FELSENTHAL AND OVERFLOW

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan

US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

in cooperation with US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge

June 2012

Contract No. DTFH71-09-D-00001, Task Order: 11-017
 

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Short- and Long-Range Improvement Plan 

Contract No. DTFH71-09-D-00001

Task 11-017

US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 

in cooperation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

June 2012
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan i

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Locations ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project History....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2.1 Previous Studies .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2.2 Responsible Partners ............................................................................................................ 2

2. Preliminary Candidate Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Felsenthal NWR ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1 No-Build ................................................................................................................................ 5

2.1.2 Short-Range Alternatives (2017) ........................................................................................... 5

2.1.3 Medium-Range Alternatives (2022) .................................................................................... 12

2.1.4 Long-Range Alternatives (2027) .......................................................................................... 14

2.1.5 Additional Recommendations ............................................................................................. 14

2.2 Overflow NWR .................................................................................................................... 20

2.2.1 No-Build .............................................................................................................................. 20

2.2.2 Short-Range Alternatives (2017) ......................................................................................... 20

2.2.3 Medium-Range Alternatives (2022) .................................................................................... 20

2.2.4 Additional Recommendations ............................................................................................. 23

3. Planning and Environmental Screening ..............................................................................................24

3.1 Summary of Screening ........................................................................................................ 24

3.2 Potential Impacts to Existing Conditions ............................................................................ 24

3.3 Potential Impacts of Alternatives – Felsenthal NWR .......................................................... 25

3.3.1 Alternative F1 – Internal Roadway Condition Improvements ............................................ 25

3.3.2 Alternative F2 – Westbound Left-Turn Lane at Visitors Center Driveway (US 82) ............. 25

3.3.3 Alternative F3 – Eastbound Right-Turn Lane Visitors Center Driveway (US 82) ................. 26

3.3.4 Alternative F4 – Channel Maintenance at Boat Ramps ...................................................... 26

3.3.5 Alternatives F6 and F10 – Boat Mooring Locations Feasibility and Installation ................. 27

3.3.6 Alternative F7 – Auto Tour Route ....................................................................................... 27

3.3.7 Alternative F8 – Bridge Replacement on Bradley County Road 65 S .................................. 28

3.3.8 Alternative F9 – Roadway Improvements on New Lock 6 Road ......................................... 28
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan ii

3.4 Potential Impacts of Alternatives – Overflow NWR ............................................................ 28

3.4.1 Alternative O1 – Internal Roadway Condition Improvements ........................................... 28

3.4.2 Alternative O3 – Auto Tour Route ...................................................................................... 29

4. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................30

4.1 Summary Matrix.................................................................................................................. 30

4.2 Implementation Priorities ................................................................................................... 30

4.3 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................... 32

List of Figures 

Figure 1.1: Location Map ............................................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2.1: Felsenthal NWR Preliminary Candidate Alternatives ................................................................. 6

Figure 2.2: Potential Turn-Lane Improvements at Refuge Visitors Center .................................................. 8

Figure 2.3: Potential Maintenance of Cuts and Sloughs ............................................................................10

Figure 2.4: Potential Mooring Location Feasibility Study Areas ................................................................11

Figure 2.5: Potential Replacement of Bradley County Road 65 S Bridge ...................................................13

Figure 2.6: Voids along Embankment (Typical) ..........................................................................................14

Figure 2.7: Potential New Lock 6 Road Improvement Area .......................................................................15

Figure 2.8: US 82 Signage Plan – West .......................................................................................................17

Figure 2.9: US 82 Signage Plan - East .........................................................................................................18

Figure 2.10: Overflow Preliminary Candidate Alternatives .......................................................................21

Figure 2.11: Potential Overflow NWR Auto Tour Route ............................................................................22

 List of Tables

Table 1.1: Proposed Stakeholder Responsibilities ....................................................................................... 4

Table 4.1: Impact Summary .......................................................................................................................31
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 1

1. Introduction 

The South Arkansas National Wildlife Refuges Complex consists of three National Wildlife Refuges 

(NWR) in southern Arkansas. The two Refuges studied in this report are the Felsenthal National Wildlife 

Refuge and the Overflow National Wildlife Refuge. The Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs contain 

approximately 65,000 and 14,000 acres, respectively, of mainly bottomland hardwood forest. Based on 

the number of hunting/fishing permits issued, approximately 400,000 people visited Felsenthal NWR 

and 15,000 people visited Overflow NWR last year. 

Felsenthal NWR has the largest green-tree reservoir in the world, due in part to the Ouachita and Saline 

Rivers that flow through it. A green-tree reservoir is a bottomland hardwood forest that is carefully 

flooded during the dormant season of the hardwood forest communities to provide a habitat for 

wintering waterfowl. As a result, Felsenthal NWR is a prime location for recreational hunting, fishing, 

and wildlife observation. The Refuge is also known to contain the nests of red cockaded woodpeckers, a 

vulnerable species. 

Overflow NWR also has a green-tree reservoir that serves the mallard, wood duck, and other waterfowl 

in the Mississippi flyway. Additionally, Overflow NWR contains a number of accessible sloughs and 

creeks, as well as cropland acreage that is currently farmed. 

The third refuge that is part of the South Arkansas NWR complex, but is not included in this study, is the 

Pond Creek NWR, which is located in western Arkansas. 

1.1 Locations 

The Refuges included in this study are located just north of the Arkansas/Louisiana border in Ashley, 

Bradley, and Union Counties, Arkansas. Felsenthal NWR is located west of Crossett, Arkansas. Overflow 

NWR is located to the east of Felsenthal NWR between Hamburg and Parkdale, Arkansas. Figure 1.1 

shows an overview location map of the two Refuges and surrounding areas. The Existing Conditions 

Report (January 2012) describes additional natural and community characteristics of the Refuges and 

adjacent areas. 

1.2 Project History

1.2.1 Previous Studies 

The following reports have been completed for this project: 

 Existing Conditions Report – January 2012 

 Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report – February 2012 

The information from this report and all of the previous reports will be summarized in the 

Transportation Study Report. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 2

1.2.2 Responsible Partners 

The matrix shown in Table 1.1 was developed to identify potential alternatives and their responsible 

partners. The partner agencies on this project include: USFWS, the Arkansas State Highway and 

Transportation Department (AHTD), Bradley County, Ashley County, Union County, City of Hamburg, City 

of Crossett, City of Parkdale, City of Wilmot, Crossett Chamber of Commerce, US Army Corps of 

Engineers, Friends of Felsenthal, and Private Land Owners. At stakeholder meetings, the stakeholders 

have agreed to work together to implement the alternatives. 
Union Parish

Union Co.

Bradley Co.

Arkansas

Louisiana

£¤82

¬«33

¬«8

£¤82

£¤165

£¤63

£¤425

£¤165 £¤425

£¤425

Bra dle y C o

Ashley Co.

Chicot Co.

Morehouse Parish

West Carroll 

Parish

FELSENTHAL

UPPER OUACHITA

OVERFLOW

HANDY BRAKE

¬«8

¬«585

¬«133

¬«549

¬«52

¬«129

¬«143

¬«LA-2

¬«275

¬«33

¬«582

¬«17

¬«160

¬«551

¬«828

¬«142

¬«835

¬«593

¬«140

¬«586

¬«590

¬«278

¬«15

¬«587

¬«169

¬«138

¬« ¬«293

189

¬«139

¬«160

¬«52

¬«LA-2

¬«275

¬«52

Crossett

Hamburg

Wilmot

Strong

Felsenthal

Portland

Parkdale

Fountain Hill

Montrose

Lake Village

Arkansas

Louisiana

0 2 4 6 1

Miles

/

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Figure 1.1: Location Map

Vicinity Map

Legend

Study Area Refuges

State Boundary

County Boundary

Other USFWS Refuge Areas

Municipalities

US Highway

State Highway

Other Road

Railroad

Source: 

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife
Short-Range Alternatives

Medium-Range Alternatives

Long-Range Alternatives

Alternatives

USFWS

AHTD

Bradley County

Ashley County

Union County

City of Hamburg

City of Crossett

City of Parkdale

City of Wilmot

Crossett Chamber of Commerce

Army Corps of Engineers

Friends of FelsenthalPrivate Land Owners

Alternatives

Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge

F1 Internal Roadway Condition Improvement x

F2 Westbound Left-Turn Lane at Visitors Center Driveway (US 82) x x

F3 Eastbound Right-Turn Lane at Visitors Center Driveway (US 82) x x

F4 Channel Maintenance at Boat Ramps x x

F5 Establish Agreements for Refuge Access Points x x

F6 Boat Mooring Locations Feasibility x x x x

F7 AutoTour Route x

F8 Bridge Replacement on Bradley County Road 65 S x x

F9 Roadway Improvements on New Lock 6 Road x x

F10 Installation of Boat Mooring Locations x x x x

Conduct Speed Study on US 82 in the vicinity of Refuge x

Install Wayfinding Signs for the Refuge in the Surrounding Area x x x x x x x

Coordinate with AHTD for Installation of Highway Advisory Radio 

Signs along US 82 x x

Develop Walking/Biking Trails x x

Develop a Formal Trail Map for the Refuge x x

Build upon Existing Kiosk Materials x x

Continue to Pursue Grant Opportunities for Additional Funding 

Sources x x x

Coordinate with Local Agencies and Municipalities to Encourage 

Usage of the Refuge x xxx x x x

O1 Internal Roadway Condition Improvement x

O2 Establish Agreements for Refuge Access Points x x

O3 AutoTour Route x

Install Wayfinding Signs for the Refuge in the Surrounding Area x x x x x

Develop Walking/Biking Trails x

Develop a Formal Trail Map for the Refuge x

Build upon Existing Kiosk Materials x

Coordinate with Local Agencies and Municipalities to Encourage 

Usage of the Refuge x x x xx

Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Additional Recommendations

Additional Recommendations

Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-0000

	
	 Table 1.1:
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 5

2. Preliminary Candidate Alternatives 

This section describes the preliminary candidate alternatives and additional recommendations 

presented in the Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report. For planning purposes, each alternative has 

been identified as either short-range (2017), medium-range (2022), or long-range (2027). Preliminary 

designs and construction cost estimates, if applicable, have been developed for each of the alternatives 

and are described in the following sections. Detailed impacts are identified for the alternatives in 

Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, respectively. A summary table including impact 

information for each alternative is included as Table 4.1 and opinions of probable costs are included in 

Appendix A. 

It should be noted that all construction costs are conceptual. The engineer has no control over the cost 

of labor, materials, equipment, the contractor’s price determination methods, competitive bidding, or 

market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to 

the engineer at this time and represent only the engineer’s judgment as a design professional familiar 

with the construction industry. The engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or 

actual construction costs will not vary from opinions of probable costs. 

2.1 Felsenthal NWR 

The following preliminary candidate alternatives for the Felsenthal NWR are summarized graphically in 

Figure 2.1. 

2.1.1 No-Build

The “No-Build” alternative provides no improvements to the existing transportation facilities in the 

study area. This would result in no improvement costs or additional impacts to the natural environment 

within the study area. In the No-Build alternative, the existing habitat for the Refuge would not be 

impacted; however, the potential for issues to occur on the transportation facilities will either remain 

the same or increase if no improvements are made. 

2.1.2 Short-Range Alternatives (2017)

2.1.2.1 Alternative F1 – Internal Roadway Condition Maintenance

Continual maintenance of the existing internal roads and trails within the Refuge by adding gravel to 

unpaved surfaces, where necessary, will improve the quality of the roads and potentially increase safety 

for drivers. Additionally, managing drainage along unpaved roadways will lengthen the life and 

durability of the road surface. Potential costs associated with this alternative would vary depending on 

the road type and the extent of the maintenance required. The responsible partner for this alternative 

is USFWS. 
!(

!(

!(

!(

£¤82



	






¬«169















	

 

!


"

#

$%

	

"#


#

	

%

	

"$

	

"

	





&






'(


	

"%


(
(
 )*



#%

+,



	

%#


%

)-.-*
/

0
'-1"

)
2!
*



	




	

$$


"

	

$

"

$

3

*




$$

 !

$%

Felsenthal

Huttig $ 

&


/

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001 

Felsenthal NWR Preliminary Candidate Alternatives 

Source:

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

Legend

4.!	!


	!


!	!


&!-(


	.




0


Trails 

- Develop New Walking/Biking Trails 

- Develop a Formal Trail Map

Replace Bridge on Bradley 

County Rd 65 S

General Recommendations 

- Internal Roadway Condition Maintenance 

- Establish Agreements for Refuge Access Points 

- Coordinate with Local Agencies and Municipalities to 

 Encourage Usage of the Refuge 

- Continue to Pursue Grant Opportunities

Visitors Center 

- Extend WB Left-Turn Lane on US 82 

- Add EB Right-Turn Lane on US 82 

- Build Upon Existing Materials at Kiosks

US 82 

- Conduct Speed Study 

- Install Highway Advisory Radio Signs

Implement Auto Tour 

within the Refuge Add Boat Mooring 

Location at Port of 

Crossett Boat Ramp 

(if feasible)

Install Directional 

Wayfinding Signs for 

the Refuge in the 

 Surrounding Area 

and Communities

Felsenthal Lock and Dam Boat Ramp 

- Regular Maintenance of Cuts and Sloughs 

- Add Boat Mooring Location (if feasible)

Roadway Improvements 

on New Lock 6 Road

Shallow Lake Boat Ramp 

- Regular Maintenance of Cuts and Sloughs

Pine Island Boat Ramp 

- Regular Maintenance of Cuts and Sloughs

Figure 2.1:
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 7

2.1.2.2 Alternative F2 – Westbound Left Turn Lane at Visitors Center Driveway (US 82) 

The existing westbound left-turn lane on US 82 has a storage length of approximately 100 feet and a 

taper length of approximately 200 feet. The Arkansas State Highway Transportation Department (AHTD) 

standards provide recommendations for turn lane transition lengths consistent with the Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). These recommended lengths are determined based on the 

approach speed on the roadway and the distance that a driver must transition or shift to continue a 

through movement, which in this case is 12 feet. 

The existing westbound left-turn lane taper at the Visitors Center/Refuge Complex driveway was found 

to not meet the recommended length specified by AHTD standard guidelines. The speed limit along this 

portion of US 82 is 55 mph, requiring a left-turn lane taper long enough to allow vehicles to safely 

decelerate as they transition to the left-turn lane. Lengthening the westbound left-turn lane taper at 

the Visitors Center/Refuge Complex driveway will allow left turning vehicles more time and space to 

decelerate without impeding the flow of traffic traveling west along US 82. The lengthening of this taper 

will likely help vehicles to enter the Visitors Center/Refuge Complex driveway more safely and reduce 

the potential for rear-end collisions, as well as improve the traffic flow along this portion of US 82 within 

the Refuge. 

For the purposes of this study it was assumed the pavement would be widened on both sides of the 

road to laterally transition the through lanes away from each other a total of 12 feet. Therefore, the 

road must be widened by 6 feet on both sides and require a total transition length of 330 feet; twothirds of the length as a transition area and one-third of the length as a taper area. The storage length 

should be based on the expected number of left turning vehicle arrivals during the peak traffic periods. 

AHTD recommends a minimum storage length of 100 feet. Based on observations during the field visits, 

it appears that the existing storage length is approximately 100 feet. Additionally, another transition 

area is required after the turn lane to transition the roadway back to a typical two-lane section. 

Transportation impacts associated with this improvement would include temporary traffic control in the 

vicinity of the Visitors Center/Refuge Complex driveway during construction. A location map and 

conceptual layout for the proposed turn lane taper are shown in Figure 2.2. 

As this alternative moves forward, the turn lane would need to be designed and constructed with the 

proper coordination with AHTD. Assuming standard dimensions are used, the estimated construction 

cost to lengthen the left-turn lane, as well as the transition areas into and out of the turn lane area, is

$560,000, when constructed simultaneously with Alternative F3, the eastbound right-turn lane. The 

responsible partners for this alternative are AHTD and USFWS. 

2.1.2.3 Alternative F3 – Eastbound Right-Turn Lane at Visitors Center Driveway (US 82) 

Similarly to the westbound left-turn lane, the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane at the Visitors 

Center/Refuge Complex driveway would allow right turning vehicles more time and space to decelerate 

without impeding the flow of vehicles traveling east along US 82. Currently, right turning vehicles must 

decelerate for the turn while still in the travel lane. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed this 
Visitors Center/Refuge Complex 

Access Driveway

Construction Area for

Turn-Lane Improvements US Hwy 82 W Marie Saline Rd

/

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Source: 

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

Legend

USFWS Refuge Boundary

US Highway

Other Road

Turn Lane Improvement Area

US-82

Dollar Junction Rd

Vicinity Map

Felsenthal NWR

0 500 1,000

Feet

Existing Left Turn Lane Taper

Proposed Left Turn Lane Taper Extension Proposed Right Turn Lane

US 82

US 82

Visitors Center/Refuge Complex

Driveway

Visitors Center/Refuge Complex

Driveway

Not to Scale

EXISTING

PROPOSED

Figure 2.2: Potential Turn-Lane Improvements at Refuge Visitors Center

±

Alternatives F2 and F3
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 9

alternative would require a 12-foot widening for the length of the right-turn lane and transition area. 

Transportation impacts would include temporary traffic control in the vicinity of the Visitors 

Center/Refuge Complex during construction. A location map and conceptual layout for the proposed 

right-turn lane are shown in Figure 2.2. As this alternative moves forward, the turn lane would need to 

be designed and constructed with the proper coordination with AHTD. Assuming standard dimensions 

are used, the construction cost for the addition of the right-turn lane and taper area is estimated to be 

$190,000, assuming it would be constructed simultaneously with Alternative F2, the westbound left-turn 

lane. The responsible partners for this alternative are AHTD and USFWS. 

2.1.2.4 Alternative F4 – Maintenance of Cuts and Sloughs at Felsenthal Lock and Dam, Shallow Lake, 

and Pine Island Boat Ramps 

Due to siltation occurring at cuts and sloughs near the Felsenthal Lock and Dam, Shallow Lake, and Pine 

Island boat ramp areas, it is sometimes difficult for boaters to access the channels from the ramps. 

Removal of the silt at these locations would be beneficial to visitors of the Refuge by allowing boaters 

easier access to the main channels. As a result, the improvement will save boaters time, reduce wear 

and tear on boat equipment, and likely increase boating attractiveness for users. Transportation 

impacts include improving the connectivity between the cuts/sloughs and the main channels, as well as 

potentially increasing the capacity of the boat ramps. Before dredging can occur, an appropriate 

environmental study, survey, and related permitting would be required. The survey would determine 

which areas require dredging, as well as determine how much sediment must be removed. 

It is estimated that the cost of this survey would be approximately $5,000 per location. If it is 

determined that dredging is required, the cost to dredge the areas would be $15 to $20 per cubic yard 

of material removed, depending on the dredging process and equipment that is used. A map of the 

locations where maintenance of cuts and sloughs may be required is shown in Figure 2.3. The 

responsible partners involved with this alternative are the US Army Corps of Engineers and USFWS. 

2.1.2.5 Alternative F6 – Mooring Location Feasibility Study 

Currently, there are no established mooring locations near the boat ramps in Felsenthal NWR. Boat 

mooring locations constructed at the Port of Crossett and/or the Felsenthal Lock and Dam boat ramps 

would provide boaters the opportunity to moor after launching from the ramps. Costs and potential 

impacts to the natural environment associated with mooring locations need to be studied further. 

Additionally, due to the fluctuation of water levels and currents near the boat ramps, a feasibility study 

should be conducted to determine if the implementation of boat slips is justified, given the potential 

impacts and costs. 

Short-term costs would include the feasibility study, which is estimated to cost between $10,000 and 

$15,000. Long-term costs would be dependent on the feasibility study’s recommendations. A map 

showing the locations where boat mooring location feasibility studies could be conducted is shown in 

Figure 2.4. The responsible partners related to this alternative include the City of Crossett, US Army 

Corps of Engineers, and USFWS. An additional opportunity for partnership could include the Friends of 

Felsenthal group. 
Felsenthal Lock and Dam Boat Ramp

Shallow Lake Boat Ramp

Pine Island Boat Ramp

Potential

Improvement Area

Potential

Improvement Area

Potential

Improvement Area

A

M Ave

Ashley Road 227

Old Lock 6 Rd

New Lock 6 Rd

Moore Loop

4th

Felsenthal

Huttig

/

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Figure 2.3: Potential Maintenance Areas of Cuts and Sloughs

Source: 

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

Legend

County Boundary

USFWS Refuge Boundary

Municipalities

US Highway

Other Road

Potential Dredging Area

0 2,000 4,000

Feet

Alternative F4
#*

#*

Felsenthal Lock and Dam Boat Ramp

Port of Crossett Boat Ramp

A

North Rd

Strong Hwy

247

Ashley Road 227

US Hwy 82 W

Frost

Old Lock 6 Rd

Felsenthal

Huttig /

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Figure 2.4: Potential Mooring Location Feasibility Study Areas

Source: 

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

Legend

USFWS Refuge Boundary

County Boundary

Municipalities

US Highway

Other Road

#* Potential Mooring Location

0 2,500 5,000

Feet

Alternative F6
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 12

2.1.2.6 Alternative F7 – Auto Tour Route

The implementation of an Auto Tour route on existing Refuge facilities would enhance the visitor 

experience. The Auto Tour Route within the Refuge would include educational/scenic pull-offs along the 

route. The pull-off areas, signs, etc. should be planned in locations where they can provide an 

educational opportunity for the visitors, but have limited environmental impacts. Costs are expected to 

be limited and are related to planning/design, construction, and maintenance as the route is expected 

to be planned on existing facilities. The estimated cost of the one-way 16-foot wide section is $900 per 

100-foot length, $1,100 per 100-foot length for the two-way, 20-foot wide section, and $700 for each 

pull off with transition areas (200 total feet). The responsible partner for this alternative is USFWS, 

however, additional local partners would provide added benefits such as partnering with the Refuge to 

enhance the educational opportunities and helping with the upkeep of the Auto Tour route monetarily 

and/or through the development of a volunteer network. 

2.1.3 Medium-Range Alternatives (2022) 

2.1.3.1 Alternative F8 – Bridge Replacement on Bradley County Road 65 S

Bradley County Road 65 S is a packed dirt and gravel roadway northwest of the Refuge boundary. On 

this road there is an existing timber bridge which currently has a weight restriction of 4 tons for short 

wheelbase trucks and 7 tons for trucks with a longer wheelbase. The replacement of the timber bridge 

on Bradley County Road 65 S would reduce the weight restrictions associated with the existing bridge, 

thus allowing heavier vehicles to cross. By replacing this bridge, the connectivity of the roadway system 

to the Refuge would be restored allowing heavier vehicles access to the area. The bridge replacement 

would likely improve safety, connectivity, and capacity of the road. 

Construction costs are estimated to be approximately $125 per square foot of bridge deck. Costs 

include design, construction, and maintenance of the facility. Limited environmental impacts are 

expected as the replacement would be constructed in place. During the bridge replacement, vehicle 

traffic would be affected and alternate routes would be required. The responsible partners for this 

alternative are Bradley County and USFWS. A location map of the Bradley County Road 65 S bridge and 

surrounding area is shown in Figure 2.5. 

2.1.3.2 Alternative F9 – Roadway Improvements on New Lock 6 Road

The US Army Corps of Engineers is currently seeking grant funding to improve a portion of New Lock 6 

Road. A copy of the latest grant application is provided in Appendix B. Currently, a segment of New 

Lock 6 Road in the elevated section has insufficient compaction of fill. The roadway segment is located in 

the southern portion of Felsenthal NWR and serves as the only access onto the highly developed Corps 

of Engineers recreation lands. The road was constructed nearly 30 years ago and improvements are 

needed for the subbase and roadbed support for a portion of the segment between the Town of 

Felsenthal and the Felsenthal Lock and Dam boat ramp. The segment in need of improvement is 

elevated by approximately 20 feet to allow for flooding of the adjacent river. The road also provides 

access for over 100,000 recreational visitors annually, as well as ensuring the uninterrupted operations 

of the Felsenthal Lock & Dam. Per the most recent grant application, over the years, erosion has 
Bradley County Road 65 S Bridge

Pine Tree Rd

Bradley 467 Rd

Bradley 67 Rd

Bradley 477 Rd

Bradley 69 Rd

Bradley 468 Rd

/

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Figure 2.5: Potential Replacement of Bradley County Road 65 S Bridge

Source: 

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

Legend

Roadways

Proposed Bridge Replacement US-82

Lapile Rd

/

Vicinity Map

Existing Bridge on 

Bradley County Road 65 S

Felsenthal NWR

0 500 1,000

Feet

Example of Potential

Replacement Option

Alternative F8
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 14

shoulders, and adjacent slopes, in most cases with an entry point near the top of the elevated 

embankment and an exit point near the toe (See Figure 2.6). The critical problem areas are located 

along both sides of the roadway and measure approximately 3,000 feet and 3,800 feet on the north and 

south slopes, respectively, as shown in Figure 2.7. Recently, the Army Corps of Engineers has performed 

temporary stabilization repairs. The US Army Corps of Engineers developed an estimated project cost to 

be $217,900. 

Photo Source: US Army Corps of Engineers 

Figure 2.6: Voids along Embankment (Typical)

2.1.4 Long-Range Alternatives (2027)

2.1.4.1 Alternative F10 – Installation of Boat Mooring Locations

If warranted by the boat mooring location feasibility study (Alternative F6), mooring locations could be 

installed at the Felsenthal Lock and Dam and Port of Crossett boat ramps. The estimated cost to install a 

boat mooring location would be approximately $100,000-$200,000 for each location. The responsible 

partners for this alternative are USFWS, City of Crossett, US Army Corps of Engineers. An additional 

opportunity for partnership could include the Friends of Felsenthal group. 

2.1.5 Additional Recommendations 

Nine additional alternatives have been developed that are not anticipated to have direct impacts to the 

environment. 

2.1.5.1 Alternative F5 – Establish Agreements for Refuge Access Points

Establishing agreements with private land owners for use of their land/roads will increase access to the 

Refuge. The Refuge access points through roads on private lands could be memorialized through formal 

agreements with the private land owners. These formal agreements would establish the access points 

and provide the opportunity to keep specific access and roadways functional. Additionally, these 

agreements would likely lead to improvement/maintenance of the roads, benefitting both land owners 

and Refuge visitors. These access points would also improve connectivity and capacity of the roadways 

within the Refuge. 
3000 ft

Grand Marais Campground

Upper Recreation Area

Lower Recreation Area

Felsenthal Lock & Dam

Segment to be Improved

#

#

3800 ft

#

#

Segment to be Improved

S 1st St

Old Lock 6 Rd

I Ave

Felsenthal

/

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Figure 2.7: Potential New Lock 6 Road Improvement Area

Source: 

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

Legend

USFWS Refuge Boundary

Municipalities

US Highway

Other Road

County Boundary

Improvement Area

0 500 1,000

Feet

Alternative F9
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 16

The specific terms regarding the access points would be determined during the negotiation of the 

agreements between USFWS and the private land owners. Responsible partners for this alternative 

include USFWS and private land owners. 

2.1.5.2 Conduct a Speed Study on US 82 in the Vicinity of the Refuge

The posted speed limit for US 82 adjacent to the Refuge entrance is 55 mph. However, there is a 

concern that traffic on US 82 is traveling at a higher rate than the posted speed limit. To review the 

existing speeds on US 82 in the vicinity of the Refuge, a speed study could be conducted. Based on the 

results of a speed study, AHTD may consider requesting that the Arkansas State Police, Highway Patrol 

Division, increase enforcement on the section of US 82 that passes through the Refuge. 

2.1.5.3 Install Wayfinding Signs for the Refuge in the Surrounding Area 

There is very limited directional signage for the Refuge on the surrounding roadways. On US 82, there 

are signs at the Refuge boundary and one directional sign which reference the Visitors Center. There 

are currently a limited number of signs in the City of Crossett or other surrounding areas providing 

distance or directional information regarding the Refuge. Additional signage could be beneficial in 

providing information that directs visitors to the Refuge. By adding new signs and updating existing 

signs, drivers would become better informed of directional and locational information related to the 

Refuge. A proposed sign plan is shown in Figures 2.8 and 2.9. 

Additional wayfinding signs at major decision making locations north of the Refuge directing visitors to 

the northern access points of the Refuge would also be beneficial. 

2.1.5.4 Install Signs Regarding the Refuge’s Highway Advisory Radio 

The Refuge has implemented a highway advisory radio broadcast to notify the public of such things as 

prescribed burns, directional information, and other general information about Refuge events. Signs 

with information about the highway advisory radio are located within the Refuge; however, additional 

signs on adjacent public roadways regarding the highway advisory information would be beneficial to 

visitors and other users of the Refuge. The proposed locations of two highway advisory radio signs on 

US 82 is shown in the proposed sign plan (Figure 2.8). 

2.1.5.5 Coordinate with Local Agencies and Municipalities to Encourage Usage of the Refuge

Coordination with local agencies and nearby municipalities would be beneficial and potentially increase 

visitation and Refuge usage. This coordination could include things such as flyers, mailers, media 

advertisements, etc. By working with local agencies and municipalities, information about the Refuge 

and special events can reach a greater number of people, likely increasing Refuge visitation. 

2.1.5.6 Develop New Trails to Enhance the Visitor Experience

There are few formal trails within the Refuge. Developing new trails would provide visitors access to 

areas of the Refuge that cannot be easily accessed currently. Using these trails, visitors would be able to 

access and explore more areas of the Refuge for uses such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. 
£¤82

¬«275

¬«275

¬«133

¬«129

¬«169

Crossett

Strong

FELSENTHAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Figure 2.8: Proposed US 82 Signage Plan - West

Legend

Felsenthal NWR

County Boundary

Municipalities

US Highway

State Highway

Other Road

Railroad

Source: 

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

0 1 2 3 4 0.5 / Miles

EXISTING

ADD

EXISTING

ADD

EXISTING

ADD

EXISTING

ADD

EXISTING

ADD

EXISTING

ADD

EXISTING

PROPOSED - EB DIRECTION ON EXISTING SIGN POSTS ADD

PROPOSED - WB DIRECTION ON EXISTING SIGN POSTS

EXISTING

ADD

Note: The signs shown are for conceptual purposes only and are not to scale. 

Final sign layouts and dimensions are to be determined by AHTD. 
£¤82

£¤425

OVERFLOW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Crossett

¬«8

¬«52

¬«169

¬«133

¬«133

¬«52

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Figure 2.9: Proposed US 82 Signage Plan - East

0 1 2 0.5 / Miles

Note: The signs shown are for conceptual

 purposes only and are not to scale. 

 Final sign layouts and dimensions are

 to be determined by AHTD. 

Legend

Overflow NWR

County Boundary

Municipalities

US Highway

State Highway

Other Road

Railroad

Source: 

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

EXISTING

EXISTING EXISTING

ADD ADD

ADD
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 19

2.1.5.7 Develop a formal trail map for the Refuge 

There is currently no formal trail map for the Refuge. In addition to the development of new trails, a 

trail map would be beneficial for visitors by providing them information on which landmarks and areas 

of the Refuge can be easily accessed via trail. 

2.1.5.8 Provide Refuge Information at Visitors Center/Refuge Complex Kiosks

To increase visitor awareness and education at the Refuge, it would be beneficial to provide information 

regarding such things as permits, trail maps, notes about special events, etc. at the kiosks located at the 

Visitors Center/Refuge Complex entrances. 

2.1.5.9 Continue to Pursue Grant Opportunities for Additional Funding Sources

Grants are important opportunities for the Refuge, so it is necessary to continually identify and pursue 

funding sources. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 20

2.2 Overflow NWR 

The following preliminary candidate alternatives for the Overflow NWR are summarized in Figure 2.10. 

2.2.1 No-Build

The “No-Build” alternative provides no improvements to the existing transportation facilities in the 

study area. This would result in no improvement costs or impacts to the natural environment in the 

study area. In the No-Build alternative, the existing habitat for the Refuge would not be impacted; 

however, the potential for issues to occur on the transportation facilities will likely remain the same or 

increase if no improvements are made. 

2.2.2 Short-Range Alternatives (2017)

2.2.2.1 Alternative O1 – Internal Roadway Condition Maintenance

Continual maintenance of the existing internal roads and trails within the Refuge by adding gravel to 

unpaved surfaces, where necessary, will improve the quality of the roads and potentially increase safety 

for drivers. Additionally, managing drainage along unpaved roadways will lengthen the life and 

durability of the road surface. Potential costs associated with this alternative would vary depending on 

the type of road and the extent of maintenance required. The responsible partner for this alternative is 

USFWS. 

2.2.3 Medium-Range Alternatives (2022)

2.2.3.1 Alternative O3 – Auto Tour Route 

The implementation of an Auto Tour route on existing Refuge facilities would enhance the visitor 

experience. The Auto Tour Route within the Refuge would include educational/scenic pull-offs along the 

route. The pull-off areas, signs, etc. should be planned in locations where they can provide an 

educational opportunity for the visitors, but have limited environmental impacts. 

Costs are expected to be limited and are related to planning/design, construction, and maintenance as 

the route is expected to be planned on existing facilities. The estimated cost of the one-way 16-foot 

wide section is $900 per 100-foot length, $1,100 per 100-foot length for the two-way, 20-foot wide 

section, and $700 for each pull off with transition areas (200 total feet). The responsible partner for this 

alternative is USFWS, however, additional local partners would provide added benefits such as 

partnering with the Refuge to enhance the educational opportunities and helping with the upkeep of 

the Auto Tour route monetarily and/or through the development of a volunteer network. 

The proposed Auto Tour route is shown in Figure 2.11 and will consist of a 16-foot wide gravel lane in 

the one-way sections and a 20-foot wide gravel lane in the two-way sections, there are three scenic pulloffs planned. 
¬«8

£¤165

	








Arkansas

Louisiana

¬«52







	


	




















 !





 

	"#



	


 



	






	


 

$  


	


	






	






%

 

	


&
'


	()


	
 

	
%

 

 



	


	
#(

	







*(


	
+

	



"

(*

)(,



	


 

	
%

Wilmot

Parkdale

% % / 

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Overflow NWR Preliminary Candidate Alternatives

Source:

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

Legend


-*

.
(


	
(.
(


('#

.

-/


$*

*

0







General Recommendations 

- Internal Roadway Condition Maintenance 

- Establish Agreements for Refuge Access Points 

- Coordinate with Local Agencies and Municipalities to 

 Encourage Usage of the Refuge 

- Build Upon Existing Materials in Kiosks 

- Continue to Pursue Grant Opportunities

Implement Auto 

Tour within the 

Refuge

Trails 

- Develop New Walking/Biking Trails 

- Develop a Formal Trail Map

 Install Directional 

Wayfinding Signs for 

the Refuge in the 

 Surrounding Area 

and Communities

Figure 2.10:
Auto Tour Turn-Around

Auto Tour Start

Potential Pull Off Location

Potential Pull Off Location

Potential Pull Off Location

Co Rd 318

Co Rd 358

Co Rd 351

Co Rd 

/

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Figure 2.11: Potential Overflow NWR Auto Tour Route

Source: 

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

Legend

Auto Tour Route - In

Auto Tour Route - Out

Study Area Refuge

US Highway

State Highway

Other Road

0 1,000 2,000

Feet

Auto Tour Route Typical Section

16 ft One-Way

Typical Section for Pull Off Areas

16 ft One-Way

Alternative O3

Auto Tour Route Typical Section

20 ft Two-Way

Typical Section for Pull Off Areas

20 ft Two-Way
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 23

2.2.4 Additional Recommendations

Seven additional alternatives have been developed that are not anticipated to have direct impacts to the 

environment. 

2.2.4.1 Alternative O2 – Establish Agreements for Refuge Access Points

Establishing agreements with private land owners for use of their land/roads will increase access to the 

Refuge. The Refuge access points through roads on private lands could be memorialized through formal 

agreements with the private land owners. These formal agreements would establish the access points 

and provide the opportunity to keep specific access and roadways functional. Additionally, these 

agreements would likely lead to improvement/maintenance of the roads, benefitting both land owners 

and Refuge visitors. These access points would also improve connectivity and capacity of the roadways 

within the Refuge. 

The specific terms regarding the access points would be determined during the negotiation of the 

agreements between USFWS and the private land owners. Responsible partners for this alternative 

include USFWS and private land owners. 

2.2.4.2 Install Wayfinding Signs for the Refuge in the Surrounding Area

There are some signs in the surrounding areas providing directional information regarding the Refuge, 

however they do not include distance information. Adding distance information to the Overflow NWR 

sign on AR 8 would be beneficial directing visitors to the Refuge. 

2.2.4.3 Coordinate with Local Agencies and Municipalities to Encourage Usage of the Refuge

Coordination with local agencies and nearby municipalities would be beneficial and potentially increase 

visitation and Refuge usage. This coordination could include things such as flyers, mailers, media 

advertisements, etc. By working with local agencies and municipalities, information about the Refuge 

and special events can reach a greater number of people, likely increasing Refuge visitation. 

2.2.4.4 Develop New Trails to Enhance the Visitor Experience

There are few formal trails within the Refuge. Developing new trails would provide visitors access to 

areas of the Refuge that cannot be easily accessed currently. Using these trails, visitors would be able to 

access and explore more areas of the Refuge for uses such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. 

2.2.4.5 Develop a formal trail map for the Refuge 

There is currently no formal trail map for the Refuge. In addition to the development of new trails, a 

trail map would be beneficial for visitors by providing them information on landmarks and areas of the 

Refuge that can be easily accessed via trails. 

2.2.4.6 Provide Refuge Information at Visitors Center/Refuge Complex Kiosks

To increase visitor awareness and education at the Refuge, it would be beneficial to provide information 

regarding such things as permits, trail maps, notes about special events, etc. at the kiosks located at the 

Visitors Center/Refuge Complex entrances. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 24

2.2.4.7 Continue to Pursue Grant Opportunities for Additional Funding Sources

Grants are important opportunities for the Refuge, so it is necessary to continually identify and pursue 

funding sources. 

3. Planning and Environmental Screening 

This section describes the preliminary impact screening for the alternatives proposed at the Felsenthal 

and Overflow NWRs. Impacts are based on the preliminary footprints of the conceptual alternatives 

previously discussed. 

3.1 Summary of Screening 

The following categories were considered during the preliminary impact screening process. 

Socioeconomic and Community Features – Socioeconomic composition of affected communities and 

impacts to community features. 

Environmental Justice – Impacts on minority or low-income populations. 

Cultural Resources – Impacts to historic or archaeological resources. 

Transportation and Safety – Changes in traffic patterns and safety for drivers. 

Visitor Use and Experience – Changes to visitor facilities and experience. 

General Environmental Impacts – Estimated impacts to the natural environment including wetlands, 

floodplains, and wildlife habitats. 

3.2 Potential Impacts to Existing Conditions 

Socioeconomic and Community Features – The Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges are 

located in Ashley, Bradley, and Union Counties, Arkansas. The majority of alternatives proposed are 

within the boundaries of the Refuges. It is not expected that any community features will be adversely 

impacted by these improvements. Two public information meetings have occurred for this project and 

citizen input on the alternatives has been requested. Advertisement and notification of these meetings 

has been through press releases and through the project specific web page. 

Environmental Justice – Although the Refuges are open to all visitors, residents of Ashley, Bradley, and 

Union counties are more likely to pass through the Refuges. US 82, the main arterial to Felsenthal NWR, 

functions as both a local and regional facility providing access throughout the area. According to 2010 

Census data, 35% of residents in Ashley, Bradley, and Union counties are minorities. The 2010 US 

Census also indicated that greater than 20% of families and individuals in Ashley, Bradley, and Union 

Counties are below the poverty level. All three counties exceed the national (13.5%) and state (17.7%) 

poverty levels. Each of the alternatives proposed occur along existing facilities and do not result in 

disproportionate impacts to low income or minority populations. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 25

Cultural Resources – There are several archaeological sites and structures of historic importance such as 

the remains of seasonal fishing camps, temple mounds with ceremonial plazas, and Indian villages. 

There are no expected impacts to cultural resources for the alternatives considered in this study. 

Transportation and Safety – The transportation study area for the project includes US, state and local 

roads in and around Felsenthal NWR and Overflow NWR. Improvements include turn-lane upgrades, 

regular roadway maintenance, subbase issues on New Lock 6 Road, and signs related to the Refuges’ 

highway advisory radio. 

Visitor Use and Experience – Visitor experience will be enhanced with improvements to area roadways 

as identified in the alternatives and providing additional visitor information. 

General Environmental Impacts – Based on aerial photographs and GIS land cover mapping, wetlands 

are located throughout the Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs. Impacts to wetlands are expected to be 

minimal for all alternatives. Minimal impacts are also expected for wildlife habitats, water bodies, and 

floodplains for several of the proposed alternatives. 

3.3 Potential Impacts of Alternatives – Felsenthal NWR

3.3.1 Alternative F1 – Internal Roadway Condition Improvements

Socioeconomic and Community Features – This alternative will not directly impact any residents, 

communities, or community features. 

Environmental Justice – There are no disproportionate impacts to low income or minority populations 

as a result of this alternative. 

Cultural Resources – No impacts are anticipated as a result of Alternative F1. 

Transportation and Safety – Continual maintenance of the existing internal roads and trails within the 

Refuges by adding gravel to unpaved surfaces, where necessary, will improve the quality of the roads. 

Additionally, managing drainage along unpaved roadways will lengthen the life and durability of the 

road surface. 

Visitor Use and Experience – Improving the condition of roadways in and around the Refuges will 

enhance the visitor experience by providing better quality roadways for visitors. 

General Environmental Impacts – These improvements are expected to have minimal environmental 

impacts on floodplains and wildlife habitats. 

3.3.2 Alternative F2 – Westbound Left-Turn Lane at Visitors Center Driveway (US 82)

Socioeconomic and Community Features – By providing a longer deceleration area for left turning 

vehicles the traveling public on US 82 will be positively impacted. 

Environmental Justice – There are no disproportionate impacts to low income or minority populations 

as a result of this alternative. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 26

Cultural Resources – No impacts are anticipated as a result of Alternative F2. 

Transportation and Safety – Lengthening the westbound left-turn lane storage and taper at the Visitors 

Center/Refuge Complex driveway will allow left turning vehicles more time and distance to decelerate 

without impeding the flow of vehicles traveling west along US 82. This alternative is anticipated to 

improve access to the Refuge and help reduce the potential for rear-end collisions on US 82 at this 

location. 

Visitor Use and Experience – By providing a longer distance for vehicles to decelerate as they turn into 

the Visitors Center/Refuge Complex, access to the Refuge is improved enhancing the visitor experience. 

General Environmental Impacts – This improvement is expected to have minimal environmental 

impacts on floodplains and wildlife habitats. 

3.3.3 Alternative F3 – Eastbound Right-Turn Lane Visitors Center Driveway (US 82)

Socioeconomic and Community Features – By providing a deceleration lane for right turning vehicles 

the traveling public on US 82 will be positively impacted. 

Environmental Justice – There are no disproportionate impacts to low income or minority populations 

as a result of this alternative. 

Cultural Resources – No impacts are anticipated as a result of Alternative F3. 

Transportation and Safety – Adding an eastbound right-turn lane at the Visitors Center entrance will 

allow right turning vehicles more time and distance to decelerate without impeding the flow of vehicles 

traveling east along US 82. This alternative is anticipated to improve access to the Refuge and help 

reduce the potential for rear-end collisions on US 82. 

Visitor Use and Experience – Providing an exclusive lane to decelerate as they turn into the Visitors 

Center/Refuge Complex, access to the Refuge is improved enhancing the visitor experience. 

General Environmental Impacts – This improvement is expected to have minimal environmental 

impacts on floodplains and wildlife habitats. 

3.3.4 Alternative F4 – Channel Maintenance at Boat Ramps

Socioeconomic and Community Features – This alternative will enhance recreational facilities for 

residents and local communities. 

Environmental Justice – There are no disproportionate impacts to low income or minority populations 

as a result of this alternative. 

Cultural Resources – No impacts are anticipated as a result of Alternative F4. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 27

Transportation and Safety – Removing silt by dredging the cuts and sloughs at the Felsenthal Lock and 

Dam, Shallow Lake, and Pine Island boat ramps will allow boaters to more easily access the channels 

from the boat ramps. 

Visitor Use and Experience – This improvement will enhance the visitor experience by reducing wear 

and tear on boat equipment and likely increasing boat ramp attractiveness for users. 

General Environmental Impacts – The maintenance is expected to have minimal environmental impacts 

on wetlands, water bodies, and wildlife habitats. 

3.3.5 Alternatives F6 and F10 – Boat Mooring Locations Feasibility and Installation

Socioeconomic and Community Features – The mooring locations will enhance recreational facilities for 

residents and local communities. 

Environmental Justice – There are no disproportionate impacts to low income or minority populations 

as a result of this alternative. 

Cultural Resources – No impacts are anticipated as a result of Alternatives F6 and F10. 

Transportation and Safety – A feasibility study should be conducted to determine existing ramp usage, 

potential benefits, and the attractiveness to users associated with the addition of boat mooring 

locations at the ramps. If the feasibility study determines that boat mooring locations are feasible, their 

installation would provide boaters the opportunity to moor after launching from the boat ramp. 

Visitor Use and Experience – Boat mooring locations at the boat ramps would be a convenience for the 

ramp users and would likely increase ramp usage and boater visitation of the Refuge. 

General Environmental Impacts – The feasibility study will not have any environmental impacts. Should 

the mooring locations be installed, minimal environmental impacts to water bodies and wildlife habitats 

are anticipated. 

3.3.6 Alternative F7 – Auto Tour Route

Socioeconomic and Community Features – This alternative will enhance recreational facilities for 

residents and local communities. 

Environmental Justice – There are no disproportionate impacts to low income or minority populations 

as a result of this alternative. 

Cultural Resources – No impacts are anticipated as a result of Alternative F7. 

Transportation and Safety – The addition of the Auto Tour route is for educational and visitor 

experience purposes on existing Refuge facilities. 

Visitor Use and Experience – The Auto Tour route will include educational/scenic pull-offs in the Refuge, 

educating users about the Refuge and improving the visitor experience and user satisfaction. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 28

General Environmental Impacts – The addition of the Auto Tour route is expected to have minimal 

environmental impacts on wetlands, floodplains, and wildlife habitats. 

3.3.7 Alternative F8 – Bridge Replacement on Bradley County Road 65 S 

Socioeconomic and Community Features – This alternative is anticipated to have a positive impact to 

the community and its residents. 

Environmental Justice – This alternative will provide connectivity for vehicles in the area. 

Cultural Resources – No impacts are anticipated as a result of Alternative F8. 

Transportation and Safety – The replacement of the timber bridge on Bradley County Road 65 S would 

allow heavier vehicles to cross the bridge providing additional connectivity to the area. 

Visitor Use and Experience – The bridge replacement would allow heavier axle loads to access the 

Refuge via this route. 

General Environmental Impacts – It is expected for this bridge to be constructed in place and have 

minimal impacts on wetlands, floodplains, and wildlife habitats. 

3.3.8 Alternative F9 – Roadway Improvements on New Lock 6 Road 

Socioeconomic and Community Features – This alternative will improve the road accessing local 

recreational facilities. 

Environmental Justice – There are no disproportionate impacts to low income or minority populations 

as a result of this alternative. 

Cultural Resources – No impacts are anticipated as a result of Alternative F9. 

Transportation and Safety – Improving the subbase and roadbed support for New Lock 6 Road would 

increase the quality of the road. 

Visitor Use and Experience – The improvement of New Lock 6 Road will improve the quality of the road 

for vehicles accessing the Felsenthal Lock and Dam boat ramp. 

General Environmental Impacts – The construction associated with the roadway improvement is 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on wetlands, floodplains, and wildlife habitats. 

3.4 Potential Impacts of Alternatives – Overflow NWR 

3.4.1 Alternative O1 – Internal Roadway Condition Improvements

Socioeconomic and Community Features – This alternative will not directly impact any residents, 

communities, or community features. 

Environmental Justice – There are no disproportionate impacts to low income or minority populations 

as a result of this alternative. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 29

Cultural Resources – No impacts are anticipated as a result of Alternative O1. 

Transportation and Safety – Continual maintenance of the existing internal roads and trails within the 

Refuges by adding gravel to unpaved surfaces, where necessary, will improve the quality of the roads. 

Additionally, managing drainage along unpaved roadways will lengthen the life and durability of the 

road surface. 

Visitor Use and Experience – Improving the condition of roadways in and around the Refuges will 

enhance the visitor experience by providing better quality roadways for visitors. 

General Environmental Impacts – These improvements are expected to have minimal environmental 

impacts on wetlands, floodplains and wildlife habitats. 

3.4.2 Alternative O3 – Auto Tour Route

Socioeconomic and Community Features – This alternative will enhance recreational facilities for 

residents and local communities. 

Environmental Justice – There are no disproportionate impacts to low income or minority populations 

as a result of this alternative. 

Cultural Resources – No impacts are anticipated as a result of Alternative O3. 

Transportation and Safety – The addition of the Auto Tour route is for educational and visitor 

experience purposes on existing Refuge facilities. 

Visitor Use and Experience – The Auto Tour route will include educational/scenic pull-offs in the Refuge, 

educating users about the Refuge and improving the visitor experience and user satisfaction. 

General Environmental Impacts – The addition of the Auto Tour route is expected to have minimal 

environmental impacts on wetlands, floodplains, and wildlife habitats. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 30

4. Conclusion 

4.1 Summary Matrix

Table 4.1 summarizes potential impacts for key alternatives described in this report. 

4.2 Implementation Priorities

This report provides refinement and initial screening of the transportation alternatives presented in this 

study. With the cooperation of project stakeholders these alternatives should be placed on 

transportation plans and/or scheduled for further study as appropriate. Based on the preliminary 

impacts presented in this report, the following roadway improvement alternatives are recommended 

during the following timeframes: 

Short-Range (2017) –

Felsenthal NWR

 Alternative F1 – Internal Roadway Condition Improvements 

 Alternative F2 – Westbound Left-Turn Lane at Visitors Center Driveway (US 82) 

 Alternative F3 – Eastbound Right-Turn Lane at Visitors Center Driveway (US 82) 

 Alternative F4 – Channel Maintenance at Boat Ramps 

 Alternative F6 – Boat Mooring Locations Feasibility Study 

 Alternative F7 – Auto Tour Route 

Overflow NWR

 Alternative O1 – Internal Roadway Condition Improvement 

 Alternative O3 – Auto Tour Route 

Medium Range (2022) –

Felsenthal NWR

 Alternative F8 – Bridge Replacement on Bradley County Road 65 S 

 Alternative F9 – Roadway Improvements on New Lock 6 Road 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 31

Table 4.1: Impact Summary

Impact or 

Resource 

Category

Alternative F2 Alternative F3 Alternative F4 Alternatives 

F6 and F10 Alternative F7 Alternative F8 Alternative F9 Alternative O3

WB Left-Turn 

Lane 

Improvement

EB Right-Turn 

Lane Addition

Channel 

Maintenance 

at Cuts and 

Sloughs

Boat Mooring 

Locations 

Feasibility 

Study and 

Installation

Auto Tour 

Route

Bradley 

County Road 

65 S Bridge 

Replacement

New Lock 6 

Road 

Improvements

Auto Tour 

Route

Socioeconomic 

and 

Community 

Features

Positive 

impact

Positive 

impact

Positive 

impact

Positive 

impact

Positive 

impact

Positive 

impact

Positive 

impact

Positive 

impact

Environmental 

Justice No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact Positive impact No impact No impact

Cultural 

Resources

No impact 

anticipated

No impact 

anticipated

No impact 

anticipated

No impact 

anticipated

No impact 

anticipated

No impact 

anticipated

No impact 

anticipated

No impact 

anticipated

Transportation 

and Safety

Allows left 

turning 

vehicles more 

time and 

space to 

decelerate

Allows right 

turning 

vehicles more 

time and 

space to 

decelerate

Allows boaters 

to more 

quickly and 

easily access 

the channels 

from the boat 

ramps

Study – N/A

Installation -

opportunity to 

moor after 

launching

N/A

Increases 

connectivity

for users

Improves the 

road quality 

for users

N/A

Visitor Use and 

Experience Enhances Enhances Enhances Enhances Enhances Enhances Enhances Enhances

General 

Environmental 

Impacts

Minimal 

impacts 

anticipated

Minimal 

impacts 

anticipated

Minimal 

impacts 

anticipated

Study – N/A

Installation –

Minimal 

impacts 

anticipated

Minimal 

impacts 

anticipated

Minimal 

impacts 

anticipated

Minimal 

impacts 

anticipated

Minimal 

impacts 

anticipated
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Short and Long Range Improvement Plan 32

Long Range (2027) – 

 Felsenthal NWR

 Alternative F10 – Installation of Boat Mooring Locations 

For the additional alternatives identified in this study, continued cooperation between stakeholders 

should occur.

4.3 Next Steps 

The alternatives have been presented to the stakeholders and public. This report will be shared with the 

stakeholders and community for comment and then be incorporated into the final Transportation Study 

Report along with the other previously prepared reports. 
Appendix A: Opinions of 

Probable Cost 
CONCEPT ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST 

Alternative F2 - Westbound Left-Turn Lane at Visitors Center Driveway (US 82)

Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount

CLEARING AND GRUBBING AC 1.90 25,000.00 $ $ 47,500.00

BORROW(2) CY 2,000 $ 13.86 $ 27,720.00

ROADWAY PAVEMENT(1) SY 1,100 $ 54.00 $ 59,400.00

SUBTOTAL ROADWAY $ 134,620.00

MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY (60%) LS $ 80,772.00

DRAINAGE (50%) LS $ 67,310.00

SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS (10%) LS $ 13,462.00

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 296,164.00

MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (10%) LS $ 29,616.40

MOBILIZATION (10%) LS $ 29,616.40

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 355,396.80

"SAY" Subtotal $ 360,000.00

Engineering, Survey and CEI (30%) $ 106,619.04

Contingency (25%) $ 88,849.20

"SAY" Total $ 560,000.00

(1) ASSUMES 12" OF STABILIZED SUB BASE, 10" OF LIME ROCK BASE, 3.5" OF SUPERPAVE ASPHALT, & 1.5" OF FRICTION COURSE.

(2) ASSUMES 4 FEET OF BORROW FOR THE AREA OF PAVEMENT.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

710 Boundary Street

Suite 1-D

Beaufort, SC 29902

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or over methods of determining price, or over competitive 

bidding or market conditions. Any and all professional opinions as to costs reflected herein, including but not limited to professional opinions as to the costs of construction materials, are 

made on the basis of professional experience and available data. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. cannot and does not guarantee or warrant that proposals, bids, or actual costs will not 

vary from the professional opinions of costs shown herein.

K:\TAL_TPTO\011675 - Felsenthal\Short and Long Term Improvements Report\OPC TABLES.xls
CONCEPT ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST 

Alternative F3 - Eastbound Right-Turn Lane at Visitors Center Driveway (US 82)

Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount

CLEARING AND GRUBBING AC 0.40 25,000.00 $ $ 10,000.00

BORROW(2) CY 600 $ 13.86 $ 8,316.00

ROADWAY PAVEMENT(1) SY 450 $ 54.00 $ 24,300.00

SUBTOTAL ROADWAY $ 42,616.00

MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY (60%) LS $ 25,569.60

DRAINAGE (50%) LS $ 21,308.00

SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS (10%) LS $ 4,261.60

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 93,755.20

MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (10%) LS $ 9,375.52

MOBILIZATION (10%) LS $ 9,375.52

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 112,506.24

"SAY" Subtotal $ 120,000.00

Engineering, Survey and CEI (30%) $ 33,751.87

Contingency (25%) $ 28,126.56

"SAY" Total $ 190,000.00

(1) ASSUMES 12" OF STABILIZED SUB BASE, 10" OF LIME ROCK BASE, 3.5" OF SUPERPAVE ASPHALT, & 1.5" OF FRICTION COURSE.

(2) ASSUMES 4 FEET OF BORROW FOR THE AREA OF PAVEMENT.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

710 Boundary Street

Suite 1-D

Beaufort, SC 29902

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or over methods of determining price, or over competitive 

bidding or market conditions. Any and all professional opinions as to costs reflected herein, including but not limited to professional opinions as to the costs of construction materials, are 

made on the basis of professional experience and available data. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. cannot and does not guarantee or warrant that proposals, bids, or actual costs will not 

vary from the professional opinions of costs shown herein.

K:\TAL_TPTO\011675 - Felsenthal\Short and Long Term Improvements Report\OPC TABLES.xls
Appendix B: New Lock 6 Road 

Grant Application 
Updated: May 23, 2012 p. 1

PUBLIC LANDS HIGHWAYS DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM (PLHD) 

FY 2011 GRANT APPLICATION 

PART A. PROJECT INFORMATION 

Project Title: Felsenthal Public Access Road

Project Location (Include City/County, 

State): Huttig/Union/Arkansas

State Priority (to be completed by State 

DOT):

GRANTEE CONTACT INFORMATION

Grantee Contact Name: Richard Magby

Federal Agency/Project Sponsor: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mailing Address (Street/P.O. Box): 667 New Lock 6 Road

City, State, Zip code: Huttig, AR 71747

Phone: 870-943-2307 ext. 103

Fax: 870-943-2546

E-Mail: Richard.E.Magby@usace.army.mil

STATE DOT CONTACT INFORMATION

State Contact Person: Lorie Tudor

Phone: 501-569-2542

Fax: 501-569-2623

E-Mail: Lorie.Tudor@arkansashighways.com

FHWA DIVISION OFFICE CONTACT INFORMATION

Division Contact Person: Susan Wimberly

Phone: 501-324-6434

Fax: 501-324-6423

E-Mail: Susan.Wimberly@dot.gov

CONGRESSIONAL INFORMATION

Congress Member: Ross, Mike

Congressional District No.: Arkansas 4th Congressional District

PLHD Program Funds Requested: $217,900

Leveraged Funds (if applicable): $0.00

Total Project Cost (includes funding 

request plus leveraged funds if 

applicable):

$217,900

TO BE COMPLETED BY THE FHWA DIVISION OFFICE
Updated: May 23, 2012 p. 2

State Administered? Yes No

Federal Lands Division Administered? Yes No

If yes, which Division?

Direct Allotment of PLHD funding to 

Federal Agency? Yes No

If yes, which Federal Agency?

Can the project be obligated by 

September 30, 2011? Yes No

Date grant application approved by 

FHWA Division Office

Part B. Project Abstract 

PLHD funds will be utilized to make major repairs to the road, shoulder and 

elevated road embankment which provides public access to three different Corps 

of Engineers recreation areas as well as to Felsenthal Lock & Dam. PLHD funds 

will allow for critical repairs to prevent further road damage which is increasing 

due to the continuous displacement of support material from the roadbed and 

road shoulder. Funds will be used to dig out voids and fill with a more suitable 

and stable clay material so as to prevent the pending and complete loss of this 

public road. If funded this would be a complete project and not a portion of a 

larger project and has not received previous PLHD funds. 

Part C. Project Narrative

The project road is located near Huttig, AR (667 New Lock 6 Road) in Union 

County Arkansas and serves as the only access onto the highly developed Corps of 

Engineers recreation lands and is now nearing 30 years since it was first 

constructed. Over those years voids have appeared and grown and it has 

deteriorated to the point that major repairs are mandatory for it to remain 

serviceable to the visiting public. These voids have formed in the roadbed, 

shoulders and adjacent slopes in most cases with an entry point near the top of 

the elevated embankment and an exit point near the toe (See figure 1) which 

permits piping of soil and sediments causing instability and damage to the 

subsurface and the road surface itself. Numerous attempts have been made in 

the past to fill the entry points with materials to prevent piping and loss of 

support for the road. All materials that have been placed in the entry point of the 

voids have quickly moved through the void and been lost with only a very minor 

and temporary benefit. The roadway is elevated approximately 20 feet to allow 

for adjacent flooding of the river. The critical problem areas are along both sides 

of the roadway and measure approximately 3000’ on the north side and 3800 feet 

along the south slope. (See figure 2) To properly complete the job it will be 

absolutely necessary to prevent the movement of rainwater and the movement 
Updated: May 23, 2012 p. 3

of soil through the embankment and to do so it will require that the damaged 

areas be dug up and repaired. This public access road provides access to over 

100,000 recreational visitors yearly as well as ensuring the uninterrupted 

operations of the Felsenthal Lock & Dam. The lock and dam provides additional 

recreational access to boaters utilizing the waterway by passing over 1000 

pleasure boats through the lock chamber annually. Recreation facilities in which 

this road services include: 50 campsites, 3 boat ramps, 1 handicapped accessible 

fishing pier, 1 picnic shelter, 2 picnic areas, 3 public restrooms, 2 shower houses, 

1 playground and 8 parking areas with spaces for 290 vehicles. If approved, this 

project would allow for the restoration of the access road to facilitate its 

continued safe operations for all users of the areas. Plans are to dig out the 

unstable sections and areas with voids and replace with a suitable and more 

stable clay material, compact the clay fill to prevent future erosion and to also 

repair the damaged areas of the existing roadway which have become a safety 

hazard to the public who utilize the road. (See figure 3). In order to more 

efficiently and effectively complete the repairs it will require the removal of 

approximately 6800 feet of guard railing and 3800 feet of PVC water lines. Both 

features are within and surrounded by failed roadbed. After repairs have been 

made, plans include the re-installation of the protective guard rail and water line. 

Lastly plans are to seed the entire area to establish a uniform turf to protect the 

slopes from future erosion. In order to facilitate critical repairs along the of 

roadway a budget and scope of work was designed as follows: 

 Equipment usage for repairs: Track hoe, 2 Dozers, Dump truck, Crew truck, 

Truck/low boy @ 30 working days= $36,900, Fuel: 3000 gal @ $4.00=$12,000, 

Labor for dirt work -960 labor hours -$38,000, Labor for traffic control- 480 labor 

hours -$7200, Clay fill materials: 20,000 yd @ $2.50/yd-$50,000, 

Equipment/Labor for 6800’ of Guard rail removal/re-installation: Equipment- 

$10,000, 640 labor hours-$25,600, Repair of damage to existing road surface= 

$32,000 and Removal and replacement of 3800’ of 1” PVC water line= Materials- 

$1000, Equipment- $400, Labor- $800, Seed and turf re-establishment- $4000 for 

a total estimated project cost of $217,900.

In its present condition, the road shoulder and slopes can’t be fully or safely 

mowed and maintained which will allow vegetation to soon hamper repairs but 

by acting now and with the completion of this project recreation access can be 

enhanced and preserved well into the future for visitors to these areas.
Updated: May 23, 2012 p. 4

Figure 1 

Figure 2 
Updated: May 23, 2012 p. 5

Figure 3 

Part D. Project Eligibility 

This road project provides the only public vehicular access to the three U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District owned Recreation areas: Grand Marais 

Recreation Area & Campground, Felsenthal Upper Pool, Felsenthal 

Lower pool Recreation areas as well as the Felsenthal Lock & Dam on the 

Ouachita River.