FELSENTHAL AND OVERFLOW

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

Transportation Study 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

June 2012

Contract No. DTFH71-09-D-00001, Task Order: 11-017
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuge 

Transportation Study 

Transportation Study 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 

June 2012 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report i

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 USFWS Mission and Goals............................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Project Locations ........................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.1 Felsenthal NWR ..................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.2 Overflow NWR ...................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Project Background and Purpose .................................................................................................. 8

1.4 Overview of Transportation Study ................................................................................................ 8

2 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Stakeholder and Public Meetings ................................................................................................. 8

3 Existing Conditions ..............................................................................................................................11

3.1 Felsenthal NWR ...........................................................................................................................11

3.1.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................11

3.1.2 Felsenthal NWR History ......................................................................................................12

3.1.3 Regional Location ................................................................................................................12

3.1.4 Visitation Summary and Profile ..........................................................................................12

3.1.5 Entrances to the Refuge ......................................................................................................13

3.1.6 Regional Transportation Conditions ...................................................................................13

3.1.7 Refuge Transportation and Infrastructure ..........................................................................18

3.1.8 Transportation Issues ..........................................................................................................21

3.2 Overflow NWR ............................................................................................................................24

3.2.1 Overview of Overflow NWR ................................................................................................24

3.2.2 Overflow NWR History ........................................................................................................25

3.2.3 Regional Location ................................................................................................................25

3.2.4 Visitation Summary and Profile ..........................................................................................25

3.2.5 Entrances to the Refuge ......................................................................................................26

3.2.6 Regional Transportation Conditions ...................................................................................27

3.2.7 Refuge Transportation and Infrastructure ..........................................................................30
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report ii

3.2.8 Transportation Issues ..........................................................................................................30

4 Community and Environment .............................................................................................................31

4.1 Felsenthal NWR ...........................................................................................................................31

4.1.1 Community Features ...........................................................................................................31

4.1.2 Demographic Profile of Study Area .....................................................................................31

4.1.3 Environmental Justice Impacts ...........................................................................................33

4.1.4 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................................35

4.1.5 Habitat................................................................................................................................. 35

4.1.6 Floodplains and Wetlands ...................................................................................................38

4.1.7 Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................................38

4.2 Overflow NWR ............................................................................................................................39

4.2.1 Community Features ...........................................................................................................39

4.2.2 Demographic Profile of Study Area .....................................................................................39

4.2.3 Environmental Justice Impacts ...........................................................................................41

4.2.4 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................................42

4.2.5 Habitat................................................................................................................................. 43

4.2.6 Floodplains and Wetlands ...................................................................................................45

4.2.7 Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................................45

5 Alternatives Analysis ...........................................................................................................................46

5.1 Preliminary Alternatives .............................................................................................................46

5.1.1 Felsenthal NWR ...................................................................................................................46

5.1.2 Overflow NWR ....................................................................................................................49

5.2 Screening Criteria ........................................................................................................................51

5.3 Preliminary Candidate Alternatives ............................................................................................51

5.3.1 Felsenthal NWR ...................................................................................................................51

5.3.2 Overflow NWR ....................................................................................................................55

5.4 Short- and Long-Range Implementation Plan Alternatives ........................................................57

5.4.1 Felsenthal NWR ...................................................................................................................57

5.4.2 Overflow NWR ....................................................................................................................71

6 Preliminary Impact Screening .............................................................................................................75
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report iii

6.1 Summary of Screening ................................................................................................................75

6.2 Potential Impacts to Existing Conditions ....................................................................................75

6.3 Potential Impacts of Alternatives ...............................................................................................76

6.3.1 Felsenthal NWR ...................................................................................................................76

6.3.2 Overflow NWR ....................................................................................................................80

7 Implementation Priorities ...................................................................................................................82

8 List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................84

Appendices 

 Appendix A: Supporting Documentation and References 

 Appendix B: Public Involvement Plan 

 Appendix C: Stakeholder Meeting Notes 

 Appendix D: Supporting Data Tables 

 Appendix E: Opinions of Probable Costs 

 Appendix F: New Lock 6 Road Improvement Grant Application 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report iv

List of Tables 

Table 3.1: Hunting and Fishing by time of year at Felsenthal NWR...........................................................12

Table 3.2: Historic AADT Volumes on US 82 ..............................................................................................17

Table 3.3: Mode Split Percentage for Ashley, Bradley and Union Counties ..............................................18

Table 3.4: Crashes by Type for US 82 in the Vicinity of the Refuge 2008-2010 .........................................18

Table 3.5: Hunting by time of year at Overflow NWR ...............................................................................26

Table 3.6: Historic Traffic Volumes on SR 8 and SR 173 ............................................................................28

Table 3.7: Mode Split Percentage for Ashley County ................................................................................29

Table 3.8: Crashes by Type on SR 8 in the Vicinity of the Refuge 2008-2010 ............................................29

Table 4.1: Population for Counties and Cities near Felsenthal NWR .........................................................31

Table 4.2: Poverty Levels for Counties and Cities near Felsenthal NWR ...................................................33

Table 4.3: Median Household Income for Counties and Cities near Felsenthal NWR ...............................34

Table 4.4: Individuals by Race for Counties and Cities near Felsenthal NWR............................................35

Table 4.5: Habitat Type at Felsenthal NWR ...............................................................................................37

Table 4.6: Population for Counties and Cities near Overflow NWR ..........................................................39

Table 4.7: Poverty Level for Counties and Cities near Overflow NWR ......................................................41

Table 4.8: Median Household Income for Counties and Cities near Overflow NWR ................................42

Table 4.9: Individuals by Race for Counties and Cities near Overflow NWR .............................................42

Table 4.10: Overflow NWR Habitat Type and Acreages ............................................................................43

Table 5.1: Preliminary Stakeholder Responsibilities ..................................................................................47

Table 6.1: Impact Summary .......................................................................................................................81
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report v

List of Figures 

Figure 1.1: Overall Site Location Map for the Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs ........................................... 5

Figure 1.2: Felsenthal NWR Location Map ................................................................................................... 6

Figure 1.3: Overflow NWR Location Map .................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2.1: November 8, 2011 Stakeholder Kickoff Meeting ....................................................................... 9

Figure 2.2: May 3, 2012 Stakeholder Meeting ...........................................................................................10

Figure 2.3: May 3, 2012 Public Meeting ....................................................................................................10

Figure 3.1: Felsenthal NWR Visitors Center/Headquarters Entrance Sign ................................................11

Figure 3.2: US 82 in the vicinity of the Refuge Visitors Center ..................................................................14

Figure 3.3: North Road south of US 82 ......................................................................................................15

Figure 3.4: New Lock 6 Road ......................................................................................................................15

Figure 3.5: Timber bridge on Bradley County Road 65 S ...........................................................................16

Figure 3.6: Truck restrictions on Bradley County Road 65 S Timber Bridge ..............................................16

Figure 3.7: Bradley County Road 53 ...........................................................................................................17

Figure 3.8: Woodland Wildlife Trail Trailhead ...........................................................................................19

Figure 3.9: Sand Prairie Trail Trailhead at the Crossett RV Park ................................................................19

Figure 3.10: Old Beer Joint Boat Ramp ......................................................................................................20

Figure 3.11: US Army Corps of Engineers Boat Ramp at the Felsenthal Lock and Dam ............................20

Figure 3.12: Port of Crossett Boat Ramp ...................................................................................................21

Figure 3.13: Felsenthal NWR Visitors Center .............................................................................................21

Figure 3.14: Left-Turn lane into Visitors Center .........................................................................................22

Figure 3.15: Example of Truck traffic on US 82 ..........................................................................................23

Figure 3.16: Sight Distance for US 82 (Westbound) ...................................................................................23

Figure 3.17: Overflow NWR Entrance Sign ................................................................................................25
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report vi

Figure 3.18: Directional sign for Overflow NWR in Hamburg ....................................................................26

Figure 3.19: Direction sign for Refuge Headquarters on SR 8 ...................................................................27

Figure 3.20: Ashley County Road 34 ..........................................................................................................28

Figure 4.1: Felsenthal NWR Community Resources ...................................................................................32

Figure 4.2: Felsenthal NWR Habitat Type ..................................................................................................36

Figure 4.3: Red Cockaded Woodpeckers Marked Trees ............................................................................38

Figure 4.4: Overflow NWR Community Resources ....................................................................................40

Figure 4.5: Overflow NWR Habitat Type ....................................................................................................44

Figure 5.1: Felsenthal NWR Preliminary Candidate Alternatives ..............................................................52

Figure 5.2: Overflow NWR Preliminary Candidate Alternatives ................................................................56

Figure 5.3: Potential Turn-Lane Improvements at Refuge Visitors Center ................................................60

Figure 5.4: Potential Maintenance Areas of Cuts and Sloughs ..................................................................61

Figure 5.5: Potential Mooring Location Feasibility Study Areas ................................................................63

Figure 5.6: Potential Replacement of Bradley County Road 65 S Bridge ...................................................64

Figure 5.7: Potential New Lock 6 Road Improvement Area .......................................................................66

Figure 5.8: Voids along Embankment (Typical) ..........................................................................................67

Figure 5.9: US 82 Signage Plan – West .......................................................................................................69

Figure 5.10: US 82 Signage Plan – East ......................................................................................................70

Figure 5.11: Potential Overflow NWR Auto Tour Route ............................................................................73
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 1

Executive Summary 

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 mallard, wood duck, and other waterfowl 

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

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

This Transportation Study Report reviewed the surrounding transportation network at the Felsenthal 

and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges and provides short-, medium-, and long-range 

recommendations for the improvements to the existing transportation system. The study included 

development of a public involvement plan, inventory of existing conditions at the Refuge, and 

preliminary candidate alternatives identifying the responsible stakeholder partners. The preliminary 

candidate alternatives were then divided into potential improvements requiring construction and 

additional recommendations not requiring construction for initial screening. The construction 

alternatives were then evaluated in further detail to determine the preferred alternatives and 

developed into a short-, medium-, and long-range implementation plan. The implementation plan 

presented herein includes a summary of the environmental, social, and financial impacts of the 

conceptual roadway alternatives. Additional detailed information on the planning process is provided in 

this report. 

Based on the results of the study, short-, medium- and long-range transportation roadway 

recommendations for the Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs include the following: 

Short-Range (2017) –

Felsenthal NWR

 Alternative F1 – Continued Maintenance of Internal Roadways 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 2

 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 – Development of an Auto Tour Route 

Overflow NWR

 Alternative O1 – Continued Maintenance of Internal Roadways 

 Alternative O3 – Development of an 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 

Long Range (2027) – 

 Felsenthal NWR

 Alternative F10 – Installation of Boat Mooring Locations 

Other alternatives developed during this transportation study not requiring construction include: 

 Alternative F5 and Alternative O2 – Establish Agreements for Refuge Access Points at 

both Refuges

 Conduct a Speed Study on US 82 in the Vicinity of Felsenthal NWR 

 Install Wayfinding Signs for the Refuge in the Surrounding Area at both Refuges 

 Install Signs Regarding the Felsenthal NWR’s Highway Advisory Radio

 Coordinate with Local Agencies and Municipalities to Encourage Usage of the Refuges 

 Develop New Trails to Enhance the Visitor Experience at both Refuges 

 Develop a Formal Trail map for the Refuges 

 Provide Refuge Information at Visitors Center/Refuge Complex Kiosks at both Refuges 

 Continue to Pursue Grant Opportunities for Additional Funding Sources 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 3

1 Introduction 

South Arkansas Refuges Complex is a complex of three National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) in Arkansas. 

The Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge is located west of Crossett, Arkansas with approximately 65,000 

acres of mainly bottomland hardwood forest. The Overflow National Wildlife Refuge is located between 

Hamburg, Arkansas and Parkdale, Arkansas with approximately 14,000 acres of mostly bottomland 

hardwood forest. Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge is the third National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in the 

Complex. Only the Felsenthal and Overflow NWR’s are evaluated as part of this project.

The Ouachita and Saline Rivers pass through the Felsenthal NWR and the Refuge has the largest greentree reservoir in the world. A green-tree reservoir is a bottomland hardwood forest that is carefully 

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

wintering waterfowl. Felsenthal Refuge is also the location of a number of red cockaded woodpecker 

nests. 

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

populations in the Mississippi flyway. Overflow NWR also has cropland acreage that is currently farmed. 

1.1 USFWS Mission and Goals 

The NWR System is administered through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the 

Department of the Interior. The mission of the USFWS is to: 

“Work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people.”

The goals of the USFWS are aimed at fulfilling this mission. Primary USFWS goals are to: 

 Sustain fish and wildlife populations including migratory birds, endangered species, anadromous 

fish, and marine animals; 

 Conserve a network of lands and waters, including the NWR System; and 

 Provide Americans opportunity to understand and participate in the conservation and use of fish 

and wildlife resources. 

The USFWS manages refuges across the country. The passage of the NWR System Improvement Act of 

1997 defines the mission of the NWR System as: 

“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, plant resources and their habitats within the United States 

for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 4

The goals of the Wildlife Refuge System are to: 

 Preserve, restore, and enhance threatened and endangered species in their natural ecosystems. 

 Perpetuate the migratory bird resource. 

 Preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife ecology. 

 Provide the public an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology. 

 Provide Americans opportunity to understand and participate in the conservation and use of fish 

and wildlife resources. 

The NWR System Improvement Act of 1997 identified six wildlife-dependent recreational uses that are 

recognized as priority public uses of refuge lands, including: 

 Hunting 

 Fishing 

 Wildlife Observation 

 Wildlife Photography 

 Environmental Education 

 Environmental Interpretation 

1.2 Project Locations 

The Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs boundaries are shown in Figure 1.1. 

1.2.1 Felsenthal NWR 

The Felsenthal NWR is located in southern Arkansas in Ashley, Bradley, and Union Counties. The public 

access areas are mainly located in Ashley County; however, some access routes to the Refuge include 

roadways in Bradley County and Union County. The general transportation study area for the Felsenthal 

NWR is shown in Figure 1.2. 

Existing conditions for the Felsenthal NWR are discussed in Section 3.1. 

1.2.2 Overflow NWR 

The Overflow NWR is located in southern Arkansas in Ashley County. The Overflow NWR transportation 

study area is shown in Figure 1.3. 

Existing conditions for the Overflow NWR are discussed in Section 3.2. 
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
£¤82

Union Co.

Bradley Co.

Ashley Co.

¬«169

North Rd

213

Strong Hwy

A

222

408

US Hwy 82 W

Huttig Hwy

Bradley 59 Rd

Ashley Road 286

247

Bradley 67 Rd

Ashley Road 227

210

Lapile Rd

Bradley 60 Rd

Bolding Rd

Harper Springs Rd

Ashley 450

Marie Saline Rd

Bradley 53 Rd

Cooter Rd

Union Pacific RR Tram Rd

Bradley 61 Rd

Bradley 63 Rd

Ashley Road 223

Ashley 703

Pine Tree Rd

Petersburg Trl

Ballard Rd

Bradley 151 Rd

Ashley Road 246

6th

12th

Darling Trl

Ashley 11

Union Rd 824

Litroe Rd

Moore Loop

Huttig Hwy

Felsenthal

Huttig

0 1 2 0.5

Miles

/

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Figure 1.2: Felsenthal NWR Location Map

Visitors Center and

Complex Headquarters

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

State Highway

Other Road

Railroad

Refuge Access
¬«8

£¤165

Ashley Co.

Morehouse Parish

Arkansas

Louisiana

¬«52

¬«173

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 1.3: Overflow NWR Location Map

Refuge Headquarters

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

Refuge Access
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 8

1.3 Project Background and Purpose 

The Transportation Study documents the existing transportation infrastructure within and around the 

Refuges and looks at the roads and other regional transportation facilities adjacent to or providing 

access to the Refuges. The Transportation Study evaluates these existing conditions and proposes 

short-, medium-, and long-range transportation solutions to improve the mobility for visitors and staff to 

and within the Refuges. The information presented in this report can be used in the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service Southeastern Regional Long Range Transportation Plan. The key points and the proposed 

alternatives in this report should be considered in these future planning efforts to assist in investment 

decisions for the future. 

During the data collection and analysis for the Transportation Study, existing studies and data were 

reviewed and referenced. 

A list of supporting documentation and reference information used in the study can be found in 

Appendix A.

1.4 Overview of Transportation Study 

This Transportation Study Report reviews the surrounding transportation system of Felsenthal NWR and 

Overflow NWR and provides short-, medium-, and long-range recommendations for the transportation 

system. This document is a compilation of three previously completed reports: 

 Existing Conditions Report – January 2012 

 Preliminary Candidate Alternatives Report – March 2012 

 Short- and Long-Range Improvement Plan – May 2012 

The comments received from the stakeholder and public meetings have been incorporated into the 

overall study and final recommendations. 

2 Public Involvement 

A public involvement plan was created to outline the public and stakeholder involvement efforts for the 

study. The public involvement plan including the project stakeholder list and notes from the three 

stakeholder meetings are included in Appendices B and C, respectively. 

2.1 Stakeholder and Public Meetings 

The first stakeholder meeting was conducted on November 8, 2011 (Figure 2.1) at the Refuge Complex 

Headquarters in Crossett, Arkansas. The focus of this meeting was to inform the stakeholders of the 

study, build consensus around the transportation challenges and opportunities at the Refuge, and 

establish what available data existed for the project team. Major project tasks, project schedule, project 

objectives, data/information requests, and the public involvement plan were reviewed. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 9

During the meeting specific transportation issues within the Refuge such as safety, signage, highway 

advisory radio, modes of travel to access the Refuge, transit opportunities, and access points were 

discussed. 

Figure 2.1: November 8, 2011 Stakeholder Kickoff Meeting 

The second stakeholder meeting took place on February 28, 2012 at the Refuge Complex Headquarters 

in Crossett, Arkansas. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the project reports that had been 

submitted to date and collect feedback from the stakeholders on the preliminary recommendations. 

Discussion at the meeting included a wide range of topics such as turn lane needs, the Auto Tour route, 

the need for boat mooring locations, and access points. Two members of the public attended the 

stakeholder meeting and provided feedback on the study, existing conditions, and potential 

opportunities around the Refuge. 

The first public meeting followed the stakeholder meeting on February 28, 2012. The presentation 

boards showing the study area for the study and sample reports were presented. 

The third stakeholder meeting (Figure 2.2) was held on May 3, 2012 at the Crossett Economic 

Development Foundation Building in Crossett, Arkansas. The Short- and Long-Range Improvement Plan 

recommendations were presented and discussed. Discussion included aspects of each alternative 

discussing the transportation impacts. Comments received during this meeting were incorporated into 

the study’s recommendations. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 10

Figure 2.2: May 3, 2012 Stakeholder Meeting 

The second public meeting followed the stakeholder meeting (Figure 2.3) on May 3, 2012. The details of 

the project were presented again as well as potential conceptual alternatives for public feedback. 

Figure 2.3: May 3, 2012 Public Meeting 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 11

3 Existing Conditions 

Existing transportation facilities providing access to the Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs were reviewed. 

This section identifies the findings of this review and presents the existing conditions for both Refuges. 

3.1 Felsenthal NWR 

3.1.1 Overview 

Felsenthal NWR (Figure 3.1) is part of the South Arkansas Refuges Complex, and is managed and 

maintained by the USFWS. It comprises an area of 65,000 acres. 

Figure 3.1: Felsenthal NWR Visitors Center/Headquarters Entrance Sign 

The Refuge objectives include: 

 Provide habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds 

 Provide habitat and protection for endangered species such as the red cockaded woodpecker 

and threatened species such as the American alligator and the bald eagle 

 Provide recreation and environmental education for the public 

 Protect cultural resources 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 12

3.1.2 Felsenthal NWR History 

The Felsenthal NWR was established in 1975 as mitigation for the US Army Corps of Engineers creation 

of the Ouachita and Black Rivers Navigation Project and the Felsenthal Lock and Dam. It is a natural 

depression area and the Saline and Ouachita Rivers run through the Refuge along with a network of 

sloughs, bayous, and lakes. 

3.1.3 Regional Location 

Felsenthal NWR is located in southern Arkansas. US 82 is a roadway that travels east-west and bisects 

the Refuge. Figure 1.2 shows the location of the Felsenthal NWR. 

In addition to US 82, Ashley, Union, and Bradley County roads and private roads also provide access to 

the Refuge. 

3.1.4 Visitation Summary and Profile 

Approximately 400,000 people visited the Refuge last year. Though official counts are not taken, Refugewide visitation estimates are based on the number of hunting/fishing permits. 

Public use opportunities include hiking, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, hunting (youth and 

adult hunts), environmental education and interpretation, and camping. 

Hunts and fishing seasons and events at the Refuge are shown in Table 3.1. 

Table 3.1: Hunting and Fishing by time of year at Felsenthal NWR

Month(s) Activity

April Quota adult and youth turkey hunts

June Youth fishing derby

October to January Squirrel, rabbit, beaver, nutria, coyote, and feral hog hunting

October to January Archery deer hunting

November Quota gun deer hunt

November to January Quail, raccoon, and opossum hunting

November to January Waterfowl hunt
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 13

3.1.5 Entrances to the Refuge 

There are a number of public entrances to the Felsenthal NWR. 

Major entrances on US 82 are listed below and noted on the Refuge map shown in Figure 1.2. 

 Felsenthal Visitors Center/Refuge Complex 

 Shallow Lake Road 

 Old Beer Joint 

 Pine Island 

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. 

Wayfinding signs for the Refuge are very limited on US 82. Notification for westbound travelers of the 

Visitors Center location only occurs in the vicinity of the entrance to the Visitors Center. 

3.1.6 Regional Transportation Conditions 

This section describes the existing regional transportation infrastructure and traffic conditions. 

3.1.6.1 Roadway Infrastructure 

The Felsenthal NWR is located just west of the City of Crossett. The public access areas are served by US 

82, North Road (private), Eagle Lake Road, New Lock 6 Road, Bradley County Road 65 S and Bradley 

County Road 53. US 82 and New Lock 6 Road are paved roadways and all other access roads are packed 

dirt with gravel. Based on discussion with stakeholders and Refuge staff, it was decided that these 

roadways were to be reviewed as part of this project. 

Various other Ashley County, Bradley County, and Union County roads also provide access to the 

additional access points stated in the previous section. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 14

3.1.6.1.1 US 82 

US 82 is a two-lane road with a posted speed limit of 55 mph and partially paved shoulders (Figure 3.2). 

The volume of truck traffic on this section of highway is very high and is a significant portion of the 

traffic on this roadway as it serves timber industry activities. Per Arkansas State Highway and 

Transportation Department (AHTD) 2010 traffic counts; this roadway has an Annual Average Daily Traffic 

(AADT) volume of 2,700 vehicles per day. AHTD counts show that truck traffic makes up approximately 

30% of the traffic on US 82. 

Figure 3.2: US 82 in the vicinity of the Refuge Visitors Center 

Per the AHTD, the sufficiency ratings for the bridges on US 82 in Ashley and Union Counties range from 

56 to 84. The Sufficiency Rating formula is a method of evaluating highway bridge data by calculating 

several factors (structural adequacy, safety, serviceability, functional obsolescence, and special 

reductions) to obtain a numeric value that is indicative of the bridge’s sufficiency to remain in service 

and its funding eligibility. The result of the Sufficiency Rating formula is a percentage in which 100 is an 

entirely sufficient bridge and 0 is an entirely deficient bridge, bridges with sufficiency ratings of lower 

than 50 qualify for federal funding. 

3.1.6.1.2 Jones Lake Road 

Jones Lake Road is a packed dirt and gravel road. It is located on the west side of the Refuge and travels 

from the North Road to Jones Lake. 

3.1.6.1.3 North Road (private) 

North Road is a privately owned, packed dirt and gravel road. It travels north-south on the western edge 

of the Refuge and is shown in Figure 3.3. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 15

Figure 3.3: North Road south of US 82 

3.1.6.1.4 New Lock 6 Road 

New Lock 6 Road (Figure 3.4) is a paved two-lane roadway built on fill. It travels east-west from the 

Town of Felsenthal to the Felsenthal Lock and Dam and US Army Corps of Engineers’ boat ramp at the 

southern edge of the Refuge. 

Figure 3.4: New Lock 6 Road 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 16

3.1.6.1.5 Bradley County Road 65 S 

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

County Road 65 S provides access to Pereogeethe Lake. Figure 3.5 shows a timber bridge on the 

roadway. This bridge is weight limited to 4 tons for trucks with a short wheelbase and 7 tons for trucks 

with a longer wheelbase (Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.5: Timber bridge on Bradley County Road 65 S 

Figure 3.6: Truck restrictions on Bradley County Road 65 S Timber Bridge 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 17

3.1.6.1.6 Bradley County Road 53 

Bradley County Road 53 is a packed dirt and gravel roadway. It provides access to Eagle Lake on the 

north side of the Refuge. During an early site visit for this project, the project team noted a bridge on 

Bradley Count Road 53 under repair, as illustrated in Figure 3.7. 

Figure 3.7: Bradley County Road 53 

3.1.6.2 Historic Traffic Volumes 

AHTD collected the following historical AADT data on US 82 in the vicinity of the Refuge from 2006–2010 

as shown in Table 3.2. 

Table 3.2: Historic AADT Volumes on US 82

Location Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

US 82, east of the Felsenthal NWR 2,800 2,900 2,700 2,700 2,700

 Source: AHTD 

Traffic growth has remained relatively flat in this area over the past five years. 

3.1.6.3 Area Transportation Mode Split 

The mode split analysis identifies the method of travel (automobile, transit, walk or bike) people in a 

defined geographic area take, expressed as a percentage of trips. As the main public access areas for the 

Felsenthal NWR are in Ashley, Bradley, and Union Counties, data from the counties was used to 

determine mode split. Approximately 93% of trips in Ashley County, 84% of trips in Bradley County, and 

93% of the trips in Union County were taken by automobile. Analyzing mode split helps determine the 

transportation demand characteristics of the local community. As the most congested time on roadways 

often corresponds with the traditional work day, modal split analysis is often conducted based on how 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 18

people get to work. Journey-to-work data was obtained from the 2005-2009 American Community 

Survey and is summarized for Ashley County, Bradley County, and Union County in Table 3.3. The 2005 

2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates are based on the average traffic between 2005-

2009. 

Table 3.3: Mode Split Percentage for Ashley, Bradley and Union 

Counties

Mode Ashley County Bradley County Union County

Automobile 92.65% 83.74% 92.82%

Transit 0.28% 0.09% 0.01%

Walk/Bike 2.46% 11.21% 0.86%

Other 3.27% 3.16% 4.19%

Work at Home 1.34% 1.80% 2.12%

Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 

3.1.6.4 Crash Summary 

Based on information provided by the AHTD for 2008-2010, there were 11 crashes on US 82 in the 

vicinity of the Refuge. Of these crashes, 55% of the crashes were single vehicle crashes and almost 75% 

were not located at intersections. Table 3.4 shows the number of crashes by crash type for this section 

of US 82. 

Table 3.4: Crashes by Type for US 82 in the Vicinity of the 

Refuge 2008-2010

Crash Type Number of Accidents

Single Vehicle 6

Angle 2

Sideswipe 1

Rear-end 1

Head on 1*

 *Resulted in a fatality 

 Source: AHTD 

Based on the latest data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System (FARS), there were two traffic fatalities in the vicinity of the Refuge on US 82, 

one in 2007 and one in 2008. 

3.1.6.5 Planned Area Transportation Improvement Projects 

AHTD has a corridor study planned for US 82 from El Dorado to Lake Village. 

3.1.7 Refuge Transportation and Infrastructure 

This section describes the existing transportation infrastructure within the Felsenthal NWR. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 19

3.1.7.1 Refuge Roads 

Roadways within the Refuge are mainly packed dirt with gravel and are maintained by the Refuge. 

However, the roadway and parking lot serving the Visitors Center/Complex Headquarters/Woodland 

Wildlife Trail is paved. 

There are also a number of ATV trails in the Refuge. 

3.1.7.1.1 Woodland Wildlife Trail 

The Woodland Wildlife Trail is a 0.43 mile wheelchair accessible trail adjacent to the Visitors Center as 

shown in Figure 3.8. 

Figure 3.8: Woodland Wildlife Trail Trailhead 

3.1.7.1.2 Sand Prairie Trail 

The Sand Prairie Trail (Figure 3.9) is a native trail that is 2.78 miles long. It can be accessed from Pine 

Island Road or through the Crossett RV Park. 

Figure 3.9: Sand Prairie Trail Trailhead at the Crossett RV Park 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 20

3.1.7.2 Water Transportation Access 

There are seven boat ramp locations located on the Refuge and accessed off of Refuge roads, Pine 

Island, Deep Slough, Old Beer Joint (Figure 3.10), Shallow Lake, Jones Lake, Pereogeethe Lake, and Eagle 

Lake. Other boat ramp locations that provide access to the Refuge from off-Refuge sites (maintained by 

others) include the US Army Corps of Engineers boat ramp at the Felsenthal Lock and Dam (Figure 3.11), 

Grand Marias Recreation Site, and the Port of Crossett (Figure 3.12). 

Figure 3.10: Old Beer Joint Boat Ramp 

Figure 3.11: US Army Corps of Engineers Boat Ramp at the Felsenthal Lock and Dam 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 21

Figure 3.12: Port of Crossett Boat Ramp 

3.1.7.3 Visitors Center and Refuge Complex 

The Visitors Center and Refuge Complex is located on the eastern edge of the Refuge on US 82 (Figure 

3.13). The Visitors Center includes hands-on, interactive exhibits showing various areas of the Refuge 

and features cultural and historical information. The Refuge Complex headquarters are also within the 

Visitors Center building. The parking area at the Visitors Center has 39 parking spaces (two of which are 

handicapped). As stated previously, the Woodland Wildlife Trail is adjacent to the Visitors Center. 

Figure 3.13: Felsenthal NWR Visitors Center 

3.1.8 Transportation Issues 

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

the review of previous studies, and discussions with stakeholders, the following transportation issues 

and opportunities have been identified to be studied further. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 22

3.1.8.1 Turn lane improvements at Visitors Center Entrance on US 82 

The westbound left-turn lane into the Visitors Center is shown in Figure 3.14. Based on field 

observations and comments from stakeholders, there is concern that the current lengths of the turn 

lane transition and taper are too short, given the roadway’s existing speed and vehicle volumes. As 

measured in the field, the storage length is approximately 100 feet with a taper length of approximately 

200 feet. 

Figure 3.14: Left-Turn lane into Visitors Center 

Also, the potential for adding an eastbound right-turn lane was reviewed in an effort to address safety 

concerns from stakeholders regarding eastbound vehicles entering the Visitors Center. The through 

traffic on US 82 travels at a high rate of speed and closes in quickly on the vehicles turning into the 

Refuge, potentially resulting in rear-end collisions. 

3.1.8.2 Large number of trucks on US 82 (Figure 3.15) 

It was noted during the field observation visits that there is much higher than average truck traffic on US 

82. As stated previously, trucks comprise 30% of the traffic volume on US 82 based on AHTD data. It 

appears this truck traffic is also traveling at high speeds as the speed limit is posted at 55 mph. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 23

Figure 3.15: Example of Truck traffic on US 82 

3.1.8.3 Sight Distance at Refuge exits on US 82 

The sight distance measured in the field looking to the west as vehicles exit the Visitors Center entrance 

measured to be approximately 750 feet and was limited by the vertical curve in the roadway. The sight 

distance from the driveway is shown in Figure 3.16. 

Figure 3.16: Sight Distance for US 82 (Westbound) 

3.1.8.4 Speeding on US 82 

It was noted by the stakeholders that there are concerns that traffic on US 82 is traveling higher than 

the posted speed limit. Based on discussions with the AHTD, a speed study can be requested for this 

area. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 24

3.1.8.5 Signage Improvements 

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

one directional sign to the Visitors Center and signs at the Refuge boundary. There is very limited 

signage in Crossett or other surrounding areas identifying how to get to the Refuge or the distance to 

the Refuge. This was reviewed with the AHTD and County representatives during the study, and a 

proposed signage plan was developed. 

The Refuge has recently implemented a highway advisory radio broadcast to notify the public of 

information about the Refuge. These broadcasts can include safety notifications and information, such 

as the prescribed burning that occurs within the Refuge, and directional and general information about 

Refuge events. Signs with the information on the highway advisory radio are located within the Refuge. 

There are no signs on the adjacent public roadways identifying this highway advisory station. As a result, 

proposed highway advisory radio signage locations were developed during the study and reviewed with 

the AHTD. 

3.1.8.6 Trail Enhancements 

Currently, there is no formal trail map for the Refuge. The development of this map and the addition of 

new walking/biking trail routes were considered to enhance the visitors’ experience.

As part of the trail map development, the development of an Auto Tour route in the Refuge was also 

considered. 

3.1.8.7 Siltation and Mooring Locations at Boat Ramps 

One item noted by the stakeholders was the siltation at boat ramps, as it is sometimes troublesome to 

get a boat from the ramp to the main channel. It was also noted that there is no location for a boater to 

moor their boat after launching. The potential of adding boat mooring locations at various ramps such 

as the Port of Crossett was suggested. 

3.1.8.8 Determine Formal Access Points to the Refuge 

Some of the Refuge access points are via private roads. If these private roadways fall into disrepair or if a 

bridge fails, access to the Refuge in that area may be compromised. A recommended process begins 

with identifying the critical Refuge access points, then coordination with the private land owners as an 

opportunity to develop a formal agreement to maintain access to key Refuge entrances. 

3.2 Overflow NWR 

3.2.1 Overview of Overflow NWR 

Overflow NWR (Figure 3.17) is part of the South Arkansas Refuges Complex, and is managed and 

maintained by the USFWS. It comprises an area of approximately 14,000 acres in Ashley County, 

Arkansas. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 25

Figure 3.17: Overflow NWR Entrance Sign 

The Refuge objectives are: 

 Provide diversity of habitat types for migratory waterfowl and other birds 

 Provide habitat and protection for threatened bald eagle 

 Provide opportunities for environmental and ecological research 

 Provide a variety of recreational opportunities consistent with primary wildlife objectives 

 Expand the public’s understanding of and appreciation for the environmental with special 

emphasis on natural resources 

3.2.2 Overflow NWR History 

Established in 1980 to protect one of the remaining bottomland hardwood forests, Overflow NWR 

provides unique opportunities for visitors. There are a number of sloughs and creeks within the Refuge. 

3.2.3 Regional Location 

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

can be accessed via SR 173 and SR 8. Figure 1.3 shows the location of the Overflow NWR. 

3.2.4 Visitation Summary and Profile 

Each year approximately 15,000 people visit the Refuge. Though official counts are not taken Refugewide, visitation estimates are based on the number of hunting permits issued. 

Public use opportunities include trails, wildlife observation, photography and hunting. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 26

Annual scheduled hunting seasons at the Refuge are shown in Table 3.5. 

Table 3.5: Hunting by time of year at Overflow NWR

Month(s) Activity

October Muzzleloader deer hunting

October to January Archery deer hunting

October to January Rabbit/Squirrel hunting

November to January Waterfowl hunting

3.2.5 Entrances to the Refuge 

The primary public use opportunity in the Refuge is waterfowl hunting. Visitors also come for wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities. Fishing is currently prohibited as studies have shown that 

the fish population is contaminated with agricultural and industrial chemicals. 

Parking areas are located off SR 8, SR 173, Ashley County Road 34, and five unpaved roads on the west 

side of the Refuge. However, it should be noted that not all access points are accessible at this time due 

to the conditions of the surrounding private roads. 

Directional signing is located in Hamburg, as shown in Figure 3.18. Additional wayfinding signs were also 

located along SR 8 directing visitors to the Overflow NWR Headquarters (Figure 3.19).

Figure 3.18: Directional sign for Overflow NWR in Hamburg 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 27

Figure 3.19: Direction sign for Refuge Headquarters on SR 8 

3.2.6 Regional Transportation Conditions 

This section describes the existing regional transportation infrastructure and traffic conditions. 

3.2.6.1 Regional Roadway Infrastructure 

Overflow NWR is located west of Wilmot, Arkansas and has public access points on SR 8, SR 173 and 

Ashley County Road 34, along with five unpaved roadways. These roadways define the transportation 

network that was reviewed for this project. 

3.2.6.1.1 SR 8 

SR 8 is a two-lane roadway with a posted speed of 55 mph. The Refuge is located on SR 8 between 

Hamburg and Parkdale, Arkansas. Per AHTD 2010 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts, this 

roadway carries 580 vehicles per day just west of Parkdale in the vicinity of the Refuge. 

Per the AHTD, the sufficiency ratings for the bridges on SR 8 in Ashley County in the vicinity of the 

Refuge are both approximately 73. As stated previously, the Sufficiency Rating formula is a method of 

evaluating highway bridge data by calculating several factors to obtain a numeric value that is indicative 

of the bridge’s sufficiency to remain in service and its funding eligibility. The result of the Sufficiency 

Rating formula is a percentage in which 100 is an entirely sufficient bridge and 0 is an entirely deficient 

bridge, bridges with sufficiency ratings of lower than 50 qualify for federal funding. 

3.2.6.1.2 SR 173 

SR 173 is a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. The Refuge is located on SR 173, 

west of Wilmot. Per AHTD 2010 AADT traffic counts; this roadway caries 50 vehicles per day just east of 

the Refuge and the sufficiency rating for the bridge on SR 173 in Ashley County in the vicinity of the 

Refuge is approximately 84. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 28

3.2.6.1.3 Ashley County Road 34 

Ashley County Road 34 (Figure 3.20) is a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit is 45 mph. This 

roadway connects SR 8 and SR 173 on the eastern side of the Refuge. 

Figure 3.20: Ashley County Road 34 

3.2.6.2 Historic Traffic Volumes 

Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department collected the following historical data on SR 8 

and SR 173 in the vicinity of the Refuge from 2006–2010 as shown in Table 3.6. 

Table 3.6: Historic Traffic Volumes on SR 8 and SR 173

Location Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

SR 8, west of Parkdale 640 610 610 520 580

SR 173, east of the Overflow NWR 40 40 60 50 50

Source: AHTD 

Traffic growth has remained relatively flat in this area over the past five years. 

3.2.6.3 Area Transportation Mode Split 

Mode split analysis identifies the transportation method (automobile, transit, walk or bike) people in a 

defined geographic area use, expressed as a percentage of trips. Approximately 93% of trips in Ashley 

County were taken by automobile. Analyzing mode split helps determine the transportation demand 

characteristics of the local community. As the most congested time on roadways often corresponds with 

the traditional work day, modal split analysis is often conducted based on how people get to work. 

Journey-to-work data was obtained from the 2005 - 2009 American Community Survey and compiled for 

Ashley County is summarized in Table 3.7. The 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates

are based on the average of travel between 2005-2009. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 29

Table 3.7: Mode Split Percentage for Ashley 

County

Mode Ashley County

Automobile 92.65%

Transit 0.28%

Walk/Bike 2.46%

Other 3.27%

Work at Home 1.34%

 Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 

3.2.6.4 Crash Summary 

Based on information provided by the AHTD from 2008-2010, there were 13 crashes on SR 8 in the 

vicinity of the Refuge. Of these crashes, 54% of the crashes were single vehicle crashes. Table 3.8 shows 

the number of crashes by crash type for this section of SR 8. 

Table 3.8: Crashes by Type on SR 8 in the Vicinity of the 

Refuge 2008-2010

Crash Type Number of Accidents

Single Vehicle 7*

Rear-End 2

Head On 2

Angle 2

Source: AHTD 

*One accident resulted in a fatality 

There were no reported crashes from 2008–2010 in the vicinity of the Refuge on SR 173 based on AHTD 

data. 

Based on the latest data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and AHTD data, there was one fatality in 2008 and one fatality in 2009 

on SR 8 and Ashley County Road 364, respectively. Both of these fatal crashes were in the vicinity of the 

Refuge. 

3.2.6.5 Planned Area Transportation Improvement Projects 

The AHTD, District 2, does not have any planned improvements identified in the vicinity of the Refuge. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 30

3.2.7 Refuge Transportation and Infrastructure 

This section describes the existing transportation infrastructure within the Overflow NWR. 

3.2.7.1 Refuge Roads 

Roadways within the Refuge and maintained by the Refuge are mainly packed dirt with gravel, and the 

parking areas are packed dirt with gravel. There are no formal walking/biking trails in the Refuge. 

There are also a number of ATV trails in the Refuge. 

3.2.7.2 Water Transportation Access 

Boat landings exist throughout the Refuge with most being in the southern area of the Refuge. 

3.2.8 Transportation Issues 

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

existing reports, and discussions with stakeholders, there are some transportation issues/opportunities 

to be studied further. 

3.2.8.1 Determine Formal Access Points to the Refuge 

Many of the Refuge access points are via private roads. If these private roads fall into disrepair or if a 

bridge fails, access to the Refuge in that area may be compromised. A recommended process begins 

with identifying the critical Refuge access points, then coordination with the private land owners as an 

opportunity to develop a formal agreement to maintain access to key Refuge entrances. 

3.2.8.2 Enhance Visitor Experience 

There is currently no formal education program for visitors or a formal trail map for the Refuge. The 

addition of the walking/biking trail routes could be created to enhance the visitors’ experience.

As part of the trail map development, the development of an Auto Tour route was also considered. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 31

4 Community and Environment 

4.1 Felsenthal NWR 

4.1.1 Community Features 

Based on a review of the area for parks, schools, places of worship, cemeteries, and civic buildings in the 

study area, it was found that there are no major community facilities in the immediate vicinity of the 

Felsenthal NWR. Crossett, Arkansas has elementary, middle, and high schools; civic buildings; and places 

of worship within approximately ten miles of the Refuge. Smaller cities and towns have civic facilities 

and places of worship in the vicinity of the Refuge boundary. Figure 4.1 shows the approximate 

locations of these features. 

4.1.2 Demographic Profile of Study Area 

Felsenthal NWR is located in three counties in southeast Arkansas: Ashley County, Bradley County, and 

Union County. Based on census data, all three counties containing the Refuge and the municipalities of 

Crossett and Strong have experienced a decline in population over the past decade of nearly 10% and 

for the City of Strong that number nearly topped 15%. 

The Refuge is not immune to the impacts a declining population has on a community and could result in 

decreased user demand at the Refuge and impact the overall economic vitality of the region. Analyzing 

the transportation network in and around the Refuge ensures that the USFWS can provide acceptable 

levels of mobility, operation, and safety. 

Table 4.1 shows the population figures in the counties and cities in proximity to Felsenthal NWR. 

Table 4.1: Population for Counties and Cities near Felsenthal NWR

Location 2000 2010 Total Change Percent Change

Arkansas 2,673,400 2,915,918 242,518 9.1%

Ashley County 24,209 21,853 -2,356 -9.7%

City of Crossett 6,097 5,507 -590 -9.7%

Bradley County 12,600 11,508 -1,092 -8.7%

Union County 45,629 41,639 -3,990 -8.7%

City of Strong 651 558 -93 -14.3%

Source: 2010 US Census 
^_

^_

nmnm nm

XW

XW XW

XW

XW

XW

XW

XW

XW

XW

XW 

XW

XW

XW

XW

XW

!(

!( 

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( 

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!( !(

!( !(

!( !(!(!(

!( !(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#*

#*

XW

XW

!(

!(

XW

XW 

XW

XW

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

#*

#*

#*

ÛÚ

£¤82

Union Co.

Bradley Co.

Ashley Co.

¬«133

¬«169

¬«129

¬«129

¬«133

213

North Rd

Strong Hwy

A

222

408

Hancock Rd

210

Huttig Hwy

453

Ashley 703

US Hwy 82 W

Bradley 59 Rd

218

Tram Rd

Ashley Road 286

247

Bradley 67 Rd

Ashley Road 227

State Rte 33

Bradley 53 Rd

Ashley Rd 452

Bradley 61 Rd

Bradley 60 Rd

Harper Springs Rd

Ashley 3

Bolding Rd

Cooter Rd

Bradley 63 Rd

Cross Rd

Old Lock 6 Rd

Pine Tree Rd

Main Line Rd

Litroe Rd

Sid Rd

Ashley Road 2 W

Patterson Trl

Langston Rd

Petersburg Trl

Ballard Rd

Co Rd 229

Bradley 151 Rd

Sutton Rd

S Dead End

6th

12th

Darling Trl

Holly Thicket Rd

Ashley 11

222

Petersburg Trl

Crossett

Felsenthal

Huttig

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001

Figure 4.1: Felsenthal NWR Community Resources

Visitors Center and

Complex Headquarters

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

State Highway

Other Road

Railroad

XW Cemetery

!( Place of Worship

ÛÚ Dam with Lock

#* Civic Building

nm School

^_ Law Enforcement

v® Hospital

0 1 2 0.5

Miles /
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 33

4.1.3 Environmental Justice Impacts 

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 

“Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across 

this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from 

environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy 

environment in which to live, learn, and work.”

For this plan, poverty level, income, and race in counties and municipalities in proximity to the Refuge 

were analyzed. 

Poverty 

Nationally, the percentage of individuals living below the poverty level is 13.5%. Arkansas has a higher 

than average percentage of individuals living below the poverty level at 17.7%. The three Arkansas 

counties where Felsenthal NWR is located are all greater than the national and state averages, with all 

of the counties exceeding 20%. Municipalities located near the Refuge are also experiencing higher than 

normal poverty levels, when compared with national and state averages. 

Table 4.2 shows the percentage of individuals living below the poverty level in the counties and 

municipalities in proximity to Felsenthal NWR. 

Table 4.2: Poverty Levels for Counties and Cities near Felsenthal NWR

Location Population

Population with income in 

the past 12 months below 

poverty level

Percent Below 

Poverty Level

United States 293,507,923 39,537,240 13.5%

Arkansas 2,755,680 488,788 17.7%

Ashley County 21,637 4,393 20.3%

City of Crossett 4,872 1,310 26.9%

Bradley County 11,856 4,140 34.9%

Union County 42,226 8,714 20.6%

City of Strong 249 48 19.3%

Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates 

Detailed information on poverty level can be found in Appendix D. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 34

Income 

Median household income in Arkansas ($38,542) is below the national median household income of 

$51,425 based on 2005–2009 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. Table 4.3 shows the 

median household income in the study area and within select municipalities relative to the national 

median. Additional detailed information on income can be found in Appendix D. 

Table 4.3: Median Household Income for Counties and Cities near Felsenthal NWR

Median Household Income

United States $51,425

Arkansas $38,542

Ashley County $33,007

City of Crossett $25,889

Bradley County $26,207

Union County $35,732

City of Strong $26,250

Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates 

Race 

Whites comprise approximately 65% of the population in the three counties the Felsenthal NWR is 

located in. Blacks or African Americans comprise approximately 30%. The state average of Blacks or 

African Americans is 15% and the national average is 12.6%. No other race categories make up a 

significant percentage of the population in the study area. 

Table 4.4 shows the numbers of individuals by race in the study area and within select municipalities 

relative to national and state values. Detailed information on race is also included in Appendix D. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 35

Table 4.4: Individuals by Race for Counties and Cities near Felsenthal NWR

Location United States Arkansas

Ashley 

County

City of 

Crossett

Bradley 

County

Union 

County

City of 

Strong

Total 308,745,538 2,915,918 21,853 5,507 11,508 41,639 558

White Alone 223,553,265 2,245,229 15,143 3,025 6,934 26,276 176

Black or African 

American Alone 38,929,319 449,895 5,640 2,326 3,173 13,721 339

American Indian and 

Alaska Native Alone 2,932,248 22,248 70 8 56 143 1

Asian Alone 14,674,252 36,102 40 26 27 207 1

Native Hawaiian and

Other Pacific Islander 

Alone

540,013 5,863 3 0 1 14 0

Some Other Race Alone 19,107,368 99,571 709 63 1,162 756 30

Two or More Races 9,009,073 57,010 248 59 155 522 11

Source: 2010 US Census 

4.1.4 Air Quality 

The Felsenthal NWR is located in three counties, Ashley County, Bradley County, and Union County. All 

three of these counties are currently in attainment for all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) criteria pollutants. 

4.1.5 Habitat 

The Felsenthal NWR is comprised of a variety of habitats including bottomland hardwood forest, prairie, 

upland pine forest, and open water. As stated previously, this is a natural depression with a multitude of 

rivers, creeks, sloughs, bayous, swamps, etc. During the winter (from November to late spring), up to 

21,000 acres of the bottomland hardwood forest can be flooded, making the location attractive to 

wintering waterfowl. Table 4.5 shows the breakdown of habitat type and Figure 4.2 illustrates the 

locations of the various habitats. 
£¤82

Union Co.

Bradley Co.

Ashley Co.

Shallow

Lake

Henderson

Lake

Fishtrap

Lake

Open

Brake

Spring

Bayou

Pete

Wilson

Mud

Lake

Marais 

Saline Lake

Wheeler

Lake

Jones

Lake

Bule Lake Slough

Ouachita River

Saline River

North Rd

Strong Hwy

213

A

Huttig Hwy

222

Lapile Rd

Bradley 59 Rd

US Hwy 82 W

Ashley Road 286

247

Bradley 67 Rd

Harper Springs Rd

Ashley Road 227

Bradley 60 Rd

Bolding Rd

Cord

Bradley 53 Rd

Frost

Union Pacific RR Tram Rd

Bradley 61 Rd

Bradley 63 Rd

Ballard Rd

Bradley 151 Rd

Pagan Rd

Pine Tree Rd

Ashley Road 246

12th

Cooter Rd

Darling Trl

Petersburg Trl

Bradley 327 Rd

Union Rd 824

Ashley 11

Jones Lake Rd

Moore Loop

Huttig Hwy

Felsenthal

Huttig

0 1 2 0.5

Miles

/

Figure 4.2: Felsenthal NWR Habitat Type

Visitors Center and

Complex Headquarters

Source: 

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

Legend

USFWS Refuge Boundary

State Boundary

County Boundary

Habitat Type

Bottomland Hardwood Forest

Open Water

Prairie

Road

Upland Pine Forrest

US Highway

State Highway

Other Road

Railroad

Bodies of Water

Municipalities

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 37

Table 4.5: Habitat Type at Felsenthal NWR

Habitat Type Acres

Subcategory Subcategory Acreage

Permanent Water 15,000

Forestland 49,383

Pine 9,490

Pine-Hardwood 705

Bottomland Hardwood 39,000

Upland Hardwood 188

Open Fields, Prairies, and Nonproductive Areas 617

Total 65,000

Source: Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 2010 

As discussed in the Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan, 2010 (CCP), flooding is the Refuge’s means of managing water levels and is called green-tree 

reservoir management. Felsenthal NWR has the largest green-tree reservoir in the world with the ability 

to flood approximately 36,000 acres each winter. Tree species in the green-tree reservoir area are 

primarily overcup oak and water hickory but also include nuttall oak, willow oak, and/or sweetgum. 

Forestland is also actively managed through prescribed burning, thinning, regeneration, and stand 

improvement to enhance and maintain optimum habitat conditions for many birds, waterfowl, and 

resident wildlife. The Timber-Wildlife Management Plan (1995) dictates that sound silviculture practices 

be performed to provide a diversity of habitat. In upland areas, the timber is managed for the 

endangered red cockaded woodpecker, and artificial nests are placed in mature pines to supplement the 

other cavities. 

The current wildlife list for the Felsenthal NWR contains at least 200 species of birds (100 species that 

nest), 40 species of mammals, 70 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 90 fish species. Over 300,000 

waterfowl have been found in the Refuge in a given year. Felsenthal NWR has the only population of the 

endangered red cockaded woodpeckers on NWRs in the state. Trees that host colonies (Figure 4.3) are 

marked with white bands within the Refuge. Felsenthal NWR also hosts bald eagles during the winter. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 38

Figure 4.3: Red Cockaded Woodpeckers Marked Trees 

Twenty-four of the 30 threatened and endangered species in Arkansas can be found at Felsenthal NWR, 

most of which are aquatic species. The red cockaded woodpecker, bald eagles, alligator snapping turtles, 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, and southeastern myotis bat are known to be located on the Refuge. The 

potential for pondberry (an endangered plant) exists but has not been documented on the Refuge. 

Similarly, the pink mucket mussel has been found in the vicinity of the Refuge but not within the Refuge 

Boundary. There have also been coordinated black bear management efforts throughout the years at 

the Refuge. 

4.1.6 Floodplains and Wetlands 

As discussed in the habitat section of the report, most of the Refuge is considered wetlands. 

4.1.7 Cultural Resources 

The Felsenthal NWR is located in an area where Caddo Indian activity dates back 5,000 years. This was 

also an area where farming settlements existed from 900–1600 AD. On the Refuge, there are remains of 

seasonal fishing camps, temple mounds with ceremonial plazas and Indian villages. Before the Civil War, 

agriculture was the primary land use for this area. The war curbed large-scale agricultural development 

and larger plantations were sold off in pieces after the war. Timber then became a main industry in the 

area. This area also experienced an “oil boom” in the 1920s, which resulted in high bromine 

concentrations, which has helped Arkansas become the largest producer of bromine in the world. The 

Visitors Center at the Refuge showcases the history of this area. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 39

4.2 Overflow NWR 

4.2.1 Community Features 

A review of parks, schools, places of worship, cemeteries, and civic buildings immediately around the 

study area for the Overflow NWR was performed. The closest schools to this area are in Hamburg and 

Wilmot, Arkansas. Civic buildings for the Cities of Parkdale and Wilmot are both within approximately 

five miles from the Refuge. Civic buildings in the city of Hamburg are approximately 15 miles from the 

Refuge. Figure 4.4 shows the approximate locations of these community features. 

4.2.2 Demographic Profile of Study Area 

Overflow NWR is located in Ashley County, Arkansas. Ashley County has experienced a decline of 

population over the past decade with a reduction of almost 10%. In addition, the nearby municipalities 

of Hamburg, Parkdale, and Wilmot saw reductions in population between 2000 and 2010 of 

approximately 6%, 27%, and 30%, respectively. 

The Refuge is not immune to the impacts a declining population has on a community and could result in 

decreased user demand at the Refuge and impact the overall economic vitality of the region. Analyzing 

the transportation network in and around the Refuge ensures that the USFWS can provide acceptable 

levels of mobility, operation, and safety. 

Table 4.6 shows the population figures in the counties and cities in proximity to the Refuge. 

Table 4.6: Population for Counties and Cities near Overflow NWR

Location 2000 2010 Total Change Percent Change

Arkansas 2,673,400 2,915,918 242,518 9.1%

Ashley County 24,209 21,853 -2,356 -9.7%

City of Hamburg 3,039 2,857 -182 -6.0%

City of Parkdale 377 277 -100 -26.5%

City of Wilmot 786 550 -236 -30.0%

Source: 2010 US Census 
nm

XW

XW XW

XW

XW

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#*

#*

^_

^_

£¤165

Ashley Co.

Morehouse Parish

Arkansas

Louisiana

¬«8

¬«52

342

Ashley 182 339

Co Rd 323

Co Rd 29

31

329

314

32

343

33

943

37

317

166

334

State Hwy 52 E

35

945

353

State Hwy 173

Camp Rd

Co Rd 319

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

Co Rd 315

49

Co Rd 949

Co Rd 49

Co Rd 354

Co Rd 308

Co Rd 358

351

Co Rd 360

Bayou St

172

Cowpen Rd

Co Rd 347

2nd

Sunshine

332

3rd

Co Rd 343

337

Cedar Valley Rd

367

Parker St

Co Rd 374

Tanksley Rd

Ashley 371 Rd

US Hwy 165 S

Co Rd 308

Wilmot

Parkdale

0 1 2 0.5

Miles

/

Figure 4.4: Overflow NWR Community Resources

Refuge Headquarters

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

State Highway

Other Road

Railroad

^_ Law Enforcement

XW Cemetery

!( Places of Worship

#* Civic Building

nm School

Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges

Transportation Study

Contract No.: DTFH71-09-D-00001
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 41

4.2.3 Environmental Justice Impacts 

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 

“Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across 

this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from 

environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy 

environment in which to live, learn, and work.”

For this plan, poverty level, income, and race in counties and municipalities in proximity to the Refuge 

were analyzed. 

Poverty 

The national percentage of individuals below the poverty level is 13.5%. Arkansas’ poverty level is higher 

than national level at 17.7%. The poverty level for Ashley County is greater than the national average at 

20.3%, Hamburg, the largest municipality in close proximity to the Refuge, also has a high percentage 

below the poverty level at almost 30%. 

Table 4.7 shows the percentage individuals below the poverty level in Ashley County and the City of 

Hamburg. 

Table 4.7: Poverty Level for Counties and Cities near Overflow NWR

Location Population

Population with income in 

the past 12 months below 

poverty level

Percent Below 

Poverty Level

United States 293,507,923 39,537,240 13.5%

Arkansas 2,755,680 488,788 17.7%

Ashley County 21,637 4,393 20.3%

City of Hamburg 2,734 808 29.6%

Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates 

Detailed information on poverty level can be found in Appendix D. 

Income 

Median household income in Arkansas ($38,542) is below the national median household income of 

$51,425 based on US Census data. Table 4.8 shows the median household income in the study area and 

within select municipalities relative to the national median. Additional detailed information on income 

can be found in Appendix D. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 42

Table 4.8: Median Household Income for Counties and Cities near Overflow NWR

Median Household Income

United States $51,425

Arkansas $38,542

Ashley County $33,007

City of Hamburg $30,469

Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates 

Race 

Whites comprise the majority of the population in Ashley County at approximately 69%. Blacks or 

African Americans comprise approximately 26%. The state average of Blacks or African Americans is 15% 

and the nation average is 12.6%. Although not the majority, Blacks or African Americans comprise a 

significant portion of the population. No other race categories make up a significant percentage of the 

population in the study area. 

Table 4.9 shows the numbers of individuals by race in Ashley County and the City of Hamburg relative to 

national and state values. Detailed information on race is also included in Appendix D. 

Table 4.9: Individuals by Race for Counties and Cities near Overflow NWR

Location United States Arkansas Ashley 

County

City of 

Hamburg

Total 308,745,538 2,915,918 21,853 2,857

White Alone 223,553,265 2,245,229 15,143 1,664

Black or African American Alone 38,929,319 449,895 5,640 859

American Indian and Alaska Native 

Alone 2,932,248 22,248 70 20

Asian Alone 14,674,252 36,102 40 4

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander Alone 540,013 5,863 3 1

Some Other Race Alone 19,107,368 99,571 709 273

Two or More Races 9,009,073 57,010 248 36

 Source: 2010 US Census 

4.2.4 Air Quality 

The Overflow NWR is located in Ashley County. The county is currently in attainment for all of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) criteria pollutants. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 43

4.2.5 Habitat 

The Overflow NWR is comprised primarily of a bottomland hardwood forest with a portion of the Refuge 

having been previously converted to cropland. Table 4.10 shows the habitat types and their acreages. 

Figure 4.5 shows these habitat types. 

Table 4.10: Overflow NWR Habitat Type and 

Acreages

Habitat Types Acres

Cropland/Moist Soil Rotation 600

Cropland only 245

Grassland Management 35

Moist Soil only 520

Reforested 2,020

Marsh 50

CRP Pine 179

Beaver Ponds & Scrub/Shrub Wetlands 1,500

Bottomland Hardwood Forest 8,625

Upland Hardwood/Pine 175

Administrative 24

Total 13,973

Source: CCP, 2010 

Based on the CCP, 4,000 acres of the bottomland hardwood forest can be flooded annually as the greentree reservoir, similar to the Felsenthal NWR. 

The bottomland hardwood forest mainly contains willow oak and overcup oak. Other trees include 

hickory, elm, green ash, bald cypress and tupelo gum. 

The cropland has 600 acres in moist soil rotation and 250 acres is used for crops such as rice, corn, 

soybeans and sometimes winter wheat and milo. 

The current wildlife list for the Overflow NWR contains at least 200 species of birds (100 species that 

nest), 40 species of mammals, 70 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 90 fish species. Over 300,000 

waterfowl have been found in the Refuge in a given year. Overflow NWR also hosts bald eagles during 

the winter. 

Twenty-four of the 30 threatened and endangered species in Arkansas can be found at Overflow NWR, 

most of which are aquatic species. The least tern, bald eagle, alligator snapping turtle, Rafinesque’s bigeared bat, and southeastern myotis bat are known to be located on the Refuge. The potential for 

pondberry (an endangered plant) exists but has not been documented on the Refuge. Similarly, the pink 

mucket mussel has been found in the vicinity of the Refuge but not within the Refuge Boundary. There 

have also been coordinated black bear management efforts throughout the years at the Refuge. 
£¤165

Ashley Co.

Morehouse Parish

Arkansas

Louisiana

¬«8

¬«173

342

Ashley 182

339

Co Rd 323

Co Rd 29

329

314

343

943

31

37

32

317

33

166

334

State Hwy 52 E

35

353

State Hwy 173

Camp Rd

945

Co Rd 319

327

Co Rd 318

369

326

Co Rd 346

352

US Hwy 165 S Ashley Road 34

Co Rd 364

Co Rd 316

173

371

341

Co Rd 333

344

336

340

Co Rd 949

Doc Mayo Rd

Co Rd 354

49

Co Rd 308

359

Chitlin Trl

351

172

Cowpen Rd

Co Rd 363

332

Co Rd 38

337

Merganser Rd

Cedar Valley Rd

Armstrong Rd

Tanksley Rd

Ashley 371 Rd

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 4.5: Overflow NWR Habitat Type

Refuge Headquarters

Source: 

Arkansas Geographic Information Office

US Department of Agriculture

US Fish and Wildlife

Legend

Study Area Refuge

State Boundary

County Boundary

Municipalities

US Highway

State Highway

Other Road

Railroad

Habitat Type

Moist Soil

Bottomland Hardwood Forest

Open Water
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 45

4.2.6 Floodplains and Wetlands 

As discussed in the habitat section of the report, most of the Refuge is considered wetlands. 

4.2.7 Cultural Resources 

Similar to the area around the Felsenthal NWR, the Overflow NWR is located in an area where Caddo 

Indian activity dates back 5,000 years. This was also an area where farming settlements existed from 

900–1600 AD. In the 1800s this land was acquired as part of the Louisiana Purchase and the Indians 

were eventually moved. Before the Civil War, agriculture was the primary land use for this area. The war 

curbed large-scale agricultural development and larger plantations were sold off in pieces after the war. 

Timber became a main industry in the area. For over 100 years, the land in and around the Refuge has 

been farmed which resulted in a nearly complete loss of wetlands and associated wetlands. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 46

5 Alternatives Analysis 

Based on the findings from the existing conditions review and comments from stakeholders, potential 

improvements to the Refuge’s transportation network were reviewed and roadway alternatives initially 

screened. These alternatives were then screened environmentally, socially, and financially in more detail 

to develop the preferred alternatives for the Refuge. 

Preliminary alternatives were initially developed then screened to develop conceptual alternatives. 

These are discussed in this section. The conceptual alternatives were further reviewed for impacts in 

Section 6. 

5.1 Preliminary Alternatives 

Preliminary alternatives for roadway construction improvements and other improvements were 

selected for the Refuge. These were further categorized by implementation time periods of short- 

(2017), medium- (2022), and long-range (2027). The matrix shown in Table 5.1 was developed to 

identify potential alternatives and their responsible partners. The partner agencies for 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 the project stakeholder meetings, the stakeholders have agreed to work together to 

implement the alternatives. 

5.1.1 Felsenthal NWR 

5.1.1.1 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 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 
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

7DEOH	
	
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 48

 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 of Corps of Engineers, USFWS, Friends of Felsenthal 

 Develop an Auto Tour route within the Refuge 

Responsible Partner: USFWS, Army Corps of Engineers 

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 

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 

5.1.1.2 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, 

Union County, USFWS 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 49

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

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 

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 

5.1.2 Overflow NWR 

5.1.2.1 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 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 50

5.1.2.2 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, autotour 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 

 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 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 51

5.2 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. 

5.3 Preliminary Candidate Alternatives 

Nine preliminary candidate alternatives (including a No Build alternative) presented in the Preliminary 

Candidate Alternatives Report were identified as either short-range (2017), medium-range (2022), or 

long-range (2027). 

These alternatives are not exclusive and should all be considered for implementation in the future. Also, 

for some of the alternatives, the improvements have been broken down into sections and prioritized. 

This allows improvements to be implemented in phases as monies are available. 

5.3.1 Felsenthal NWR 

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

5.3.1.1 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, 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. 
!(

!(

!(

!(

£¤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 5.1:
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 53

5.3.1.2 Short-Range Alternatives (2017) 

5.3.1.2.1 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 impact to the 

surrounding area. 

5.3.1.2.2 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 to lengthen this 

turn lane would likely have some impact on the natural environment. The lengthening of this turn lane 

will improve access and help reduce the potential for rear-end collisions. Costs include design, 

construction, and maintenance of the roadway. 

5.3.1.2.3 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. The addition of 

an eastbound right-turn lane on US 82 will improve access and 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. 

5.3.1.2.4 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 the physical dredging. 

5.3.1.2.5 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. 

5.3.1.2.6 Alternative F6 – Boat Mooring Locations Feasibility

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

ramps 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. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 54

A study should be conducted to determine if the implementation of mooring facilities is feasible, given 

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

5.3.1.2.7 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. 

5.3.1.3 Medium-Range Alternatives (2022) 

5.3.1.3.1 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 4 tons for short wheelbase trucks and 

7 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. 

5.3.1.3.2 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 feet 

section approaching the Lock and Dam boat ramp. The Army Corps of Engineers have 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. 

5.3.1.4 Long-Range Alternatives (2027) 

5.3.1.4.1 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. 

5.3.1.5 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 Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 55

 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 usage of the Refuge 

 Develop new walking/biking trails to enhance the 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 

5.3.2 Overflow NWR 

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

5.3.2.1 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. 

5.3.2.2 Short-Range Alternatives (2017) 

5.3.2.2.1 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 and 

impact to the surrounding area. 

5.3.2.2.2 Alternative O2 – Establish Agreements for Refuge Access Points 

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

with 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. 
¬«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 5.2:
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 57

5.3.2.3 Medium-Range Alternatives (2022) 

5.3.2.3.1 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. 

5.4 Short- and Long-Range Implementation Plan 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 6.3.1 and 6.3.2, respectively. A summary table including 

impact information for each alternative is included as Table 6.1 and opinions of probable costs are 

included in Appendix E. 

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. 

5.4.1 Felsenthal NWR 

For this transportation study, it was decided that all of the preliminary candidate alternatives would be 

included in the short- and long-range improvement plan. Therefore, the following alternatives for the 

Felsenthal NWR are summarized graphically in Figure 5.1. 

5.4.1.1 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. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 58

5.4.1.2 Short-Range Alternatives (2017) 

5.4.1.2.1 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. 

5.4.1.2.2 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 at the 

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

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

will likely help vehicles to access the Visitors Center/Refuge Complex driveway 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 5.3. 

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 on US 82 into and out of the turn lane 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 59

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. 

5.4.1.2.3 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 area 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 

alternative would require a 12-foot widening for the length of the right-turn lane and taper 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 5.3.

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 improvements. The 

responsible partners for this alternative are AHTD and USFWS. 

5.4.1.2.4 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 necessary, the cost to dredge the areas is expected to 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 5.4. The 

responsible partners involved with this alternative are the US Army Corps of Engineers and USFWS. 
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 5.3: Potential Turn-Lane Improvements at Refuge Visitors Center

±

Alternatives F2 and F3
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 5.4: 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 and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 62

5.4.1.2.5 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 has an estimated 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 5.5. 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. 

5.4.1.2.6 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. Assuming no significant road rehabilitation is 

needed, the cost is estimated to be $10,000 to $20,000 for limited grading, signage, and gates. 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. 

5.4.1.3 Medium-Range Alternatives (2022) 

5.4.1.3.1 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 four tons for short 

wheelbase trucks and seven 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 make use of the corridor. 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. 
#*

#*

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 5.5: 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
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 5.6: 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 

Transportation Study Report 65

Additional 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 detours would be necessary. 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 5.6. 

5.4.1.3.2 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 F. 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 US Army 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 

and Dam. 

Per the most recent grant application, over the years, erosion has allowed voids to form under the 

roadbed, deteriorating the road to the point that major repairs are required for it to remain in service 

for the visiting public. 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 5.7. These voids are present 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 5.8). 

In spring of this year, the Army Corps of Engineers performed temporary stabilization repairs. The US 

Army Corps of Engineers developed an estimated project cost of $217,900. 
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 5.7: 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 

Transportation Study Report 67

Photo Source: US Army Corps of Engineers 

Figure 5.8: Voids along Embankment (Typical) 

5.4.1.4 Long-Range Alternatives (2027) 

5.4.1.4.1 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 depending on the 

size and type of the mooring location. The responsible partners for this alternative are USFWS, City of 

Crossett, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. An additional opportunity for partnership could include 

the Friends of Felsenthal group. 

5.4.1.5 Additional Recommendations 

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

environment. 

5.4.1.5.1 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. 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. 

5.4.1.5.2 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 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 68

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

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

5.4.1.5.3 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, 

motorists would be better informed of directional and locational information related to the Refuge. A 

proposed sign plan is shown in Figures 5.9 and 5.10. 

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. 

5.4.1.5.4 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 are shown in the proposed sign plan (Figure 5.9).

5.4.1.5.5 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. 

5.4.1.5.6 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. 

5.4.1.5.7 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 regarding landmarks and areas of 

the Refuge can be easily accessed via trail. 
£¤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 5.9: 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 5.10: 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 

Transportation Study Report 71

5.4.1.5.8 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. 

5.4.1.5.9 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 

additional funding sources. 

5.4.2 Overflow NWR 

For this transportation study, it was decided that all of the preliminary candidate alternatives would be 

included in the short- and long-range improvement plan. Therefore, the following alternatives for the 

Overflow NWR are summarized graphically in Figure 5.2. 

5.4.2.1 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. 

5.4.2.2 Short-Range Alternatives (2017) 

5.4.2.2.1 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. 

5.4.2.3 Medium-Range Alternatives (2022) 

5.4.2.3.1 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. Assuming no significant road rehabilitation is 

needed, the cost is estimated to be $10,000 to $20,000 for limited grading, signage, and gates. The 

responsible partner for this alternative is USFWS, however, additional local partners would provide 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 72

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 5.11 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. 

5.4.2.4 Additional Recommendations 

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

environment. 

5.4.2.4.1 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. 

5.4.2.4.2 Install Wayfinding Signs for the Refuge in the Surrounding Area 

There are several signs in the surrounding areas providing 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 in helping visitors find the Refuge. 

5.4.2.4.3 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. 

5.4.2.4.4 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 

and education. 
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 5.11: 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 

Transportation Study Report 74

5.4.2.4.5 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 regarding landmarks and areas of 

the Refuge that can be easily accessed via trails. 

5.4.2.4.6 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. 

5.4.2.4.7 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 

additional funding sources. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 75

6 Preliminary Impact Screening 

This section describes the impact screening for the roadway improvement alternatives proposed at the 

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

alternatives previously described. 

6.1 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. 

6.2 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 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 

Transportation Study Report 76

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 at both Refuges, subbase issues on New Lock 6 Road, and signs related to 

the Felsenthal NWR’s highway advisory radio. 

Visitor Use and Experience – Visitor experience will be enhanced by all of the proposed alternatives. 

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. 

6.3 Potential Impacts of Alternatives 

6.3.1 Felsenthal NWR 

6.3.1.1 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. 

6.3.1.2 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. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 77

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 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 wetlands, floodplains, and wildlife habitats. 

6.3.1.3 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 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 prepare to turn into the 

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

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

impacts on floodplains and wildlife habitats. 

6.3.1.4 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. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 78

Cultural Resources – No impacts are anticipated as a result of Alternative F4. 

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. 

6.3.1.5 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 will determine existing ramp usage, potential benefits, 

and the attractiveness to users associated with the addition of the potential boat mooring locations. If 

the feasibility study determines that either of the boat mooring locations are feasible, their installation 

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

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

ramp users and may 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. 

6.3.1.6 Alternative F7 – Auto Tour Route 

Socioeconomic and Community Features – This alternative will enhance recreational facilities at the 

Refuge 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 Auto Tour route is for educational and visitor experience purposes and 

will be developed on existing Refuge facilities. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 79

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. 

6.3.1.7 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. 

6.3.1.8 Alternative F9 – Roadway Improvements on New Lock 6 Road 

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

Corps of Engineers’ 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 for all users. 

Visitor Use and Experience – The improvement of New Lock 6 Road will improve and preserve 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. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 80

6.3.2 Overflow NWR 

6.3.2.1 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. 

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. 

6.3.2.2 Alternative O3 – Auto Tour Route 

Socioeconomic and Community Features – This alternative will enhance recreational facilities at the 

Refuge 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 Auto Tour route is for educational and visitor experience purposes and 

will be developed 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 

Transportation Study Report 81

Table 6.1: 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 –

Wetlands, 

Floodplains, 

Water Bodies, 

and Habitat

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 

Transportation Study Report 82

7 Implementation Priorities 

Based on the preliminary impacts presented in this report and reflective of the general consensus of 

local public and agency representatives, the following short-, medium-, and long-range roadway 

improvement alternatives are recommended: 

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 – Continued Maintenance of Internal Roadways 

 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 – Development of an Auto Tour Route 

Overflow NWR

 Alternative O1 – Continued Maintenance of Internal Roadways 

 Alternative O3 – Development of an 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 

Transportation Study Report 83

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.
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report 84

8 List of Preparers 

Federal Highway Administration 

Christoph Jaeschke – Planning Engineer 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bernie Petersen –Refuge Manager, Southeastern Arkansas Complex 

Susan Alexander – Deputy Refuge Manager/Acting Refuge Manager, Southeastern Arkansas Complex

Ross Flagen – Wildlife Refuge Specialist, Overflow National Wildlife Refuge

Amanda Wilkinson – Public Use Specialist, Southeastern Arkansas Complex

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 

Jennifer Bihl – Project Manager

James Collins – Project Engineer

Ryan Wetherell – Project Engineer
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report

APPENDIX A 

Supporting Documentation and References 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report

List of Supporting Documentation 

 Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, October 2010. 

 Timber-Wildlife Management Plan (Revised 1995) 

 Fatality Analysis Reporting System, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Updated 

annually. 

 Area traffic counts, truck percentage data, bridge sufficiency data, planned improvements data, 

and turn-lane design standards, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. 

 2000 Census Data, U.S. Census Bureau. 

 2010 Census Data, U.S. Census Bureau. 

 Felsenthal and Overflow NWR Visitation Data, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 Felsenthal and Overflow NWR Fact Sheets and Maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, 2005-2009 

 Notes from discussions with FHWA staff. 

 Notes from discussions with stakeholders. 

 Site Visit Notes. 

References 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington DC, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices for Street and Highways. 2009 Edition with Revision Numbers 1 and 2 incorporated, 

dated May 2012. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report

APPENDIX B 

Public Involvement Plan 
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs February 2012

Transportation Study DTFH71-09-D-00001 

Public Involvement Plan Task Order 11-017 

Page 1 of 8 

Public Involvement Plan 

DTFH71-09-D-00001 

TASK ORDER 11-017 

FELSENTHAL AND OVERFLOW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

SOUTHEASTERN, ARKANSAS

Prepared for: 

FHWA: Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 

Prepared by: 

Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 

710 Boundary Street, Suite 1D 

Beaufort, SC 29902 

February 2012 
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs February 2012

Transportation Study DTFH71-09-D-00001 

Public Involvement Plan Task Order 11-017 

Page 2 of 8 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The preparation of a transportation study for the Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife 

Refuges is being performed to develop short- and long-range transportation enhancements for 

mobility to and within the Refuge. 

2. BACKGROUND 

2.1. PURPOSE OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The purpose of the public involvement process is to promote and provide a variety of meaningful 

forums for citizens to learn about and comment on the project. A list of known stakeholders is

detailed later in this plan. The outcome of this effort will be that stakeholders and interested 

citizens will have had meaningful opportunities to provide input regarding mobility in and 

around the Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges. 

2.2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OBJECTIVES 

 Disseminate information about this project to the general public and to directly affected 

stakeholders. 

 Identify and actively solicit input from stakeholder groups affected by and interested in this 

project. 

 Provide a variety of opportunities for public participation and involvement throughout the 

planning process. 

2.3. PRINCIPLES GUIDING THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

The project team recognizes and embraces the important role of public involvement in this 

project’s process. Team members will be guided by the following principles when dealing with 

constituencies interested in this project: 

 Two-way communication (i.e., the free exchange of information, ideas, and values between 

Federal Highway Administration: Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWAEFLHD), US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Consultant (KHA), and 

citizens/stakeholders) will be sought. A specific methodology to solidify two-way 

communication will be established early and used routinely (e-mail contact, comment forms, 

etc.) 
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs February 2012

Transportation Study DTFH71-09-D-00001 

Public Involvement Plan Task Order 11-017 

Page 3 of 8 

 Project information will be communicated to stakeholders and citizens identified within a 

defined study area through the website and public meetings. 

 Reasonable input from the citizens will be given consideration by the project team. 

 Citizen/public questions will be followed up on within two business days. This quick action 

builds trust and confidence. 

 Public involvement activities and input will be documented. 

 A series of formal public outreach actions including two public information meetings. Team 

members will be mindful of non-technical language, different cultures and the need for 

simple illustrations where possible. In addition, we will avoid the suit-and-tie look by using 

business-casual attire. 

 Opportunities for multiple forms of input will be illustrated from the beginning. Interested 

citizens will be given the website information and the appropriate FHWA-EFLHD, FWS and 

KHA contact information. 

3. COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES 

To be effective, outreach efforts need to be tailored to the needs and concerns of specific 

constituent groups in a manner conducive to their involvement. Some communications can meet 

the diverse needs of stakeholders, such as through the use of newspaper columns. Other times, 

different strategies are more effective in accomplishing study objectives. 

The strategies of the public involvement plan are to: 

 Establish the need for better connections in clear and concise terms. 

 Provide forums to encourage discussion and dialogue between the public and project team

members. 

4. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTION STEPS 

4.1. INFORMATION GATHERING 

4.1.1. PROJECT MAILING LIST AND SOCIAL MEDIA 

A project mailing list, prepared by FHWA-EFLHD/FWS, will be used to announce each public 

information meeting. Citizens who request information about the project will be added to the 

study's database. The mailing list will be used to distribute targeted information important to the 

study and to track public comments and questions. A database of mailing addresses will be 

maintained through the project. 
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs February 2012

Transportation Study DTFH71-09-D-00001 

Public Involvement Plan Task Order 11-017 

Page 4 of 8 

KHA will add the local officials, agencies, and additional citizens to the mailing list. 

FWS staff will post meeting notices on the Refuge’s Facebook page. 

Deliverable: Project mailing list database 

Responsible: Maintain and update mailing list – KHA/FWS 

4.2. INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION 

4.2.1. MEDIA RELATIONS 

KHA will develop a draft of black and white text and graphics for newspaper notices to 

announce the public information meetings. After review and approval by FHWA-EFLHD/FWS, 

FWS will submit public meeting notices to newspapers to their regular public notification list. 

The media contact list for the study is shown in Table A-1. 

Deliverable: Newspaper notices for public information meetings 

Responsible: Newspaper notices – KHA/FWS 

4.2.2. PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS 

Two public information meetings are planned. The purpose of the first meeting is to present an 

overview of the project and begin gathering information. The purpose of the second meeting is 

to share the developed alternatives and receive feedback. Meetings will be structured to provide 

opportunities for attendees to express their preferences and ideas, both verbally and in writing. 

Comment sheets will be distributed to obtain input from attendees. Results of the comment 

sheets will be summarized by KHA for submittal to FHWA-EFLHD/FWS. 

The format for the meetings will be an informal walk-in session. Citizens may drop in any time 

during the workshop. A short powerpoint presentation may be available (on a loop) for viewing 

to provide general project information. Citizens are then encouraged to view large-scale maps 

and talk directly with the project team. 

Deliverable: Coordination, promotion and hosting of two meetings 

Responsible: KHA
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs February 2012

Transportation Study DTFH71-09-D-00001 

Public Involvement Plan Task Order 11-017 

Page 5 of 8 

4.2.3. STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS 

Three stakeholder meetings will be held. The first meeting will explain the project process and 

identify constraints, key issues and expectations. The second meeting will solicit input from 

stakeholders on the alternative evaluations. The third meeting will review the results of the 

alternatives analysis and present final recommendations. A list of potential stakeholders is shown 

in the Appendix. 

Deliverable: Scheduling, development and presentation of project, summary of 

comments 

Responsible: KHA

4.2.4. WEBSITE 

Project information will be developed and provided to EFLHD/FWS in pdf format to be posted 

on FHWA’s website. This posted information will be another avenue to disseminate information 

to the public. Information updates will be provided as appropriate. 

Deliverable: Updated information as needed (up to 1 time per month) 

Responsible: Review of material– FHWA-EFLHD and FWS 

Website Information Updates - KHA
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs February 2012

Transportation Study DTFH71-09-D-00001 

Public Involvement Plan Task Order 11-017 

Page 6 of 8 

APPENDIX 

Table A-1: Media Contact Information

Media Contact Location Email

Bastrop Daily Enterprise Bastrop, LA news@bastropenterprise.com

The News Star Monroe, LA news@thenewsstar.com

Ashley County Ledger Hamburg, AR editor@ashleycountyledger.com

The Ashley News Observer Crossett, AR news@ashleynewsobserver.com

Advance Monticellonian Monticello, AR editor@monticellonews.net

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Little Rock, AR news@arkansasonline.com

The Beebe News Beebe, AR tbn@beebenews.com

El Dorado News-Times El Dorado, AR cqualls@eldoradonews.com

The Benton Courier Benton, AR news@bentoncourier.com

The Hope Star Hope, AR stephaniehs@hopestar.com

Pine Bluff Commercial Pine Bluff, AR pbcnews@pbcommercial.com

KDQN 92.1 - #1 Country De Queen, AR numberonecountry@yahoo.com

Eudora Enterprise Eudora, AR news@chicotnewspapers.com

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Little Rock, AR kastephens@agfc.state.ar.us

The Ouachita Citizen West Monroe, LA news@ouachitacitizen.com

Eagle Democrat Warren, AR eaglepub@sbcglobal.net

Salineriverchronicle.com Warren, AR salineriverchronicle@gmail.com 
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs February 2012

Transportation Study DTFH71-09-D-00001 

Public Involvement Plan Task Order 11-017 

Page 7 of 8 

Table A-2: Potential Stakeholders

NAME AGENCY & 

POSITION ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL

Jo Ann

Clark

USFWS,

SER Refuge Roads/FLH 

Program Coordinator

1875 Century Blvd.,

Ste. 420

Atlanta, GA 30345

404-679-4114 joann_clark@fws.gov

Bernie

Petersen

USFWS,

Project Leader,

South Arkansas Refuge 

Complex

PO Box 1157

Crossett, Arkansas 

71635

870-364-1174 bernie_petersen@fws.gov

Susan

Alexander

USFWS,

Deputy Project Leader,

South Arkansas Refuge 

Complex

PO Box 1157

Crossett, Arkansas 

71635

870-364-1173 susan_alexander@fws.gov

Amanda

Wilkinson

USFWS,

Public Use Specialist,

South Arkansas Refuge 

Complex

PO Box 1157

Crossett, Arkansas 

71635

870-415-0787 amanda_wilkinson@fws.gov

Ross

Flagen

USFWS,

Overflow NWR Manager

Overflow NWR

3858 Hwy 8E

Parkdale, AR 71661

870-473-2869 ross_flagen@fws.gov

Russell

Hall

US Senator Mark Pryor’s 

office

The River Market 

500 Clinton Ave 

Ste. 401 

Little Rock, AR 72201

501-324-6336 russell_hall@pryor.senate.gov

Gene

Higginbotham

US Representative Mike 

Ross’ office

George Howard, Jr. 

Federal Bldg.

100 East 8th Avenue, 

Room 2521

Pine Bluff, AR 71601

870-536-3376 gene.higginbotham@mail.house.gov

Jimmy

Jeffress Arkansas Senator PO Box 904 

Crossett, AR 71635 870-364-8291 jimmy.jeffress@arkleg.state.ar.us

Eddie

Cheatham

Arkansas House of 

Representatives

2814 Ashley 239 

Crossett, AR 71635 870-364-5659 cheathame@arkleg.state.ar.us

David

Henning

Arkansas State Highway 

and Transportation 

Department – District 2,

District Engineer

4900 Highway 65 S

PO Box 6836

Pine Bluff, AR 71611-

6836

870-534-1612 david.henning@arkansashighways.com

Carl

Bachelor

Arkansas State Highway 

and Transportation 

Department – District 7,

District Engineer

2245 California 

Avenue

PO Box 897

Camden, AR 

71711-0897

870-836-6401 carl.bachelor@arkansashighways.com

Emory

Austin Ashley County Judge

215 East Jefferson 

Street

Hamburg, AR 71646

870-853-2000 N/A

Keith

Neely Bradley County Judge 101 East Cedar

Warren, AR 71671 870-226-3853 ktneely@yahoo.com

Mike

Loftin Union County Judge 101 North Washington

El Dorado, AR 71730 870-864-1900 mloftin@unioncountyar.com
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs February 2012

Transportation Study DTFH71-09-D-00001 

Public Involvement Plan Task Order 11-017 

Page 8 of 8 

Table A-2: Potential Stakeholders

NAME AGENCY & 

POSITION ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL

Scott

McCormick

Town of Crossett,

Mayor

PO Box 560 

Crossett, AR 71635 870-364-4825 s.mccormick76@yahoo.com

Leonard

Watkins

City of Parkdale,

Mayor

PO Box 145

Parkdale, AR 71661 870-473-2366 city123@windstream.net

Dane

Weindorf

City of Hamburg,

Mayor

305 East Adams

Hamburg, AR 71646 870-853-5300 daneweindorf@gmail.com

Mike

Smith

Crossett Economic 

Development Foundation

125 Main Street

Crossett, AR 71635 870-364-8745 mike@cityofcrossett.net

Richard

Magby Army Corps of Engineers 667 New Lock 6 Road

Huttig, AR 71747 870-943-2307 richard.e.magby@usace.army.mil

Pam

Ferguson

Crossett Chamber of 

Commerce

101 West First Avenue

Crossett, Arkansas 

71635

870-364-6591 pam_ferguson@windstream.net

Richard

Stich

Friends of Felsenthal,

President

PO Box 717

Crossett, AR 71635 870-567-5471 richard.stich@plumcreek.com

Teresa

Walsh Georgia Pacific PO Box 3333

Crossett, AR 71635 870-567-8422 teresa.walsh@gapac.com

Tom

Tomlinson Molphus Timberlands

3320 West Hillsboro 

Street

El Dorado, AR 71730

870-862-6700 ttomlinson@molphus.com

Ken

McDonald Plum Creek 128 Main Street

Crossett, AR 71635 870-567-5471 ken.mcdonald@plumcreek.com
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report

APPENDIX C 

Stakeholder Meeting Notes 

Meeting 1: November 8, 2011 

Meeting 2: February 28, 2012 

Meeting 3: May 3, 2012 
1 

Felsenthal/Overflow National Wildlife Refuges Transportation Study 

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 

Federal Highway Administration 

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

Stakeholder Meeting #1 

November 8, 2011, 10:00 AM 

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 

MEETING NOTES 

Attendees:

Stakeholders Present

Russell Hall – Senator Mark Pryor’s office 

Gene Higginbotham – Congressman Mike Ross’ office 

Carl Bachelor – Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, District 7 

Dee Dee Smith – City of Hamburg 

Richard Magby – US Army Corps of Engineers 

Ronnie Greer – Friends of Felsenthal 

Richard Stich – Plum Creek and Friends of Felsenthal 

Christi Price – Georgia Pacific 

Pam Ferguson – Crossett Chamber 

Ken McDonald – Plum Creek 

Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA EFLHD)

Chris Jaeschke 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

Bernie Petersen 

Susan Alexander 

Bill Burchfield 

Amanda Wilkinson 

Ross Flagen 

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA)

Jennifer Bihl 

James Collins 

Meeting Summary:

Bernie Petersen welcomed the group and Chris Jaeschke gave an explanation of the Transportation 

Study for the Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges. Jennifer Bihl then provided a 

general overview of the study, presented the project schedule, and provided examples of 
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs Transportation Study Stakeholder Meeting #1 

November 8, 2011 

2 

improvements that were successfully implemented as a result of similar Transportation Studies at 

other Refuges around the country. This transportation study will summarize the project team’s 

review of the existing conditions and the results of coordination with the Refuges’ staff, 

stakeholders, and the public indentifying transportation improvement opportunities in and around 

the Refuges. The project will consist of four reports, an existing conditions report, a preliminary 

candidate alternatives report, a short and long range improvement plans and the transportation 

study document, summarizing the study. Stakeholders will have the opportunity to review project 

materials, including draft recommendations and reports throughout the course of the project. The 

next stakeholder meeting and the first public meeting are tentatively scheduled for February 2012. 

The final stakeholder meeting and final public meeting are schedule to be held in April 2012. 

Final project documentation is scheduled to be completed in June 2012. Recommendations are 

anticipated to be both of a short-term nature, implemented in the next five years, and longer-term 

nature, beyond the five year horizon. 

The stakeholder discussed potential opportunities for transportation improvements around the 

Refuges that they would like considered in the transportation study. The opportunities and 

associated discussion are summarized as follows: 

• US 82 turn lane improvements at Visitors Center entrance/exit 

o Large number of trucks on US 82 traveling at high speeds – Arkansas State 

Highway and Transportation Department counts will obtained to determine the 

percent of trucks on the facility 

o Lengthen WB left-turn lane taper 

o Create EB right-turn lane 

o Potential sight distance issue looking west due to the vertical curve in the roadway 

o Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department will entertain a request 

where they investigate whether changes are warranted. They can also conduct a 

speed study if requested. This will be requested as an action item for the study. 

o Question - Is it possible to relocate the entrance? USFWS – no it cannot be 

relocated based on land holdings 

• Modes of travel reviewed in this study will be mainly vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and 

ATV; however the inclusion of boat access or canoe access opportunities can be noted for 

future consideration. 

o Boat Access – Potential for boat slip at Crossett Harbor and at ramp near the Town 

of Felsenthal 

o Canoe Trails – Potential for canoe trails at Felsenthal NWR 

o Handicap accessible trail located at Visitors Center now 

o Potential for trail to hunting/fishing area that is also handicap accessible? 

• Transit opportunities 

o Is there potential for a bus service to serve the Refuges from neighboring cities and

towns? 

o Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department has a division that deals 

directly with bus service. There are opportunities where they would provide the 

buses to another entity that would then operate and maintain the service. An 
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs Transportation Study Stakeholder Meeting #1 

November 8, 2011 

3 

example would be Southeast Arkansas Transit provides similar service for 

hospitals, etc. 

• Visitor experience enhancements and education 

o Wildlife observation opportunities/platforms throughout the refuge 

o Enhance walking trails with plant identification markers 

o Enhance signage for trails 

o Potential for auto-tour route at both Refuges with stops along the way 

o Opportunity for bike trail to Crossett RV park 

o Enhance bird watching opportunities at Overflow NWR 

o Mapping of trails at both Refuges 

o Increased publicity for trails at both Refuges 

• Access to Overflow NWR 

o Plum Creek roadways provide 95% of the access to the Overflow NWR 

o One of the primary access points on the west is out due to a bridge failure 

o Potential for Plum Creek and Refuge to work together to identify the primary 

access points and determine what additional steps are needed to maintain access 

into the future, such as easements. 

• Access to Felsenthal NWR 

o Also has access via a number of private roads 

o Review access points and determine what additional steps are needed to maintain 

access in the future. 

• Is there a need for a bike trail from Crossett to Felsenthal NWR? 

o May not get a lot of use 

o Would be adjacent to Hwy 82 with large trucks moving at high speeds 

o Would be better to have a bike trail within the Refuge 

• Corps of Engineers Boat Ramp 

o Issues with siltation from ramp to channel 

o Long term need for improvements to access road from the town of Felsenthal to 

Lock and Dam and boat ramp. Have not been successful with previous grant 

applications. 

• Make improvements that will draw people from other areas 

o Unique and interactive opportunities, ex. Segway trails, long distance trails 

• Signage 

o Improve destination signs – in Crossett, Hamburg, and Parkdale and on the north 

end of Felsenthal NWR, to Eagle Lake, for example 

o Enhance maps to show how people get to various areas and trails 
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs Transportation Study Stakeholder Meeting #1 

November 8, 2011 

4 

• Crash Data on US 82 – This data will be requested from Arkansas State Highway and 

Transportation Department for the study. 

• Review access roadways north of Felsenthal NWR, there are some bridge issues on 

Bradley County Roads 

• Continue to coordinate with stakeholders and the communities to promote Refuge and the 

opportunities in the Refuge. The Refuge is a partner in the community. 

Jennifer then discussed the next steps. The existing conditions report is being prepared now and 

will be available for review by the stakeholders on the FHWA EFLHD website. 

The next meeting will be in February to discuss draft concepts developed as a result of discussion 

today and the existing conditions review. 
Page 1 

Felsenthal/Overflow National Wildlife Refuges Transportation Study 

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 

Federal Highway Administration 

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

Stakeholder Meeting #2 

February 28, 2012, 2:00 PM 

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 

MEETING NOTES 

Attendees: 

Stakeholders Present 

David Henning – Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department 

Dane Weindorf – Mayor of Hamburg 

Teresa Walsh – Georgia Pacific 

Mike Smith – Crossett Economic Development Foundation 

Ken McDonald – Plum Creek 

Richard Magby – US Army Corps of Engineers 

Jim Cutbirth – Georgia Pacific 

Scott McCormick – City of Crossett 

Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA EFLHD) 

Chris Jaeschke 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

Bernie Petersen 

Susan Alexander 

Ross Flagen 

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) 

Jennifer Bihl 

James Collins 

Ryan Wetherell 

Interested Citizens 

Johnnie Bolin – Crossett 

Nancy Loon – Crossett 
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs Transportation Study Stakeholder Meeting #2 

February 28, 2012 

Page 2 

Meeting Summary: 

Jennifer Bihl welcomed stakeholders. Comment forms were handed out and reviewed. The project 

schedule was also reviewed and where we are in the project was discussed, as well as next steps. It 

was also noted that project documents are available on the Eastern Federal Lands FTP site. 

Introductions were made of team members and then the attendees introduced themselves. The 

group then began review of the draft Transportation Recommendations and potential partners. It 

was noted that in these economic times partnerships in projects is key. 

Discussion points: 

 Bradley County 65S Bridge Replacement - Currently a timber bridge with significant 

weight restrictions. The roadway serves timber land and Refuge access. Bradley County 

replaced a similar bridge last fall on Bradley ______. 

 Turn lanes are needed on US 82 –

o Various stakeholders noted that it is sometimes scary to turn into Refuge. 

 New Lock 6 Road Improvement – 3,500 feet on western end of the road in the elevated 

section – compaction of the fill not sufficient. Richard will send us a copy of their latest 

grant application. 

 Autotour route – A great idea to expose more people to the Refuges. 

o Route would loop and have stops to see things along the way. 

o At Felsenthal NWR, it may require some new roadway to make loop. May be able 

to use part of Pine Island Road and construct a loop to connect to other roads. 

o Plum Creek may be able to help with a permanent access loop. 

o May include turnouts for historic or natural features. Great opportunities for 

partnerships. 

 Discussed the need for formal trail maps – The Refuge is currently working on this. 

 The potential for boat slips –

o Issues: Fluctuation of water levels and currents. Stakeholders noted issues of boats 

floating off the ramp unattended with current situation. 
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs Transportation Study Stakeholder Meeting #2 

February 28, 2012 

Page 3 

o Costs: May be upwards of $150 – 200K to install. This has been pursued before 

and funding was an issue. 

o AHTD has allowed a courtesy dock under bridge. 

o Partner with the Friends of Felsenthal on opportunity. 

o Game & Fish has recently built a handicap ramp with rail at the Poet of Crossett. 

 Refuge access was discussed. 

o Felsenthal NWR 

 Inside Refuge – All roads are owned by the Refuge. 

 West side – Some roads are owned by Plum Creek, some are county roads. 

 On the west side north of US 82 – North Road to Jones Lake Road access to the 

Refuge is owned by Plum Creek. 

 North Road is a Plum Creek Road with active timbering and trucks. 

o Overflow NWR 

 Inside Refuge – All roads are owned by the Refuge. 

 Access points on the west side of Refuge are by roads owned by Plum Creek. 

o Refuge staff needs to meet with Plum Creek to establish primary access points for 

the Refuge. 

Other Discussion: 

 Lack of advertisement from the Parks and Tourism Department for Felsenthal NWR is 

disappointing. Refuge staff now has a seat on the Arkansas South Tourism Board. 

 Are horses allowed at the Refuge? Allowable activities must be wildlife related. A trail 

ride would not be permitted. All activities are reviewed for six qualifications about intent 

of use; i.e., hunting, fishing, bird watching, etc. 

The Team discussed the materials on the Eastern Federal Lands FTP site, and the project’s next 

steps. There will be three more reports prepared. Examples of these reports from previous studies 

were shown. 
Page 1 

Felsenthal/Overflow National Wildlife Refuges Transportation Study 

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 

Federal Highway Administration 

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

Stakeholder Meeting #3 

May 3, 2012, 2:00 PM 

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 

MEETING NOTES 

Attendees: 

Stakeholders Present 

Pam Ferguson – Crossett Chamber of Commerce 

David Henning – Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department 

Richard Magby – US Army Corps of Engineers 

Scott McCormick – City of Crossett 

Mike Smith – Crossett Economic Development Foundation 

Teresa Walsh – Georgia Pacific 

Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA EFLHD) 

Chris Jaeschke 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

Susan Alexander 

JoAnn Clark 

Ross Flagen

Amanda Wilkerson 

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) 

Jennifer Bihl 

James Collins 

Ryan Wetherell 
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs Transportation Study Stakeholder Meeting #3 

May 3, 2012

Page 2 

Meeting Summary: 

Jennifer welcomed stakeholders. Chris and Susan provided some opening remarks and thanked the 

stakeholders for participating in the project. Comment forms were handed out to the attendees. 

The project schedule and status were reviewed and the remaining steps were outlined. It was also 

noted that project documents are available on the Eastern Federal Lands FTP site. Introductions 

were made of team members and then the attendees introduced themselves. The group then began 

review of the transportation recommendations and partners. It was noted that in these economic 

times partnering is key to project implementation. 

Discussion points: 

 Turn lanes at the Refuge’s Visitor Center were reviewed and discussion occurred regarding 

the proposed addition of a right-turn lane and lengthening of the taper and storage for the 

left-turn lane. 

 The proposed sloughs where regular dredging activities should be considered along with 

the proposed mooring locations were reviewed with the stakeholders. 

 The conceptual alignment and opportunity for the auto tour route with pull off locations 

were reviewed for Overflow. It was noted that edits to the alignment and pull off locations 

were likely going to be made based on a more detailed review of the alignment by Refuge 

staff, however the opportunities continue to exist and the ability to implement the route 

would require limited improvements within the Refuge 

 Jennifer shared that the route within Felsenthal was still being developed and likely would 

not be completed in time for inclusion in this report, but that the general concept of an auto 

tour route within Felsenthal would be noted. 

 The recommended improvements to New Lock 6 Road were discussed. Richard Magby 

confirmed that recent activities had put a band aid type of fix on the issue and provided a 

top dressing to the roadway shoulders providing stability in the short-term, but that the 

cause of the issues was not addressed and that the reconstructive improvements previously 

identified were still needed. 

 The proposed bridge replacement on Bradley County Road 65S was reviewed as a 

recommended improvement that was needed for the long-term accessibility along that 

stretch of road. 

Other Discussion: 

 Safety along US 82 was discussed, particularly relative to those two or three times a year 

that a major bass tournament is being held and the boaters are backed up in the dark, wee 
Felsenthal and Overflow NWRs Transportation Study Stakeholder Meeting #3 

May 3, 2012

Page 3 

hours of the morning onto US 82 waiting to turn onto the roadway leading to the boat ramp 

at either the Old Beer Joint or Port of Crossett. Both of which are near the bridge over the 

Ouachita River, which limits sight distance along US 82. Additionally, many driving along 

US 82 appear to be exceeding the speed limit, which presents additional safety issues 

during these events. 

o Was recommended that AHTD and Refuge staff work on a plan for placing 

temporary variable message signs on US 82 east and west of the entrance prior to 

and on the days of those major events to warn motorists of the possibility for 

congestion ahead. 

o David was looking into his opportunities for assisting with the placing of the signs 

 Statements about the need for turn lanes at other major access locations, such as the Old 

Beer Joint and the RV park were noted. 

o David noted that a corridor study for US 82 from El Dorado to Lake Village was 

being completed and included this section of US 82 and these statements would be 

shared with the project team completing that study. 

 It was requested that walking and biking trails be formalized and that a map be prepared to 

identify these routes. Refuge staff indicated they were working on these sorts of visitor 

experience tools. 

 Discussion occurred regarding tourism at the refuges and it was noted that the openness of 

refuges was changing to be more accepting of visitors to experience the facilities and that 

plans and communications were being developed and rolled out to encourage a broader 

spectrum of users. 

 Enforcement of speeds along US 82 occurs on a regular basis through police patrol and 

citations; however this does not deter speeding due to the nature and visibility along the 

roadway. 

 Staff noted that a gate was being installed on the access to the Old Beer Joint, so that the 

parking and ramp facilities could be closed during high water events. 

 David is ready to assist with the signing for Felsenthal and Overflow and suggested that the 

sign plan show the signs on the same posts with the green signs, but below them on a 

brown destination board. 

o The Refuge would be responsible for reimbursement of AHTD for the capital 

investment of producing the signs, but future maintenance of the sign would be 

addressed by AHTD. David was going to estimate the cost of the signs for Susan’s 

budgetary uses. 

o A sign will be added to the plan for the Old Beer Joint access to assist users identify 

the location of the access as it is difficult to see as one approaches due to the 

topography. 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report

APPENDIX D 

Supporting Data Tables 
C17002. RATIO OF INCOME TO POVERTY LEVEL IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS - Universe:

POPULATION FOR WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS DETERMINED

Data Set: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Survey: American Community Survey

NOTE. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population

Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of

housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology.

United States Arkansas Louisiana Ashley County, Arkansas Bradley County, Arkansas

Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error

Total: 293,507,923 +/-15,551 2,755,680 +/-1,171 4,285,810 +/-1,068 21,637 +/-848 11,856 +/-173

Under .50 17,124,388 +/-123,530 194,770 +/-5,149 336,474 +/-8,572 1,485 +/-442 1,720 +/-746

.50 to .99 22,412,852 +/-139,923 294,018 +/-6,457 453,160 +/-7,946 2,908 +/-616 2,420 +/-835

1.00 to 1.24 12,916,533 +/-69,974 166,180 +/-5,030 228,620 +/-6,442 1,369 +/-420 849 +/-254

1.25 to 1.49 13,265,892 +/-65,424 163,597 +/-4,598 224,763 +/-6,510 1,354 +/-419 1,006 +/-366

1.50 to 1.84 18,480,297 +/-75,034 219,694 +/-6,052 291,882 +/-6,174 2,388 +/-479 827 +/-327

1.85 to 1.99 7,985,406 +/-41,799 94,379 +/-3,738 123,882 +/-4,748 1,129 +/-475 287 +/-150

2.00 and over 201,322,555 +/-432,726 1,623,042 +/-10,757 2,627,029 +/-13,056 11,004 +/-790 4,747 +/-1,189

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling

variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of

error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of

error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to

sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of

the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

While the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the November 2008 Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of

the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic

entities.

Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census

2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the

ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were

available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.

2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to

compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest

interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.

4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended

distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.

6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not

appropriate.

B19013. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2009 INFLATIONADJUSTED DOLLARS) - Universe: HOUSEHOLDS

Data Set: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Survey: American Community Survey

NOTE. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population

Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of

housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology.

United States Arkansas Louisiana Ashley County,

Arkansas

Bradley County,

Arkansas

Estimate

Margin

of

Error

Estimate

Margin

of

Error

Estimate

Margin

of

Error

Estimate Margin

of Error Estimate Marginof Error

Median household income in the past 12 months (in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars) 51,425 +/-83 38,542 +/-288 42,167 +/-259 33,007 +/-2,200 26,207 +/-3,273

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling

variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of

error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of

error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to

sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of

Main Search Feedback FAQs Glossary Site Map Help

Detailed Tables - American FactFinder Page 1 of 2

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_200... 11/29/2011
the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

While the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the November 2008 Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of

the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic

entities.

Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census

2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the

ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were

available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.

2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to

compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest

interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.

4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended

distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.

6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not

appropriate.

Standard Error/Variance documentation for this dataset:

Accuracy of the Data

Detailed Tables - American FactFinder Page 2 of 2

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_200... 11/29/2011
C17002. RATIO OF INCOME TO POVERTY LEVEL IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS - Universe:

POPULATION FOR WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS DETERMINED

Data Set: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Survey: American Community Survey

NOTE. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population

Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of

housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology.

Union County, Arkansas Morehouse Parish, Louisiana Union Parish, Louisiana Crossett city, Arkansas Hamburg city, Arkansas

Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error

Total: 42,226 +/-538 27,856 +/-296 22,393 +/-243 4,872 +/-846 2,734 +/-20

Under .50 4,226 +/-820 4,176 +/-792 2,250 +/-517 263 +/-192 162 +/-128

.50 to .99 4,488 +/-731 3,693 +/-729 2,635 +/-729 1,047 +/-398 646 +/-251

1.00 to 1.24 2,973 +/-615 1,176 +/-333 1,181 +/-328 233 +/-172 151 +/-99

1.25 to 1.49 2,164 +/-492 1,574 +/-355 1,172 +/-393 224 +/-177 141 +/-129

1.50 to 1.84 3,786 +/-659 2,835 +/-669 1,331 +/-402 567 +/-283 337 +/-166

1.85 to 1.99 803 +/-275 838 +/-415 1,115 +/-447 57 +/-78 80 +/-82

2.00 and over 23,786 +/-1,100 13,564 +/-792 12,709 +/-858 2,481 +/-608 1,217 +/-195

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling

variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of

error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of

error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to

sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of

the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

While the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the November 2008 Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of

the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic

entities.

Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census

2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the

ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were

available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.

2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to

compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest

interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.

4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended

distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.

6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not

appropriate.

B19013. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2009 INFLATIONADJUSTED DOLLARS) - Universe: HOUSEHOLDS

Data Set: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Survey: American Community Survey

NOTE. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population

Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of

housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology.

Union County,

Arkansas

Morehouse

Parish,

Louisiana

Union Parish,

Louisiana

Crossett city,

Arkansas

Hamburg city,

Arkansas

Estimate Margin

of Error Estimate Marginof Error Estimate Marginof Error Estimate Marginof Error Estimate Marginof Error

Median household income in the past 12 months (in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars) 35,732 +/-2,238 31,264 +/-1,696 35,788 +/-2,923 25,889 +/-4,641 30,469 +/-6,718

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling

variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of

error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of

error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to

sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of

the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

Main Search Feedback FAQs Glossary Site Map Help

Detailed Tables - American FactFinder Page 1 of 2

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_200... 11/29/2011
While the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the November 2008 Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of

the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic

entities.

Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census

2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the

ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were

available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.

2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to

compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest

interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.

4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended

distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.

6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not

appropriate.

Standard Error/Variance documentation for this dataset:

Accuracy of the Data

Detailed Tables - American FactFinder Page 2 of 2

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_200... 11/29/2011
C17002. RATIO OF INCOME TO POVERTY LEVEL IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS - Universe:

POPULATION FOR WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS DETERMINED

Data Set: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Survey: American Community Survey

NOTE. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population

Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of

housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology.

Strong city, Arkansas

Estimate Margin of Error

Total: 249 +/-92

Under .50 24 +/-26

.50 to .99 24 +/-27

1.00 to 1.24 15 +/-28

1.25 to 1.49 34 +/-31

1.50 to 1.84 52 +/-54

1.85 to 1.99 0 +/-119

2.00 and over 100 +/-51

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling

variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of

error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of

error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to

sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of

the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

While the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the November 2008 Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of

the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic

entities.

Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census

2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the

ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were

available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.

2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to

compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest

interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.

4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended

distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.

6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not

appropriate.

B19013. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2009 INFLATIONADJUSTED DOLLARS) - Universe: HOUSEHOLDS

Data Set: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Survey: American Community Survey

NOTE. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population

Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of

housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology.

Strong city, Arkansas

Estimate Margin of Error

Median household income in the past 12 months (in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars) 26,250 +/-8,278

Main Search Feedback FAQs Glossary Site Map Help

Detailed Tables - American FactFinder Page 1 of 2

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_200... 11/29/2011
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling

variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of

error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of

error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to

sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of

the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

While the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the November 2008 Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of

the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic

entities.

Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census

2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the

ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were

available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.

2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to

compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest

interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.

4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended

distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.

6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not

appropriate.

Standard Error/Variance documentation for this dataset:

Accuracy of the Data

Detailed Tables - American FactFinder Page 2 of 2

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_200... 11/29/2011
B17001. POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY SEX BY AGE - Universe:

POPULATION FOR WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS DETERMINED

Data Set: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Survey: American Community Survey

NOTE. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population

Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of

housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology.

United States Arkansas Louisiana Ashley County,

Arkansas

Bradley County,

Arkansas

Estimate Margin of

Error Estimate Marginof Error Estimate Margin ofError Estimate

Margin

of

Error

Estimate Margin

of Error

Total: 293,507,923 +/-15,551 2,755,680 +/-1,171 4,285,810 +/-1,068 21,637 +/-848 11,856 +/-173

Income in the past 12 months below poverty level: 39,537,240 +/-250,842 488,788 +/-8,350 789,634 +/-11,838 4,393 +/-686 4,140 +/-1,382

Male: 17,404,017 +/-121,411 212,199 +/-4,366 327,541 +/-6,258 1,865 +/-403 2,209 +/-878

Under 5 years 2,246,058 +/-24,934 28,959 +/-1,303 45,760 +/-1,684 179 +/-96 217 +/-73

5 years 387,217 +/-5,900 4,968 +/-464 8,672 +/-782 0 +/-119 85 +/-68

6 to 11 years 2,180,473 +/-22,990 29,527 +/-1,235 47,762 +/-1,914 242 +/-92 196 +/-73

12 to 14 years 1,021,800 +/-11,500 12,266 +/-718 21,441 +/-1,201 144 +/-76 36 +/-37

15 years 360,373 +/-5,273 4,080 +/-482 7,045 +/-542 18 +/-24 11 +/-13

16 and 17 years 671,257 +/-7,114 7,701 +/-646 13,953 +/-974 74 +/-51 20 +/-25

18 to 24 years 2,636,966 +/-17,239 28,796 +/-1,388 49,916 +/-2,132 307 +/-202 278 +/-204

25 to 34 years 2,052,232 +/-15,047 25,636 +/-1,453 30,968 +/-1,350 162 +/-107 543 +/-357

35 to 44 years 1,784,478 +/-16,228 21,192 +/-1,129 26,897 +/-1,312 198 +/-89 426 +/-237

45 to 54 years 1,721,899 +/-13,923 20,081 +/-928 31,194 +/-1,365 264 +/-83 189 +/-152

55 to 64 years 1,221,965 +/-11,321 15,425 +/-732 23,413 +/-1,037 184 +/-80 142 +/-160

65 to 74 years 603,536 +/-5,225 7,100 +/-536 11,603 +/-674 28 +/-21 35 +/-31

75 years and over 515,763 +/-5,002 6,468 +/-450 8,917 +/-562 65 +/-51 31 +/-28

Female: 22,133,223 +/-133,914 276,589 +/-4,960 462,093 +/-6,792 2,528 +/-375 1,931 +/-546

Under 5 years 2,172,424 +/-23,155 28,519 +/-1,203 45,210 +/-1,629 223 +/-50 238 +/-103

5 years 373,941 +/-5,320 4,804 +/-521 9,062 +/-775 98 +/-83 0 +/-119

6 to 11 years 2,111,885 +/-23,991 28,114 +/-1,348 46,104 +/-1,846 267 +/-106 170 +/-105

12 to 14 years 992,831 +/-11,853 12,187 +/-661 22,271 +/-1,035 61 +/-50 77 +/-65

15 years 348,452 +/-4,741 3,954 +/-383 7,374 +/-675 70 +/-60 8 +/-9

16 and 17 years 691,091 +/-7,805 9,393 +/-658 13,928 +/-744 82 +/-46 71 +/-71

18 to 24 years 3,415,171 +/-16,005 38,090 +/-1,573 73,487 +/-2,164 393 +/-151 193 +/-79

25 to 34 years 3,231,361 +/-23,404 41,804 +/-1,487 65,256 +/-1,844 327 +/-101 300 +/-112

35 to 44 years 2,566,593 +/-22,348 28,721 +/-1,289 49,844 +/-1,677 274 +/-93 109 +/-73

45 to 54 years 2,137,461 +/-17,274 26,521 +/-1,160 45,491 +/-1,674 340 +/-98 298 +/-236

55 to 64 years 1,636,813 +/-11,738 20,480 +/-848 35,067 +/-1,193 153 +/-63 159 +/-168

65 to 74 years 1,056,243 +/-5,863 14,051 +/-653 22,738 +/-902 76 +/-44 146 +/-139

75 years and over 1,398,957 +/-8,675 19,951 +/-892 26,261 +/-1,019 164 +/-92 162 +/-61

Income in the past 12 months at or above poverty level: 253,970,683 +/-261,705 2,266,892 +/-8,577 3,496,176 +/-11,825 17,244 +/-944 7,716 +/-1,413

Male: 126,523,466 +/-128,282 1,130,260 +/-4,859 1,740,692 +/-6,279 8,759 +/-462 3,810 +/-867

Under 5 years 8,253,489 +/-25,433 70,809 +/-1,257 110,579 +/-1,767 489 +/-96 244 +/-47

5 years 1,588,955 +/-9,989 14,510 +/-886 20,604 +/-1,162 97 +/-55 48 +/-36

6 to 11 years 9,875,803 +/-25,283 87,092 +/-1,743 134,427 +/-2,221 722 +/-157 260 +/-85

12 to 14 years 5,256,613 +/-16,438 43,470 +/-1,284 72,458 +/-1,864 405 +/-96 145 +/-65

15 years 1,816,107 +/-8,125 16,233 +/-697 25,443 +/-952 110 +/-40 65 +/-38

16 and 17 years 3,662,772 +/-9,661 32,854 +/-898 52,598 +/-1,268 346 +/-57 166 +/-83

18 to 24 years 11,056,411 +/-16,708 93,393 +/-1,420 175,074 +/-1,836 557 +/-133 79 +/-145

25 to 34 years 17,783,656 +/-17,579 155,796 +/-1,556 241,724 +/-1,931 1,163 +/-229 381 +/-201

35 to 44 years 19,063,617 +/-18,299 159,522 +/-1,327 247,660 +/-1,435 1,224 +/-145 525 +/-235

45 to 54 years 19,398,444 +/-17,680 168,549 +/-1,146 267,544 +/-1,522 1,322 +/-96 634 +/-189

55 to 64 years 14,317,270 +/-12,617 137,782 +/-934 199,349 +/-1,085 1,181 +/-80 527 +/-161

65 to 74 years 8,281,353 +/-5,744 88,502 +/-673 114,938 +/-743 875 +/-60 420 +/-56

75 years and over 6,168,976 +/-5,516 61,748 +/-569 78,294 +/-753 268 +/-232 316 +/-45

Female: 127,447,217 +/-138,354 1,136,632 +/-5,097 1,755,484 +/-6,984 8,485 +/-578 3,906 +/-592

Under 5 years 7,865,763 +/-24,309 66,677 +/-1,302 103,710 +/-1,689 478 +/-87 116 +/-69

5 years 1,528,879 +/-9,646 13,078 +/-752 22,510 +/-1,030 57 +/-57 37 +/-37

6 to 11 years 9,393,512 +/-28,618 82,586 +/-1,460 125,382 +/-2,043 599 +/-131 355 +/-87

12 to 14 years 4,984,504 +/-16,497 42,246 +/-1,197 68,178 +/-1,650 369 +/-124 118 +/-60

15 years 1,725,768 +/-6,885 14,640 +/-650 23,399 +/-1,120 231 +/-92 48 +/-28

16 and 17 years 3,454,552 +/-9,703 30,143 +/-787 50,059 +/-1,010 211 +/-66 80 +/-40

18 to 24 years 9,743,603 +/-14,342 82,318 +/-1,556 147,752 +/-2,121 470 +/-140 148 +/-69

25 to 34 years 16,553,243 +/-24,998 144,801 +/-1,507 227,471 +/-2,153 1,030 +/-122 401 +/-59

Main Search Feedback FAQs Glossary Site Map Help

Detailed Tables - American FactFinder Page 1 of 2

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_200... 11/29/2011
35 to 44 years 18,694,939 +/-24,385 159,504 +/-1,397 249,472 +/-1,762 1,253 +/-118 631 +/-109

45 to 54 years 19,940,647 +/-19,795 173,827 +/-1,129 279,997 +/-1,757 1,189 +/-98 586 +/-220

55 to 64 years 15,171,205 +/-12,953 145,674 +/-976 211,249 +/-1,259 1,299 +/-63 582 +/-112

65 to 74 years 9,396,764 +/-6,856 96,842 +/-859 131,553 +/-1,000 634 +/-231 343 +/-209

75 years and over 8,993,838 +/-10,446 84,296 +/-931 114,752 +/-1,143 665 +/-145 461 +/-107

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling

variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of

error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of

error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to

sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of

the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

While the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the November 2008 Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of

the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic

entities.

Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census

2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the

ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were

available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.

2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to

compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest

interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.

4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended

distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.

6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not

appropriate.

Standard Error/Variance documentation for this dataset:

Accuracy of the Data

Detailed Tables - American FactFinder Page 2 of 2

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_200... 11/29/2011
B17001. POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY SEX BY AGE - Universe:

POPULATION FOR WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS DETERMINED

Data Set: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Survey: American Community Survey

NOTE. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population

Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of

housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology.

Union County,

Arkansas

Morehouse

Parish, Louisiana

Union Parish,

Louisiana

Crossett city,

Arkansas

Hamburg city,

Arkansas

Estimate Margin

of Error Estimate Margin ofError Estimate Marginof Error Estimate Marginof Error Estimate Marginof Error

Total: 42,226 +/-538 27,856 +/-296 22,393 +/-243 4,872 +/-846 2,734 +/-20

Income in the past 12 months below poverty level: 8,714 +/-755 7,869 +/-813 4,885 +/-744 1,310 +/-413 808 +/-268

Male: 3,730 +/-403 3,364 +/-399 2,102 +/-404 504 +/-258 366 +/-168

Under 5 years 467 +/-133 323 +/-130 335 +/-122 64 +/-79 6 +/-12

5 years 167 +/-80 89 +/-60 6 +/-9 0 +/-119 0 +/-119

6 to 11 years 555 +/-125 596 +/-138 369 +/-148 44 +/-42 62 +/-63

12 to 14 years 304 +/-124 302 +/-100 219 +/-105 71 +/-56 58 +/-62

15 years 72 +/-47 114 +/-76 134 +/-92 11 +/-20 7 +/-12

16 and 17 years 156 +/-83 103 +/-53 110 +/-93 5 +/-9 8 +/-13

18 to 24 years 587 +/-164 333 +/-143 139 +/-106 205 +/-184 27 +/-30

25 to 34 years 263 +/-117 427 +/-140 188 +/-95 10 +/-16 62 +/-72

35 to 44 years 350 +/-138 350 +/-155 142 +/-99 15 +/-25 14 +/-16

45 to 54 years 414 +/-116 270 +/-97 162 +/-89 58 +/-42 104 +/-81

55 to 64 years 234 +/-111 186 +/-80 158 +/-86 13 +/-20 10 +/-17

65 to 74 years 73 +/-41 98 +/-49 50 +/-37 0 +/-119 5 +/-8

75 years and over 88 +/-49 173 +/-53 90 +/-44 8 +/-17 3 +/-7

Female: 4,984 +/-488 4,505 +/-517 2,783 +/-417 806 +/-234 442 +/-163

Under 5 years 553 +/-106 534 +/-99 184 +/-68 110 +/-78 49 +/-52

5 years 60 +/-74 20 +/-31 111 +/-83 0 +/-119 16 +/-26

6 to 11 years 285 +/-116 512 +/-138 87 +/-80 66 +/-57 53 +/-46

12 to 14 years 272 +/-115 251 +/-96 236 +/-124 11 +/-18 24 +/-36

15 years 38 +/-43 65 +/-47 20 +/-24 23 +/-30 0 +/-119

16 and 17 years 189 +/-73 192 +/-83 111 +/-70 24 +/-33 0 +/-119

18 to 24 years 901 +/-122 280 +/-103 239 +/-116 227 +/-122 79 +/-87

25 to 34 years 438 +/-136 725 +/-159 457 +/-133 92 +/-66 50 +/-43

35 to 44 years 522 +/-122 388 +/-109 348 +/-143 55 +/-43 25 +/-30

45 to 54 years 612 +/-157 468 +/-128 239 +/-105 84 +/-65 82 +/-62

55 to 64 years 525 +/-109 382 +/-107 236 +/-76 29 +/-30 30 +/-22

65 to 74 years 178 +/-64 272 +/-87 203 +/-59 26 +/-29 9 +/-9

75 years and over 411 +/-109 416 +/-93 312 +/-114 59 +/-60 25 +/-38

Income in the past 12 months at or above poverty level: 33,512 +/-914 19,987 +/-839 17,508 +/-750 3,562 +/-782 1,926 +/-268

Male: 16,259 +/-600 9,864 +/-403 8,792 +/-382 1,773 +/-397 891 +/-164

Under 5 years 1,013 +/-140 691 +/-130 422 +/-103 64 +/-42 89 +/-39

5 years 227 +/-107 77 +/-55 71 +/-49 41 +/-47 5 +/-8

6 to 11 years 1,019 +/-157 663 +/-162 586 +/-149 79 +/-66 80 +/-48

12 to 14 years 617 +/-130 321 +/-89 303 +/-108 50 +/-49 10 +/-12

15 years 389 +/-108 245 +/-104 126 +/-77 6 +/-11 14 +/-17

16 and 17 years 432 +/-98 219 +/-101 118 +/-60 106 +/-64 49 +/-39

18 to 24 years 1,220 +/-179 949 +/-155 787 +/-106 133 +/-95 55 +/-50

25 to 34 years 1,896 +/-218 1,013 +/-161 1,135 +/-109 256 +/-181 113 +/-52

35 to 44 years 2,291 +/-140 1,410 +/-182 1,212 +/-92 209 +/-106 162 +/-64

45 to 54 years 2,623 +/-153 1,519 +/-115 1,469 +/-86 230 +/-99 105 +/-59

55 to 64 years 2,205 +/-115 1,386 +/-77 1,216 +/-98 290 +/-95 82 +/-42

65 to 74 years 1,321 +/-49 807 +/-61 846 +/-45 244 +/-81 76 +/-35

75 years and over 1,006 +/-93 564 +/-63 501 +/-51 65 +/-78 51 +/-56

Female: 17,253 +/-502 10,123 +/-543 8,716 +/-446 1,789 +/-438 1,035 +/-162

Under 5 years 910 +/-131 429 +/-96 557 +/-57 70 +/-55 57 +/-41

5 years 236 +/-93 153 +/-102 88 +/-55 0 +/-119 11 +/-13

6 to 11 years 1,235 +/-188 641 +/-117 556 +/-146 98 +/-60 81 +/-48

12 to 14 years 700 +/-172 329 +/-104 322 +/-135 115 +/-69 64 +/-48

15 years 178 +/-95 135 +/-73 133 +/-63 55 +/-44 74 +/-65

16 and 17 years 506 +/-81 237 +/-87 223 +/-65 52 +/-38 8 +/-11

Main Search Feedback FAQs Glossary Site Map Help

Detailed Tables - American FactFinder Page 1 of 2

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_200... 11/29/2011
18 to 24 years 886 +/-124 965 +/-103 696 +/-117 131 +/-91 59 +/-50

25 to 34 years 2,055 +/-159 1,034 +/-159 980 +/-109 161 +/-89 101 +/-51

35 to 44 years 2,342 +/-132 1,480 +/-109 1,090 +/-118 183 +/-79 211 +/-89

45 to 54 years 2,719 +/-160 1,722 +/-131 1,509 +/-92 291 +/-107 93 +/-49

55 to 64 years 2,058 +/-110 1,314 +/-109 1,209 +/-75 318 +/-109 112 +/-48

65 to 74 years 1,594 +/-77 935 +/-87 844 +/-73 164 +/-83 79 +/-43

75 years and over 1,834 +/-149 749 +/-142 509 +/-121 151 +/-95 85 +/-54

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling

variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of

error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of

error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to

sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of

the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

While the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the November 2008 Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of

the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic

entities.

Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census

2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the

ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were

available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.

2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to

compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest

interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.

4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended

distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.

6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not

appropriate.

Standard Error/Variance documentation for this dataset:

Accuracy of the Data

Detailed Tables - American FactFinder Page 2 of 2

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_200... 11/29/2011
B17001. POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY SEX BY AGE - Universe:

POPULATION FOR WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS DETERMINED

Data Set: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Survey: American Community Survey

NOTE. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population

Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of

housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology.

Strong city, Arkansas

Estimate Margin of Error

Total: 249 +/-92

Income in the past 12 months below poverty level: 48 +/-38

Male: 25 +/-23

Under 5 years 4 +/-8

5 years 0 +/-119

6 to 11 years 0 +/-119

12 to 14 years 0 +/-119

15 years 0 +/-119

16 and 17 years 4 +/-8

18 to 24 years 12 +/-15

25 to 34 years 0 +/-119

35 to 44 years 0 +/-119

45 to 54 years 5 +/-9

55 to 64 years 0 +/-119

65 to 74 years 0 +/-119

75 years and over 0 +/-119

Female: 23 +/-18

Under 5 years 0 +/-119

5 years 0 +/-119

6 to 11 years 0 +/-119

12 to 14 years 0 +/-119

15 years 0 +/-119

16 and 17 years 0 +/-119

18 to 24 years 13 +/-14

25 to 34 years 0 +/-119

35 to 44 years 3 +/-5

45 to 54 years 4 +/-6

55 to 64 years 3 +/-6

65 to 74 years 0 +/-119

75 years and over 0 +/-119

Income in the past 12 months at or above poverty level: 201 +/-86

Male: 102 +/-45

Under 5 years 0 +/-119

5 years 0 +/-119

6 to 11 years 8 +/-14

12 to 14 years 9 +/-10

15 years 4 +/-6

16 and 17 years 5 +/-7

18 to 24 years 0 +/-119

25 to 34 years 6 +/-7

35 to 44 years 14 +/-17

45 to 54 years 20 +/-13

55 to 64 years 8 +/-11

65 to 74 years 28 +/-24

75 years and over 0 +/-119

Female: 99 +/-49

Under 5 years 0 +/-119

5 years 0 +/-119

6 to 11 years 5 +/-9

12 to 14 years 0 +/-119

15 years 0 +/-119

16 and 17 years 17 +/-26

18 to 24 years 0 +/-119

25 to 34 years 11 +/-15

Main Search Feedback FAQs Glossary Site Map Help

Detailed Tables - American FactFinder Page 1 of 2

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_200... 11/29/2011
35 to 44 years 0 +/-119

45 to 54 years 8 +/-8

55 to 64 years 25 +/-19

65 to 74 years 11 +/-13

75 years and over 22 +/-15

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling

variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of

error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of

error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to

sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of

the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

While the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the November 2008 Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of

the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic

entities.

Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census

2000 data. Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the

ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were

available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.

2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to

compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest

interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.

4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.

5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended

distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.

6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not

appropriate.

Standard Error/Variance documentation for this dataset:

Accuracy of the Data

Detailed Tables - American FactFinder Page 2 of 2

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_200... 11/29/2011
P3 RACE

Universe: Total population2010 Census Summary File 1

NOTE: For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf.

United States Arkansas Louisiana Ashley County,

Arkansas

Bradley

County,

Arkansas

Union C

Arkan

Total: 308,745,538 2,915,918 4,533,372 21,853 11,508  White alone 223,553,265 2,245,229 2,836,192 15,143 6,934  Black or African American alone 38,929,319 449,895 1,452,396 5,640 3,173  American Indian and Alaska Native alone 2,932,248 22,248 30,579 70 56  Asian alone 14,674,252 36,102 70,132 40 27  Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 540,013 5,863 1,963 3 1  Some Other Race alone 19,107,368 99,571 69,227 709 1,162  Two or More Races 9,009,073 57,010 72,883 248 155 

1 of 2 
Crossett city,

Arkansas

Hamburg city,

Arkansas

Strong city,

Arkansas

Total: 5,507 2,857 558 White alone 3,025 1,664 176 Black or African American alone 2,326 859 339 American Indian and Alaska Native alone 8 20 1 Asian alone 26 4 1 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0 1 0 Some Other Race alone 63 273 30 Two or More Races 59 36 11

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

2 of 2 
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report

APPENDIX E 

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
Felsenthal and Overflow National Wildlife Refuges June 2012 

Transportation Study Report

APPENDIX F 

New Lock 6 Road Improvement Grant Application 
Updated: May 22, 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 22, 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 22, 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 22, 2012 p. 4

Figure 1 

Figure 2 
Updated: May 22, 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.