Environmental Assessment Report

I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

INTRODUCTION

Sam's Throne is a very popular camping and rock climbing location on the Forest. The main attraction is the striking bluff line that surrounds the "throne" and immediate area. It was because of this bluff line that the area was designated a Special Interest Area (SIA) in the Forest Plan. SIAs were established for those areas that were considered to have distinctive features and the intent was to manage for their protection.

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the effects of improving the management of the consistent high use of forest visitors (rock climbers, campers, picnickers, hikers, etc.) to Sam's Throne SIA for the past 20 years. These improvements are designed to protect the natural features by dispersing the visitors over a larger area than they currently use. This EA document was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations.

LOCATION

Sam's Throne is located approximately 10 miles southeast of Jasper in T. 14 N., R. 19 W., Section 7 immediately west of State Highway 123 (See Appendix A, Vicinity Map A-1).

PROPOSED ACTION

The Buffalo District is proposing to designate, enhance/develop 40 campsites, 2 parking lots, and access to accommodate the existing high number of forest visitor to this area. Since there has been increasing interest and use in rock climbing with the associated camping within the SIA, this has lead the Buffalo Ranger District to proposed the following actions (see map):

Establish a fee demonstration area (the fee would be between $3-5/site) on top of the main ridge with forty designated primitive campsites broken into two sections. The south portion of the ridge would have 20 "pack it in, pack it out" sites where no vehicles would be allowed. The north portion would have 20 sites accessible by vehicle.

Construct a new loop road to access the 20 sites on the north end of the ridge. This action would require amending the Forest Plan since the current direction is for no new roads to be constructed within any SIA.

Locate a vault toilet on each end of the ridge.

Place waterbars and lead-off ditches along the main access road that goes to the south end of the ridge and allowing administration access only.

Improve the road along the base of the bluff line so an ATV can access the area for any emergencies. The road would be gated and only administrative or medical emergency use would be allowed.

Develop a helispot between the Throne and bluff line to facilitate medical evacuation.

Improve the two social trails (Dog Walkdown and Catacomb Walkdown) and incorporate the existing trails into the District's trail system.

Establish two parking areas 60 feet by 200 feet one for campers of the "Pack it in, Pack it out" and the other for day use parking, each with a 40 car capacity.

Restrict camping to the designated campsites only within the Sam's Throne Special Interest Area.

Prescribed Burn to improve sanitation and reduced understory vegetation. To maintain better accessibility throughout the stand periodic burn every 3-5 years would be implemented.

Thin the pine stand on the southern portion of the ridge top and conduct a prescribed burn on top of the ridge prior to the development of the campsites. This action would require amending to the Forest Plan since the current direction allows timber harvesting only to improve conditions for sensitive plants or animals, enhance features or for safety within any SIA.

PURPOSE AND NEED

There has been increasing use occurring in the Sam's Throne area that has lead to more and more user-created campsites over the years. These sites are growing in size and number with the resulting loss of vegetation and greater areas of soil compaction. In addition, the sites are haphazardly placed with no consideration to sight distance or location to each other. There are no toilet facilities available and the increased use has reduced the sanitary conditions in the area.

The access road on the southern portion of the ridge top (user-created over the years) is entrenched and has created an erosion problem. The desired condition for the area (as described in the Forest Plan) is not being met.

In order to meet the desired condition for the area there is a need to reduce the resource impacts and improve the recreational setting (e.g., distance between campsites, sanitation).

There are two purposes to be achieved. The first one is consistency with the Forest Plan's direction for SIAs (found on pages 4-32 and 33):

(1) To protect and enhance sensitive scenic, geological, botanical and cultural features on the Forests
(2) Provide semi-primitive non-motorized to roaded natural range of recreational opportunities
(3) Manage trails to protect unique resources
(4) Manage the visual quality objectives for retention.

The second purpose is to address the current level of camping impacts and not seek to increase the use.

To District has developed a proposed action that will meet the meet the purpose and need for this project.

DECISION TO BE MADE

The first decision to be made is whether or not some kind of action is needed. If a an action is deemed appropriate, the next decision would be the type and location as outlined in the Proposed Action and Alternative B.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY

The proposal was mailed out to 32 individuals and placed in the Forest's Schedule of Proposed Actions (SPA) report. The SPA report is sent to over 500 individuals who have expressed interest in Forest Service management. From this effort a total of five responses were received, all of them favorable for the general intent, but concerned about certain portions of the proposal (e.g., need for the helispot, impacts from the thinning, location of the "pack in/pack out" area). All comments received are included in the analysis file.

Because of the high interest in the area, a series of public meetings were held: Fayetteville on 2/26/00 - 10 people, Springfield on 6/1/00 - 80 people, Fayetteville on 7/1/00 - 5 people, informal polling of 20 campers in spring of 1999, and a field trip on 4/23/99 for 8 people. As was the case with the written comments, very few responses were completely against the proposal; instead, the need for the project was recognized with some negative reactions to particular portions of the proposal (e.g., fees, not wanting to have the proposal result in drawing even more people to the area, location of the helispots).

The Predecisional EA was sent to the two climbing gyms where previous public meetings were held and to those that had expressed interested in receiving the document from those public meetings. This resulted in a total of 25 copies being distributed. This yielded one response. In addition, an individual approached the District and volunteered to develop a web site that had the EA on it and a way for people to respond to it. The site was linked to the two gym's web sites. There were 10 timely responses received from this effort and one that was late (it was reviewed and found not to contain any additional information from that already received). Appendix B has the consolidated comments and the District's responses.

From these comments and the internal knowledge of the area, the ID team identified the following issues deemed significant enough to drive the development and selection of alternatives.

ISSUES
Impacts to soil and vegetation.	What kind of impacts are there occurring now from the campsites? What kind of impact will the proposed parking areas have on the soil and vegetation? Can the southern access road's erosion be reduced?
Indicators of this issue are:	the acres of ground disturbed average size of campsite erosion that is stopped
Impacts to the recreational setting.	What kind of impact would the proposed thinning and burning have on the primitive nature of the setting? What happens if there is no thinning or burning? Will the proposed development draw more people to the area? Will the proposed fee be followed by increased enforcement/presence? Where should the proposed helispot be? How much maintenance would the lower road receive?
Indicators of this issue are:	basal area of residual stand (simulation) dynamics of timber stand layout of the sites helispot location

II. ALTERNATIVES

Alternative considered but not developed in detail

Alternatives that closed the SIA to camping or rock climbing were considered. These alternatives were not perceived to be viable due to the numerous years of camping and rock climbing this area has been in use and because active management action can reduce the resource impacts. This analysis has produced the Proposed Action (PA), Alternative A (No Action) and Alternative B (No Thin).

Alternative A - No Action

There would not be any improvements made to the existing dispersed camping area.

Alternative B - No Thin

This alternative would have the same activities as described in the proposed action with three differences (App A - A-4-A-5). First, there would not be any timber thinning conducted. Second, the helispot would be moved to the junction of the lower road and Highway 123. Third, the prescribed fire would be conducted only one time.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 1	Proposed Action (PA)	Alternative A (no action)	Alternative B (no thin)
Number of Campsites	20 North end sites 20 South end sites	4 North end sites 38 South end sites	20 North end sites 20 South end sites
Distance between campsites (in feet)	50 feet North end 150 feet South end	25 to 150 feet South end	50 feet North end 150 feet South end
Campsite Size (ac)	0.05	0.05 to 1	0.05
Acres Disturbed	6.3	6.2	6.3
% of Area impacted *	15%	85%	15%
Timber thinned (ac)	33	0	0
* Percent of area impacted is the total acres disturbed divided by the total area of the sites are dispersed over. For Alternatives PA and B the area of dispersion is 43 acres and it is 7 acres for Alternative A).

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigating measures apply to both action alternatives:

1) The Forest will prepare a Forest Order to restrict camping within the Special Interest Area to the developed campsites.

The following mitigating measures apply only to the Proposed Action:

1) Standing dead snags outside the immediate vicinity of any campsite or trail that do not otherwise pose a direct safety hazard will be left.

2) The Forest Service will approve all log landings, skid trails, and temporary road locations. This insures proper placement of these temporary developments.

3) To reduce erosion/sedimentation all broad based dips will be installed in accordance with FSM 2482-1. This will insure that water is distributed off the road and onto vegetated areas where the water velocity will be decreased and thus reducing its sediment carrying capacity.

4) The purchaser will maintain all drainage/erosion control structures (broad based dips) and, when needed, the road surfaces. This will insure proper function of drainage/erosion control structures.

5) During times of potential resource damage, the Forest Service will suspend timber harvesting operations (e.g., too wet causing excess rutting and soil compaction).

6) Temporary skid trails and haul roads will be revegetated to facilitate restoration to previous conditions and reduce erosion.

7) There will be no timber hauling from noon to noon Friday through Monday.

8) All slash will be lopped and scattered to a height of twelve (12) inches.

Through applying current research, past experience, site visits, and observations all of the above mitigating measures have proven effective on similar sites as those that are in the project area.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEOUENCES
Soils
Current Condition
The campsites that have been created to date are displaying a loss of ground vegetation and increased soil compaction. The size of the sites has grown over the years with the increased use and a seeming desire for larger parties to attempt to camp in the same spot (figure 1). There has been an increase in the number of dispersed sites that have been developed and this has lead to more ground disturbance. The south ridge access road has become rutted and ponds water (figure 2). This road was never constructed, but rather user created over time so there is no drainage. Currently the impacted area is concentrated on approximately 7 acres along the south ridge. Within this area an estimated 6 acres has soil compaction and vegetative loss. This results in 85% of the dispersed camping area being impacted. This is nearly three times the Forest Plan threshold for soil disturbance in dispersed recreational areas.
There are existing trails above and below the bluffline, around the throne, and in the saddle between the ridge and throne totaling approximately 2.0 miles (0.5 acres).

Figure 1 - typical campsite	Figure 2 - south access road

Direct/Indirect Effects
Alternative A - No Action
Under this alternative, there will not be any restriction placed on the creation of additional camping sites or the enlarging of existing ones. There will be no improvement conducted on the south road. Past experience has shown that there is the likelihood that additional routes will be created as campers attempt to search for different camping areas. Consequently, the amount of soil compaction and vegetative loss will continue to increase across the area and become even more out of compliance with the Forest Plan direction.
Proposed Action & Alternative B
Under either of these alternatives, there will be about 6 acres disturbed from the campground development. This disturbance would be spread out over approximately 43 acres and the resulting 15% level of disturbance would be well within the Forest Plan threshold for soil disturbance in dispersed recreational areas. The regulation requiring camping only in the designated sites will keep people from establishing new sites and disturbing additional area. The work planned for the south road will lead to better drainage and the gate will greatly reduce the opportunity for people to extend the road through continued use.
There will be a net increase of 2.2 acres (2.6 - 0.4) of disturbance on the north end of the ridge top. The creation of 20 new campsites, day use parking area (60 feet by 200 feet), and 0.5 miles of road will create approximately 2.6 acres of new disturbance. The existing user created road to the water hole (500 feet) and the four existing campsites will be rehabilitated. This will reduce the level of disturbance by 0.4 acres.
There will be a net decrease of 2.5 acres (6.2 - 3.7) of disturbance on the south end of the ridge top. There will be 3.7 acres of new disturbance associated with the creation of 20 primitive campsites, improvement of the existing road (0.2 miles), relocating the Catacombs and Dog Walkdown trails (about 600 feet each), installing the two vault toilets, and creating the parking area (60 feet by 200 feet). This amount of new disturbance will be offset by the 6.2 acres that will be rehabilitated. The reduction will be achieved by closing the existing 34 sites with fire rings and 4 pullovers.
The thinning and burning under the Proposed Action will add 5.7 acres of soil disturbance on top of the amount for the campground development for a total of 9.9 acres or 10% of the area. The burning under Alternative B will add 2.7 acres soil disturbance on top of the amount for the campground development for of 6.9 acres or 7% of the area. Each of these values is well below the Forest Plan threshold for soil disturbance.
Cumulative Effects
Neither of the action alternatives will contribute to any significant cumulative effects in the area because: (1) there are no other proposed activities planned for the area and (2) in each alternative there are steps taken to reduce the adverse environmental impacts. In the short term, the no action alternative will not contribute to significant cumulative effects because: (1) there are no other proposed activities planned for the area and (2) the amount of existing disturbance is still somewhat limited for the entire area. In the long term, there is the possibility of significant effects if the anticipated increase in expansion and enlargement of campsites comes to pass. This situation will eventually lead to excessive soil compaction and vegetative loss with the corresponding reduction in productivity for the area.
Vegetation
Current Condition
The ridge top on which the campsites are located was once an old field planted to various crops. After the farming practices ceased, shortleaf pines were planted. The southern end of the ridge is where the majority of the pines are located. The density, expressed as the number of trees per acre, of pines in the southern portion range from 151 (majority of the area with sawtimber size) to 430 (small areas of poletimber size) (Figure 3). The density of pines diminishes the further north along the ridge you go until they become only a small percentage of the stand. The age of the pines ranges from 50 to 66 years old. Throughout the ridge top the understory is very thick and in many places hard to walk or see through when the leaves are present during the growing season (figure 4). The area was burned previously in 1978 and again in 1983.
Given the above conditions the pine stand is overstocked (too many trees per acre) for best growing conditions. Under these conditions, tree mortality will remain high and lead to higher than normal mortality as the stand ages. Because the stand has not been burned since 1983 nor any other vegetative control applied, the under-story density has increased over time.

Figure 3 - typical density of pines on southern end	Figure 4 - typical understory density

Direct/Indirect Effects

Alternative A - No Action

This Alternative will offer no relief to the current problems facing the area given the stand dynamics of shortleaf pine and the current stand density, as this stand ages more maintenance will be required for the removal of hazard trees in the future as the health of the trees decline.

Proposed Action

This Alternative will offer relief to the current problems facing the area when thinning and prescribed fire is applied. Thinning of some trees will allow for increased health and vigor of the trees left uncut. The need for maintenance for the removal of hazard trees will be reduced with the identification of future hazard trees and they're subsequent removal during thinning. The removal of addition hazard trees will still be required in the future as the stand ages, but it will be at a reduced rate.

Prescribe burning will reduce: the debris from thinning operations, the intensity of any wildfire by reducing the fuel loading, and the density of under-story vegetation. Burning reduces understory species by top killing that portion of the vegetation that is above ground. Trees that are greater than 6 inches dbh tend to not be affected by prescribed fires. Thinning and burning will produce the appearance of a "park like" atmosphere, but if this appearance is to be maintained repeated burning would be required. Since the stand is currently pine, thinning and burning will help continue the current forest type, which is consistent with the Forest Plan.

Alternative B - No Thin

Because the burning under this alternative is a one-time event, there would be minimal impacts to long-term fuel loadings or understory density. With only a short-term reduction in fuel loading, any wildlife that started will burn more intensely. The understory density will recover quickly to existing conditions and then continue to grow denser. There will not be any "park like" conditions created. The problems with hazard trees will be the same as those described in Alternative A.

Cumulative Effects

None of the alternatives would contribute towards any significant cumulative effects because they do not change the composition of the forest stand. It will still remain a pine and hardwood stand for the foreseeable future.

Recreational setting

Current Condition

There are roughly 43 campsites (it is hard to get a precise number as new sites are constantly being created) located on the ridge top. Nearly 90% of them are located on the southern end of the ridge along the access road. Because of the clustering of the sites, there is not much distance separating many of them. This situation has caused some to comment on the lack of relative solitude experienced at each site, especially if there is a large group using some of the sites. The groups (more than 10 people) tend to use either the site at the end of the southern access road or the one immediately to the west of the turn-off from the highway. The layout of the sites is such that campers pull their vehicle into the site and pitch their camp. There can be a problem of vehicle crowding when large groups are attempting to park next to the selected site. None of the sites have any facilities (e.g., picnic table, lantern hook, grill) in them. Many of them have user created fire rings and flat spots, which have been scrapped, to lay down a tent and/or sleeping bag.

There are no established helispots for emergency evacuation. In the past, injured climbers were taken up to Highway 123 along the lower road and then transported to the hospital in Harrison 40+ miles away. There have been a couple of instances when a helicopter has landed on the highway to assist in transporting an injured party. The first responders from Mount Judea, the nearest town to the area, generally provide medical attention. The lower road has fallen into disrepair from lack of maintenance and is no longer passable by 4-wheel drive trucks. It is even becoming too rough for ATVs to attempt to transport an injured person out on.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Alternative A - No Action

Under this alternative, there will not be any design or thought given to the layout of the camping sites. So the current hodgepodge of distances between sites, size of sites, and clustering in particular areas will continue. It is likely that new sites will be pioneered and existing ones enlarged as the people's taste change as to where they would like to camp at or how many people are in their party.

There will continue to be no developed helispot for emergency evacuation. That means the patient will have to be transported to another area that can handle a helicopter. The closest will be near the town of Mt Judea about 20 minutes away once the patient is brought to the highway. The ability to get the patient to the highway will be compromised because the lower road is in such a state that no vehicle can safely negotiate it to help transport the victim. The combination of these two factors will greatly decrease the chances of saving a seriously injured person since there will probably be no medical attention received during the "golden hour" that is so critical.

Proposed Action

This alternative will result in the placing of campsites in such a way as to allow for at least 50 feet on the north and 15o feet on the south between each site. Having this type of spacing will provide a degree of solitude between groups of campers (Appendix A, pages A-7-A-9). In addition, the average size of the campsites will be smaller than many of those currently used. This will limit the group size, which will also keep the social disturbance to a tolerable limit between groups. To address the needs for larger groups there will be two group sites developed. The design of the development will be to better disperse the use throughout the ridge top and lessen the cluster that occurs along the southern end. Having the vault toilets will improve the sanitation in the area and make for a more enjoyable experience.

Because the intent was not to promote increased use, but rather reduce the impacts of current use levels, the number of campsites slated for construction is roughly equal to the number of sites currently used. By doing this, and restricting the camping to designated locations, there will not be any noticeable increase in the use of the area. However, it is possible that the existence of the proposed facilities will encourage use for more days of the week and the paving of State Highway 123 will no doubt bring in visitors who might not otherwise have stopped by.

The thinning would require the south end of the ridge to be closed weekdays during the actual timber sale, however the sale should only last a short duration and is expected to have minimum impact on visitation. The thinning would increase the sight distance you can see and open the canopy creating a more open appearance. The tops of the trees that are left behind will have a negative impact on the scenery. However the slash/logging debris will be lopped and scatter to a height of twelve (12) inches to mitigate the visual effects until the prescribe fire was completed. The burning will result in improving the sanitation by consuming the waste scattered about the area. There will be a short-term visual impact from the charred understory and black scorches on the tree boles. The understory will recover within one growing season based upon the experiences from the other prescribed fires conducted on the District. The visible marks on the tree boles will remain visible for a couple of years at most. Prescribed fire would be use to maintain the more open appearance with a routine burn every 3 to 5 years as needed.

The immediate impacts of the thinning and burning is expected to have little, if any impact on the visitor ability to walk in the stand, since the majority of the stand was hard to walk through due to the understory. There will be a few years that visitors will have more access to the stand since there will be less vegetation blocking their way (Appendix A, page A-8).

Improving the lower road and developing a helispot will result in a greater likelihood of receiving medical attention within the "golden hour." The improvement of the lower road will allow for the transport of the victim by ATV, allowing for faster delivery to the State highway road and the ambulance. Secondly, for those instances where medical attention is more urgent, there will be a helispot developed allowing for the safe landing of a helicopter. Vegetation will continually have to be cleared in order to keep this spot accessible to helicopters. Under this alternative, the location of the helispot will better facilitate the evacuation from the lower portions of the bluffs and the Throne. There is the possibility that some campers would attempt to camp in the helispot since it will be kept cleared of vegetation. Enforcement, both by agency personnel and informally by other users, of the restriction on authorized camping in designated sites only, will prevent this from becoming a common occurrence.

Alternative B- No Thin

The number, location, and size of the campsites, and the amount of road building will be the same as in the Proposed Action. Therefore, the impacts will be the same as discussed above. The difference between the alternatives is that there would not be any thinning and the prescribed fire will be conducted once under this one. The effects of not thinning are the opposite of those described in the Proposed Action. The prescribed fire will improve the sanitation as described above, but it will not help to create the "park like" conditions.

The stand will maintain its closed canopy and dense understory limiting the visitors ability to access the majority of the stand and limit their sight distance.

Under this Alternative, the location of the helispot will facilitate the removal for those injured along the bluffs closer to the highway. This site will involve less vegetative clearing and maintenance as the actual highway will be an integral part of the helispot and therefore little or no vegetation will have to be removed or cut. The presence of the highway will also preclude people from setting up camps in the helispot.

Cumulative Effects
None of the action alternatives will contribute towards any significant cumulative effects since: (1) all vegetative impacts from the action alternatives are expected to be short lived. (2) In each alternative there are steps taken to reduce the adverse environmental impacts. In the short term, the no action alternative will contribute zero impacts to significant cumulative effects. Since nothing is planned for the area.
Wildlife
Given the habitat located in the project area, the applicable Management Indicator Species (MIS) would be deer, turkey, and squirrel. The effect on any of these species is negligible given the magnitude of the project and corresponding changes in habitat conditions. As such, there will not be any impact on the Forest's population for any of them.
A Biological Evaluation (BE) has been completed and the determination reached was that the actions would not adversely affect any of the Threatened or Endangered species and not impact any of the Sensitive species. The reason for this determination is the type of habitat present and the magnitude of the project and corresponding changes in habitat conditions.
Cultural Resources
A cultural survey has been conducted and a report was sent to the State Historical Preservation Office, which concurred that all sites found needing protection will be painted to insure avoidance. The cumulative effects from any alternative selected would be minimum on these sites.

IV. LIST OF PREPARERS

Jimmie Dixon --	District Timber Management Assistant
Terry Hope --	District Resource Assistant
Rick Metzger --	Deputy District Ranger
Jan Self --	District Wildlife Biologist

Appendix B

(Responses to Comments)

The Forest Service received only 11 responses to the pre-decisional. The need for the project was recognized with some negative and positive reactions to particular portions of the proposed actions. Favorable comments received involved the parking areas, closing the south access road due to the erosion, development of primitive campsites, a walk-in area and toilets. During the comment period a special recreation event (shoe demo) was held at Sam's Throne. At this event Terry Hope met with approximately 100 people and presented the proposed action and alternatives. The responses received after the presentation were consistence with the following comments:

1) Some individuals were concerned that thinning; destroys beauty, is unnatural, detracts from the wilderness experience, and reduces the natural separation of campsites.

Response: The EA considered the visual impacts and distance between campsites, the Forest Service has an illustration of what the visuals are expected to look like (see appendix A, pages A-7-9). The EA also, has two alternatives with no thinning proposed (Alternative A and Alternative B).

2) Thinning pine stand okay if done correctly, forest with closely growing trees may look appealing to the climber, hiker, and camper it is ultimately not healthy for the forest ecosystem.

Response: The EA addresses the concern of the density of the pine stand in the proposed action by proposing thinning.

3) The pine stand is not overstocked. Therefore no need to thin. Your EA documentation is in error when it says that the pine stand is too thick to walk through easily. I walked through the area in question and it was not difficult at all.

Response: The stand information collected from field inventory shows the current condition of the stand being overstocked for best growing conditions (See page 7, Vegetation, Current condition). The process file shows the average basal area of 131 sq ft. per acre vs. the suggested basal area of 80 sq. ft. per area, this is over 60 percent higher than the best growing conditions desired. Also, the EA states "understory is very thick and in many places hard to walk or see through when the leaves are present during the growing season", apparently we have a difference of opinion or maybe you walked through some of the easier areas.

4) Sam's Throne is a Special Interest Area, logging and road building is not allowed.

Response: We realize this; unfortunately the pre-decisional EA failed to mention this as a non-significant amendment to the forest plan. The revised EA notes this on pages 1 and 2 with the responsible official being the Forest Supervisor, Charles Richmond.

5) Prescribed burns on the top of the ridge prior to and after the development of the campsites is a good idea as long as it is done correctly. Fire is a natural cycle in the forest and leads to a healthy forest.

Response: All prescribed burns adhered to a Prescribe Burn Plan which considers smoke impacts, fuel moisture, amount of fuel, weather conditions etc.

6) The stands do not need burned. The EA says that the area is too thick to walk through easily. If you are concerned about thick undergrowth then the last thing you need to do is burn it to reduce woody vegetation. This will only foster thicker undergrowth.

Response: The primary reason proposed for the first burn was for sanitation and secondly to reduced understory species allowing better access to the stand. Additional prescribed burns would be needed to maintain the understory, or what you suggest is true about the understory becoming thicker. Proposed Action allows for a 3-5 year burn interval and Alternative B proposes the one time burn for sanitation purposes only. The revised EA has clarified the need for multiple burns to control the understory species.

7) The Forest Service received a mixture of comments on improving the lower road for emergency access. Some questioned if it was necessary while others totally supported the improvement.

Response: The Forest Service believes that some improvements are needed and necessary to allow for the transport of the victim by ATV, allowing for faster delivery to the State highway and the ambulance. This access road will be gated and locked to discourage unauthorized use. Currently the lower road is not blocked and receives little four-wheeler use due to the present condition (See page 10 of EA).

8) Campsite development should be kept to minimum including removal of trees within the sites.

Response: That is our desire too. Even though the typical shows 50 and 150 feet perimeter for the campsites, we don't plan on disturbing any more than is needed.

9) I did not see a proposal for a potable water source.

Response: You are correct, neither the proposal nor any alternative included a potable water source. The general idea was to accommodate the existing use not promote or encourage additional use. Developing a potable water source is outside of the current scope of this project.

10) A number of comments were received against having fees estimated believing that tax dollars should be enough to cover development with the help of volunteers. There were concerns that users should be responsible for maintaining the area and if paying fees, some users will feel less responsible to employ the best possible use ethic.

Response: We understand the feelings individuals have toward establishing Sam's Throne as a fee area. This is an administrative decision outside of the actual scope of the project. The EA informs you of plans on how we intend to provide maintenance.

11) Numerous comments were received on the development of the helispot between the main ridge and the throne. Their concerns involved location, visuals (an intrusion), and an incentive for irresponsible climbers to push their luck if medical help is more readily available, and have there been enough injuries to justify installing a helispot?

Response: We have received numerous verbal reports and have enough documented injuries to justify the helispot (spinal injuries and even deaths). In addition to receiving requests from the medical personal to established a helispot and better access. Also, we have alternative B that establishes the helispot on the highway with little disturbance, if any, to the area along the new highway construction

designed, built & maintained by monkeyhead
information posted here courtesy of the ranger staff of the Ozark National Forest Buffalo Ranger District
Last time I got ambitious: February 19, 2004


Acting as a conduit for communication between the ranger staff of the Ozark National Forest Service in Arkansas, and the rock climbing and camping community using the Sams Throne special interest area. Why?
Decision Notice \| Maps \| Forums \| Submit Your Thoughts \| Directions \| Links