FELSENTHAL AND OVERFLOW

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report

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

March 2012

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

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study		

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report

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

March 2012
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study March 2012

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report i   

Table of Contents

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

1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Design Years.......................................................................................................................... 1

2. Summary of Transportation Conditions and Issues.............................................................................. 1

2.1 Felsenthal NWR..................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Overflow NWR ...................................................................................................................... 5

3. Conceptual Alternatives........................................................................................................................ 5

3.1 Felsenthal NWR..................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Overflow NWR ...................................................................................................................... 9

4. Screening Criteria................................................................................................................................ 10

5. Preliminary Candidate Alternatives.................................................................................................... 10

5.1 Felsenthal NWR................................................................................................................... 10

5.2 Overflow NWR .................................................................................................................... 14

6. Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 16

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Overall Site Location Map........................................................................................................... 2

Figure 5.1: Felsenthal NWR Preliminary Candidate Alternatives ............................................................... 11

Figure 5.2: Overflow NWR Preliminary Candidate Alternatives................................................................. 15

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Proposed Stakeholder Responsibilities for Draft Transportation Alternatives...............................6
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study March 2012

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report 1   

1. Introduction

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

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

and the Overflow National Wildlife Refuge. The Felsenthal NWR, located west of Crossett, Arkansas,

contains approximately 65,000 acres of mainly bottomland hardwood forest. The Overflow National

Wildlife Refuge, located between Hamburg, Arkansas and Parkdale, Arkansas, contains approximately

14,000 acres of mostly bottomland hardwood forest. Figure 1.1 shows an overview location map of the

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

study, is the Pond Creek NWR located in western Arkansas.

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to develop the candidate transportation alternatives for each Refuge. This

will be accomplished by using the information collected during discussions with stakeholders and

applying screening criteria to the conceptual alternatives to identify fatal flaws. Based on this initial

screening, the list of preliminary candidate transportation alternatives will be developed and presented

in this report, which will then be incorporated into the Transportation Study for the Felsenthal and

Overflow NWRs.  

1.2 Design Years

The design years used for this report will take into consideration short‐  (year 2017), medium‐  (year

2022), and long‐range (year 2027) transportation improvements.

2. Summary of Transportation Conditions and Issues

The Felsenthal NWR is located in southern Arkansas in Ashley, Bradley, and Union Counties, just west of

the City of Crossett. The public access areas are mainly located in Ashley County; however, some access

routes to the Refuge include roadways in Bradley and Union Counties. There are five public access

points on US 82. Other access points are located off of North Road and Jones Lake Road from the west,

through New Lock 6 Road to the US Army Corps of Engineers boat ramps south of the Refuge, and via

Bradley County Road 53 and Bradley County Road 65 S from the north accessing Eagle Lake,

Pereogeethe Lake, and Prairie Island. The Refuge can also be accessed from the north at Charivari Creek,

from the east at McIntyre Bay, Goose Lake, and the Ouachita Bridge, and from the west at Locust Ridge.

Most entrances to the Felsenthal NWR are not gated. Paved parking areas exist at some boat ramps and

at the Visitors Center. There is an unpaved parking area at the trailheads of the Sand Prairie Trail at the

Crossett Campground and off Pine Island Road.  

The Overflow NWR, located in Ashley County, Arkansas, is located five miles west of Wilmot, Arkansas,

between Hamburg and Parkdale, Arkansas. The Overflow NWR has public access points and parking

areas along SR 8, SR 173, and Ashley County Road 34, as well as from five unpaved private roadways on
Union Parish

Union Co.

Bradley Co.

Arkansas

Louisiana

£¤82

¬«33

¬«8

£¤82

£¤165

£¤63

£¤425

£¤165 £¤425

£¤425

Bradle 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: Overall Site 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
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study March 2012

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report 3   

the west side of the Refuge. Roadways and parking areas within the Overflow NWR are maintained by

the Refuge and consist mainly of a compacted dirt base with gravel. Refuge roadways are limited to ATV

and Refuge vehicle use. However, since the Refuge does not maintain the unpaved private roads, the

conditions of these roads may restrict access to the west side of the Refuge. There are currently no

formal walking/biking trails provided in the Overflow NWR.

Based on information collected during the site visit, a review of the existing conditions information,

previous studies, and discussions with stakeholders, transportation opportunities and issues at the

Refuges have been identified and are contained in the following sections.

2.1 Felsenthal NWR

2.1.1 Turn Lane Improvements	‐	Visitors Center Driveway (US 82)

The 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. This transition can generally be accomplished in one of

two ways:

1) Widen the pavement on one side of the road and laterally transition the through lane 12 feet.

2) Widen the pavement on both sides of the road and laterally transition the through lanes away

from each other a total of 12 feet.

If the second transition alternative is used and the road is widened equally on both sides (6 feet), the

total length of the transition would be half the length of transitioning one through lane the full 12 feet.

Based on the AHTD standards, transition option 1 would require no less than 660 feet and transition

option 2 would require no less than 330 feet, depending on how much of the transition occurs in each

direction. The existing transition length of 200 feet does not meet AHTD standards.

The second component in the development of the left‐turn lane is the taper from the through lane into

the left‐turn lane. AHTD standards state that this taper length should be one‐third of the full transition

length or, in this case, 220 feet. This taper length should be used regardless of which transition option is

used.

The final component of the left‐turn lane is the storage length. The storage length should be based on

the expected number of left‐turn 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 of 100 feet meets AHTD standards.  

Due to the high speeds on US 82, adding an eastbound right‐turn lane for the entrance to the Visitors

Center could help reduce the potential for rear‐end collisions and provide an added measure of comfort

for those entering the Visitors Center. Currently, eastbound vehicles entering the Visitors Center must
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study March 2012

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report 4   

decelerate in the through lane to make a right turn. To alleviate this condition, a right‐turn deceleration

lane could be built along eastbound US 82 at the entrance to the Visitors Center. Standards for

deceleration lanes published by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) indicate that the transition from a through lane to a deceleration lane should be

approximately 180 feet. The length of the deceleration portion of a right‐turn lane is based on the initial

speed of a vehicle on the roadway and the speed to which the turning vehicle must slow. In this

situation, the deceleration lane length should be 480 feet.

These turn lane improvements should be reviewed with AHTD and a formal request be made to begin

design activities.

2.1.2 High Truck Volume (US 82)

There is a relatively high percentage of trucks on US 82. According to year 2010 traffic counts collected

by AHTD, trucks comprise 30% of the vehicles on US 82. With a posted speed limit of 55 mph, truck

traffic is traveling at high speeds.

2.1.3 Sight Distance Improvement	‐	Visitors Center Driveway (US 82)

The sight distance for vehicles exiting the Visitors Center was measured to be approximately 800 feet to

the west. The sight distance to the east when exiting the Visitors Center, is unobstructed. The

recommended minimum sight distance for the design speed of 55 mph is 610 feet, as provided in

AASHTO’s Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Existing sight distance exceeds AASHTO standards.

2.1.4 Speeding Issues (US 82)

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 rate greater 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 Signage Improvements

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 to the Visitors Center. There are currently no

signs in the City of Crossett or other surrounding areas providing distance or directional information

regarding the Refuge. Additional signage would be beneficial in providing information that directs

visitors to the Refuge.

Additionally, the Refuge has recently 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.
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study March 2012

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report 5   

2.1.6 Enhance Visitor Experience

The Refuge can continue to enhance the visitor experience by developing an auto‐tour route within the

Refuge, as well as continuing to develop new walking and biking trails throughout the Refuge and

documenting these facilities on a comprehensive trail map.  

2.1.7 Boat Ramp Improvements

It was noted that siltation is occurring in the cuts and sloughs at the Army Corps of Engineers boat ramp

near the Felsenthal Lock and Dam and at the boat ramps at Pine Island and Shallow Lake.

Another concern is that there are currently no mooring locations for boaters at the Port of Crossett or

Felsenthal Lock and Dam boat ramps. This presents a challenge for boaters launching boats, parking

trailers, and embarking and disembarking vessels.

2.1.8 Refuge Access Points

Some of the Refuge access points are from private roads. If these private roads fall into disrepair, access

to the Refuge in that area is compromised. By identifying critical Refuge access points, coordination with

the private land owners will provide opportunities to develop formal cooperative agreements to

maintain access to key Refuge entrances in perpetuity.

2.2 Overflow NWR

2.2.1 Enhance Visitor Experience

There is currently no formal education program or trail map for visitors of the Overflow NWR. Walking

and biking trail routes could be created to enhance the visitor experience. The Refuge could also

develop an auto‐tour route to further enhance the visitor experience.  

2.2.2 Refuge Access Points

Similar to the issue at Felsenthal NWR, some of the Overflow NWR access points are served by private

roads. If these private roads fall into disrepair, access to the Refuge in that area is compromised. By

identifying the critical Refuge access points, coordination with the private land owners will provide

opportunities to develop formal cooperative agreements to maintain access to key Refuge entrances.

3. Conceptual Alternatives

The following section identifies potential short‐, medium‐, and long‐range conceptual alternatives for

transportation improvements that involve construction activities and those that do not involve

construction activities. Conceptual alternatives examine transportation strategies that could potentially

address the issues that have been identified. Table 3.1 shows the preliminary alternatives and

responsible partners.
Short‐Range Alternatives

Medium‐Range Alternatives

Long‐Range Alternatives

Table 3.1: Proposed Stakeholder Responsibilities for Draft Transportation 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 Felsenthal

Private 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 Auto‐Tour Route x

F8 Bridge Replacement on Bradley County Road 65 S xx

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 Auto‐Tour 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 Refuge Transportation Study March 2012

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report 7   

3.1 Felsenthal NWR

3.1.1 Transportation Improvements Involving Construction

Based on a review of the transportation facilities around the Refuge, the following transportation

improvements are recommended for the Felsenthal NWR study area.  

Short‐Range Alternatives (2017)

 Continue to maintain internal roadways (i.e., adding base material and/or gravel, re‐grading)

Responsible Partner: USFWS

 Lengthen westbound left‐turn lane transition and taper to meet AHTD standards at the Visitors

Center/Refuge Complex driveway on US 82  

Responsible Partners: AHTD, USFWS

 Add an eastbound right‐turn lane on US 82 at the Visitors Center/Refuge Complex driveway with

proper taper and deceleration distances

Responsible Partners: AHTD, USFWS

 Perform regular channel maintenance at boat ramps

Responsible Partners: Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS

 Review the feasibility of implementing boat mooring locations at the Port of Crossett and the

Felsenthal Lock and Dam

Responsible Partners: City of Crossett, Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS, Friends of Felsenthal

 Develop an auto‐tour route within the Refuge

Responsible Partner: USFWS

Medium‐Range Alternatives (2022)

 Replace the bridge on Bradley County Road 65 S

Responsible Partners: Bradley County, USFWS

 Improve New Lock 6 Road

Responsible Partners: Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS

 Ongoing coordination for long‐range alternatives

Responsible Partner: USFWS
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study March 2012

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report 8   

Long‐Range Alternatives (2027)

 Construct boat mooring locations at Port of Crossett and Felsenthal Lock and Dam boat ramps (if

deemed feasible)

Responsible Partners: City of Crossett, USFWS, Army Corps of Engineers

3.1.2 Transportation Improvements Not Involving Construction

The following improvements for the Felsenthal NWR study area do not include construction.  

Short‐Range Alternatives (2017)

 Perform a speed study on US 82 in the vicinity of the Refuge

Responsible Partners: AHTD

 Coordinate with adjacent private land owners to establish formal agreements for preservation

and maintenance of private roads serving Refuge access points

Responsible Partners: USFWS, Private land owners

 Install directional wayfinding signs for the Refuge in surrounding areas and communities

Responsible Partners: AHTD, City of Crossett, Crossett Chamber of Commerce, Bradley County,

Ashley County, Union County, USFWS

 Coordinate with AHTD for the installation of Refuge Highway Advisory Radio signs on US 82 to

notify travelers of important Refuge information

Responsible Partners: AHTD, USFWS

 Develop a detailed trail map for the Refuge including new walking/biking facilities, auto‐tour

routes, and public boat launches

Responsible Partners: USFWS, Friends of Felsenthal

 Use kiosks at Refuge entrances to provide additional Refuge information regarding such things

as permits, trail maps, notes about special/hunting events, etc.

Responsible Partners: USFWS, Friends of Felsenthal

 Ongoing coordination with stakeholders

Responsible Partners: USFWS, AHTD, Bradley County, Ashley County, Union County, City of

Crossett, Crossett Chamber of Commerce, Private land owners, Friends of Felsenthal

Medium‐Range Alternatives (2022)

 Coordinate with local agencies and municipalities to encourage use of the Refuge

Responsible Partners: USFWS, Crossett Chamber of Commerce, Bradley County, Ashley County,

Union County, City of Crossett, Friends of Felsenthal

 Ongoing coordination with stakeholders

Responsible Partners: USFWS, AHTD, Bradley County, Ashley County, Union County, City of

Crossett, Crossett Chamber of Commerce, Private land owners, Friends of Felsenthal
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study March 2012

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report 9   

Long‐Range Alternatives (2027)

 Ongoing coordination with stakeholders

Responsible Partners: USFWS, AHTD, Bradley County, Ashley County, Union County, City of

Crossett, Crossett Chamber of Commerce, Private land owners, Friends of Felsenthal

3.2 Overflow NWR

3.2.1 Transportation Improvements Involving Construction

Based on a review of the transportation facilities around the Overflow NWR, the following

transportation improvements are recommended for the Refuge study area.

Short‐Range Alternatives (2017)

 Continue to maintain internal roadways (i.e., adding base material and/or gravel, re‐grading)

Responsible Partner: USFWS

3.2.2 Transportation Improvements Not Involving Construction

The following improvements for the Overflow NWR study area do not include construction.

Short‐Range Alternatives (2017)

 Coordinate with adjacent land owners to establish formal agreements for preservation and

maintenance of private roads serving Refuge access points

Responsible Partners: USFWS, Private land owners  

 Install additional directional wayfinding signs for the Overflow NWR in surrounding areas

Responsible Partners: Ashley County, USFWS, City of Parkdale, City of Wilmot, City of Hamburg

 Develop a detailed trail map for the Overflow NWR including new walking/biking facilities, auto‐

tour routes, and boat launches.

Responsible Partner: USFWS

 Develop an auto‐tour route within the Refuge

Responsible Partner: USFWS

 Ongoing coordination with stakeholders

Responsible Partners: USFWS, AHTD, City of Hamburg, City of Parkdale, City of Wilmot, Private

land owners

Medium‐Range Alternatives (2022)

 Use kiosks at the Refuge Complex entrance to build upon existing informational materials such

as permits, trail maps, notes about special/hunting events, etc.

Responsible Partner: USFWS
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study March 2012

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report 10   

 Coordinate with local agencies and municipalities to encourage use of the Refuge

Responsible Partners: USFWS, Ashley County, City of Hamburg, City of Parkdale, City of Wilmot

 Ongoing coordination with stakeholders

Responsible Partners: USFWS, AHTD, City of Hamburg, City of Parkdale, City of Wilmot, Private

land owners

Long‐Range Alternatives (2027)

 Ongoing coordination with stakeholders

Responsible Partners: USFWS, AHTD, City of Hamburg, City of Parkdale, City of Wilmot, Private

land owners

4. Screening Criteria

The screening criteria used to select the preliminary candidate alternatives are detailed below. These

screening criteria were established based on the conditions and issues that future improvements will

need to address and were divided into the following four categories:

 Environmental and Cultural Impacts – Environmental and cultural impacts include issues

pertaining to the natural environment (i.e. wetlands, floodplains, natural wildlife habitats) and

social features (i.e. demographics, environmental justice, historical and cultural resources)

 Constructability – Constructability refers to the reasonable issues and elements involved with

the physical construction of a recommendation. For example, this criterion would review

whether or not the improvement could be effectively implemented within the physical

constraints of the study area’s existing conditions.

 Transportation Benefit – Transportation benefit includes the review of the properties and

conditions associated with existing and future roadways, safety, connectivity, and capacity of

the transportation network for the study area.

 Cost – Cost includes the financial obligation associated with implementing a recommendation

including design, construction, long‐term maintenance, and related expenses.

5. Preliminary Candidate Alternatives

The initial screening of the conceptual alternatives for the Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs are presented

below. A “No‐Build” alternative is included for each Refuge.

5.1 Felsenthal NWR

The following preliminary candidate alternatives for the Felsenthal NWR are summarized in Figure 5.1.  
!(

!(

!(

!(

£¤82

Union Co.

Bradley Co.

Ashley Co.

¬«169

North Rd

A

Strong Hwy

222

408

US Hwy 82 W

Bradley 59 Rd

Huttig Hwy

Ashley Road 286

247

213

Bradley 67 Rd

Ashley Road 227

Bradley 53 Rd

Bradley 61 Rd

Bradley 60 Rd

Bolding Rd

Ashley 450

Marie Saline Rd

Cooter Rd

Lapile Rd

Bradley 63 Rd

Harper Springs Rd Pine Tree Rd

Ashley 703

Johnsville Rd

Bradley 327 Rd

Ashley Road 223

Union Pacific RR Tram Rd

Old Lock 6 Rd

Petersburg Trl

Ballard Rd

Bradley 151 Rd

Ashley Road 246

Bradley 441 Rd

6th

12th

Darling Trl

Ashley 11

Union Rd 824 Sutton Rd

213

Felsenthal

Huttig 0 1 2 0.5

Miles

/

 Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

 Transportation Study

 Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Figure 5.1: Felsenthal NWR Preliminary Candidate Alternatives

Source:

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

Legend

USFWS Refuge Boundary

State Boundary

County Boundary

Municipalities

Bodies of Water

US Highway

Other Road
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study March 2012

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report 12   

5.1.1 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 impacts or enhancements to the natural or

social 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

remain the same or increase if no improvements are made.

5.1.2 Short‐Range Alternatives (2017)

5.1.2.1 Alternative F1 – Internal Roadway Condition Improvement

Continued maintenance of the existing internal Refuge roadways by adding gravel to unpaved surfaces

and re‐grading surfaces, where necessary, will provide improvements at a low cost and relatively low

impact to the surrounding area.

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

The existing westbound left‐turn lane at the Visitors Center was found to not meet the recommended

length of the AHTD standard guidelines. The widening of US 82 that would be required in the vicinity of

the turn lane to lengthen this turn lane would likely have some impact on the natural environment.

There would be a cost associated with the construction efforts, but the lengthening of this turn lane will

help vehicles to enter the Visitors Center more safely and reduce the potential for rear‐end collisions.

Costs include design, construction, and maintenance of the roadway.  

5.1.2.3 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 driveway would require widening of US 82 in the vicinity of the turn lane. The construction

associated with this widening would likely have an impact on the natural environment. There would be a

cost associated with the construction efforts, but the addition of an eastbound right‐turn lane on US 82

will help reduce the potential for rear‐end collisions with vehicles attempting to turn right into the

Visitors Center driveway from US 82. Costs include design, construction, and maintenance of the

roadway.

5.1.2.4 Alternative F4 – Perform Regular Channel Maintenance at the Felsenthal Lock and Dam, Pine

Island and Shallow Lake Boat Ramps

As a result of siltation at the Felsenthal Lock and Dam, Pine Island and Shallow Lake boat ramps, it is

sometimes difficult for boaters to access the channel from the ramp. Regular maintenance of the cuts

and sloughs at the boat ramps would be beneficial to visitors of the Refuge. An appropriate

environmental study and related permitting would be required. Costs would be associated with these

activities, as well as costs related to dredging as needed.

5.1.2.5 Alternative F5 – Establish Agreements for Refuge Access Points

Permanent access to the Refuge through private roads could be maintained through formal agreements

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

opportunity to keep specific access points and roadways functional. The transportation benefit would be

significant as visitors would be able to access the Refuge through formalized points. The terms would be

determined during the negotiation of the agreements.
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study March 2012

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report 13   

5.1.2.6 Alternative F6 – Boat Mooring Locations Feasibility

Boat mooring locations constructed at the Port of Crossett and/or the Felsenthal Lock and Dam would

provide boaters the opportunity to moor their boats after launching from the boat ramp. However, the

costs and potential impacts to the natural environment would need to be studied further. A study

should be conducted to determine if the implementation of boat mooring locations is feasible, given the

potential impacts and costs. Short‐term costs would include the cost of the feasibility study.  

5.1.2.7 Alternative F7 – Auto‐Tour Route

The implementation of an auto‐tour route on existing roadways within the Refuge would enhance the

visitor experience. There may be some limited impact to the environment associated with the

construction of pull‐off areas at points of interest within the Refuge. These pull‐off areas would be

planned in locations where they can provide an educational opportunity for the visitors, while limiting

the environmental impact. Costs are expected to be limited.

5.1.3 Medium‐Range Alternatives (2022)

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

Bradley County Road 65 S is a packed dirt and gravel roadway on the north side of the Refuge. On this

road there is an existing timber bridge with a weight restriction of four tons for short wheelbase trucks

and seven tons for trucks with a longer wheelbase. Given the existing bridge condition and weight

restrictions, replacing this bridge should be considered. Construction costs for the replacement would

vary depending on the type of bridge installed. Costs include design, construction, and maintenance of

the facility. During the bridge replacement, vehicle traffic would be affected and alternate routes would

be required.

5.1.3.2 Alternative F9 – Roadway Improvements on New Lock 6 Road

Improvements are needed for the subbase and roadbed support for New Lock 6 Road in the 3,500‐foot

section approaching the Lock and Dam boat ramp. The Army Corps of Engineers has previously applied

for federal grant funding to replace this section of roadway, but have been unsuccessful. However,

improvement of this roadway remains a priority project and the Army Corps of Engineers continues to

pursue funding opportunities. Costs include design, construction, and maintenance of the facility.

5.1.4 Long‐Range Alternatives (2027)

5.1.4.1 Alternative F10 – Installation of Boat Mooring Locations

If found feasible, as a follow‐on to Alternative F6  ‐ Boat Mooring Locations Feasibility Study, a formal

environmental review, design and construction would be completed. Costs would include the necessary

studies, design, construction and regular maintenance.

5.1.5 Additional Recommendations

The screening criteria do not apply to certain other recommendations. These additional

recommendations are listed below.  

 Conduct a speed study on US 82 in vicinity of the Refuge

 Install wayfinding signs for the Refuge in the surrounding area
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study March 2012

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report 14   

 Coordinate with AHTD for the installation of signs along US 82 regarding the Refuge’s Highway

Advisory Radio to notify motorists of important Refuge information while traveling

 Coordinate with local agencies and municipalities to encourage use of the Refuge

 Develop new walking/biking trails to enhance visitor experience

 Develop a formal trail map for the Refuge

 Use kiosks at the Visitors Center/Refuge Complex entrances to provide additional Refuge

information regarding such things as permits, trail maps, notes about special/hunting events,

etc.

 Continue to pursue grant opportunities for additional funding sources

5.2 Overflow NWR

The following preliminary candidate alternatives for the Overflow NWR are summarized in Figure 5.2.  

5.2.1 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, impacts or enhancements to the natural or social

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.

5.2.2 Short‐Range Alternatives (2017)

5.2.2.1 Alternative O1 – Internal Roadway Condition Improvement

Continual maintenance of the existing internal Refuge roadways by adding gravel to unpaved surfaces

and re‐grading surfaces, where necessary, provides transportation improvements at a low cost with a

relatively low impact to the surrounding area.

5.2.2.2 Alternative O2 – Establish Agreements for Refuge Access Points

Permanent access to the Refuge through private roads could be maintained through formal agreements

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

opportunity to keep specific access points and roadways functional. The transportation benefit would be

significant as visitors would be able to access the Refuge through formalized points. The terms would be

determined during the negotiation of the agreements.

5.2.3 Medium‐Range Alternatives (2022)

5.2.3.1 Alternative O3 – Auto‐Tour Route

The implementation of an auto‐tour route on existing roadways within the Refuge would enhance the

visitor experience. There may be some limited impact to the environment associated with the

construction of pull‐off areas at points of interest within the Refuge. These pull‐off areas would be

planned in locations where they can provide an educational opportunity for the visitors with limited

environmental impact.  
¬«8

£¤165

Ashley Co.

Morehouse Parish

Arkansas

Louisiana

¬«52

342

Ashley 182

339

Co Rd 323

Co Rd 29

329

314

343

943

317

33

32

31

166

State Hwy 52 E

334

37

353

Camp Rd

State Hwy 173

Co Rd 319

945

327

Co Rd 318

369

326

Co Rd 346

352

US Hwy 165 S Ashley Road 34

Co Rd 364

Co Rd 316

371

341

Co Rd 333

344

336

340

35

Co Rd 949

Doc Mayo Rd

Chitlin Trl

Co Rd 354

Co Rd 308

359

351

172

Co Rd 343

Cowpen Rd

Co Rd 363

332

337

Merganser Rd

Cedar Valley Rd

Co Rd 38

Armstrong Rd

Tanksley Rd

Ashley 371 Rd

Co Rd 333

35

Co Rd 308

Wilmot

Parkdale

0 1 2 0.5 / Miles

 Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

 Transportation Study

 Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Figure 5.2: Overflow NWR Preliminary Candidate Alternatives

Source:

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

Legend

Study Area Refuge

State Boundary

County Boundary

Municipalities

Bodies of Water

US Highway

State Highway

Other Road

Railroad
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Transportation Study March 2012

Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report 16   

5.2.4 Additional Recommendations

The screening criteria do not apply to certain other recommendations. These additional

recommendations are listed below.  

 Install directional wayfinding signs for the Refuge in the surrounding area

 Coordinate with local agencies and municipalities to encourage use of the Refuge

 Develop new walking/biking trails to enhance visitor experience

 Develop a formal trail map for the Refuge  

 Use kiosks at the Visitors Center/Refuge Complex entrance to provide additional Refuge

information regarding things such as permits, trail maps, notes about special/hunting events,

etc.

 Continue to pursue grant opportunities for additional funding sources  

6. Summary and Conclusions

The alternatives presented in this Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report for the Felsenthal and

Overflow NWRs were selected based on the conceptual alternatives identified from the existing

transportation conditions and discussions with stakeholders. These conceptual alternatives were

screened based on the established criteria (environmental and cultural impacts, constructability,

transportation benefit, and cost). These preliminary alternatives will be screened in greater detail in the

next phase of the Transportation Study, which will present final candidate alternatives and

recommendations for implementation based on stakeholder and public input.