report: The Forest Plan lists projections on goals for 

various items. During Plan revision, ecological goals should take precedence 

over numerical targets. 

29 
 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 9; and 3i, page 10) 

Responsibility: Forest Soil Scientist & Forest Hydrologist 

Status, FY 2001 M & E Report: On-going 

b) 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 

Status, FY 2001 M & E Report: On-going 

 5. Planning 

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

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

page 15) 

Responsibility: District Rangers and Forest Planners 

Completion Date: FY 2001 

Status, FY 2000 M & E Report: The Forest Service Roadless Area Policy 

has delayed completion. 

 6. Forest Health 

a) Action: Due to outbreak of red oak borers, implement strategy for oak 

sustainability. (See recommendation 4c, page 11) 

Responsibility: Ecosystem Staff Officer 

Completion Date: FY 2001 

Status, FY 2001 M & E Report: The Forest hired a full-time Oak 

Sustainability Coordinator. Strategy is being implemented. 

b) 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 11) 

Responsibility: Forest Planners and Fire Management Officer 

Completion Date: FY 2001 

Status, FY 2000 M & E Report: Fire planners have assessed prescribed 

burning needs and are conferring with the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). 

30 
 7. Fire 

a) Action: Continue to implement the National Fire Plan initiative. 

Responsibility: Fire Management (Supervisor's Office and Districts)

Completion Date: On-going 

Status, FY 2001 M & E Report: Fire Team is implementing projects through prescribed 

burning and inventory of wildland-urban interface. 

b) Action: Complete work with USFWS in regard to 30,000-acre cap. 

Responsibility: Fire Management and Wildlife 

Completion Date: Spring FY 2002 

Status, FY 2000 M & E Report: Informal consultation is underway with USFWS to 

amend the Biological Opinion on Indiana Bat to allow prescribed burning for more than 

30,000 acres per year. 

31 
APPENDIX D 

SUMMARY OF REVIEWS 

A Regional Office Fire Review was conducted across the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests on 

November 28 & 29, 2000. 

Bill Wasley (National Law Enforcement Director) conducted an Informal Site Review in May 2001. 

Fire Management provides Fire Readiness Reviews prior to both the spring and the fall fire seasons. 

National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS) Review was held on September 28, 2001. 

National Fire Plan Review conducted by the Washington Office in FY 2001. 

The Regional Office conducted several reviews of our Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

documentation even though they did not physically come to the Forests. 

Timber Management conducted several unannounced audits on various districts across the Forests. 

32 
APPENDIX E 

UPDATED RESEARCH NEEDS 

Research needs previously identified: 

• Evaluate the role of prescribed burning in fire-dependent and fire-associated ecological 

communities. 

• 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 
• Evaluate and monitor smoke impacts from prescribed burning activity. 

• Evaluate and monitor growing season burning effects. 

• Inventory Forest fuels and assess impacts of oak mortality on fuel loading. 

• Evaluate and monitor the 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. 

10. Watershed condition including stream stability determination for LMP 

34 
11. 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. 

35