Ozark National Scenic Riverways

Missouri

Final General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact Statement 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

Texas, Dent, Shannon, and Carter Counties, Missouri 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways was created through congressional legislation on August 24, 1964 

(by Public Law 88-492) to conserve and interpret the scenic, natural, scientific, ecological, and 

historic values and resources within the National Riverways, and to provide for public outdoor 

recreational use and enjoyment of those resources. The National Riverways include portions of the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers, providing 134 miles of clear, free-flowing, spring-fed waterways. The 

impressive hydrogeologic character of the National Riverways’ karst landscape supports an amazing 

variety of natural features, including a spring system unparalleled in North America. The cave system 

is equally impressive with one of the highest densities of caves in any national park. 

The National Riverways lie within the Ozark Highlands, an important center of biodiversity in North 

America. The Ozark Highland is home to a rich array of wildlife and plants, including endemic 

species that exist nowhere else in the world. These two rivers have been designated as Outstanding 

National Resource Waters in Missouri. The National Riverways also feature archeological and 

historic structures, landscapes, and objects, reflecting ancient life in the Ozark Highlands. The 

extraordinary resources of the National Riverways provide outstanding recreational opportunities 

and experiences on and along free-flowing rivers.

The National Riverways are managed by the National Park Service (NPS). The adjacent state and 

federal lands are managed by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Missouri Department 

of Conservation, and the U.S. Forest Service. This final general management plan is needed because 

the last comprehensive planning effort for the National Riverways was completed in 1984. Much has 

occurred since then: patterns and types of visitor use have changed, as well as understanding of 

resources and resource threats within the National Riverways. Each of these changes affects how 

visitors access and use the park unit and associated facilities, resources are managed, and the 

National Park Service conducts its operations. The approved general management plan will provide 

comprehensive guidance for perpetuating natural systems, preserving cultural resources, and 

providing opportunities for quality visitor experiences at Ozark National Scenic Riverways for the 

next 15 or 20 years. This document examines the impacts of implementing one no-action and three 

action alternatives for managing the National Riverways. The no-action alternative would continue 

current management and provides a basis for determining the impacts of the other alternatives. The 

three action alternatives (alternative A, alternative B [NPS preferred], and alternative C) present a 

spectrum of visitor opportunities, visitor facilities, and natural and historic enhancements. 

The document also includes a wilderness study for the Big Spring Area of the National Riverways. A 

study is required by the Wilderness Act of 1964, Secretarial Order 2920, and NPS Management 

Policies 2006. They stipulate that the National Park Service must study roadless and undeveloped 

areas within the national park system, including new areas or expanded boundaries, to determine 

whether they should be recommended for designation as wilderness. 

The completion and approval of the general management plan is the culmination of a great deal of 

time, energy, and input from members of the public, other agencies, and the National Park Service. 

The National Park Service values the public’s interest in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways and we 

look forward to implementing this plan with your support and collaboration. 

United States Department of the Interior ● National Park Service 
This page is intentionally left blank
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN

Ozark National Scenic Riverways (the 

Riverways, National Riverways, or the park 

unit) was established as a unit of the 

national park system by the U.S. Congress 

in 1964. The first general management plan 

for the National Riverways was completed 

in 1984, and this plan served the park unit

well for many years. However, the 1984 

plan is outdated and the Riverways is now 

facing an increasing array of issues that 

require guidance through an updated,

approved general management plan. A new 

plan is needed for the following reasons:

 Confirm the purpose, significance, 

and special mandates of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways.

 Clearly define resource conditions 

and visitor experiences to be 

achieved at Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways.

 Provide a framework for National 

Park Service (NPS) managers to use 

when making decisions about how 

to best protect the Riverways’

resources, provide a diverse range 

of visitor experience opportunities, 

and manage visitor use, and what 

kinds of facilities, if any, to develop 

in the National Riverways.

 Ensure that this framework for 

decision making has been 

developed in consultation with 

interested stakeholders and 

adopted by NPS leadership after 

adequate analysis of the benefits, 

impacts, and economic costs of 

alternative courses of action.

THE ALTERNATIVES

This Ozark National Scenic Riverways Final

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement

(general management plan) presents four 

alternatives for the future management of 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Based 

on the purpose and significance of the 

Riverways, the alternatives provide 

different ways to manage resources and 

visitor use and improve facilities and 

infrastructure.

The four alternatives are the no-action 

alternative (continuation of current 

management) and three action alternatives, 

designated alternative A, alternative B

(NPS preferred), and alternative C. The 

action alternatives include management 

zones, which only apply to land areas for 

which the National Park Service has fee 

title land ownership. Management zones 

do not apply to private lands within park 

boundaries, including private lands with 

overlaying scenic or conservation 

easements.

Additional actions and alternatives were 

considered and dismissed from further 

analysis. Dismissed actions and the 

supporting rationale are included in 

“Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative.”

No-action Alternative

The no-action alternative describes how 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways has been 

and would continue to be managed 

without the implementation of an action 

alternative. It reflects current resource 

conditions and trends, existing recreational 

opportunities, types of development, and 

levels of service. The no-action alternative 

also describes ongoing management issues, 

such as resource degradation and visitor 

conflicts. The primary purpose of the noaction alternative is to establish a baseline 

for determining the impacts of the action

alternatives.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ii

The no-action alternative is a description 

of current management conditions rather 

than a reiteration of existing planning 

documents for the National Riverways. 

The 1984 general management plan, 1989 

river use management plan, and 1992 

statement for management all provide a 

basis for understanding the current 

management approach.

Under the no-action alternative, the 

National Park Service would continue to 

maintain the Big Spring tract’s primitive, 

natural character to maintain its wilderness 

eligibility.

Alternative A

Under alternative A, management would 

focus on creating visitor experiences and 

providing resource conditions that help 

visitors better understand the riverways of 

the past, including traditional river 

recreation activities reminiscent of those 

that occurred when the National 

Riverways were established. Management 

would emphasize greater opportunities for 

traditional, nonmechanized forms of 

recreation and visitor experiences that are 

quieter, less crowded, and slower paced. 

Management would also focus on

protecting natural resources and systems.

Under this alternative, most of the Big 

Spring Wilderness Study Area would be 

recommended for wilderness designation.

Management would strive to provide more 

secluded visitor experiences and more

awareness of, and opportunities for,

historical cultural connections. Emphasis 

would be placed on restoring natural

resources to more natural conditions and 

limiting development. Visitor services and 

facilities would be retained only to provide 

access for specific recreational activities

and administrative activities. For example, 

roads and trails that have been illegally

developed would be closed and 

rehabilitated with native vegetation. Some 

commercial services may be limited to 

achieve desired resource and visitor 

experience conditions.

This alternative would provide a 

comprehensive Riverways-wide approach 

to resource and visitor use management. 

Specific management zones detailing 

acceptable resource conditions, visitor 

experience and use levels, and appropriate 

activities and development would be 

applied to National Riverways lands 

consistent with this concept.

Alternative B (NPS Preferred)

Under this alternative, management would 

enhance opportunities for visitors to 

discover and learn about the natural 

wonders and Ozark heritage of the 

National Riverways, while maintaining a 

mix of traditional recreational and 

commercial activities. Emphasis would be 

placed on increasing opportunities for 

visitor education and connections to 

natural resources and cultural landscapes.

This alternative would focus on providing 

a balance of diverse recreational 

opportunities and visitor experiences along 

with increasing visitor education and 

appreciation of natural and cultural 

resources of the park unit. For example, a 

mix of private and guided traditional 

recreational activities like boating, floating, 

and horseback riding would occur under 

this alternative. Additional trails and a 

small learning center at a rehabilitated 

Powder Mill would be developed to better 

orient and inform visitors. Natural 

resources would be restored to more 

natural conditions, while maintaining 

greater opportunities for visitor access 

than under alternative A. Most of the Big 

Spring Wilderness Study Area would be 

recommended for wilderness designation.

Elements of this alternative would support 

the resilience of the Riverways to expected 

impacts from climate change, such as

warmer temperatures, an extended fire 
Executive Summary

iii

season, and changes to water flow regimes, 

all of which may affect cultural and natural 

resources and visitor experience at the 

Riverways. Some of the strategies for 

climate change adaptation and 

sustainability in the preferred alternative 

include restoring key ecosystem features 

and processes, protecting cultural 

resources to increase their resilience to 

climate change, and providing additional 

opportunities for nonmotorized recreation

during the peak use season. 

This alternative would provide a 

comprehensive Riverways-wide approach 

to resource and visitor use management. 

Specific management zones detailing 

acceptable resource conditions, visitor 

experience and use levels, and appropriate 

activities and development would be 

applied to Riverways lands consistent with 

this concept.

Alternative C

Under alternative C, management would

primarily seek to provide a diversity of 

outdoor recreational opportunities and 

experiences while maintaining the highly 

scenic natural setting and cultural 

resources. The National Riverways would 

be managed to support higher levels and 

diverse types of recreational opportunities, 

with a focus on more intensive 

management to ensure that excessive 

impacts on resources or public safety

would not occur. In addition, land-based 

recreational opportunities would be 

increased.

Visitors would experience higher levels of

social interaction with other visitors, 

especially during the peak season, which is 

generally defined as March 15 through 

Labor Day. Additional facilities such as 

campgrounds and trails would be 

developed to accommodate increased

levels and different types of visitor use.

To support these recreational conditions, 

there would be a higher tolerance for 

resource impacts on more heavily used 

areas. Monitoring efforts would be 

emphasized to track natural resource 

conditions so unacceptable impacts from 

recreational activities did not occur. 

Interpretive and education programs 

would focus on expanding visitor 

connection with natural and cultural 

resources while improving their knowledge 

of low-impact recreational uses. The goal 

of such programs would be to encourage 

resource stewardship. Under this 

alternative, approximately half of the Big 

Spring Wilderness Study Area would be 

recommended for wilderness designation.

This alternative would provide a 

comprehensive Riverways-wide approach 

to resource and visitor use management. 

Specific management zones detailing 

acceptable resource conditions, visitor 

experience and use levels, and appropriate 

activities and development would be 

applied to Riverways lands consistent with 

this concept.

NEXT STEPS

Following distribution of the final general 

management plan and a 30-day no-action 

period, a record of decision approving a 

final plan will be prepared for signature by 

the NPS regional director. The record of 

decision documents the NPS selection of 

an alternative for implementation. The 

plan will then be implemented, depending 

on funding and staffing. A record of 

decision does not guarantee funds and staff 

for implementing the approved plan.
This page is intentionally left blank
v

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I

GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT XV

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

INTRODUCTION 3

Background on Plan Development 3

Brief Description of the Park 4

Brief Description of Wilderness Study 5

Establishment of Ozark National Scenic Riverways 7

Purpose of the Plan 8

Need for the Plan 8

Purpose of and Need for the Wilderness Study 9

The Next Steps in the Planning Process 10

Implementation of the Plan 10

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 12

Park Purpose 12

Park Significance 12

Fundamental Resources and Values 13

Primary Interpretive Themes 14

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 16

Servicewide Laws and Policies 19

Implementation of Law and Policy Guidance 22

RELATIONSHIP OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN TO OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS 23

Management Plans and Studies of the National Park Service 23

County and Regional Plans 24

Planning Issues and Opportunities 24

IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACT TOPICS 29

Impact Topics Considered, but not Analyzed in Detail 29

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 35

INTRODUCTION 37

Relationship of Management Zones and Alternatives 37

Development of the Alternatives 38

Identification of the National Park Service Preferred Alternative 40

Potential Boundary Adjustments 43

MANAGEMENT ZONES 45

Descriptions of Management Zones 45

Management Zone Comparison 47

Horsepower Limits 51

Recreation Opportunities 51

Land Acreage and River Mile Comparisons by Alternatives 54

THE ALTERNATIVES 58

Organization of Alternatives 58

Alternative Concepts 58

THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE CONTINUATION OF CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 60

Zoning 60

Visitor Experiences and Activities 60
CONTENTS

Contents (continued)

vi

Visitor Services and Facilities 61

Interpretation and Education 62

Natural Resource Management 62

Cultural Resource Management 62

Wilderness 63

Park Operations 63

Partnerships 63

ALTERNATIVE A 67

Zoning 67

Visitor Experiences and Activities 67

Visitor Services and Facilities 68

Interpretation and Education 69

Natural Resource Management 69

Cultural Resource Management 69

Wilderness 70

Park Operations 70

Partnerships 70

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED) 73

Zoning 73

Visitor Experiences and Activities 73

Visitor Services and Facilities 75

Interpretation and Education 75

Natural Resource Management 76

Cultural Resource Management 76

Wilderness 77

Park Operations 77

Partnerships 78

ALTERNATIVE C 81

Zoning 81

Visitor Experiences and Activities 81

Visitor Services and Facilities 82

Interpretation and Education 83

Natural Resource Management 83

Cultural Resource Management 83

Wilderness 84

Park Operations 84

Partnerships 84

MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES 89

Natural Resources 89

Cultural Resources 94

Visitor Safety and Experience 96

Hazardous Materials 96

Scenic Resources 96

Socioeconomic Environment 96

Sustainable Design and Aesthetics 97

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT AND VISITOR CAPACITY 98

Visitor Experience Indicators and Standards 99

Resource Indicators and Standards 108

Long-term Monitoring 110
Contents

Contents (continued)

vii

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE 112

Climate Change and Ozark National Scenic Riverways 112

Strategy 113

Management Approach 114

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 115

Introduction 115

STAFFING AND COST ESTIMATES 118

Staffing 119

Climate Change 123

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 125

CONSISTENCY OF THE ALTERNATIVES WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT SECTION 

101(B) 126

Criterion 1: Fulfill the Responsibilities of Each Generation as Trustee of the Environment for 

Succeeding Generations 126

Criterion 2: Assure for All Americans Safe, Healthful, Productive, and Aesthetically and Culturally 

Pleasing Surroundings 127

Criterion 3: Attain the Widest Range of Beneficial Uses of the Environment without Degradation, 

Risk to Health or Safety, or other Undesirable and Unintended Consequences 127

Criterion 4: Preserve Important Historic, Cultural, and Natural Aspects of Our National Heritage; 

and Maintain, wherever Possible, an Environment which Supports Diversity and a 

Variety of Individual Choices 127

Criterion 5: Achieve a Balance between Population and Resource Use Which Would Permit High 

Standards of Living and a Wide Sharing of Life’s Amenities 128

Criterion 6: Enhance the Quality of Renewable Resources and Approach the Maximum Attainable 

Recycling of Depletable Resources 128

Conclusion 128

ALTERNATIVE AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 129

Alternative Dismissed 129

SUMMARY OF KEY DIFFERENCES AMONG THE ALTERNATIVES AND SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF 

THE ALTERNATIVES 130

CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS STUDY 139

INTRODUCTION 141

Wilderness Definition 141

Description of the Study Area 142

WILDERNESS STUDY 146

Wilderness Eligibility 146

Wilderness Study 146

Public Involvement Regarding Big Spring Wilderness 152

Wilderness Proposal 156

Wilderness Study Review Process 156

IMPLICATIONS OF MANAGING LANDS PROPOSED FOR WILDERNESS 157

Planning and Management 157

Private Rights 157

Recreational Use 157

Emergency Services 157

Resource Management and Research 157

Conclusion 158
CONTENTS

Contents (continued)

viii

CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 159

INTRODUCTION 161

In General 161

Climate Change 161

NATURAL RESOURCES 164

Physiography 164

Climate 164

Geologic Resources and Soils 164

Water Resources 166

Vegetation 171

Fish and Wildlife 174

Natural Soundscape 181

CULTURAL RESOURCES 187

Historic Overview 187

Archeological Resources 195

Historic Buildings, Structures, and Cultural Landscapes 198

Ethnographic Resources 202

Museum Collections 205

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 207

Visitor Use Trends 207

Visitor Characteristics, Perceptions, and Opinions 208

Ability to Access the National Riverways 209

River-based Recreational Opportunities and Experiences 210

Land-based Recreational Opportunities and Experiences 212

Opportunities to Understand the Significant Stories 216

Visitor Safety 217

PARK OPERATIONS 219

Park Organization 219

Staffing 219

Park Operations 219

Park Facilities and Infrastructure 221

Volunteers and Partners 223

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 225

Description of Socioeconomic Study Area 225

Demographics 226

Economic Characteristics 229

Economic Contribution of Visitation to the Local Economy 233

Fiscal Conditions 234

Housing 236

Highway Traffic and Local Transportation Corridors 237

Law Enforcement 238
Contents

Contents (continued)

ix

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 239

INTRODUCTION 241

Overview 241

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 242

Cumulative Impacts 243

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES AND SOILS 246

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 246

No-action Alternative 246

Alternative A 248

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 251

Alternative C 254

WATER RESOURCES 257

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 257

No-action Alternative 257

Alternative A 260

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 263

Alternative C 266

VEGETATION 269

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 269

No-action Alternative 269

Alternative A 271

Alternative B (NPS PreferreD) 273

Alternative C 277

FISH AND WILDLIFE 280

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 280

No-action Alternative 282

Alternative A 287

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 292

Alternative C 298

NATURAL SOUNDSCAPES 304

Introduction 304

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 304

No-action Alternative 304

Alternative A 307

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 308

Alternative C 310

CULTURAL RESOURCES 313

Introduction 313

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Impacts to Cultural Resources 313

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 314

Archeological Resources: Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 314

No-action Alternative 315

Alternative A 316

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 317

Alternative C 318

Historic Buildings, Structures, and Cultural Landscapes: Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing 

Impacts 319

No-action Alternative 320

Alternative A 322

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 324
CONTENTS

Contents (continued)

x

Alternative C 326

Ethnographic Resources: Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 328

No-action Alternative 328

Alternative A 330

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 331

Alternative C 332

Museum Collections: Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 333

No-action Alternative 333

Alternative A 334

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 334

Alternative C 335

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 336

Introduction 336

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 336

No-action Alternative 338

Alternative A 341

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 345

Alternative C 351

PARK OPERATIONS 358

Introduction 358

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 358

No-action Alternative 359

Alternative A 362

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 364

Alternative C 367

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 371

Introduction 371

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 371

No-action Alternative 371

Alternative A 374

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 376

Alternative C 378

CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 381

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 383

Public Scoping Meetings 383

Newsletters 383

Workshop 384

Public Meetings Following Release of the Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Staement 384

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES, OFFICES, AND TRIBES 385

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Section 7 Consultation 385

Section 106 Consultation 386

Consultation with American Indian Tribes 387

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 389

Federal Agencies 389

U.S. Senators and Representatives 389

Missouri State Agencies 389

State Officials 389

American Indian Tribes 389
Contents

Contents (continued)

xi

Local and Regional Government Agencies 389

Organizations and Businesses 389

Newspapers and Magazines 390

Radio and Television Stations 390

Individuals 390

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS DRAFT GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 391

Introduction 391

Methodology 391

Guide to this Report 392

CONTENT ANALYSIS REPORT 394

CONCERN RESPONSE REPORT 398

Alternatives 398

Recreational Opportunity and Experience 400

Park Resources 422

Park Operations 432

Wilderness 437

Local Communities/Economies 440

General Comments 443

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 451

APPENDIX A: SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC 

RIVERWAYS 453

APPENDIX B: ENABLING LEGISLATION 475

APPENDIX C: PARK REGULATIONS 489

APPENDIX D: MANAGEMENT ZONES OVERVIEW TABLES 493

APPENDIX E: CONSULTATION LETTERS 501

APPENDIX F: FEDERALLY AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES 593

REFERENCES 601

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 611

Preparers 611

Consultants 612

INDEX 615
CONTENTS

Contents (continued)

xii

FIGURES

Figure 1. Proportion of Management Zones for All Federally Owned National Riverways 

Lands under Alternative A 55

Figure 2. Proportion of Management Zones for All National Riverways Waters Under 

Alternative A 55

Figure 3. Proportion of Management Zones for All Federally Owned National Riverways Lands 

Under Alternative B 56

Figure 4. Proportion of Management Zones for All National Riverways Waters Under 

Alternative B 56

Figure 5. Proportion of Management Zones for All Federally Owned National Riverways Lands 

Under Alternative C 57

Figure 6. Proportion of Management Zones for All National Riverways Waters Under 

Alternative C 57

Figure 7. Visitor Use Management Framework 100

Figure 8. Barn and NPS Training Range 145

Figure 9. Fire Tower 145

Figure 10. Annual Recreation Visits, 1979–2009 207

Figure 11. Monthly Recreation Visits, 2005–2009 208

Figure 12. Motorboater Preferences about Inter-group Encounter Numbers 213

Figure 13. Nonmotorized Watercraft User Preferences about Inter-group Encounter Numbers 213

Figure 14. Dominant Informal Trail Use Types 215

Figure 15. Percentage of Ozark National Scenic Riverways Violations 2005 through 2010 218

Figure 16. Population Trends for Carter and Shannon Counties 227

Figure 17. 2001 to 2010 Real Per Capita Personal Income 232

Figure 18. 2000 to 2011 Unemployment Rates in Carter County, Shannon County, State of Missouri, 

and United States 235

Figure 19. Sales Tax Disbursements from the State to Local Governments from 2005 to 2009 236
Contents

Contents (continued)

xiii

TABLES

Table 1. Impact Topics 30

Table 2. Ozark National Scenic Riverways Land-based Management Zones 49

Table 3. Ozark National Scenic Riverways River-based Management Zones (includes rivers up to the 

ordinary high-water mark) 50

Table 4. Motorboat Horsepower (hp) Limits by Alternative 52

Table 5. Recreation Activities by Management Zone 53

Table 6. Federally Owned Acres within Each Land-based Management Zone for Each Action 

Alternative 54

Table 7. River Miles within Each River-based Management Zone for Each Action Alternative 54

Table 8. Visitor Use Indicators and Standards 105

Table 9. Cost Estimates and Staffing for Full Implementation of the Action Alternatives 120

Table 10. Estimated Staffing Levels (FTEs) to Implement the Alternatives 120

Table 11. Estimated Deferred Maintenance Addressed by One-time Facility Costs 122

Table 12. Estimated One-time Facility Costs to Implement the Alternatives 122

Table 13. Summary of Key Differences Among the Alternatives 131

Table 14. Summary of the Impacts of the Alternatives 138

Table 15. Wilderness Alternatives Summary 151

Table 16. Rare Natural Communities 174

Table 17. Federally and State-listed Species Known to Be Present within Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways 178

Table 18. Examples of Sound Levels 182

Table 19. Natural and Existing Ambient Sound Levels for Ozark National Scenic Riverways 184

Table 20. Nonmotorized watercraft Launch Locations and Frequency during the May–August Peak 

Season 210

Table 21. Per Hour Maximum by Monitoring Site and Activity 212

Table 22. Activities at the National Riverways 212

Table 23. Informal Horse Trail Extents by Condition Class 214

Table 24. Six-year Annual Average for the National Riverways Violations 2005 through 2010 218

Table 25. Riverways Facility-related Assets 222

Table 26. 2007 Land Cover/Use in the State of Missouri and Study Area 226

Table 27. Projected Populations in the State of Missouri and Study Area: 2020 and 2030 228

Table 28. 2010 Racial and Ethnic Composition of the Various Geographies 228

Table 29. Age Characteristics for the United States, Missouri, Study Area, and Eminence 229

Table 30. Carter County, Shannon County, and State of Missouri Employment 230

Table 31. 2008 Employment and Earnings by Industry in the Study Area 231

Table 32. 2008 Average Earnings by Industry in the Study Area 232

Table 33. 2009 Poverty Rates in the United States, State of Missouri, Carter County, Shannon 

County, and Eminence, Missouri 233

Table 34. Taxes Dispersed from the State to Local Governments, 2009 235

Table 35. 2009 Housing Value Ranges and Median Housing Value for United States, Missouri, 

Carter County, Shannon County, and Eminence 236

Table 36. Housing Stock: United States, State of Missouri, Carter County, Shannon County, and 

Eminence, Missouri 237

Table 37. Correspondence Distribution by Code 394

Table 38. Correspondence Distribution by Type 395

Table 39. Correspondences by Organization Type 395

Table 40. Correspondence Distribution by State 396
CONTENTS

Contents (continued)

xiv

MAPS

Ozark National Scenic Riverways Overview Map 6

Ozark National Scenic Riverways Scenic Easements Map 17

No-action Alternative Map 65

Alternative A Map 71

Alternative B. Preferred Alternative Map 79

Alternative C Map 87

River Sections Map 107

Wilderness Study Area Map 144

Big Spring Pines Fire Tower Viewshed Map 149

Alternative A Proposed Wilderness Map 153

Alternative B Proposed Wilderness Map 154

Alternative C Proposed Wilderness Map 155

Acoustic Monitoring Sites Map 186
xv

GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT

This Ozark National Scenic Riverways Final

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement is 

organized in accordance with the Council 

on Environmental Quality’s implementing 

regulations for the National Environmental 

Policy Act, the NPS Director’s Order 12:

Conservation Planning, Environmental 

Impact Analysis, and Decision-making, and 

the NPS General Management Planning 

Dynamic Sourcebook.

Chapter 1: Introduction sets the 

framework for the document. It describes 

why the plan is being prepared and what 

needs it addresses based on the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways’ legislated 

mission, its purpose, the significance of its 

resources, special mandates and 

administrative commitments, servicewide 

mandates and policies, and other planning 

efforts in the area. 

The chapter also details the planning 

opportunities and issues that were raised 

during public scoping meetings and initial 

planning team efforts. The alternatives 

developed and presented in the next 

chapter address these issues and concerns 

to varying degrees. This chapter concludes 

with a statement of the scope of the 

environmental impact analysis, including 

what impact topics were retained or 

dismissed from detailed analysis and why.

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative begins with an 

explanation of how the alternatives were 

formulated and how the preferred 

alternative was identified. A comparison of 

costs for implementing the alternatives is 

included. The four alternatives (including 

continuation of current management) are 

then presented. Mitigation measures to 

minimize or eliminate the impacts of some 

proposed actions are described just before 

the discussion of future studies and/or 

implementation plans that would be 

needed. The evaluation of the 

environmentally preferable alternative is 

followed by summary tables of the 

environmental consequences of 

implementing the alternative actions.

Chapter 3: Wilderness Study begins with 

an explanation of how the study was 

completed and a description and map of 

the study area. This section explains the 

wilderness eligibility process and how this 

relates to areas of the National Riverways. 

Public comments regarding wilderness 

designation are summarized in this 

chapter. A comparison of alternatives 

analyzed for the wilderness study is then 

presented. The wilderness proposal 

process is explained as well as how 

managing for wilderness may affect

planning and management of services, 

resources, and uses of the wilderness area.

Chapter 4: Affected Environment

describes those areas and resources that 

would be affected by implementing actions 

in the various alternatives. Included are 

natural resources, cultural resources, 

visitor use and experience, soundscapes, 

park operations, and the socioeconomic 

environment.

Chapter 5: Environmental 

Consequences analyzes the impacts of 

implementing the alternatives on topics 

described in “Chapter 4: Affected 

Environment.” Methods that were used for 

assessing the impacts in terms of the 

locality, intensity, type, and duration of 

impacts are outlined at the beginning of the 

chapter.
GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT

xvi

Chapter 6: Consultation and 

Coordination describes the history of 

public and agency coordination during the 

planning effort and any future compliance 

requirements. It also lists agencies and 

organizations that will be receiving copies 

of the document, and NPS responses to 

comments received on the draft plan.

Appendixes, References, Preparers and 

Consultants presents supporting 

information for the document.

This page is intentionally left blank
3

INTRODUCTION

Planning for Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways (the Riverways, National 

Riverways, or the park unit) is a decisionmaking process, and general management 

planning is the first and broadest level of 

decision making for national park system 

units. General management plans are 

intended to establish the future 

management direction of a park. General 

management planning focuses on why the 

park unit was established (purpose), why it 

is special (its significance and its 

fundamental resources and values), and 

what resource conditions and visitor 

experiences should be achieved and 

maintained (desired future conditions).

General management plans are intended to 

be long-term documents that look years 

into the future to establish a management 

philosophy and framework for decision

making and problem solving in units of the 

national park system. General management 

plans usually provide guidance for 

approximately 20 years. The plan does not 

provide specific, detailed answers to every 

issue facing the National Riverways, but 

rather is a framework to assist National 

Park Service (NPS) managers in making 

decisions today and in the future.

Actions directed by general management 

plans or in subsequent implementation 

plans are accomplished over time. 

Although a general management plan 

provides the analysis and justification for 

future funding, the plan in no way 

guarantees that money will be forthcoming. 

Budget restrictions, requirements for 

additional data or regulatory compliance, 

and competing national park system 

priorities prevent immediate 

implementation of many actions.

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways Final 

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement

was developed by an interdisciplinary team 

in consultation with NPS offices; tribes;

federal, state, and local agencies; 

organizations; and other interested parties. 

Preparation also included substantial input 

and participation from the general public.

This plan presents and analyzes four 

alternative future directions for the 

management and use of Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways. The potential 

environmental impacts of the alternatives 

have been identified and assessed.

BACKGROUND ON PLAN 

DEVELOPMENT

Developing a vision for the park’s future 

(and identifying the management direction 

that would help create that future) is the 

primary role of the general management 

plan. However, before a particular vision is 

decided upon, several possible visions and 

management directions are developed and 

analyzed. These different possibilities are 

called alternatives. Each alternative 

includes a variety of potential strategies 

that fit together in a unified management 

direction. The development of alternatives 

included a wide range of input from the 

public, NPS staff, and other agencies.

Evaluating alternatives enables planners 

and the public to compare and contrast the 

advantages and disadvantages of one 

course of action over another. Such 

comparison is a requirement of the 

National Environmental Policy Act and is 

at the core of the NPS general management 

plan process. In order to organize 

information and formulate alternatives 

appropriate for the entire area included in 

the National Riverways, extensive 

consultation was sought with other 

agencies, tribes, offices, and the general 

public.
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

4

Management Zones

The development of management zones is 

an important tool used by planners in the 

general management planning process. 

These zones tell how areas of the National 

Riverways would be managed in the future. 

Management zones describe desired 

conditions for the National Riverways’

cultural and natural resources and for 

visitor experiences. The conditions are 

different in each zone and are intended to 

represent the widest possible range of 

conditions that would be appropriate to 

the National Riverways’ purpose and 

significance.

Seven management zones were developed 

for the National Riverways, based on ideas 

from public comments and from the park’s

staff. For Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways, zones would only be applied to 

the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers and

those land areas for which the National 

Park Service has fee title ownership. Lands 

with timber or scenic easements and 

private lands within the Riverways’

boundary are not zoned. There are no 

proposed management zones for the noaction alternative, since that alternative 

projects current, on-the-ground 

management conditions into the future.

Exploration of Alternatives

This general management plan presents a 

no-action alternative and three action 

alternatives for future management for 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The noaction alternative describes continuation of 

current park management practices and 

provides a baseline for comparison of the 

three action alternatives. 

For each action alternative, which are 

designated A, B, and C, a set of maps has 

been prepared showing the application of 

management zones based on the 

alternative concepts. For example, the 

Riverways could be managed under a 

concept emphasizing high recreational 

activity and visitor interaction, a concept 

emphasizing primitive natural resource 

values, or a concept emphasizing remote 

recreation and visitor solitude. While these 

concepts would overlap in some ways, 

these different emphases would require 

various areas of the Riverways to be 

managed differently. These kinds of 

differences between the concepts of the

alternative can be seen on the maps 

presented in “Chapter 2: Alternatives, 

Including the Preferred Alternative.”

Public comments on the alternatives

during the scoping period helped the 

National Park Service refine the 

alternatives and management zones. Those 

alternatives are presented in this Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways Final General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK

Ozark National Scenic Riverways was 

established by an Act of Congress in 1964 

(Public Law 88-492) to protect 134 miles of 

the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers in the 

Ozark Highlands of southeastern Missouri. 

As stated in the enabling legislation, the 

purpose of the National Riverways is:

... conserving and interpreting 

unique scenic and other natural 

values and objects of historic 

interest, including preservation of 

portions of the Current River and 

the Jacks Fork River in Missouri 

as free-flowing streams, 

preservation of springs and caves, 

management of wildlife, and 

provisions for use and enjoyment 

of the outdoor recreation 

resource thereof by the people of 

the United States ...

Appendix B provides the full text of the 

enabling legislation for Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways.
Introduction

5

The National Riverways are in southern 

Missouri, in Shannon, Carter, Dent, and 

Texas counties (see the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways Overview Map). Within 

its boundaries are approximately 80,785 

acres of river, forest, open field, and glade 

environments. Of that, 51,654 acres are 

federal and 29,131acres are in nonfederal

ownership.

The National Riverways’ headquarters is in 

Van Buren, Missouri, which is about 190 

driving miles south of St. Louis, Missouri

and 148 miles east of Springfield, Missouri. 

The free-flowing rivers of the National 

Riverways run through the Courtois Hills, 

which is one of the most rugged areas of 

the Missouri Ozarks.

The hills rise abruptly from the valley 

floors and narrow hollows that meander 

between the steep ridges. The landscape is 

predominantly rural, with dense deciduous 

forests and occasional open fields that are 

often the remnants of former farms.

Much of the area is underlain by soluble 

limestone and dolomite that has given rise 

to numerous sinkholes, caves, and springs 

representative of classical karst 

topography. Up to 90% of the combined 

flow of the Current River and Jacks Fork 

comes from the more than 400 springs in 

the drainage basin (Mugel et al. 2009). Big 

Spring, one of the largest springs in the 

United States, has an average flow of 

approximately 287 million gallons of water 

per day.

In addition to a wide diversity of fish, bird, 

and mammal species, the Riverways

contains hundreds of plant species ranging 

from rare wild orchids to abundant 

goldenrod and coneflowers. Some dry 

hilltops feature desert-like glades where 

collared lizards, tarantulas, cacti, and other 

species more typical of the Southwest may 

be found. Several areas in the park unit are

designated “Missouri Natural Areas,”

because of their unique scenic beauty or 

scientific value.

The Riverways also contains a broad range 

of cultural resources, including prehistoric 

sites associated with thousands of years of 

American Indian use and occupation of the 

area, and later 19th century structures and 

sites such as mills and farms that reflect the 

patterns of settlement and the economic 

activities of early European American 

pioneers. The Riverways also preserves

significant examples of buildings and

structures built by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps during the 1930s. 

Several of the Riverways’ historic 

properties are listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places.

The Current and Jacks Fork Rivers provide 

excellent recreational opportunities that 

include, but are not limited to, boating, 

canoeing, tubing, swimming, fishing, and 

sightseeing. Visitors also enjoy hiking, 

backpacking, hunting, and horseback 

riding.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF

WILDERNESS STUDY

The National Park Service is required to 

study the suitability of lands within the 

national park system for preservation as 

wilderness. Lands designated by Congress 

as wilderness are permanently set aside in a 

natural condition to provide outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation. A wilderness study 

evaluates if lands and waters in areas 

managed by the National Park Service are 

appropriate for designation as wilderness. 

The inclusion of a wilderness evaluation in 

the current planning effort is to fulfill the 

NPS commitment in the 1984 Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways General 

Management Plan to initiate a formal 

wilderness study should “conditions 

precluding legislative wilderness 

designation change in the future.” The 

study is supported by documented analysis 

in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the National 

Historic Preservation Act.

Introduction

7

ESTABLISHMENT OF OZARK 

NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS

Efforts to protect the scenic and 

recreational values of the area now 

included in Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways began in the latter 19th century. 

After the Civil War, large corporate lumber 

operations cleared much of the pine stands 

along the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers, 

which resulted in widespread 

environmental damage. Despite the 

adverse effects of the lumber operations, 

the area nevertheless became a popular 

recreation destination for sportsmen by the 

turn of the 20th century. Hunting and 

fishing clubs and cabin retreats provided 

recreational opportunities for wealthy 

urban businessmen, and floating the rivers 

on johnboats became a popular activity. 

The area’s scenic beauty received national 

attention following a float trip and visit to 

Alley Spring in 1909 by Missouri Governor 

Herbert S. Hadley. A private company later 

purchased the mill hamlet of Alley and 

promoted it as a “pleasure resort.”

By the 1920s, auto-touring became a 

popular recreational activity, and the 

demand for better roads in the Current 

River area prompted highway and bridge 

construction projects. To complement the 

road improvements, Missouri State Parks 

established Big Spring, Alley Spring, and 

Round Spring State Parks in 1924. The 

parks became popular destinations for 

motoring visitors. Site development 

projects and enhanced visitor facilities 

were constructed at these parks and other 

regional locations by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps (CCC) during the 

Great Depression of the 1930s. In addition 

to the state parks, several private 

recreational resorts, health spas, and river 

guide/outfitting services emerged along the 

Current River during the 1920s and 1930s.

Proposals to dam the Current River for 

commercial hydroelectric power and 

recreational development became topics of 

heated political debate after 1930. The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers was authorized 

by Congress to construct 50 dams in 

Missouri during the decade. Opposition to 

damming the Current River emerged 

among a coalition of conservation groups 

and local citizens. World War II delayed 

the construction plans as federal funding 

priorities were focused on the war effort.

In 1949, Missouri Governor Forrest Smith 

voiced strong support for maintaining the 

Current River in its free-flowing natural 

condition. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers withdrew its plans to dam the 

river the following year.

In 1956, a joint state and federal agency 

report called for the creation of a national 

recreation area for the Current, Jacks Fork, 

and Eleven Point Rivers. This was followed 

by a study undertaken in 1960 by the 

National Park Service that assessed the 

feasibility of adding the rivers to the 

national park system. The broad coalition 

that had earlier formed to preserve the 

Current River divided between those who 

favored NPS management to preserve 

natural values and promote tourism and 

those who favored the more multiple-use 

approach of the U.S. Forest Service. The

latter approach promoted scenic 

easements (rather than outright federal 

acquisition) to regulate private farming and 

timber lands along the rivers.

A series of bills were introduced in 

Congress between 1960 and 1964 to 

preserve the Ozark riverways. However, 

the factional differences that had emerged 

between those with different visions for 

management of the riverways contributed 

to the bills’ defeat. Despite these setbacks, 

strong backing for federal management 

came from Secretary of the Interior 

Stewart L. Udall (who floated the Current 

River in 1961) and President John F. 

Kennedy who endorsed the establishment 

of what was then envisioned as “Ozark 

National Monument.”
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

8

In 1963, Missouri’s congressional 

delegation united in drafting a revised bill 

that retained provisions for scenic 

easements and allowed hunting and fishing 

according to state regulations. The Eleven 

Point River and the lower section of the 

Current River were dropped from the final 

legislation.

In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed 

the legislation establishing Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways, and a formal dedication 

ceremony was held eight years later, in 

1972, at Big Spring. The Riverways became 

the first federally protected national rivers

and provided the impetus for subsequent 

enactment of the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act of 1968.

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN

The approved general management plan

will be the basic document for managing 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways for the 

next 20 years or until a new plan replaces it. 

The purposes of this general management 

plan are as follows:

 Clearly define resource conditions 

and visitor experiences to be 

achieved in Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways.

 Provide a framework for National 

Riverways managers to use when 

making decisions about such issues 

as how to best protect National 

Riverways resources, provide a 

quality visitor experience, and

manage visitor use, and what kinds 

of facilities, if any, to develop in the 

National Riverways.

 Ensure that this foundation for 

decision making has been 

developed in consultation with 

interested stakeholders and 

adopted by the NPS leadership 

after an adequate analysis of the 

benefits, impacts, and economic 

costs of alternative courses of 

action.

Legislation establishing the National Park 

Service as an agency and governing its 

management provides the fundamental 

direction for the administration of Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways (and other units 

and programs of the national park system). 

As discussed later in this chapter under 

“Servicewide Mandates and Policies,” 

management of the National Riverways 

also must comply with many other federal 

laws. This general management plan will 

build on this large body of legislation plus

the laws that established Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways to provide a vision for 

the National Riverways’ future. The 

alternatives in this general management 

plan address the desired future conditions 

that are not mandated by law and policy 

and must be determined through a 

planning process.

NEED FOR THE PLAN

This new management plan for Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways is needed 

because the last comprehensive planning 

effort for the National Riverways was 

completed in 1984. Much has occurred 

since then:

 Patterns and types of visitor use 

have changed and technology has 

introduced opportunities for 

recreational activities and access 

not envisioned in the past. 

 The National Park Service is 

continually learning more about the 

riverways’ diverse natural and 

cultural resources and the 

challenges involved in protecting 

them. 

 Existing uses have changed,

providing opportunities to

recommend some of the Riverways’ 

lands for designation as potential

wilderness. 
Introduction

9

Each of these changes has major 

implications for how visitors access and 

use the National Riverways, the facilities 

needed to support those uses, how 

resources are managed, and how the 

National Park Service manages its 

operations.

The general management plan represents a 

commitment by the National Park Service 

to the public on how the National 

Riverways will be used and managed. As 

such, it is intended to

 confirm the purpose and 

significance of the National 

Riverways

 determine the best mix of resource 

protection and visitor experiences 

beyond what is prescribed by law 

and policy, based on the purpose 

and significance statements for the 

National Riverways; the range of 

public expectations and concerns; 

the natural and cultural resources in 

the National Riverways; the impacts 

of the alternatives on natural, 

cultural, and socioeconomic 

conditions; impacts on visitor use 

and experience; and long-term 

economic considerations and costs

 define management zones that 

implement the goals of the National 

Park Service and the public with 

regard to natural and cultural 

resource management and 

protection and visitor use and 

experience—facilities that are 

appropriate within each 

management zone are also 

identified

 assist NPS staff in determining 

whether actions proposed by the 

National Park Service or others are 

consistent with the goals embodied 

in the approved general 

management plan

 serve as the basis for more detailed 

management documents, such as 

five-year strategic plans and 

implementation plans such as

resource stewardship plans and

visitor use plans

Implementation funding is not 

automatically forthcoming once the 

general management plan is approved. The 

National Riverways must compete with 

other units in the national park system for 

funding.

The general management plan does not 

describe how particular programs or 

projects should be prioritized or 

implemented. Those decisions will be 

addressed during the more detailed 

planning in strategic and implementation 

plans. All of those plans depend on 

subsequent funding and will be based on 

the goals, future conditions, and 

appropriate types of activities established 

in the approved general management plan.

The general management plan is also 

needed to meet the requirements of the 

National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 

and NPS policy. These mandate 

development of a general management 

plan for each unit in the national park 

system.

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR

THE WILDERNESS STUDY

The National Park Service is required to 

study the suitability of lands within the 

national park system for preservation as 

wilderness. Lands designated by Congress 

as wilderness are permanently set aside in a 

natural condition to provide outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation. A wilderness study 

evaluates if lands and waters in areas 

managed by the National Park Service are 

appropriate for designation as wilderness. 

The inclusion of a wilderness evaluation in 

the current planning effort is to fulfill the 

NPS commitment in the 1984 Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways General 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

10

Management Plan to initiate a formal 

wilderness study should “conditions 

precluding legislative wilderness 

designation change in the future.” The 

study is supported by documented analysis 

in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the National 

Historic Preservation Act.

The 1984 planning effort evaluated the 

entire Ozark National Scenic Riverways for 

wilderness suitability. Three potential 

wilderness areas were identified: the Upper 

Jacks Fork, Big Spring, and Cardareva. Due 

to land ownership and uses in those areas 

which did not conform to wilderness, the 

plan correctly noted that a legislative 

wilderness designation would be precluded 

at that time. The plan did, however, 

recognize the wilderness qualities of these 

areas and stated the agency’s commitment 

to take another look at the same areas in 

the future when circumstances 

surrounding land ownership and use 

changed.

The Upper Jacks Fork and Cardareva areas 

still do not meet the congressional 

wilderness requirement for federal land 

ownership, and the Upper Jacks Fork area 

still has nonconforming uses that prevent 

the National Park Service from proposing 

the area for wilderness. However, the Big 

Spring area now does warrant further 

study. The nonconforming conditions at 

Big Spring have been resolved, and there 

has been ongoing public interest in seeing 

the Big Spring tract (3,434 acres) managed 

for wilderness qualities. This public 

interest is also focused on the contiguous 

U.S. Forest Service Big Spring tract (3,518 

acres).

This wilderness study evaluates the Big 

Spring area within Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways for possible recommendation to 

Congress for inclusion in the national 

wilderness preservation system. All three 

action alternatives of the general 

management plan explore a wilderness 

option for the Big Spring area. The 

outcome of this planning process may 

result in a wilderness recommendation to 

Congress.

THE NEXT STEPS IN THE

PLANNING PROCESS

Following distribution of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways Final General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement and a 30-

day no-action period, a record of decision

approving the final plan will be prepared 

for signature by the NPS regional director.

The record of decision will document the 

NPS selection of an alternative for 

implementation. With the signing of the 

record of decision, implementation of the 

plan can begin.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN

Implementation of the approved plan will

depend on future funding. The approval of 

a plan does not guarantee that the funding 

and staffing needed to implement the plan 

would be forthcoming. Full 

implementation of the approved plan 

could be many years in the future. The 

implementation of the approved plan

could also be affected by other factors such 

as changes in NPS funding, visitor use 

patterns, requirements for additional data 

or regulatory compliance, competing 

national park system priorities, and 

uncontrollable environmental changes.

Once the general management plan has 

been approved, additional feasibility 

studies and more detailed planning and 

environmental documentation would be 

completed, as appropriate, before any 

proposed actions can be carried out, as in 

the following examples:

 Appropriate permits would be 

obtained before implementing 

actions that would impact wetlands.
Introduction

11

 Appropriate federal and state 

agencies would be consulted 

concerning actions that could affect 

threatened and endangered species.

 American Indian tribes, the state 

historic preservation officer, local 

governments, and the public would 

be consulted.

The general management plan does not 

prescribe how particular programs or 

projects should be implemented. Those 

decisions would be addressed during more 

detailed planning efforts associated with 

the development of future strategic and 

implementation plans. All future plans 

would tier from the approved general 

management plan and would be based on 

the goals, future conditions, and 

appropriate types of activities that it 

established.
12

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

PARK PURPOSE

Purpose statements convey the reasons for 

which the national park unit was set aside 

as part of the national park system. 

Grounded in an analysis of park legislation 

and legislative history, purpose statements 

also provide primary criteria against which 

the appropriateness of plan 

recommendations, operational decisions, 

and actions are tested. A park unit’s 

purpose statement focuses the NPS’

management role at a particular park unit 

but does not supersede the NPS Organic 

Act (see “Servicewide Laws and Policies” 

section later in this chapter).

The purpose of Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways is to

 preserve and protect in an 

unimpaired condition the unique 

scenic and natural values, 

processes, and unspoiled setting 

derived from the clean, freeflowing Current and Jacks Fork 

Rivers, springs, caves, and their 

karst origins

 provide for and promote 

opportunities for the scientific and 

public understanding of the natural 

and cultural resources

 offer opportunities for 

understanding and appreciating the 

human experience associated with 

the Ozark Highlands landscape

 provide for uses and enjoyment of 

the outdoor recreation 

opportunities consistent with the 

preservation of the park unit’s 

resources

PARK SIGNIFICANCE

Significance statements capture the essence 

of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways’ 

importance to our country’s natural, 

cultural, and recreational heritage. 

Significance statements do not inventory 

resources; rather they describe the 

Riverways’ distinctiveness and help to 

place the park unit within its regional, 

national, and international contexts. 

Significance statements answer questions 

such as why the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways’ resources are distinctive and 

what they contribute to our natural, 

cultural, and recreational heritage.

Defining the National Riverways’ 

significance helps managers make 

decisions that preserve the resources and 

values necessary to accomplish the park 

unit’s purpose.

The significance statements are as follows:

 The impressive hydrogeologic 

character of the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways’ karst landscape 

supports an amazing variety of 

natural features, including a spring 

system that is world-class and 

unparalleled in North America. The 

park unit features the largest spring 

in the national park system, 5 firstmagnitude (discharge rate of 100 

cubic feet of water per second) 

springs and spring complexes, and 

over 350 springs parkwide. The 

cave system is equally impressive,

with 402 documented caves within 

the park unit boundary—one of the 

highest densities of any national 

park system unit.

 Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

contains 134 miles of clear, freeflowing, spring-fed rivers. These 

include the Jacks Fork and Current 

Rivers, which are two of only three 
Foundation for Planning and Management

13

Outstanding National Resource 

Waters in Missouri.

 The ancient Ozark Highlands is an 

important center of biodiversity in 

North America, including 

numerous endemic species that are 

found nowhere else in the world. 

The large variety of species found 

within Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways is due to the rich array of 

aquatic, terrestrial, and 

subterranean habitats concentrated 

within its river corridors.

 Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

features archeological sites, historic 

structures, objects, and landscapes 

that reflect more than 12,000 years 

of people living along, adapting to, 

and interacting with these Ozark 

Highland rivers.

 The complex and dynamic natural 

resources and systems of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways provide 

for outstanding, high-quality 

recreational experiences on and 

along free-flowing rivers.

FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCES

AND VALUES

Fundamental resources and values are 

systems, processes, features, visitor 

experiences, stories, and scenes that 

deserve primary consideration in planning 

and management because they are critical 

to maintaining the park unit’s purpose and 

significance. Fundamental resources and 

values are subject to periodic review and 

updates based on new information or 

changing conditions.

The planning team, with assistance from 

other resource experts and the public, has 

identified the following fundamental 

resources and values for Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways. The fundamental 

resources and values listed below are only a 

portion of the National Riverways’ total 

resources and values; all resources and 

values were considered in this planning 

effort.

Natural Resources

Karst-based Hydrogeological System.

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways is 

situated in a geologically and 

hydrologically complex area along the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. The 

geology of these two watersheds is 

composed primarily of rock formations of 

soluble limestone and dolomite, which

produced an intricate karst landscape of 

disappearing streams, underground rivers, 

sinkholes, caves, and springs. The 

hydrogeologic processes of this karst 

landscape have also created an unusually 

high density of extraordinary caves and 

springs. Big Spring is the largest freshwater 

spring in the national park system. At least 

90% of the combined flow of the Current 

and Jacks Fork Rivers is from springs, 

which account for their year-round, 

sustained flows.

Free-flowing River Water Quality.

Exceptionally high water quality and 

clarity of the free-flowing Current and 

Jacks Fork Rivers has led to designation of 

these rivers as two of only three 

Outstanding National Resource Waters in 

Missouri. This designation has national, 

recreational, and ecological significance. 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways contains 

134 miles of exceptionally clear, freeflowing rivers. This remarkable water 

clarity is primarily because most of the

water that flows into the Jacks Fork and 

Current Rivers is spring fed.

High-quality Ecosystems. The Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways has a diversity 

of rare, high-quality ecosystems that 

support an assemblage of unique plants 

and animals. This rich biological diversity 

has evolved in response to the 

hydrogeologic processes of the area’s 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

14

ancient karst landscape. Simultaneously, 

the lack of glaciation or inundation of the 

Ozark physiographic province allowed the 

region to serve as lasting refuge for species 

colonization and adaptation. This 

combination of factors fostered an 

interconnected system of terrestrial, 

aquatic, and subterranean microhabitats 

that contributes to the park unit’s high 

biological diversity and has made the 

Ozarks an important North American 

region of endemism where many species 

exclusively occur.

Cultural Resources

Human Occupation of and Enduring 

Connection to the Ozark Highlands. The 

rich cultural history of the Current and 

Jacks Fork Rivers is manifested in several 

ways including the archeological record 

that documents thousands of years of 

human presence, surviving historic 

structures, museum collection items, and 

the customs and stories that have been 

passed on from generation to generation. 

Throughout this long, interconnected 

history, the rivers have remained a primary 

focus of a landscape that has sustained 

prehistoric and historic populations, and 

helped shape their cultural identities. 

Archeological and ethnographic resources, 

historic structures, cultural landscapes, and 

museum collections combine to help tell 

the story of humans’ occupation of and 

enduring connection to the Ozark 

Highlands. A relatively complete record of 

prehistoric American Indian occupation is 

represented in a variety of archeological 

habitation sites, ranging from simple 

campsites to more elaborate base camps 

and villages. These sites reflect changes in 

the human adaptation, settlement, and 

subsistence strategies practiced through 

time. The National Riverways also contain 

outstanding examples of traditional Ozark 

domestic and industrial architecture as well 

as Civilian Conservation Corpsconstructed timbered stone structures.

Visitor Experience Values

Outstanding, High-quality Recreational 

Experiences on and along Free-flowing 

Rivers. The essence of an Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways visitor experience 

includes enjoying clear, free-flowing water 

in a tree-covered valley with a chance to 

observe native wildlife, explore along a 

hiking trail, or ponder the size of a spring 

flow. It is nationally recognized as one of 

the most scenic float trips in America, 

offering an experience that can be both 

invigorating and reflective. There are few 

opportunities for such high-quality 

recreation experiences in a natural river 

environment.

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES

Primary interpretive themes are the most 

important ideas and concepts 

communicated to the public about the park 

unit. They are the core of all interpretive 

programs and media provided to park unit

visitors. The following primary interpretive 

themes are the most important ideas or 

concepts to be communicated to the public 

about the Riverways:

Karst

The Current and Jacks Fork Rivers arise 

from an extensive karst geomorphology 

consisting of massive water conduits that 

remain tantalizingly hidden from view on 

the surface. Discovery, exploration, and 

scientific understanding of this complex 

natural system continue to take place.

Natural Resource 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways preserves 

ecological processes and systems that 

sustain a high-quality example of an Ozark 

riparian landscape and its natural 

communities. This oldest continuously 

exposed land mass in North America 
Foundation for Planning and Management

15

features a subtle, fragile collection of 

diverse and relict species and special 

environments that stimulate wonder, 

curiosity, and a zeal for discovery in all 

who experience its meaning.

Water Quality 

The relatively undeveloped nature of the 

watershed directly contributes to the 

outstanding water quality and clarity in the 

riverways. However, the rivers and springs 

remain highly susceptible to pollution far 

beyond the boundaries of the National 

Riverways because of the nature of the 

karst environment. Karst factors that 

influence water quality include high 

porosity of aquifers and rapid rates of 

groundwater movement and recharge. 

These features of a karst system can create 

direct pathways for surface contaminants 

to quickly enter the groundwater system 

where remediation is difficult. Since local 

communities depend on groundwater for 

their survival, scientists strive to expand 

their limited knowledge and understanding 

of the natural consequences of potential 

developments within the watershed.

Archeology 

During the past 12,000 years, prehistoric 

peoples have benefited from the diverse 

natural resources available on the eastern 

slope of the Ozark Highland. The Ozark 

riverine environment offered abundant 

foodstuffs exploited by a subsistence 

strategy based on movement of prehistoric 

groups from place to place throughout the 

seasons. Locations of primary camps were 

along the major streams in the same 

locations where people like to camp today. 

Archeological materials from these 

prehistoric peoples are well represented in 

the Riverways and provide significant 

insights into their adaptations to the Ozark 

environment.

Historical archeological resources have 

also been identified and recorded 

associated primarily with 19th and early 

20th century farmsteads, town and mill 

sites, extractive industries, and other 

settlement activities.

Ozark Culture

The Ozark region features a currently 

viable culture, making conscious choices in 

its way of life. This pragmatic lifestyle 

respects loyalty to clan and kin, values 

personal independence, and ensures 

survival through interaction with local 

resources. Local residents have 

traditionally been fiercely independent and 

self-sufficient. They continue to engage in 

traditional forms of practical recreation

such as hunting, fishing, picnicking, and 

family reunions while seeking personal 

renewal and rejuvenation within the river 

corridor.

History

An Ozark culture evolved from the early 

19th century settlement of the Current and 

Jacks Fork Rivers by mostly Scots-Irish 

families from the highlands of Kentucky 

and Tennessee. The Ozarkers relied on 

close family ties along the streams and lived 

off small patches of corn, hogs raised on 

the open range, the abundant springs, and 

plants and animals found in the forest.

They often gathered and hunted the latter 

for trade goods.

After the Civil War, major corporations

entered the region and engaged in the 

large-scale extraction of the timber. The 

highland culture experienced significant 

change but characteristically adapted and 

continued. This included the introduction 

of a recreational float-fishing and hunting 

industry on and along the rivers.

State and federal governments addressed 

the damage to natural resources with the 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

16

restoration of the forest and establishment 

of state parks and a national forest. Later,

the rivers became an early example of a 

shift in public interest to protecting the 

value of free-flowing rivers, resulting in the 

first federally protected river system.

Recreation

The resources of the Riverways provide a 

wide variety of appropriate and relatively 

safe recreational opportunities and 

experiences. The compelling sensory 

experience of traveling on clear, flowing 

water through a tree-covered valley, with 

the chance to observe native wildlife, 

explore along a hiking trail, or ponder the 

size of a spring flow, serves as the essence 

of a National Riverways experience. 

Personal rejuvenation may result from 

following a recreational ethic of respect for 

resources and visitors, engaging in 

sustainable practices of hunting and 

fishing, or fulfilling a desire to have fun.

SPECIAL MANDATES AND

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS

Special mandates are legislative or judicial 

requirements that are specific to a 

particular unit of the national park system. 

They are typically mandated by Congress 

or by the courts. Administrative 

commitments are agreements that have 

been reached through formal, documented 

processes. These requirements are not 

open for reevaluation as part of the general 

management plan; instead, they serve as 

guidelines with which planning proposals 

must be consistent. Mandates and 

administrative commitments that influence 

the general management plan are listed 

here.

Scenic Easements in Perpetuity

The establishment of the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways (Public Law 88-492, 

section 2) authorized the Secretary of the 

Interior to acquire interests, including 

scenic easements, on lands within the 

boundary of the Riverways (see the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways Scenic 

Easements Map). Scenic easements 

account for 9,257 acres, which are 

managed to maintain the natural 

environment and scenery for the benefit of 

the visiting public. Easements are designed 

to ensure that developments do not 

degrade the scenic and natural quality of 

private lands within the boundary of the 

Riverways. Scenic easements retain a 300 

foot wide strip along the riverbanks which 

remains open to public use. Use is typically 

limited to boat landings, sightseeing, and 

resting. Any additional use of the 300-foot 

strip is regulated by the landowner.

A number of scenic easements are also 

covered by timber management 

agreements and mineral reservations. Any 

request to modify existing easement 

restrictions that would affect either the 

land or structures must be evaluated by the 

National Park Service before approval. 

Please refer to the scenic easements map 

for the location of easements within the 

boundaries of the Riverways.

Private Ownership

Establishing legislation for the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways states that the 

federal government can acquire no more 

than 65,000 acres of private land. In 

addition to the private land with scenic 

easements, there are approximately 5,400 

acres of other private land with timber 

plans that are within the congressional 

boundary. Only a limited number of the 

regulations in 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) apply to these lands.

CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

18

Free-roaming Horses

By legislation, H.R. 238, S. 796–Ozark Wild 

Horse Protection Act, and under 

agreement with the National Park Service,

the Wild Horse League has authority and 

responsibility to manage free-roaming 

horses within the National Riverways.

Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing

Hunting, trapping, and fishing within the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways is 

authorized in accordance with federal and 

state laws through its establishing 

legislation. Public Law 88-492, section 5a 

states that “the Secretary may designate 

zones where, and establish periods when, 

no hunting shall be permitted, for reasons 

of public safety, administration, or public 

use and enjoyment and shall issue 

regulations after consultation with the 

Conservation Commission of the State of 

Missouri.” A 1987 district court decision 

stated that the framers of the establishing 

legislation meant to include trapping as a 

part of hunting.

Restrictions on Motorized Vessels

Title 36 CFR 7.83 states that “On waters 

situated within the boundaries of Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways, the use of a 

motorized vessel is limited to a vessel 

equipped with an outboard motor only.”

Off Road Vehicles

Per 36 C.F.R. 4.10, the National Park 

Service does not have legal authority to 

designate all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and 

utility terrain vehicle (UTV) trails within 

the National Riverways. ATV and UTV use 

will continue to be allowed on county 

roads within the park, as regulated by state 

statute.

Scuba Diving

Scuba diving is prohibited within all 

springs and spring branches on federally 

owned land within the boundaries of 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways without a 

written permit from the superintendent, in 

accordance with 36 CFR 7.83.

Working with Missouri

Department of Conservation

Legislation authorizes the National Park 

Service to consult with the Missouri 

Department of Conservation on hunting 

and related issues within the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. The legislation 

also authorizes the National Park Service 

to work with other federal and state 

agencies on the preservation and 

enhancement of the area’s natural beauty 

and other resources.

Van Buren and Eminence Gaps

The gaps are defined by the National 

Riverways’ enabling legislation, Public Law

88-492 section 1, as “no lands shall be 

designated within two miles of the present 

boundaries of the municipalities of 

Eminence and Van Buren, Missouri.” The 

Riverways has no authority in the gaps for 

managing resources, visitor use, visitor 

activities, or free-flowing values unless 

activities within the gaps cause a direct 

adverse impact on National Riverways

resources. There is potential that activities 

in the gaps may impact resources 

downstream or within the National 

Riverways.

Wilderness Study Requirements

The 1984 Ozark National Scenic Riverways

General Management Plan states that three 

potential wilderness areas (Big Spring, 

Cardareva, and Upper Jacks Fork) were 

evaluated for wilderness qualities, but 
Foundation for Planning and Management

19

factors such as land ownership patterns 

and existing uses, many of which are 

beyond NPS control, precluded legislative 

wilderness designation. The 1984 Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways General 

Management Plan further states that,

should these conditions change in the 

future, a formal wilderness study would be 

initiated. Upper Jacks Fork and Cardareva 

still do not meet wilderness suitability 

requirements due to existing ownership 

and nonconforming uses. However, 

nonconforming uses were removed from 

the Big Spring tract in the early 1990s, 

making it eligible for wilderness study.

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES

This section identifies what must be done 

at Ozark National Scenic Riverways to 

comply with federal laws and NPS policies. 

Many park management directives are 

specified in laws and policies guiding the 

National Park Service and, therefore, are 

not subject to alternative approaches. For 

example, there are laws and policies about 

managing environmental quality (such as 

the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species 

Act, and Executive Order 11990 

“Protection of Wetlands”), laws governing 

the preservation of cultural resources (such 

as the National Historic Preservation Act 

and the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act), and laws 

about providing public services (such as 

the American with Disabilities Act). A 

general management plan is not needed to 

decide, for instance, that it is appropriate 

to protect endangered species, control 

nonnative species, protect archeological 

sites, conserve artifacts, or provide for 

universal access. Laws and policies have 

already decided those and many other 

things for us. The National Park Service 

will continue to strive to implement these 

requirements with or without a new 

general management plan.

Some of these laws and executive orders 

are applicable solely or primarily to units of 

the national park system. Laws and policies 

applicable to Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways include the following.

National Park Service Organic Act

The National Park Service and its 

mandates are authorized under its Organic 

Act (16 United States Code [USC] 1, 2–4) 

and the General Authorities Act (16 USC

1a-8). These acts direct the agency to 

conserve the scenery, the natural and 

historic objects, and the wild life, and to 

provide for the enjoyment of those 

resources in such a manner as to leave 

them unimpaired for future generations. 

Amending the Organic Act, the Redwood 

Act (March 27, 1978, 16 USC 1a-1) further 

defines that the National Park Service may 

not allow degradation of the values and 

purposes for which the various areas were 

established unless authorized by Congress. 

This act also affirms that if a conflict occurs 

between visitor use and protection of 

resources, the intent of Congress is to favor 

resource protection.

National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended (16 USC 470 et sequens), 

establishes as federal policy that the 

historical and cultural foundations of the 

nation’s heritage be preserved. Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act 

requires that federal agencies that have 

direct or indirect jurisdiction over actions

take into account the effect of those 

actions on cultural resources eligible for or 

included in the National Register of 

Historic Places. This section also provides

the opportunity for the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, state historic 

preservation officer, American Indian 

tribes traditionally associated with park 

lands, other interested agencies or 

organizations, and the general public to 

comment on the action.
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

20

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires federal agencies to 

integrate environmental values into their 

decision-making processes by considering 

the environmental impacts of their 

proposed actions and reasonable

alternatives to those actions.

National Parks Omnibus

Management Act of 1998

This act outlines a strategy to improve the 

ability of the National Park Service to 

provide high-quality resource 

management, protection, interpretation,

and research in the national park system.

Safe Drinking Water Act

Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC 3001 et 

seq.) applies to developed public drinking 

water supplies. It sets national minimum 

water quality standards and requires 

testing of drinking water.

Clean Water Act

The 1972 Clean Water Act strives to 

restore and maintain the integrity of U.S. 

waters. The Clean Water Act grants 

authority to the states to implement water 

quality protection through best 

management practices and water quality 

standards. The concepts of Outstanding 

National Resource Waters and antidegradation are established in the 

discussion of water quality standards.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968

The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 

requires physical access to facilities 

designed, built, altered, or leased with 

federal funds. The Uniform Federal 

Accessibility Standards are the design 

guidelines used as the basis for 

enforcement of the law. Four federal 

agencies are responsible for the standards: 

the Department of Defense, the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, the General Services 

Administration, and the U.S. Postal 

Service.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 applies to 

departments and agencies of the federal 

government and requires the application of 

stringent access standards to new 

construction and the alteration of existing 

facilities, and also requires affected entities 

to consider the accessibility of programs, 

services, and activities. 

Federal Cave Resources

Protection Act of 1988

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 

1988 requires protection of “significant 

caves” on federal lands and fosters 

increased cooperation and exchange of 

information between governmental 

authorities and those who use caves on 

federal lands for scientific, education, or 

recreational purposes. Significant caves 

possess one or more of the following 

features, characteristics, or values: 1) biota,

2) cultural, 3) geologic/mineralogic/

paleontologic, 4) hydrologic, 5) 

recreational, and 6) educational or 

scientific. However, all caves on NPSadministered lands are deemed to fall 

within the definition of “significant caves.”

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended in 

1990) regulates airborne emissions of a 

variety of pollutants from area, stationary, 

and mobile sources. The amendments to 

the act were added primarily to fill gaps in 

earlier regulations pertaining to acid rain, 

ground level ozone, stratospheric ozone 
Foundation for Planning and Management

21

depletion, and air toxics. Also, it identified 

189 hazardous air pollutants. The act 

directs the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency to study these pollutants, identify 

their sources, determine the need for 

emissions standards, and develop and 

enforce appropriate regulations.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 

requires the National Park Service to 

identify all federally listed endangered, 

threatened, and candidate species that 

occur within each park unit and promote 

their conservation and recovery. The act 

requires that any activity funded by federal 

monies that has the potential to impact 

endangered biota must involve 

consultation through the secretary of 

interior. It requires agencies to protect 

designated critical habitats upon which 

endangered and threatened species 

depend. Although not required by law, it 

also is NPS policy to identify, preserve, and 

restore state and locally listed species of 

concern and their habitats.

Archaeological Resources

Protection Act

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

of 1979, as amended, defines archeological 

resources as any material remains of past 

human life that are at least 100 years old 

and are of scientific interest. With penalties 

for violators, it requires federal permits for

the excavation and removal of artifacts on 

federal lands. It provides for the custody 

and preservation of excavated artifacts and 

materials and related data having to do 

with archeological survey and excavation 

records. It provides for the confidentiality

within the federal agency of archeological 

site locations, so that information is not 

shared with the public. It encourages 

cooperation with other parties to improve 

and increase the protection of 

archeological resources. Amended in 1988, 

it requires the development of plans for 

surveying public lands and for recording 

and reporting incidents of suspected 

violations.

Native American Graves Protection

and Repatriation Act of 1990 

The Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act assigns ownership or 

control of American Indian human 

remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, 

and objects of cultural patrimony that are 

excavated or discovered on federal or

tribal lands to lineal descendants, affiliated 

Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian 

organizations. Among its provisions, the 

act establishes criminal penalties for 

trafficking in human remains or cultural 

objects and requires federal agencies and 

museums receiving federal funding to 

inventory American Indian human remains 

and associated funerary objects in their 

possession or control and to identify their 

cultural and geographical affiliations.

The Wilderness Act

The Wilderness Act of 1964 requires that 

all federal lands be evaluated for their 

eligibility for inclusion within the national 

wilderness preservation system. For those 

lands that possess wilderness 

characteristics, no action that would 

diminish their wilderness eligibility will be 

taken until after Congress and the 

president have taken final action.

Executive Order 11990:

Wetlands Protection

This executive order requires the National 

Park Service to (1) exhibit leadership and 

act to minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands; (2) protect and 

improve wetlands and their natural and 

beneficial values; and (3) refrain from 

direct or indirect assistance of new 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

22

construction projects in wetlands unless 

there are no feasible alternative to such 

construction and the proposed action 

includes all feasible measures to minimize 

damage to wetlands.

Executive Order 11988:

Floodplain Management

This executive order has a primary 

objective “to avoid to the extent possible 

the long- and short-term adverse impacts 

associated with the occupancy and 

modification of floodplains and to avoid 

direct and indirect support of floodplain 

development wherever there is a 

practicable alternative.” For nonrecurring 

actions, the order requires that all 

proposed facilities must be located outside 

the boundary of the 100-year floodplain. 

Barring any feasible alternatives to 

construction within the floodplain, adverse 

impacts are to be minimized during the 

design phase of project planning. NPS 

guidance for this executive order can be 

found in Director’s Order 77-2.

Executive Order 13112:

Invasive Species

This executive order enhances and furthers 

the existing authority of the federal 

government to assist in preventing and 

controlling the spread of invasive species.

IMPLEMENTATION OF LAW

AND POLICY GUIDANCE

Please refer to appendix A for a description 

of some of the most pertinent servicewide 

mandates and policy topics related to 

planning and managing Ozark National

Scenic Riverways. The table includes a 

statement of desired conditions along with 

management strategies that may be 

implemented to achieve these conditions 

and to meet requirements. Although 

desired conditions are written in present 

tense, these are not necessarily conditions 

that exist currently. The strategies in the 

table are examples and are not intended to 

be all-inclusive. Specific strategies,

management actions, and prioritization of 

these actions may be addressed in future 

implementation plans. Funding and 

staffing constraints may also affect the 

implementation of strategies.
23

RELATIONSHIP OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

TO OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS

Ozark National Scenic Riverways is part of 

larger environmental and political settings. 

Planning efforts for areas within or near 

the Riverways could influence or be 

influenced by actions presented in this 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study /

Environmental Impact Statement and must 

be considered. These relevant plans and 

studies are listed below. This section is 

limited to the current or recent plans of the 

National Riverways and its neighbors that 

are directly relevant to general 

management planning topics. In addition, 

the National Riverways has numerous

implementation-level plans in all divisional 

areas that govern day-to-day park 

management.

MANAGEMENT PLANS AND STUDIES

OF THE NATIONAL

PARK SERVICE

The National Park Service will ensure that 

all existing and future plans are consistent 

with the general management plan. In cases 

where the implementation of an existing 

plan would conflict with the general 

management plan, then the particular plan 

would be revisited to determine ways to 

assure compatibility.

Chilton Creek Area

Boat Ramp and Parking (2009)

This study analyzed a proposal to construct 

a stabilized boat ramp and accompanying 

parking area to accommodate 

approximately 10 vehicles with boat 

trailers upstream from the Van Buren gap 

in the general area of Chilton Creek. This 

project was completed.

Flying W Environmental Assessment 

(2007)

This action would modify the site to 

protect resources from degradation while 

providing for recreational opportunities.

The environmental assessment was 

completed but the project has not been 

implemented.

Broadfoot/Shawnee Horse Staging

Area Environmental Assessment (2006)

The proposed action would involve 

construction, maintenance, and ongoing 

use of the staging areas. The environmental 

assessment identified modifications for 

protection and mitigation of potential 

impacts to natural and cultural resources.

Big Spring Divisional Storage Building

(ongoing)

There is a need in the Riverways to have a 

storage facility to house supplies and 

materials. Planning currently is in the 

preliminary stages for how to best address 

these issues.

Cedargrove and Rhymer Ridge

Repeater Sites (2011)

A repeater site at Rhymer Ridge was 

recently completed. A new repeater site at 

Cedargrove is needed and would be 

developed within park unit boundaries as 

part of the proposed upgrade of the 

Riverways’ radio system. The Cedargrove 

tower and equipment enclosure would be 

within the clearing where the former 

ranger station was located. The site would 

be surrounded by a 6-foot-high, chain-link 

security fence with a vehicle gate at the 

entrance. The surface in the enclosure and 

extending a few feet beyond the fence 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

24

would have aggregate rock installed over a 

weed barrier mat.

COUNTY AND REGIONAL PLANS

Elk Reintroduction

The Missouri Department of Conservation 

has developed a plan for and has begun to

reintroduce elk in an area near the 

National Riverways. The plan calls for 

releasing up to 150 elk into a 346-squaremile “restoration zone” in and around the 

Peck Ranch Conservation Area in 

Shannon, Carter, and Reynolds counties 

(MDC 2011e).

Completion of the Old Tram

Road Trail

Efforts are underway to complete the Old 

Tram Road Trail, which would run from 

Van Buren to Big Spring. Several miles of 

the trail would be in the National 

Riverways. If completed, the trail would 

become part of the larger Ozark Trail.

Van Buren Economic

Development Plan

The Town of Van Buren is developing an 

economic development plan for the town

that, in part, may focus on increasing 

tourism in and around the town.

Bridge Replacements

Bridge replacements over the Current 

River, Sinking Creek, and Spring Valley are 

anticipated to occur during the 20-year life 

of this general management plan. A bridge 

to replace the Cedargrove low-water 

crossing may also be considered. A bridge 

may also be considered to replace the ferry 

at Akers. Any future bridge work would 

include NPS involvement and require 

environmental compliance and a public 

involvement process.

PLANNING ISSUES AND 

OPPORTUNITIES

During the scoping period (early 

information gathering) for this general 

management plan, issues and concerns 

were identified by the general public; NPS 

staff; county, state, and other federal 

agency representatives; Riverways’ 

partners; resource experts; and 

representatives from organizations. An 

issue is defined as an opportunity, conflict, 

or problem regarding the use or 

management of public lands. Comments 

were solicited at public meetings, 

workshops, and open houses; through 

planning newsletters; and on the 

Riverways’ website (see “Chapter 6: 

Consultation and Coordination”).

Comments received during the scoping 

process and during the extended 90-day 

public comment period following release 

of the Draft Ozark National Scenic

Riverways Final General Management Plan 

/ Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement demonstrated there is much the 

public values about the National 

Riverways, especially their protection of 

scenery and water quality, interpretation of 

local history and heritage, and access to 

trails. Issues and concerns expressed 

during scoping generally focused on 

balancing appropriate visitor use, types and 

levels of facilities, services, and activities 

with desired resource conditions. The 

general management plan alternatives 

provide strategies for addressing the issues 

in the context of the National Riverways’ 

purpose, significance, and special 

mandates.

The following text presents the issues and 

concerns identified during scoping for the 

general management plan, as well as how 

the plan seeks to address these issues.
Relationship of the General Management Plan to Other Planning Efforts

25

Additionally, the effects of climate change 

on national park units are beginning to 

emerge as an important park management 

issue. Therefore, climate change is 

addressed in this document in recognitions 

of its role in the changing environment of 

the Riverways. 

Kinds and Amounts of

Recreational Use

A wide range of recreational activities and 

experiences were identified during scoping 

as important to visitors of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. Some of these 

include river sports (canoeing, floating, 

tubing, boating, rafting, and fishing), hiking

and walking, horseback riding, driving 

ATVs and off-road vehicles, wildlife 

viewing and bird watching, and camping.

Of these recreational activities and 

experiences, public comments mainly 

centered on river sports, horseback riding,

and the use of all-terrain vehicles and offroad vehicles.

There was no consensus as to how 

recreation on the river should be managed. 

Although most commenters on river sports 

felt the rivers were too crowded, they did 

not agree on how to reduce river user 

numbers. Some people encouraged further 

use of the existing permit system or 

creating management zones to reduce the 

number of parties on the National 

Riverways. Other commenters suggested 

reducing vehicle access along the rivers. 

Increased visitor education on the use of 

and operation of both motorized and 

nonmotorized watercraft was also 

suggested to address this issue. Similar

strategies for restricting the use of allterrain vehicles and off-road vehicles were 

also discussed. 

Respondents were divided on horseback 

riding in the National Riverways. There 

were differences on what constitutes 

appropriate camping in the National 

Riverways and what types of facilities 

should accompany the different styles of 

camping. Other National Riverways users 

wanted more hiking trails, and several 

requested improved signs along trails.

This plan explores different options for 

providing a range of recreational use 

opportunities on and along the riverways, 

including the preservation of traditional 

uses, exploring additional uses, reducing or 

increasing uses, and modifying existing 

recreational use opportunities and/or use 

limitations. This plan also determines the 

kinds and amounts of recreational use for 

Riverways’ areas consistent with the 

protection and enhancement of the 

Riverways’ values. All options would 

ensure the protection and enhancement of 

the National Riverways’ values while 

minimizing conflicts and crowding among 

visitors.

Boating Regulations

During the development of alternatives for 

this general management plan, questions 

arose regarding the NPS’ authority to allow 

60/40 horsepower (hp) motors based on 

the park unit’s existing regulation (36 CFR

7.83(a)(2)), which is included in appendix 

C. This regulation prohibits the use of 

motors that are rated higher than 40 hp by 

the manufacturer. Through research and 

consultation with the Department of 

Interior Regional Solicitor’s Office, the 

National Park Service has learned that 

allowing retrofitted 60/40 hp jet motors is 

in violation of the regulation, because the 

National Park Service is bound by the 

manufacturer’s rating of the horsepower.

The National Park Service is committed to 

comply with the newly clarified limitations 

on its authority to allow 60/40 hp motors 

under the existing regulation, while 

considering the impact of reversing the 

park unit’s longstanding interpretation of 

the regulation. The National Park Service 

has developed the following course of 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

26

action to address this issue as part of this 

general management plan:

The no-action alternative describes the 

continuation of NPS current management 

to allow 60/40 hp motorboats on certain 

portions of the Current and Jacks Fork 

Rivers. As noted above, continuation of 

this approach is in violation with the 

existing regulation. The no-action 

alternative is characterized this way to 

provide a baseline for comparison in 

evaluating the changes and impacts of the 

other alternatives. The action alternatives 

(A, B, and C) explore different options for 

compliance, including (1) enforce the 

existing regulation, and (2) pursue rulemaking to change the existing regulation to 

allow 60/40 hp and/or 150 hp motors in 

specified locations.

Analysis within the general management 

plan is based upon the assumption that 

such a rule-making change could or would 

be achieved.

Visitor Behavior

By far the most commonly expressed 

concerns in public scoping were related to 

visitor behavior. The National Riverways

were designated to create a special 

experience for visitors, so people may 

observe native wildlife, explore along a 

hiking trail, or ponder the size of a spring 

flow. This invigorating and reflective 

scenic experience serves as the essence of 

an Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

experience. A recurring complaint by 

commenters was the growing amount of 

disrespectful and vulgar visitor behavior.

Most commenters stated concerns about 

drug and alcohol use, and trash and litter 

along the rivers and surrounding lands. 

Many families stated they will no longer 

visit the National Riverways due to growth 

of inappropriate visitor behavior. 

Currently, visitors recreating in the 

National Riverways may consume alcohol.

Three general types of sentiments were 

expressed over visitor behavior. One 

sentiment suggested completely banning 

alcohol on the riverways. Other 

commenters stated having alcohol on the 

riverways was fine. Opinions which fell 

into the middle advocated that alcohol 

should be allowed, but abusers should be 

dealt with sternly and existing laws should 

be more consistently and forcefully 

enforced. Education, interpretation,

partnerships with special interest groups 

and concessioners, and increased law 

enforcement were suggested as ways to 

reduce conflicts and increase respectful 

behavior.

This plan determines different options and 

strategies for addressing inappropriate 

visitor behavior and ways to strengthen 

ongoing management and law enforcement 

efforts. All options would ensure visitor 

safety while avoiding conflicts among 

visitors.

Natural Resources

Under the provisions of the National 

Riverways’ establishing legislation, the 

National Park Service is responsible for 

conserving, interpreting, and exhibiting the 

unique natural and cultural resources of 

the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers and 

surrounding areas. Riverways’ lands 

contain a rich array of wildlife and plants, 

including endemic species that exist 

nowhere else in the world. The Ozark 

Plateau is one of the oldest continuously 

exposed land masses in the world and, as a 

result, is home to a unique ecosystem.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways contains 

134 miles of exceptionally clear, freeflowing rivers, which is unprecedented 

anywhere else in the United States. This 

remarkable water clarity is primarily 

because most of the water that flows into 

the Jacks Fork and Current Rivers is 

filtered through the karst groundwater 

system. The hydrogeologic processes of 
Relationship of the General Management Plan to Other Planning Efforts

27

this karst landscape have also created an 

unusually high density of extraordinary 

caves and springs.

Natural resources-related comments that 

were received during scoping most often

mentioned the effects of recreation 

equipment and animals on water quality,

wildlife habitat fragmentation, invasive 

nonnative species, declining fish 

populations, and management of songbird 

populations.

This plan determines appropriate 

management strategies to protect and 

enhance natural resources within the 

National Riverways, particularly the 

maintenance and restoration of native 

species and their habitats and the 

ecological processes that sustain them. 

This plan explores ways to mitigate 

human-caused impacts to river-related 

natural resources.

Cultural Resources and Interpretation

Comments emphasized the importance of 

Ozark cultural heritage. Many people were 

adamant that the interpretive program 

should continue to focus on the area’s 

prehistory, history, and heritage 

demonstrations. Others expressed the 

need to provide more interpretive displays, 

kiosks. Commenters also expressed 

concern for vandalism and disturbance to 

historic structures and archeological sites, 

and illegal removal of artifacts from these 

areas.

This plan explores options for the 

development of and ways to improve

education and interpretation of cultural 

resources and to protect these resources 

within the Riverways.

Park Management and Operations

Commenters held varying views on park 

management and operations topics,

including whether park management was 

doing enough to protect resources in 

accordance with the National Riverways’ 

mission, the effectiveness of law 

enforcement, the enforcement of scenic 

easements, and community relations. This 

plan explores different staffing levels and 

operational costs to provide an appropriate 

standard for managing the park unit.

Types and Levels of Development

Several comments emphasized that the 

types and levels of development within the 

National Riverways should be appropriate.

That is, the commenters felt that 

appropriate facilities should be located at 

appropriate locations, consistent with the 

needs of users and the setting in which the 

facilities were located. In some cases, 

upgrading or enhancing existing 

campgrounds and landings were 

recommended to handle the volume of 

current use. Other commenters felt 

development of facilities should be kept to 

a minimum so the National Riverways

would maintain a more “primitive” feel.

Some respondents advocated for 

wilderness designation of the Big Spring 

tract. Other people felt wilderness 

designation would be too restrictive, and 

many were unclear of the implications of 

wilderness designation.

This plan determines what types of 

facilities are needed and where they should 

be located within the Riverways, including 

access. It also determines which areas 

should be free of developments. It 

evaluates the compatibility of existing 

and/or new developments to protect and 

enhance the National Riverways’ values 

and determines appropriate management 

strategies to achieve park unit goals.
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

28

Climate Change

Climate change refers to any substantial 

changes in average climatic conditions 

(such as average temperature, 

precipitation, or wind) or climatic 

variability (such as seasonality or storm 

frequencies) lasting for an extended period 

of time (decades or longer). Recent reports 

by the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program, the National Academy of 

Sciences, and the United Nations 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC 2007) provide clear 

evidence that climate change is occurring 

and will accelerate in the coming decades.

The effects of climate change on national 

parks are beginning to emerge as both 

science and impacts become clearer; 

however, it is difficult to predict the full 

extent of the changes that are expected 

under an altered climate regime. 

The National Park Service recognizes that 

the major drivers of climate change are 

outside the control of the agency. 

However, climate change is a phenomenon 

whose impacts throughout the national 

park system cannot be discounted. The 

National Park Service has identified 

climate change as one of the major threats 

to national park system units, and has 

developed a Climate Change Response 

Strategy (NPS 2010) that focuses on

science, adaptation, mitigation, and 

communication. 

Climate change is included in this 

document to recognize its role in the 

changing environment of the Riverways 

and to provide an understanding of its 

impact. Other factors driving 

environmental change include population 

growth in the area (subsidence of water 

table, increased visitation, pollution), shifts 

in visitor use patterns, and land-use change 

and development around the Riverways. 

Although climate change is a global 

phenomenon, it manifests differently 

depending on regional and local factors. 

According to a report prepared for the 

National Park Service on historic and 

projected climate trends for Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways, climate of the 

Midwest Region of the United States is 

anticipated to become warmer and slightly 

wetter, resulting in a wide range of impacts 

on plants, wildlife, water flow regimes, and 

people over the next century. Climate 

models indicate the Midwest states, 

including Missouri, will likely experience 

great variability in precipitation. Overall, 

annual precipitation may increase slightly 

due to warmer and wetter winters, but rain 

is projected to decrease during the 

summers with longer periods in between 

rain events (NPS 2013).

These types of projected changes are 

important because climate is a dominant 

factor affecting the physical and ecological 

processes of the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways and the Midwest region as a 

whole. For example, the Riverways is home 

to some of the largest freshwater springs in 

the country and the world. These springs 

are a major driver of the terrestrial and 

aquatic systems of the area. The 

magnitude, duration, and timing of 

precipitation changes could affect the 

groundwater recharge regime that powers 

these springs.

Questions to be addressed are as follows: 

 What is the contribution of the 

proposed project to climate change 

such as green-house gas emissions 

and the “carbon footprint”? 

 What are the anticipated effects of 

climate change on the Riverways’ 

resources and visitors that are 

affected by the management 

alternatives? 

Because the contribution of the proposed 

project to climate change is negligible

under any alternative, the former issue has 

been dismissed. The latter issue, a 

discussion of the anticipated effects of 

climate change on the Riverways, has been 

carried forward. 
29

IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACT TOPICS

An important part of planning is seeking to 

understand the consequences of making 

one decision over another. To this end, this 

general management plan is accompanied 

by an environmental impact statement, 

which identifies the anticipated impacts of 

possible actions on the Riverways’

resources and on visitors and neighbors. 

Impacts are organized by topic, such as 

“impacts on the visitor experience” or 

“impacts on vegetation.” Impact topics 

focus the environmental analysis and 

ensure the relevance of impact evaluation.

Impact topics for this document were 

identified based on federal laws and other 

legal requirements, Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations for 

implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act, NPS management policies, staff 

subject-matter expertise, and issues and 

concerns expressed by the public and 

other agencies early in the planning 

process.

The interdisciplinary planning team 

conducted a preliminary analysis to 

determine the anticipated context, 

duration, and intensity of effects on 

resources from implementing the 

alternatives. As a result, some impact topics 

have been eliminated from further analysis 

because these resources do not occur 

within the designated river corridors or 

because the anticipated impacts would 

have no effect, negligible effect, or possibly 

a minor effect on resources.

The impact topics are described in 

“Chapter 4: Affected Environment.” These 

descriptions of the Riverways’ 

environment establish the basis for the 

impact analysis in “Chapter 5: 

Environmental Consequences.” Table 1

provides a summary of the impact topics 

analyzed in detail or dismissed from 

detailed analysis.

IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED, BUT 

NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL

Some impact topics that commonly are 

considered during the planning process 

were not relevant to the development of 

this general management plan because 

either the management alternatives would 

have no effect, a negligible effect, or a 

minor effect on the resource, or because 

the resource does not occur within the 

boundaries of Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. The following explains why 

these impact topics were dismissed from 

detailed analysis.

Indian Trust Resources 

The federal Indian trust responsibility is a 

legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on 

the part of the United States to protect 

tribal lands, assets, resources, and treaty 

rights, and it represents a duty to carry out 

the mandates of federal law with respect to 

American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. 

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any 

anticipated impacts to Indian trust 

resources from a proposed project or 

action by U.S. Department of the Interior 

agencies must explicitly be addressed in 

environmental documents.

There are no Indian trust resources within 

the Riverways. The lands in the park unit

are not held in trust by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the benefit of Indians due to 

their status as Indians. Therefore, Indian 

Trust resources were dismissed as an 

impact topic.
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

30

TABLE 1. IMPACT TOPICS

Impact topics analyzed in this plan Impact topics eliminated from detailed 

analysis in this plan

Alternatives in this plan have potential to affect 

these resources or topics.

These resources or topics are important, but 

alternatives in this plan would have only positive 

impacts on them, and/or any adverse impacts would 

be negligible or minor.

Natural resources Indian trust resources

• Geologic resources and soils Visual resources

• Water resources Air quality

• Vegetation Water quantity

• Fish and wildlife Prime or unique farmland

• Federally and state-listed species Natural or depletable resource requirements and 

conservation potential

Cultural resources Energy requirements and conservation Potential

• Archeological resources Carbon footprint

• Historic buildings, structures, and cultural 

landscapes

Environmental justice

• Ethnographic resources

Museum collections

Visitor use and experience

Soundscapes

Park operations

Socioeconomic environment 

Visual Resources

Visual resources of the Riverways are 

primarily protected through scenic 

easements and special mandates. No 

changes to scenic easements are being 

proposed in this plan. Scenic easements are 

discussed in more detail in the Special 

Mandates and Administrative 

Commitments section of chapter 1.

Crowding and congestion are perceived by 

visitors visually and through noise. 

Therefore, these visual aspects of park 

management are analyzed in detail in the 

visitor use and experience section of this 

document.

Due to reasons presented above, and 

because none of the alternatives in this 

plan propose any new substantial 

development that would alter the National 

Riverways’ visual character, this topic was 

dismissed from detailed analysis.

Air Quality

The Clean Air Act of 1970, (42 USC 7401 et 

seq.) was established to promote the public 

health and welfare by protecting and 

enhancing the nation’s air quality. The act 

established specific programs that provide 

special protection for air resources and air 

quality-related values associated with NPS 

units. Section 118 of the Clean Air Act 

requires park units to meet all state, 

federal, and local air pollution standards. 

NPS Management Policies 2006 addresses 

the need to analyze potential impacts on air 

quality during park planning.

The Clean Air Act and pursuant 

regulations classified areas of the country 

by existing and desired air quality 
Identification of Impact Topics

31

conditions. Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways is listed as a Class II area by 

Congress. Class II areas of the country are 

protected under the act, but less stringently 

than Class I areas, which include a limited 

number of specially designated wilderness 

areas and national parks (such as the 

Grand Canyon) where outstanding 

visibility is critical.

Although the National Park Service does 

not have air quality monitoring stations 

within Ozark National Scenic Riverways, 

monitoring data are available for Buffalo 

National River. Because this park unit is 

located approximately 175 miles southwest

of Ozark National Scenic Riverways, their 

monitoring results are useful in 

understanding air quality conditions and 

trends for the National Riverways and the 

region as a whole.

The National Park Service strives to 

perpetuate the best possible air quality, 

because air pollution, even at relatively low 

levels, affects ecological and human health, 

scenic views, and visitor enjoyment. 

Progress toward this goal is measured by 

examining current conditions and trends 

for key air quality indicators, including 

ozone, visibility, and atmospheric 

deposition. These indicators for Buffalo 

River and the area in the vicinity of Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways show stable 

trends, with slight improvement in 

atmospheric deposition (NPS 2009b).

Air quality would be largely unaffected by 

the management alternatives considered in 

this general management plan. None of the 

actions considered would violate any air 

quality standard or result in a cumulative 

net increase of any criteria pollutant under 

federal or state ambient air quality 

standards. Implementation of any of the 

alternatives described in this general 

management plan would have negligible 

effects on air quality, and the Riverways’ 

Class II air quality would be unaffected. 

Therefore, air quality was dismissed as an 

impact topic.

Water Quantity

Because no water withdrawals, diversions, 

or other activities are proposed in the 

alternatives that would affect water 

quantity in the Riverways, this topic was 

dismissed from detailed analysis.

In addition, consumptive uses, such as park 

facilities, would be coordinated with 

Missouri State based in-stream water rights 

requirements.

Prime or Unique Farmland

In 1980, the Council on Environmental 

Quality directed that federal agencies must 

assess the effects of their actions on 

farmland soils classified by the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service as prime 

or unique. Prime farmland is defined as soil 

that produces general crops such as 

common foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed.

Unique farmland produces specialty crops 

such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts.

Some prime and unique farmlands exist in 

the National Riverways, but since the 

establishment of the park unit these are no 

longer managed for the purpose of 

agricultural production. The National Park 

Service does manage open fields 

throughout the park unit using agricultural 

leases, but does so to maintain the cultural 

significance of these areas, not for 

agricultural production. The alternative 

management strategies presented in this 

plan would not affect the management of 

open fields that may contain prime or

unique farmlands; therefore this topic was 

dismissed from detailed analysis.

Natural and Depletable Resource 

Requirements and Conservation 

Potential

None of the alternatives being considered 

in this plan would result in the extraction 

of natural or depletable resources from the 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

32

National Riverways. The use and 

consumption of fuel and other 

nonrenewable resources for NPS 

operations, activities, and development 

associated with the alternatives is very 

small in comparison to that of the region.

The National Park Service strives to use 

sustainable practices and technology and 

reduce its impact on natural or depletable 

resources. In all of the alternatives, 

ecological principles would be applied to 

ensure that the Riverways’ natural

resources were maintained and protected. 

Also, agricultural leases would continue to 

include annual harvesting of hay, mowing, 

and grazing on various small agricultural 

tracts to maintain the cultural landscapes 

of the National Riverways. These areas 

would continue to be managed sustainably 

to ensure the long-term viability of these 

resources and would result in only 

negligible effects on this topic.

As a result of the above, this impact topic 

has been dismissed from further 

consideration.

Energy Requirements and Conservation 

Potential

The implementing regulations of the 

National Environmental Policy Act require 

that energy requirements, natural or 

depletable resource requirements, and 

conservation potential be analyzed. Any 

differences between the alternatives in 

terms of these factors would be localized 

and negligible. Therefore, this topic was 

dismissed from detailed analysis.

Carbon Footprint

For the purpose of this planning effort, 

“carbon footprint” is defined as the sum of 

all emissions of carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gases (for example, methane 

and ozone) that would result from 

implementation of any of the management 

alternatives. Understanding the carbon 

footprint of each alternative is important to 

determine its potential to contribute to 

climate change. 

The action alternatives described in this 

document would result in a negligible 

change in the amount of greenhouse gases 

that contribute to climate change. 

Therefore, this impact topic has been 

dismissed from detailed analysis in this 

plan. The reasons for dismissing this 

impact topic are that (1) no notable road 

construction is proposed under the action

alternatives, (2) modest reductions in 

motorized vehicle and motorboat use 

could occur under the action alternatives 

due to proposed closures of unofficial 

roads and traces and the proposed 

nonmotorized boating areas, and (3) 

changes to facilities are largely in-kind and 

should have overall small benefit due to 

newer sustainable building practices. 

Because of the negligible amount of change 

in greenhouse gas emissions that would 

result from each action alternative, a 

quantitative measurement of their carbon 

footprint was determined by the planning 

team not to be practical.

Environmental Justice

Presidential Executive Order 12898, 

“General Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations,” requires all federal agencies 

to incorporate environmental justice into 

their missions by identifying and 

addressing the disproportionately high or 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects of their programs and policies on 

minorities and low-income populations 

and communities. 

According to the Environmental 

Protection Agency (1998), environmental 

justice is the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people, regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income, with 
Identification of Impact Topics

33

respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies. Fair treatment means that no 

group of people, including a racial, ethnic, 

or socioeconomic group, should bear a 

disproportionate share of the negative 

environmental consequences resulting 

from industrial, municipal, and commercial 

operations or the execution of federal, 

state, local, and tribal programs and 

policies.

Carter and Shannon counties contain a 

relatively low percentage of the population 

considered minority compared to the 

population throughout the state. However, 

these counties do contain a high 

percentage of individuals that are living 

below the poverty threshold as defined by 

the U.S. Census. During the consideration 

of this impact topic, of most concern were 

possible changes in horse power 

regulations that may limit the size of boat 

motors and areas where certain motors 

may be used within the riverways. Analysis 

of this topic illustrated no evidence that 

this would cause disproportional impact 

on minorities and low-income populations 

and communities. For further information 

on the economic effects of horsepower 

regulations, please refer to the 

socioeconomics section of chapter 5. 

Therefore, environmental justice is 

dismissed as an impact topic for the 

following reasons:

 The NPS staff and planning team

actively solicited public 

participation as part of the planning 

process and gave equal 

consideration to input from all 

persons regardless of age, race, 

income status, or other 

socioeconomic or demographic 

factors.

 Implementation of any of the 

alternatives would not result in any 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects on minorities 

or low-income populations and 

communities.

 The impacts associated with 

implementation of the alternatives 

would not result in any effects that 

would be specific to any minority or 

low-income community. Any 

anticipated impacts, such as traffic, 

would not disproportionately affect 

minority or low-income 

populations. 

 Impacts would not occur all at one 

time but would be spread over a 

number of years.
This page is intentionally left blank


37

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of developing alternatives is to 

provide a clear basis for choice among a 

diverse set of options for the future 

management of the Riverways.

Many aspects of the desired future condition 

of the National Riverways are defined in the 

establishing legislation, the Riverways’ 

purpose and significance statements, and the 

servicewide mandates and policies described 

earlier. Within these parameters, the National 

Park Service solicited input from the public, 

NPS staff, government agencies, tribal 

officials, and other organizations regarding 

issues and desired conditions for the 

National Riverways. The planning team also 

gathered information about existing visitor 

use and conditions of the Riverways’ facilities 

and resources. The team then considered 

which areas of the Riverways attract visitors 

and the locations of highly sensitive 

resources.

Using this information, the planning team 

developed seven designated management 

zones (four land-based and three riverbased), and four sets of alternative future 

management strategies to reflect the range of 

ideas proposed by National Riverways staff, 

other agencies, and the public. The 

alternatives were developed through a 

lengthy, collaborative process that is 

described in more detail later. The

management zones are graphically shown on 

the maps for alternatives A, B, and C to reflect 

the management concept proposed for each 

alternative.

This chapter describes the alternatives for 

managing the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways for the next 20 years or more. The 

chapter includes tables summarizing the key 

differences in management strategies among 

the alternatives, management zones, and 

expected impacts from implementing the 

alternatives (based on the analysis in 

“Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences”).

This chapter also describes identification of 

the NPS preferred alternative, potential 

boundary adjustments, and mitigation 

measures that would lessen or avoid impacts; 

defines strategies to address visitor use 

management and climate change; identifies 

future studies and implementation plans 

needed; provides staffing and cost estimates; 

and establishes the environmentally 

preferable alternative.

RELATIONSHIP OF MANAGEMENT 

ZONES AND ALTERNATIVES

The primary building blocks for reaching an 

approved management plan for a national 

park system unit are the management zones 

and the alternatives. All are developed within 

the scope of the park unit’s purpose, 

significance, mandates, and legislation.

The NPS planning process requires that

planning alternatives propose management 

zones for areas within the National 

Riverways boundary. Zones would be applied 

only to the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers 

and those land areas for which the National 

Park Service has fee title ownership within 

the park unit’s authorized boundary. Lands 

with timber or scenic easements are managed 

by the legal requirements of the easement and 

are not zoned. Private lands within the 

boundary are not zoned.

Management zones tell how areas of the 

National Riverways would be managed in the 

future. Management zones prescribe a range 

of desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences and include statements about the 

appropriate kinds and levels of management, 

use, and facilities in each zone. The 

management zones provide primary guidance 

for subsequent decision making at the 

National Riverways and are the core of the 

general management plan. Management 

zones are combined in different ways to 

reflect the concept proposed for each 

alternative.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

38

Each of the alternatives in this general 

management plan presents an overall 

management concept and proposals about 

how different Riverways programs and areas 

could be managed through the application of 

the management zones and other strategies. 

The concept for each alternative gives 

planners and park unit staff the idea for what 

the alternative would look like. For example, 

perhaps one management zone is called 

natural and another zone is called recreation. 

An alternative whose concept is to keep most

of a park unit area in an undeveloped 

condition would have more of the natural 

zone applied than the recreation zone. Both 

zones would also be larger or smaller or in 

different locations, depending on the overall 

concept for each alternative.

This Ozark National Scenic Riverways Final 

General Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents 

four alternatives for the future management 

of the Riverways. The no-action alternative 

would continue current management; the 

development and discussion of a no-action 

alternative is required by law. The current 

management direction for the Riverways is 

not based on management zones. Thus, it 

serves most importantly as a baseline for 

comparing the action alternatives, which are 

designated A, B, and C.

The action alternatives present alternative 

approaches to the park unit’s current 

management direction, including different 

ways to manage natural and cultural 

resources, visitor use, operations, and the 

facilities and other infrastructure of the 

Riverways. Many aspects of current 

management may have merit; in those cases, 

the action alternatives may embrace or build 

on that current direction. 

The four alternatives embody the range of 

what the public and National Park Service 

desire to see accomplished with regard to 

natural and cultural resource conditions, 

scenery conservation, land protection, water 

resource protection, visitor opportunities 

and experience, transportation, concessions, 

and other services. All of the alternatives 

considered in this general management plan

would allow the National Park Service to 

continue to follow existing agreements and 

servicewide mandates, laws, and policies that 

were presented in chapter 1. In some 

instances, rule making would also be pursued 

to establish motorboat horsepower

limitations.

DEVELOPMENT OF

THE ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives focus on what resource 

conditions, visitor uses, experiences, and 

opportunities should be provided at the 

Riverways rather than on details of how these 

conditions and uses or experiences should be 

achieved. Thus, the alternatives do not 

include many details on the implementation 

of resource and visitor use management 

objectives. More detailed implementation 

plans would be developed following approval 

of the general management plan.

Alternative visions for managing the 

Riverways were developed by identifying 

different ways to address the planning issues 

identified in chapter 1, in context with the 

Riverways’ purpose and significance. In 

developing this range of alternatives, the 

National Park Service adhered to the 

requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act, while giving careful consideration 

to the National Riverways’ enabling 

legislation.

In addition, two specific topics with legal 

requirements (motorboat horsepower limits

and potential wilderness recommendation) 

were incorporated to align with the range of 

management concepts, strategies, and zones 

during the development of the alternatives. 

The alternative approaches to address these 

topics are summarized below.

Public scoping meetings were held in 2006 

and a second set of public meetings were held 

during the summer of 2009. In addition, the 

National Park Service prepared and mailed 
Introduction

39

three newsletters between 2006 and 2009 to 

update the public on planning progress. A 

preliminary version of the alternatives was 

presented to the public in Newsletter 3: 

Preliminary Alternatives in May of 2009. A 

major stakeholder meeting was held in

February 2010. Public comments received 

from meetings and newsletters have been 

instrumental in the formulation of

alternatives within this plan.

Based on an evaluation of public comments 

received on the Draft Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways Final General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement, the National Park Service made 

changes to the preferred alternative. These 

changes are reflected this final plan.

Motorboat Horsepower Limits

During public scoping meetings it became 

apparent a major topic of public interest was 

in the size of motors currently allowed on the 

rivers. Existing park regulations (36 CFR

7.83(a) (2), see appendix C) prohibits the use 

of motors rated higher than 40 hp by the 

manufacturer from Big Springs upriver to 

Alley Springs and Round Springs. However, 

for many years the National Riverways has 

interpreted the regulations as allowing, and 

the public has been using motors rated up to 

60 hp if they were equipped with a jet 

powered prop that effectively lowered the 

usable horsepower to 40 hp. The National 

Park Service has recently been advised that 

this interpretation of the regulations is in 

variance with the Code of Federal 

Regulations. This issue has been included in

this comprehensive planning process because 

the discussion of motor size could logically 

include a range of alternatives for how the 

public recreates on and uses the rivers. Any 

alternative that proposed the continued use 

of 60/40 hp motors would require rulemaking to change the existing regulation.

Alternative B, which is the preferred 

alternative, would continue to allow the use 

of these 60/40 hp jet motors (or 40 hp 

without the jet) on the waters where they are 

currently allowed as shown in the no-action 

alternative. Alternative A would limit the use 

of motors to no more than 40 hp with or 

without jet attachments. Alternative C would

allow the use of 60/40 motors.

Potential Wilderness Recommendation

In 1984, the National Park Service evaluated 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways for 

wilderness suitability. One of the areas 

recognized for its wilderness qualities was the 

Big Spring tract near the lower Current River 

and adjacent to Mark Twain National Forest. 

At that time there were nonconforming uses 

occurring there that prevented wilderness 

designation. In the final 1984 Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways General Management Plan, 

the National Park Service committed to do a 

formal wilderness study should those 

conditions or uses change. In the early 1990s, 

the nonconforming uses at Big Spring were 

resolved. As a result, the National Park 

Service included a wilderness study as part of 

this general management plan (see chapter 3).

A formal wilderness study is undertaken by 

policy to develop the recommendation to 

Congress for wilderness designation. The 

recommendation pathway flows through the 

NPS director, and Secretary of the Interior to 

the president. The president then formally 

transmits this recommendation to both 

houses of Congress for action. Regardless of 

what the Study recommends, ultimately it is 

up to Congress to enact the legislation 

necessary to designate an area as wilderness. 

A wilderness study may propose that all or 

some of the suitable lands be recommended

as wilderness. In extraordinary 

circumstances, a wilderness study may result 

in a proposal that none of the suitable areas 

be recommended as wilderness.

The no-action alternative describes the 

continuation of NPS current management, 

such that the National Park Service would 

continue to maintain the Big Spring tract’s 

primitive, natural character in order to 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

40

maintain its wilderness eligibility. The action 

alternatives explore different options for 

wilderness recommendations, based on the 

results of the wilderness study:

 Alternative A recommends 3,424 acres 

of the Big Spring Wilderness Study 

Area for wilderness designation (99% 

of the total wilderness study area).

 Alternative B recommends 3,430 acres 

of the Big Spring Wilderness Study 

Area for wilderness designation.

 Alternative C recommends 1,779

acres of the Big Spring Wilderness 

Study Area, south of Chilton Creek, 

for wilderness designation (52% of 

the total wilderness study area).

IDENTIFICATION OF THE

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Identification of the NPS’ preferred 

alternative involved evaluating the 

alternatives using an objective analysis 

process called “Choosing By Advantages.” 

This process included a 3-day workshop held 

in 2011, during which staff members 

representing all divisions of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways worked together 

to develop the preferred alternative. Through 

this process, the planning team identified and 

compared the relative advantages of each 

alternative according to a set of factors that 

were based on the benefits or advantages of 

each alternative to fulfill the purpose of the 

plan, while addressing the planning issues 

identified in chapter 1. These factors include 

the following:

Factor 1: Protect and improve cultural 

resources (historic structures, cultural 

landscapes, ethnography, and archeology).

Factor 2: Protect and improve natural 

resources (land management zoning, river 

zoning, soundscapes, free-flow protection, 

water quality, wildlife, and habitat 

fragmentation).

Factor 3: Provide desirable visitor 

experiences and services (river-based 

recreation zones / social interaction, landbased recreation / social interaction, user

conflicts / visitor safety, scenic experience, 

interpretation/education, designated access 

and circulation, and visitor facilities).

Factor 4: Provide necessary and appropriate 

commercial services (commercial recreation–

boat and shuttle, new commercial 

opportunities–river, and other commercial 

opportunities–land).

Factor 5: Improve park operations (staffing, 

operational facilities, wilderness, 

partnerships, agricultural leases, scenic 

easements, and housing).

Recommendations made during the 

“Choosing by Advantages” process were 

based on the importance of advantages 

between the alternatives. This involved the 

identification of the attributes or 

characteristics of each alternative relative to 

the factors, a determination of the advantages 

for each alternative for each factor, and then 

weighing the importance of each advantage. 

The relationship between the advantages and 

costs of each alternative were also 

established. This information was used to 

identify the alternative that provides the 

National Park Service and the public the 

greatest advantage for the most reasonable 

cost.

The results of the Choosing by Advantages 

process identified alternative B as the 

agency’s preferred alternative. This 

alternative provides the best combination of 

strategies to protect the park unit’s unique 

natural and cultural resources and visitor 

experience, while improving the park unit’s 

operational effectiveness and sustainability. It 

also provides other advantages to the 

Riverways, regional communities, partners, 

and stakeholders. A brief description of the 

key differences among the alternatives as they 

relate to each factor is provided below, along 

with a rationale as to why alternative B would 

provide the greatest advantage.
Introduction

41

Factor 1: Protect and Improve

Cultural Resources

All three action alternatives would include 

the following:

 Restore additional historic structures 

and make them available/accessible to 

the public as interpretive exhibits.

 Introduce management zoning.

 Implement visitor use management

strategies.

Alternative C would include two actions not 

shared by the other action alternatives:

 Provide more intensive management 

for some historic structures and sites 

to protect resources to accommodate 

more visitors.

 Monitor resource conditions so that 

unacceptable impacts do not occur.

Alternative A and alternative B would both 

include reestablishment of select pastoral 

landscapes.

Alternative B would include several actions, 

beyond those shared with the other action 

alternatives:

 Restart oral history program.

 Enhance archive and museum 

collections program.

 Expand curatorial facility to provide 

additional archeological storage space 

for smaller national park units in the 

region.

 Develop the Riverways as a regional 

curatorial hub.

 Include monitoring, research, and 

preservation projects that would 

actively support and strengthen 

management capabilities and ensure 

accurate visitor information.

As a result of these additional actions, 

alternative B was determined to provide the 

greatest advantages with respect to protecting 

and improving cultural resources.

Factor 2: Protect and Improve

Natural Resources

All three action alternatives would involve 

the following actions:

 Introduce management zoning.

 Implement visitor use management

strategies.

 Implement ecological restoration 

projects, such as closing, stabilizing, 

and revegetating undesignated roads, 

traces, trails, river crossings, and 

access points.

 Partner with the state to enhance 

healthy native game fish populations.

Alternative C would include two actions not 

shared by the other action alternatives:

 Manage natural resources to provide 

high-quality scenery and have a 

higher tolerance for resource impacts 

in heavily used areas.

 Monitor resource conditions so that 

unacceptable impacts do not occur.

Alternative B would include several actions 

beyond those shared with the other action 

alternatives:

 Research effects of visitor use on river

and karst habitats.

 Partner with the county and state to 

replace Cedargrove low-water bridge 

with a high-water bridge and 

construct a new bridge at Akers.

 Improve park unit waste systems and 

partner with the community about 

waste systems adjacent to the 

riverways.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

42

As a result of these additional actions, 

alternative B was determined to provide the 

greatest advantages with respect to protecting 

and improving natural resources.

Factor 3: Provide Desirable Visitor 

Experiences and Services

All three action alternatives would share the 

following actions:

 Introduce management zoning.

 Implement visitor use management

strategies.

 Close and restore some undesignated 

roads, traces, trails, river crossings, 

and access points.

 Concession dropoff and pickup 

locations for river users using 

nonmotorized watercraft could be

distributed to reduce peak-season 

crowding effects.

 Improve and lengthen the designated 

horse trail system.

 Possibly establish a permitting system 

to manage horse use.

 Allow mountain biking as a new trail 

use, but only on designated trails.

 Open additional trails for persons 

with disabilities and the elderly.

Alternative C would include two actions not 

shared by the other action alternatives.

 Maintain current motorboat 

horsepower limits.

 Coordinate with local caving clubs to 

provide caving safety training and 

cave visits.

Alternative A would increase the percentage 

of the river zoned for nonmotorized 

recreation.

Alternative B and alternative C would share 

five actions:

 Establish a 25-campsite horse 

campground.

 Allow vehicle access to gravel bars.

 Increase law enforcement.

 Provide two additional developed 

campgrounds.

 Pursue a rule-making to change the 

existing regulation to allow 60/40 hp

motors on certain portions of the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers.

Alternative B would include several actions 

not shared by other action alternatives:

 Establish a learning center at Powder 

Mill and develop a school curriculum.

 Visitors utilizing motorized and 

nonmotorized watercraft could 

continue to camp on gravel bars. 

Designated campsites may be 

established on some gravel bars that 

are accessed by licensed vehicles.

Provide guided tours to additional 

discovery sites.

 Allow visitors to access designated 

remote sites.

 Establish Junior Rangers and

Discovery Rangers programs.

 Allow for nonmotorized boating 

during the peak season (April 1

through September 14) and use of 

motorboats equipped with engines 

rated 25 hp or less at the powerhead 

during the off-peak season 

(September 15 or the first day of 

gigging season for nongame fish in 

streams, through the end of trapping 

season, as established by the Missouri 

Department of Conservation).

 Pursue a rule-making to establish the 

use of motorboats equipped with 150 

hp or less between Big Spring and the 

southern boundary of the park.

As a result of these additional actions, 

alternative B was determined to provide the 
Introduction

43

greatest advantages with respect to providing 

desirable visitor experiences and services.

Factor 4: Provide Necessary and 

Appropriate Commercial Services

All three action alternatives would include 

potential opportunities for new concessions 

for overnight activities such as guided float 

trips and guided (hike-in) backcountry trips 

in the natural and primitive zones.

Alternative B and alternative C would include 

potential opportunities for new concessions. 

These and higher concentrations of visitors 

in developed zones may create the need for 

an additional camp store.

As a result of the similarity between 

alternative B and alternative C, they were 

both determined to provide equal advantages 

with respect to providing necessary and 

appropriate commercial services, and had 

advantages greater than alternative A.

Factor 5: Improve Park Operations

All three action alternatives would include 

these actions:

 Organize a park advocacy group.

 Establish a partnership with the 

counties regarding road management, 

including closures.

 Continue to share office space at the 

Van Buren headquarters with other 

federal and state agencies.

 Continue to have a cooperating 

association provide bookstore 

services at park unit visitor contact 

facilities, such as the Van Buren

headquarters, Round Spring, and 

Alley Mill. The Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways would continue to 

participate as part of a national 

cooperative agreement with a 

cooperating association. 

 Provide replacement housing units to 

support the need for temporary, term, 

or volunteer staff.

 Construct three multioperational 

facilities, one for each management 

district in alternatives A and C. Under 

the preferred alternative one 

multioperational facility would be 

constructed.

The primary difference among the 

alternatives is that alternative C would 

increase staffing levels the most (primarily in 

law enforcement). Alternative A would also 

result in considerable staffing increases.

The additional staff associated with 

alternative C was determined to provide the 

greatest advantages with respect to improving 

park operations. While alternative B has just 

over half the level of staffing increases 

associated with alternative C, it still offers 

significant advantages.

POTENTIAL BOUNDARY 

ADJUSTMENTS

The National Park and Recreation Act of 

1978 requires general management plans to 

address whether boundary modifications 

should be made to park units. Boundary 

adjustments may be recommended for the 

following reasons:

 Protect significant resources and 

values or enhance opportunities for 

public enjoyment related to park unit

purposes.

 Address operational and management 

issues, such as the need for access or 

the need for boundaries to 

correspond to logical boundary 

delineations such as topographic or 

other natural features or roads.

 Otherwise protect park unit resources 

critical to fulfilling park unit purposes.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

44

No specific boundary adjustments were 

identified as needed for the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways. Thus, none of the 

alternatives in this general management plan

propose changes to the park unit boundary.

This plan does not preclude future 

consideration of boundary adjustments 

should needs or conditions change. The 

boundary may be adjusted in the future 

where opportunities arise. The park unit

would continue to consider these 

opportunities on a case-by-case basis.
45

MANAGEMENT ZONES

Management zones define specific 

resource conditions, visitor experiences, 

appropriate recreational activities, and 

levels and types of development to be 

achieved and maintained in different areas 

of the Riverways for each action 

alternative. In formulating the three action 

alternatives, the management zones were 

placed in different locations in the 

Riverways according to the concept of 

each alternative.

There are no proposed management zone 

maps for the no-action alternative. 

Although some management zones were 

developed for the 1984 Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways General Management Plan, 

these are not presented because the NPS 

approach to zoning has changed 

significantly and an updated management 

zoning approach is required. Also different 

from the 1984 plan, this planning effort will 

not apply any management zones to 

easements or private lands.

Proposed management zones for the 

Riverways were presented to the public in 

Newsletter 3: Preliminary Alternatives

(spring/summer 2009). They were then 

modified in response to public comments.

DESCRIPTIONS OF

MANAGEMENT ZONES

There are seven designated management 

zones, including four land-based zones and 

three river-based zones, for the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. River-based 

zones include the area up to the ordinary 

high-water mark.

Developed

The developed zone represents areas that 

would support moderate to high levels of 

development and visitor services to 

accommodate concentrated visitor use and 

diverse recreational, educational, and 

interpretive opportunities. Most of the 

administrative facilities for operations and 

maintenance would be in this zone.

Resource-based Recreation

The resource-based recreation zone 

represents areas that would support 

moderate levels of visitor use to 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

46

accommodate a wide range of recreational, 

educational, and interpretive 

opportunities. Although some resource 

modifications could occur, natural and 

cultural resources would remain largely 

intact.

Natural

The natural zone represents areas that 

would support the broader ecological 

integrity of the National Riverways. 

Natural processes would dominate and 

only low-impact recreational activities 

would be allowed. Visitors would be 

immersed in nature with opportunities to 

enjoy solitude and natural sights and 

sounds.

Primitive

The primitive zone represents areas that 

would retain their wild, natural character. 

Natural resources and processes would be 

preserved to maintain their natural

conditions and ecological integrity. 

Opportunities would be provided for 

visitors to experience backcountry 

challenges and solitude.

Mixed-use River

The mixed-use river zone represents 

sections of the rivers that would support a 

mix of motorized and nonmotorized 

boating opportunities. Visitor encounters 

would typically be moderate to high, 

especially during peak use. The natural 

setting would predominate, but the sights 

and sounds of human activity would be 

prevalent.

Seasonal Mixed-use River

The seasonal mixed-use zone represents 

sections of the rivers that would support a 
Management Zones

47

mix of nonmotorized and lowerhorsepower motorized boating 

opportunities during the off-peak season. 

The rest of the year, only nonmotorized 

boating would be allowed. The natural 

setting would predominate, but the social 

setting would vary seasonally with the 

types of allowable activities and levels of 

use.

Nonmotorized River

The nonmotorized river zone represents 

sections of the rivers that accommodate 

year-round, nonmotorized boating 

opportunities. Visitors would experience 

an unaltered river system where natural 

sights and sounds would predominate, 

except during peak use when recreational 

activity would be more apparent.

MANAGEMENT ZONE COMPARISON 

Tables 2 and 3 give an overview of each 

management zone and describe the desired 

conditions for resources within each zone. 

Table 2 provides information about the 

four land-based management zones. Table 

3 provides information about the three 

river-based management zones. The tables 

allow comparison of the differences 

between zones—some slight, some major—

in the tolerance for resource impacts, 

appropriate management activities, visitor 

use levels, and appropriate recreational 

activities. For a more detailed overview of 

the management zones see appendix D.
This page is intentionally left blank
Developed Resource-based recreation Natural Primitive

Zone concept Areas support moderate to high levels of development 

and visitor services to accommodate concentrated visitor 

use and diverse recreational, educational, and interpretive 

opportunities. 

Most of the administrative facilities for operations and 

maintenance would be in this zone.

Areas support moderate levels of visitor use to accommodate 

a wide range of recreational, educational, and interpretive 

opportunities. 

Although some resource modifications could occur, natural and 

cultural resources would remain largely intact.

Areas support the broader ecological integrity of the national 

riverways. 

Natural processes would dominate and only low-impact 

recreational activities would be allowed. 

Visitors would be immersed in nature with opportunities to 

enjoy solitude and natural sights and sounds.

Areas retain their wild, natural character. 

Natural resources and processes would be preserved to 

maintain their pristine conditions and ecological integrity. 

Opportunities would be provided for visitors to experience 

backcountry challenges and solitude.

Levels of 

development

Moderate to high levels of development to meet visitor use and 

park administrative needs.

Moderate levels of development for the purpose of directing 

visitor use, enhancing recreational opportunities, and 

protecting resources. 

Developments would be limited to those essential for resource 

protection, research, monitoring, and basic visitor services. 

Minimal development would be allowed for the protection of 

natural resources and to allow for dispersed, low-impact visitor 

use.

Visitor experience Visitors would have opportunities to better understand the 

riverways’ significant resources and values through a wide 

range of interpretive facilities and services, interact with other 

visitors and park staff, and recreate in an environment that is 

supported by a variety of visitor services.

Visitors would experience a modified natural environment with 

developed visitor facilities for orientation; day and overnight 

use would concentrate most of the park’s visitors in these 

areas. They also would have a high expectation for quality 

services and facilities.

Visitors would have opportunities to participate in a range of 

recreational, interpretive, and educational opportunities.

Visitors would experience a mostly natural setting where some 

visitor services are available.

Visitors would encounter intact natural resources, features, and 

systems for personal inspiration, education, and recreation. 

Experiences could include opportunities for solitude, 

contemplation, and self-reliance.

Evidence of human use would be limited.

Visitors would be immersed in a primitive, wild setting with 

opportunities to experience backcountry challenges, solitude, 

and self-reliance. 

Visitors would have a sense of remoteness, isolated from the 

sights and sounds of other people. 

Visitor services Moderate to high level of visitor services could include one or 

more of the following: orientation and interpretive programs, 

signs, wayside exhibits, developed campgrounds, contact 

stations, commercial operations, convenience stores, dining, 

and shuttle services.

Moderate levels of visitor services would be provided, such 

as orientation and interpretive programs, signs and wayside 

exhibits, backcountry campgrounds, and commercial services if 

compatible with the desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences.

Low levels of visitor services would be provided, such 

as informational signs, wayside exhibits, and primitive 

campsites.

Directional signs would be provided at trailheads. 

Limited interpretive materials might be available to promote 

safe and responsible recreation.

Natural resource 

condition

Natural resources would be managed to accommodate facilities 

for NPS operations and concentrated visitor use. 

The effects of developments and visitor use on the natural 

surroundings would be minimized through planning and 

design efforts. 

Resources would be maintained in their natural condition, 

yet modified where necessary to provide distinct visitor 

opportunities and experiences.

Modifications would be aesthetically blended with the 

environment as much as possible.

Ecological integrity would be maintained by preserving 

and restoring natural resources and processes through an 

integrated natural resource management approach.

Emphasis would be placed on protecting and restoring 

outstanding natural features and habitats for rare and 

endangered species.

Natural systems and processes would function independent of 

human intervention.

Natural conditions would be restored when disturbed by 

human activity, but only if degraded sites are not expected to 

recover in a timely manner without human intervention. 

No development would occur.

Cultural resource 

condition

Cultural resources eligible for or listed in the National Register 

of Historic Places would be protected and managed consistent 

with NPS policies and the standards published by the secretary 

of the interior. 

All other cultural resources would be evaluated to determine 

if they should be preserved, stabilized, restored, or left 

unmaintained.

Same as Developed Same as Developed Same as Developed

TABLE 2. OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS LAND-BASED MANAGEMENT ZONES

49
TABLE 3. OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS RIVER-BASED MANAGEMENT ZONES (INCLUDES RIVERS UP TO THE ORDINAR

Mixed-use Seasonal mixed-use 

Zone concept The river supports a mix of motorized and nonmotorized boating opportunities.

The natural setting would predominate, but the sights and sounds of human activity would be prevalent.

The river supports a mix of nonmotorized and lower-horsepower motorizduring the off-peak season, which varies by alternative (please refer to tadetailed description of the peak and off-peak season for each alternativof the year, only nonmotorized boating would be allowed.The natural setting would predominate, but the social setting would vary the types of allowable activities and levels of use.

Levels of development Low to moderate levels of development would be provided to accommodate 

launching and retrieving motorized and nonmotorized watercraft on the river.Locating new developments or improvements in the floodplain would be avoided where possible.

Same as Mixed-Use 

Visitor experience Visitors would have opportunities to engage in a diverse mix of motorized and 

nonmotorized boating experiences.

Visitors would have the opportunity to float the river without the presencboats during the peak season, which varies by alternative (please refer to detailed description of the peak and off-peak season for each alternative

During the off-season, visitors would have opportunities to engage in a mhorsepower motorized and nonmotorized boating experiences.

Natural resource condition

The natural resource conditions in the river corridor would be managed to ensure that the free-flowing clear, clean water of the river was not degraded.

Same as Mixed-Use 

Cultural resource condition

Cultural resources eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places would be protected and managed consistent with NPS policies and the standards published by the secretary of the interior.All other cultural resources would be evaluated to determine if they should be preserved, stabilized, restored, or left unmaintained.Cultural resources that are subject to bank erosion, slumping, subsidence, or other natural deterioration would be stabilized using best management practices.

Same as Mixed-Use 

50
Management Zones

51

HORSEPOWER LIMITS

Table 4 describes the horsepower limits 

under each alternative. The color codes 

correspond to the river-based management 

zones described in table 3.

During public scoping meetings it became 

apparent a major topic of public interest 

was in the size of motors currently allowed 

on the rivers. Existing park regulations (36 

CFR 7.83(a) (2), see appendix C) prohibits 

the use of motors rated higher than 40 hp 

by the manufacturer from Big Springs 

upriver to Alley Springs and Round 

Springs. However, for many years the 

National Riverways has interpreted the 

regulations as allowing (and the public has 

been using) motors rated up to 60 hp if 

they were equipped with a jet powered 

prop that effectively lowered the usable 

horsepower to 40 hp. The National Park 

Service has recently been advised that this 

interpretation of the regulations is in 

variance with the Code of Federal 

Regulations. This issue has been included in 

this comprehensive planning process 

because the discussion of motor size could 

logically include a range of alternatives for 

how the public recreates on and uses the 

rivers.

Alternative B, which is the preferred 

alternative, would continue to allow the 

use of these 60/40 hp jet motors (or 40 hp 

without the jet) on the waters where they 

are currently allowed as shown in the noaction alternative. Alternative A would 

limit the use of motors to no more than 40 

hp with or without jet attachments. 

Alternative C would allow the use of 60/40 

hp motors. Any alternative that proposed 

the continued use of 60/40 hp motors 

would require rule-making to change the 

existing regulation. Rule making would 

also be pursued to establish 150 hp limit 

from Big Spring to the southern boundary 

of the park for alternative B

RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES

Table 5 summarizes recreation activities 

that are allowed in each management zone. 

Collectively, the management zones 

provide the full suite of recreation 

opportunities that will be allowed in Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways.

Participation in some activities, including 

picnicking, scenic viewing, nature 

observation, and interpretive talks and 

demonstrations, will be allowed in all 

management zones in Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways. Activities such as hiking 

or fishing, which respectively can occur 

only on land or in water, are restricted to 

land-based or river-based management 

zones. In some cases, zoning is used to 

manage for desired conditions. For 

example, bicycling is not included in the 

primitive zone because it is not consistent 

with this zone’s wild, natural character.
52

TABLE 4. MOTORBOAT HORSEPOWER (HP) LIMITS BY ALTERNATIVE

No-action 

alternative Alternative A Alternative B

(NPS preferred) Alternative C

Peak 

season

Off-peak 

season

Peak season

Off-peak 

season

Peak season

Off-peak 

season

Peak season

Off-peak 

season

Current River

Northern 

boundary to 

Akers

10 hp 25 hp

No motorboats No 

motorboats 25 hp

No motorboats

Akers to Pulltite

10 hp 25 hp No 

motorboats Pulltite to 25 hp

Round Spring

Round Spring to 

Two Rivers

60/40 hp

No 

motorboats 25 hp

60/40 hp

60/40 hp Two Rivers to 

Van Buren

40 hp

Van Buren to 

Big Spring

Big Spring to No hp limits

southern 

boundary

No hp limits 150 hp

Jacks Fork

Western 

boundary to 

Rymers 10 hp 25 hp

No motorboats

No 

motorboats 25 hp

No motorboats

Rymers to 

Bay Creek

No 

motorboats 25 hp

Bay Creek to 

Alley Spring 25 hp

25 hp Alley Spring to 

West Eminence 25 hp

East Eminence to 

Two Rivers 60/40 hp 60/40 hp 60/40 hp

General notes: 

- For the No-action alternative, Alternative A, and Alternative C, the Peak season is defined as March 15 through Labor Day.

- For the preferred alternative, peak season is defined as the day after the end of trapping season through the day before the start of gigging season, as established by 

 the Missouri Department of Conservation. Currently those dates would be April 1-September 14. 

- Seasonal/mixed use zoning permits use of 25 hp motorboats during the off-peak season. 

- The designation of 60/40 hp and 150 hp assume a regulation change. Boat motor horsepower is measured at the powerhead.

- The color codes correspond to the river-based management zones described in table 3:

Mixed-use Seasonal mixed-use Nonmotorized
53

TABLE 5. RECREATION ACTIVITIES BY MANAGEMENT ZONE

Activity

Land-based management zones River-based management zones

Developed

Resourcebased 

recreation

Natural Primitive Mixed-use river Seasonal mixed-use 

river Nonmotorized river

Picnicking ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Camping, amenities 

provided ● ●

Camping, no amenities ● ●

Camping on gravel 

bars1 ● ● ● ●

Lodging/dining ●

Hiking ● ● ● ●

Horseback riding On designated trails At designated fords

Bicycling on roads ● ● ● ●

Bicycling on trails ● ● ●

Scenic viewing / 

nature observation ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Interpretive talks, 

demonstrations ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Hunting and trapping ● ● ● ● ● ●

Fishing (not in springs) ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Caving Guided Guided Guided Guided

Off road all-terrain 

vehicle1 ●

Swimming2 ● ● ●

Canoeing, kayaking, 

rafting, tubing ● ● ●

Motorized boating

Motorboats yearround. See table 4 for 

motorboat 

horsepower limits by 

alternative.

Peak season: No 

motorboats. Off-peak 

season 25 hp

maximum.

No motorboats.

1 Off-road all-terrain vehicles and utility terrain vehicles would only be allowed on designated roads, in accordance with state law.

2 Swimming is not allowed in springs or spring branches. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

54

LAND ACREAGE AND RIVER MILE 

COMPARISONS BY ALTERNATIVES

The no-action alternative is the continuation 

of current management practices. There are 

no proposed management zone maps for the 

no-action alternative. Some management 

zones were developed for the 1984 Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways General 

Management Plan, but these are not 

presented because the NPS approach to 

zoning has changed significantly and an 

updated management zoning approach is 

required.

Mapping of the management zones for 

alternatives A, B, and C, was respectively 

provided in each alternative map. For each 

alternative, the number of federally owned 

acres that would be within each land-based 

management zone is shown in table 6. Visual 

representations of the same data, as 

percentages of the Riverways’ land area, are 

provided in figures 1, 3, and 5 for alternatives 

A, B, and C, respectively.

Table 7 presents the river miles within each 

river-based management zone for each action 

alternatives. Visual representations of the 

same data, as percentages of the Riverways’ 

river miles, are provided in figures 2, 4, and 6 

for alternatives A, B, and C, respectively.

Inspection of the tables and graphs 

demonstrate that there are substantial 

differences in the acreages and river miles 

assigned to the various land- and water-based 

management zones among the action 

alternatives. This demonstrates that the 

process for developing alternatives was 

successful in meeting the requirement to 

consider the full range of reasonable 

alternatives that is included in guidance from 

the Council on Environmental Quality and 

NPS Director’s Order 12.

TABLE 6. FEDERALLY OWNED ACRES WITHIN EACH LAND-BASED

MANAGEMENT ZONE FOR EACH ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Zone Alternative A Alternative B

(NPS preferred) Alternative C

Developed 739 1,436 2,958

Resource-based recreation 1,671 4,534 30,822

Natural 35,411 37,204 14,542

Primitive 13,833 8,480 3,332

Total 51,654 51,654 51,654

TABLE 7. RIVER MILES WITHIN EACH RIVER-BASED

MANAGEMENT ZONE FOR EACH ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Zone Alternative A Alternative B 

(NPS preferred) Alternative C

Mixed-use river 48 71 79

Seasonal mixed-use river 18 63 27

Nonmotorized river 68 0 28
Management Zones

55

FIGURE 1. PROPORTION OF MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR ALL

FEDERALLY OWNED NATIONAL RIVERWAYS LANDS UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

FIGURE 2. PROPORTION OF MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR ALL NATIONAL RIVERWAYS

WATERS UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

1.4%

68.6%

26.8%

3.2%

Alternative A

Developed

Natural

Primitive

Resource-based Recreation

36.0%

13.6%

50.4%

Alternative A

Mixed-use

Seasonal Mixed-use

Nonmotorized
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

56

FIGURE 3. PROPORTION OF MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR ALL FEDERALLY OWNED

NATIONAL RIVERWAYS LANDS UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

FIGURE 4. PROPORTION OF MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR ALL NATIONAL RIVERWAYS WATERS

UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

2.8%

72.0%

16.4%

8.8%

Alternative B: NPS Preferred

Developed

Natural

Primitive

Resource-based Recreation

52%

48%

Alternative B: NPS Preferred

Mixed-Use

Seasonal Mixed-Use
Management Zones

57

FIGURE 5. PROPORTION OF MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR ALL FEDERALLY OWNED

NATIONAL RIVERWAYS LANDS UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

FIGURE 6. PROPORTION OF MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR ALL NATIONAL RIVERWAYS WATERS

UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

5.7%

28.2%

6.5%

59.6%

Alternative C

Developed

Natural

Primitive

Resource-based Recreation

20.4% 58.7%

20.9%

Alternative C

Mixed-use

Seasonal Mixed-use

Nonmotorized
58

THE ALTERNATIVES

ORGANIZATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The overall concepts for each alternative 

are presented followed by management 

strategies that would guide Riverways’ 

programs, activities, or resources. These 

strategies are organized by the following 

nine management categories:

 zoning

 visitor experiences and activities

 visitor services and facilities

 interpretation and education

 natural resource management

 cultural resource management

 wilderness

 park operations

 partnerships

For the no-action alternative, information 

is presented that helps identify current 

Riverways activities and programs, as well 

as some of the ongoing issues and concerns 

that the proposals for alternatives A, B, and 

C may address.

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS

No-action Alternative: Continuation of 

Current Management Practices

The no-action alternative is depicted on 

the No Action map following the 

alternative description. This alternative 

describes how Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways has been and would continue to 

be managed. It reflects current resource 

conditions and trends, existing recreational 

opportunities, types of development, and 

levels of service. The primary purpose of 

describing the no-action alternative is to 

provide a baseline for comparing the other 

management alternatives.

The no-action alternative is a description 

of on-the-ground management conditions 

rather than a reiteration of existing 

planning documents for the National 

Riverways. The 1984 general management 

plan, 1989 river use management plan, and 

1992 statement for management all provide 

a basis for understanding the current 

management approach. However, these 

documents are not always an accurate 

reflection of adaptive management 

approaches taken by NPS staff to address

unforeseen or emerging issues.

Alternative A

Alternative A is depicted on the alternative 

A map following the alternative 

description. Management would focus on 

creating visitor experiences and providing 

resource conditions that help visitors 

better understand the riverways of the past, 

including the traditional river recreation 

activities reminiscent of those that 

occurred when the National Riverways

were established. Alternative A would 

emphasize greater opportunities for 

traditional, nonmechanized forms of 

recreation and visitor experiences that are 

quieter, less crowded, and slower paced.

Alternative B (NPS Preferred)

Alternative B is depicted on the alternative 

B map following the alternative 

description. Management would provide a 

high level of protection of natural and 

cultural resources while expanding ways 

for visitors to experience and learn about 

these resources in interesting and 

enjoyable ways. This alternative strives to 

improve visitors’ connection to the natural, 

cultural, and scenic elements of the 

Riverways with the major goal of helping 

improve visitor appreciation of its 

resources. Visitors would have enhanced 

opportunities to discover and learn about 
The Alternatives

59

the Riverways’ natural wonders and Ozark 

heritage. Management would seek to 

provide a diversity of outdoor recreational 

opportunities and experiences while 

maintaining the highly scenic natural 

setting and cultural resources.

Alternative C

Alternative C is depicted on the alternative 

C map following the alternative 

description. Management would primarily 

seek to provide a diversity of outdoor 

recreational opportunities and experiences 

while maintaining the highly scenic natural 

setting and cultural resources. This

alternative’s diverse river recreational 

opportunities and experiences would be 

similar to what is included in the no-action 

alternative. Alternative C also would offer

additional land-based recreational 

opportunities. This is reflected in the 

increased amount of acreage in the 

resource-based recreation zone and the 

developed zone.
60

THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

CONTINUATION OF CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

ZONING

The no-action alternative management 

zoning is limited to river use management 

zones set forth in the 1989 river use

management plan.

VISITOR EXPERIENCES

AND ACTIVITIES

The current, wide variety of visitor 

experiences and recreational activities 

would continue to occur. These include 

river-based recreational opportunities such 

as canoeing, kayaking, tubing, rafting, 

johnboating, and fishing. Different 

stretches of the river would continue to be 

managed for different boating experiences. 

The current variety of land-based 

recreational opportunities would also

continue to be offered to visitors, including 

hiking, horseback riding, hunting, 

picnicking, and camping.

River-based Recreation

All sections of the Riverways would 

continue to be open to nonmotorized 

watercraft year-round.

Management would continue to provide 

for visitor opportunities and experiences 

that result in high-density canoe use in the 

upper Current River. The frequency of 

river access points along this stretch would 

continue to allow for float trips of one day 

or less. Tube use has grown in popularity in 

many sections of the Riverways, especially 

along the lower Current River. These highdensity river sections would likely continue 

to increase in use.

Management would continue to allow 

boats to use 60/40 hp motors on certain 

portions of the Current and Jacks Fork 

Rivers. As noted previously, this approach 

is in violation with the existing regulation. 

Nonetheless, this situation cannot 

continue indefinitely, the no-action 

alternative is characterized this way to 

provide a baseline for comparison in 

evaluating the changes and impacts of the 

other alternatives. The no-action 

alternative is characterized this way to 

provide a baseline for comparison in 

evaluating the changes and impacts of the 

other alternatives. River use management 

zones from 1989 that set horsepower limits 

on motorboats and maximum numbers for 

canoes within the National Riverways

would continue. See specific motorboat 

horsepower limits by alternative.

Concessioners would continue to be 

required to limit canoe rentals to adhere to 

the 1989 river management plan.

The no-action alternative reflects current 

management practices. The Park staff is 

tasked with protecting the resource and 

may exercise adaptive management 

approaches on an as needed basis to 

address unforeseen or emerging issues in 

accordance with law and policy.

The riverways would continue to be 

available for fishing and gigging activities,

consistent with applicable restrictions set 

forth by the park unit or state. For 

example, fishing by motorized boat would 

be allowable in areas zoned by the park 

unit for motorized boating. The National 

Park Service would continue to partner 

with the state to enhance healthy native 

game fish populations.

Land-based Recreation

Forty nine miles of designated hiking trails, 

ranging in length from less than a mile to 

more than thirteen miles, would continue 

to be provided. Some developed-area 

paved trails would continue to be 
The No-action Alternative 

Continuation of Current Management Practices

61

accessible and two campgrounds would 

continue to provide accessible campsites. 

Trails would continue to be off-limits to 

mountain bikes.

The current, designated horse trail system 

of 23 miles of designated horse trails would

continue to be provided, with seven

designated stream crossings for horse 

riders. At least 90 miles of undesignated 

horse trails, with 24 undesignated stream 

crossings used by horse riders and 38 

undesignated access points could continue 

to be utilized. Horse camping would 

continue to not be allowed.

Developed fee campgrounds with at Big 

Spring, Alley Spring, Round Spring, Two 

Rivers, Pulltite, and Powder Mill would 

continue to provide approximately 450

sites.

Vehicular access to gravel bars for day use 

and overnight camping would continue to 

be allowed unless negative resource or 

visitor experience impacts are identified. 

This includes those with existing 

designated sites. Gravel bar camping would 

continue to be allowed for those accessing 

gravel bars by motorized and 

nonmotorized watercraft, as long as the 

location of the campsite is 0.5 mile away 

from any designated campground and at 

least 50 feet away from any designated river 

access.

Backcountry campsites would continue to 

be provided in designated areas

throughout the Riverways and would 

require a fee. Some backcountry sites 

would continue to have basic amenities, 

such as restrooms, tables, fire rings, and/or 

lantern posts.

Primitive campsites would continue to be 

provided throughout the Riverways and 

would not require a fee. Primitive sites 

would have no amenities. Some primitive 

sites are accessible by vehicles.

Currently all caves in the National 

Riverways, other than Round Spring cave,

are closed in attempt to limit the spread of 

white-nose syndrome amongst bats. 

Guided cave tours at Round Spring would 

continue to be provided unless resource 

impacts were identified.

VISITOR SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Visitor orientation and information 

services would continue to be available at 

NPS headquarters in Van Buren, at the 

multiagency visitor center in Salem, and at 

a few contact points and ranger stations 

throughout the National Riverways.

Major recreation sites would continue to

be found at Akers, Pulltite, Round Spring, 

Alley Spring, Two Rivers, Powder Mill, and 

Big Spring. These areas would include 

visitor facilities for day use and overnight 

camping. Existing visitor services would 

also continue, which include equipment 

rentals, restrooms, and concession stores 

and food services. Rental cabins would 

continue to be available at Big Spring.

Smaller recreation sites with facilities for 

day and overnight use would continue to 

include Cedargrove, Jerktail, Blue Spring, 

Log Yard, and Gooseneck. River access, 

primitive camping, restrooms, and parking 

would continue to be provided at various 

sites along the rivers.

There are currently 23 concession 

contracts that provide services to visitors. 

These businesses would continue to 

operate under their existing contracts to 

provide visitor support and river 

recreational services (canoe, tube, and raft 

rentals and shuttle services), cabin rentals 

and a restaurant at Big Spring, and five 

camp stores near the campgrounds.

There are approximately 350 miles of roads 

in the National Riverways. Included in this 

figure are more than 50 miles of paved

roads, more than 120 miles of graded
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

62

roads, and more than 150 miles of twotrack dirt roads.

There are 72 miles of trails designated for 

hiking and/or horseback riding. Different 

segments of the road and trail networks

would continue to be managed by the 

National Park Service or state or county 

agencies.

The following visitor entry services and 

information conditions would continue:

 no entrance station or entrance fees

 no traditional NPS year-round 

visitor center

 primary use of the website and 

printed materials to provide visitor 

information

 use of seasonal visitor contact 

locations

 use of the off-site, multiagency

information facility in Salem, 

Missouri, to provide visitor 

information

Existing NPS roads and river access points 

that are currently open and accessible 

would continue to be managed and 

patrolled. Management would continue to 

strive for closure of roads, traces, 

crossings, and river access points that are 

not part of the NPS-designated system.

Law enforcement would be increased for 

compliance.

INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION

The current variety of interpretive and 

educational programs would continue to 

be provided for visitors. The goal of these 

programs is to ensure that visitors have all 

of the information they need to fully enjoy 

and experience the National Riverways by

• promoting awareness about the 

facilities, features, and activities 

available

• interpreting the cultural and natural 

features of the area

• educating visitors on the safe and 

proper use of National Riverways

resources

NATURAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT

Natural resource management would 

continue to preserve and protect the 

natural resources, processes, systems, and 

values of the National Riverways in 

accordance with NPS policies. In 

particular, programs would emphasize 

protection of outstanding natural features, 

including sites that encompass geological, 

scientific, and ecological characteristics 

that warrant special protection. Examples 

include caves, springs, and other rare 

habitats that support threatened and 

endangered species. Ongoing monitoring 

of listed species (e.g., Indiana bat, gray bat, 

and Ozark hellbender) would continue, 

along with involvement in associated

interagency research efforts. Ongoing 

programs also would include the 

administration of scenic easements on 

privately owned tracts, collaborative 

management efforts on state-owned lands, 

and management of agricultural leases to 

preserve certain pastoral landscapes within 

the National Riverways’ boundary.

CULTURAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT

Cultural resource management would 

continue to include efforts to preserve 

historic structures, archeological 

resources, and cultural landscapes in 

accordance with NPS policies. Cultural 

resource programs would also include 

adaptive reuse of some historic structures; 

management of some historic cemeteries 

(that is, to provide appropriate access); the 

study of Ozark folklife; and the 

preservation and cataloging of historic 

objects, documents, and other collections.
The No-action Alternative 

Continuation of Current Management Practices

63

While there are currently 249 structures on 

the List of Classified Structures, the 

number will change as cultural landscapes 

are reevaluated and individual federal 

properties pass the 50-year historic 

benchmark, or when structures that do not 

receive adequate maintenance deteriorate 

to a point that they are removed from the 

list. Some of these structures have been 

restored and are available as interpretive 

exhibits. Others would continue to be 

adaptively used for other park operations 

and maintenance purposes. Cemeteries 

would continue to be maintained. More 

than 400 archeological sites would 

continue to be monitored.

In addition, the use of prescribed fire may 

be considered for managing vegetation 

associated with historic sites and cultural 

landscapes in a fashion that preserves the 

character of historic settings and 

landscapes. 

A cultural affiliation landscape plan for 

pastoral areas would be completed and 

implemented. This would increase areas 

managed as meadows and agricultural sites 

that were once part of Ozark farms and 

settlement areas. 

The park unit’s certified curatorial facility 

would continue to be managed for park 

resource collections only.

WILDERNESS

Under the no-action alternative, the 

National Park Service would continue to 

maintain the Big Spring tract’s primitive, 

natural character in order to maintain its 

wilderness eligibility. See chapter 3 for 

details about the wilderness study and 

proposed zoning, management of 

structures, roads, and utilities within the 

Big Spring tract.

PARK OPERATIONS

Park maintenance operations would 

continue to be managed out of current 

facilities, including several structures built 

by the Civilian Conservation Corps that do 

not meet health or safety requirements.

Staff housing units would continue to be 

provided at current operating levels 

throughout the waterways.

Water systems and waste water systems 

would continue to be provided at current 

levels within the waterways.

PARTNERSHIPS

Currently, there are few partnerships. 

Unlike most national park units, the 

Riverways do not have a friends group. 

Management is currently working to 

develop a friends group.

The park unit would continue to share 

office space at the Van Buren headquarters 

with other federal and state agencies.

A cooperating association would continue 

to operate bookstores at park visitor 

contact facilities such as the Van Buren

headquarters, Round Spring, and Alley 

Mill.
This page is intentionally left blank


67

ALTERNATIVE A

ZONING

See the alternative A map for a depiction of

management zones within the Riverways

under this alternative. See table 6 for 

numbers of acres in each land-based 

management zone and figure 1 for the

percentages of the Riverways’ land in each 

land-based management zone. See table 7

for numbers of river miles in each riverbased management zone and figure 2 for 

the percentages of the Riverways’ river 

miles in each river-based management 

zone.

VISITOR EXPERIENCES

AND ACTIVITIES

Visitors would have opportunities to float 

secluded stretches of the river where they 

would not experience the sights and 

sounds of motorized boats or vehicles. 

Along other stretches of the river, visitors 

would encounter low to moderate 

densities of lower-horsepower motorboats 

that evoke the traditional johnboat river 

experience. Family-friendly recreation and 

experiences would also be emphasized, 

including activities such as guided float 

trips, gravel bar camping, and fishing. 

Motorized forms of recreation would be 

deemphasized. A family-friendly 

atmosphere refers to safe experiences 

appropriate for groups with young 

children, seniors, or any group members 

who desire experiences free of disruptive 

behaviors. 

River-based Recreation

All sections of the riverways would 

continue to be open to nonmotorized 

watercraft year-round. The percentage of 

the rivers zoned for nonmotorized 

recreation would increase, including 

specific areas for low-density 

nonmotorized use, even during the peakuse season, which is defined as March 15 

through Labor Day. Concession dropoff

and pickup locations for nonmotorized

watercraft users would be redistributed to 

reduce peak-season crowding effects and 

to protect river resources in response to 

potential changes in river flow conditions.

This would require closure and restoration 

of about 20 access points. Some new access 

may be needed; however, total designated 

access points would decrease.

Existing regulation that prohibits the use of 

motors that are rated higher than 40 hp by 

the manufacturer on certain portions of the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers would be 

enforced and 60/40 hp motors would not 

be allowed. See table 4 for motorboat 

horsepower limits by alternative.

The riverways would continue to be 

available for fishing and gigging activities,

consistent with applicable restrictions set 

forth by the park unit or state. For 

example, fishing by motorized boat would 

be allowable in areas zoned by alternative 

A for motorized boating. The National 

Park Service would continue to partner

with the state to sustain healthy native fish 

populations.

Land-based Recreation

The location of primitive and natural 

zoning would increase the amount of 

hiking trail access compared to current 

conditions. About 15 miles of roads in 

primitive zones would be removed and 

replaced with hiking trails. Additional 

accessible trails would be created. 

Mountain biking may become a new,

allowable trail use, but only on designated 

trails if determined to be appropriate. 

Mountain biking would not be allowed in 

primitive zones.

A recreational horse use and trail 

management plan would be prepared. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

68

Approximately 25 miles of additional 

designated horse trails would be provided, 

but there would be no new stream 

crossings. Approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated horse trails would be closed 

and restored. Design of the designated,

approximately 23-mile-long horse trail 

system would be improved to discourage 

creation of social trails; decrease impacts of 

horses on sensitive areas, including streams 

and riparian areas; reduce conflicts with 

other users; and reduce trail damage, 

erosion, and manure pollution. A 

permitting system would be established, as 

necessary, to manage impacts of horse use. 

Horse camping may be allowed in 

designated sites. Law enforcement would 

be increased for compliance.

Vehicular access to all gravel bars would be 

eliminated. Gravel bar camping would 

continue to be allowed for those accessing 

gravel bars by nonmotorized watercraft, as 

long as the location of the campsite is 0.5

mile away from any designated 

campground and at least 50 feet away from 

any designated river access. 

Backcountry campsites would continue to 

be provided in designated areas

throughout the Riverways and would 

require a fee. Backcountry campsites 

would be removed from primitive zones. 

Backcountry sites may have some basic 

amenities, such as restrooms, tables, fire 

rings, and/or lantern posts.

Primitive campsites would continue to be 

provided in primitive and natural zones 

and would not require a fee. Roads to 

primitive sites would be removed. Primitive 

sites would have no amenities and can be 

accessed by foot or watercraft only.

Currently all caves in the National 

Riverways, other than Round Spring cave, 

are closed in attempt to limit the spread of 

white-nose syndrome amongst bats. 

Guided cave tours at Round Spring would 

continue to be provided unless resource 

impacts were identified. The caves are 

home to a wide variety of unique and 

important natural resource species. 

Depending upon the notable effects on the 

natural resource species, the park unit may 

continue to keep other caves closed or 

determine certain caves may be reopened 

in the future depending upon impact to the 

natural resources.

VISITOR SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Only a network of designated roads, trails, 

and river crossings would be retained to 

provide access for specific recreational 

activities and administrative purposes. 

Roads and trails that have been illegally 

developed would be closed. Native 

vegetation impacted by these unauthorized 

routes may be rehabilitated. Commercial 

services may be limited or modified along 

different portions of the rivers to achieve 

desired visitor experiences and resource 

conditions.

The visitor entry services and information 

conditions that were described for the noaction alternative would continue. No 

additional contact locations would be 

provided.

NPS roads and river access points would 

be managed by zoning prescriptions. 

Management would seek to establish a 

partnership with the counties regarding 

road management, including closures. 

Undesignated NPS roads, traces, crossings, 

and river access points would be closed. 

Natural conditions would be restored to 

approximately 50 miles of roads. Law 

enforcement would be increased for 

compliance.

There would be potential opportunities for 

new concessions for overnight river 

activities such as guided float trips and 

guided (hike-in) backcountry trips in the 

natural and primitive zones. New 

concessions would require a feasibility 

study.
Alternative A

69

INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION

The focus would be on enhancing visitor 

awareness of the continuum of people’s

cultural connections to the area that spans 

thousands of years. Living history 

programs would be emphasized to provide 

visitors with a better understanding of 

traditional, subsistence ways of life in the 

Ozarks. For example, an interpretive “float 

camp” would be developed to let visitors 

experience what river recreation was like 

in the past.

NATURAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT

Natural resources would be maintained or 

restored to more natural conditions that 

lack signs of substantial development or 

use. The emphasis would be on restoring 

degraded biological communities and 

improving the natural setting.

Undesignated NPS roads, traces, crossings, 

and river access points would be closed. 

Natural conditions would be restored to 

approximately 50 miles of roads.

The National Park Service would work 

closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to conduct a programmatic 

consultation under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act for the general 

management plan. The National Park 

Service would also work with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to develop and 

implement conservation plans and 

strategies to protect all federal listed 

species in the Riverways to fulfill the intent 

of section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered 

Species Act. Ongoing monitoring of listed 

species (e.g., Indiana bat, gray bat, and 

Ozark hellbender) would continue, along 

with involvement in associated interagency 

research efforts.

The National Park Service would seek to 

partner with the county and state to 

replace Cedargrove low-water bridge with 

a high-water bridge. It also would seek to 

partner with communities about waste 

systems to improve water quality.

CULTURAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT

Alternative A would emphasize the 

protection and preservation of 

archeological resources, historic 

structures, and cultural landscapes, 

including the restoration of select open 

fields to preserve pastoral scenes. 

Management would seek to partner with 

volunteers and others to accomplish 

cultural resource stewardship projects.

Additional historic structures would be 

restored and made available to the public 

as interpretive exhibits. These additional 

structures and associated landscapes 

would complete the historic representation 

of the continuum of Ozark cultural history 

in this region. Approximately five

additional cemeteries would be maintained

(i.e. remove undergrowth, tree trimming, 

repair fences, etc.). The more than 400

known archeological sites would continue 

to be monitored. Appropriate protection 

measures, such as riverbank stabilization or 

trail rerouting, would be taken where 

archeological sites are threatened by 

erosion, visitor use, or other impacts.

A cultural affiliation landscape plan for 

pastoral areas would be completed and 

implemented according to the 

management zones. This would increase 

areas managed as meadows and 

agricultural sites that were once part of 

Ozark farms and settlement areas.

The park unit’s certified curatorial facility 

would continue to be managed for park 

resource collections only.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

70

WILDERNESS

Under this alternative, 3,424 out of 3,434 

acres within the Big Spring Wilderness 

Study Area would be recommended for 

wilderness designation. This amount is 

99% of the total wilderness study area. Ten

acres in a small developed area and its 

narrow access corridor would be excluded 

from the proposed wilderness designation 

to allow for continued administrative use 

of the access roads, barn, NPS training 

range, and utility corridor.

Most of the wilderness study area would be 

zoned primitive with the exception of the 

access road, barn, NPS training range, and 

utility corridor. These areas would be 

zoned natural.

The fire tower, incinerator, barn, NPS 

training range, and camp from the Civilian 

Conservation Corps era would be retained. 

The barn and NPS training range would be 

excluded (approximately 6 acres) from the 

recommended wilderness designation and 

would continue to be maintained for 

administrative use. The access road to 

these facilities would not be open to 

visitors.

Motorized vehicle use of the access road to 

the fire tower would be prohibited. This 

road may be restored to a Civilian 

Conservation Corps era condition.

The corridor for the buried utility 

communication cable that serves the Big 

Spring cabins and residents located further 

down the line would be excluded from the 

proposed wilderness designation 

(approximately 4 acres) and maintained.

PARK OPERATIONS

Three multioperational facilities, one for 

each management district, would be 

constructed. Each facility would be 4,500 

square feet. Maintenance and field staff 

offices would be consolidated into these 

facilities and removed from Civilian 

Conservation Corps structures. 

Approximately ten obsolete structures that 

are part of the deferred maintenance 

backlog and pose health and safety 

concerns would be removed and their sites 

would be restored.

Approximately four new housing duplex 

units to support additional need for 

seasonal or term staff would be provided.

No additional wastewater management

systems are proposed.

PARTNERSHIPS

The National Park Service would seek to 

develop a friends group.

The park unit would continue to share 

office space at the Van Buren headquarters 

with other federal and state agencies.

A cooperating association would continue 

to operate bookstores at park unit visitor 

contact facilities, including the Van Buren 

headquarters, Round Spring, and Alley 

Mill.

The National Park Service would seek to 

partner with volunteers and others to 

accomplish cultural and natural resource 

stewardship projects.

Alternative A would include establishing a 

partnership with the counties regarding 

road management, including closures. This 

would include partnering with county and 

state to replace Cedargrove low-water 

bridge with a high-water bridge. Partnering 

also would be sought with communities 

about waste systems to improve water 

quality. Partnering with the state to 

enhance healthy native game fish 

populations would continue.


73

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED)

ZONING

See the alternative B map for a depiction of 

management zones within the Riverways

under this alternative. See table 6 for 

numbers of acres in each land-based 

management zone and figure 3 for the 

percentages of the Riverways’ land in each 

land-based management zone. See table 7 

for numbers of river miles in each riverbased management zone and figure 4 for 

the percentages of the Riverways’ river 

miles in each river-based management 

zone.

VISITOR EXPERIENCES

AND ACTIVITIES

Traditional recreational activities, such as 

floating, boating, hunting, fishing, and 

horseback riding, would still be provided. 

Also, a variety of guided and self-guided 

activities would be offered to help visitors 

discover the array of natural and cultural 

resource-based opportunities available and 

increase visitor awareness of the many 

special resources and values.

River-based Recreation

All sections of the riverways would 

continue to be open to nonmotorized 

watercraft year-round. Opportunities for

nonmotorized recreation would increase, 

including specific areas for low-density 

nonmotorized use, during the peak-use 

season, which is defined as April 1 through 

September 14. During the off-peak season 

(which extends from September 15 or the 

first day of gigging season for nongame fish 

in streams, through the end of trapping 

season, as established by the Missouri 

Department of Conservation), motorboats

equipped with engines rated 25 hp or less 

at the powerhead would be permitted on 

the Current River between the northern 

boundary to Round Spring, and on the 

Jacks Fork River between the western 

boundary to west Eminence. 

See table 4 for motorboat horsepower 

limits. The National Park Service would 

pursue rule-making for changes in 

motorboat regulations. This would include 

rule-making to change the existing 40 hp

regulation to allow the use of engines rated 

60 hp at the powerhead, as long as they are 

equipped with a jet unit.

Concession dropoff and pickup locations 

for river users utilizing non-motorized 

watercraft could be redistributed to reduce 

peak-season crowding effects or to protect 

river resources, if changes in river flow 

conditions impact existing locations. This 

could require closure and restoration of up 

to 20 access points and the careful design 

and opening of up to 20 new designated 

access points. Total designated access 

points would remain constant or decrease.

The riverways would continue to be 

available for fishing and gigging activities,

consistent with applicable regulations set 

forth by the park unit or state. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

partner with the state to sustain healthy 

native fish populations.

Land-based Recreation

The location of primitive and natural 

zoning would increase the amount of 

hiking trail access compared to current 

conditions. Approximately 10 miles of 

park-owned roads and traces in primitive 

zones would be removed and replaced with 

hiking trails. When needed, trails would be 

developed to access some discovery sites. 

Some of these trails may link to the Ozark 

Trail. Additional accessible trails would be 

opened. Mountain biking would be a new, 

allowable trail use, but only on designated 

trails, as determined through development 

of a roads and trails management plan and 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

74

subsequent rulemaking. Mountain biking 

would not be allowed in primitive zones. 

The National Park Service would also 

support the county, state, and federal 

highways programs when opportunities 

arise that could allow widening of road 

shoulders for bicycle use. 

The existing designated, approximately 23-

mile long horse trail system would 

continue to be provided. Additional 

equestrian trails would be designated. As 

part of the roads and trails management 

plan, the National Park Service would 

consider designating some of the existing, 

unauthorized trails by incorporating about 

25 to 45 miles of these trails into the

existing Riverways’ trail system, as well as 

some of the associated stream crossings. 

The remaining 45 to 65 miles of 

unauthorized horse trails and associated 

stream crossings would be restored to their 

natural condition. The roads and trails 

management plan would clearly identify 

authorized trails and corresponding trail 

uses, where trails should be redesigned or 

improved to reduce trail user impacts, and 

suitable locations for improved trail 

signage to more clearly delineate 

authorized trails and orient trail users. All

horse trails would be designed to 

discourage creation of social trails; 

decrease impacts of horses on sensitive 

areas, including streams and riparian areas; 

reduce conflicts with other users; and 

reduce trail damage, erosion, and manure 

pollution. In the interim, until a roads and 

trails management plan is completed, 

unauthorized trails that pose the greatest 

threat to park resources and visitor safety 

could be closed on a case-by-case basis. An 

approximate 25-campsite horse 

campground may be established. A 

permitting system could be established, as 

necessary, to manage impacts of horse use. 

Law enforcement would be increased for 

compliance.

Two additional developed campgrounds 

would be provided: Upper Current River 

(Akers) and Upper Jacks Fork (Blue 

Spring). The existing campsite on the river 

at Upper Jacks Fork (Blue Spring) may also 

be expanded and improved. Additional 

amenities and improvements, such as 

additional electric sites, may be made at 

developed campgrounds, but would be 

fully dependent on future funding.

Visitors utilizing motorized and nonmotorized watercraft could continue to 

camp on gravel bars, as long as the location 

of that campsite was 0.5 mile away from 

any designated camping area and at least 50 

feet away from any designated river access. 

Designated campsites or camping areas 

may be established on some gravel bars 

that are accessed by licensed vehicles in 

order to reduce crowding, improve safety, 

and enhance visitor experience. On these 

gravel bars, all camping would be limited to 

the designated camping areas. These 

locations would be identified in a 

subsequent planning process. 

Backcountry campsites would continue to 

be provided in designated areas

throughout the Riverways and may require 

a fee. Backcountry campsites would be 

removed from primitive zones. Some 

backcountry sites would continue to have 

some basic amenities, such as restrooms, 

tables, fire rings, and/or lantern posts.

Primitive campsites would continue to be 

provided in primitive and natural zones 

and would not require a fee. In some cases, 

roads or parking areas to primitive sites 

would stop slightly short of the campsite. 

The National Park Service would 

incorporate universal design principals to 

the extent practicable and some primitive 

sites would be accessible to persons with 

mobility impairments. No decision has 

been made about which primitive 

campsites this would affect. Primitive sites 

would have no amenities.

Currently all caves in the Riverways, other 

than Round Spring cave, are closed in an

attempt to slow the spread of white-nose 

syndrome amongst bats. Guided cave tours
Alternative B (NPS Preferred)

75

at Round Spring may continue to be 

provided, unless resource impacts are 

identified. The caves are home to a wide 

variety of unique and important natural 

resource species. Depending upon the 

notable effects on the natural resource 

species the Park may continue to keep 

other caves closed or determine certain

caves may be reopened in the future 

depending upon impact to the natural 

resources.

VISITOR SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Additional trails (some with universal 

accessibility) would be developed for 

visitors to access a network of discovery 

sites. A small learning center at Powder 

Mill with educational and interpretive 

programs and exhibits may be developed 

to better orient and inform visitors. This

facility may include classrooms and might 

provide some limited quarters for visiting 

experts.

The visitor entry services and information 

conditions that were described for the noaction alternative would continue. In 

addition, one additional visitor contact 

location may be provided as part of the 

learning center at Powder Mill.

NPS roads and river access points would 

be managed by zoning prescriptions. 

Management would seek to establish a 

partnership with the counties regarding 

road management, including closures and 

maintenance. For some discovery sites, old 

access roads would be reopened to enable 

vehicular access. Undesignated NPS roads, 

traces, crossings, and river access points

would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis 

in a subsequent plan and may either be 

closed or designated for authorized use.

Natural conditions would be restored to 

approximately 45 miles of roads and traces. 

Law enforcement would be increased for 

compliance.

There would be potential opportunities for 

new concessions for overnight activities 

such as guided float trips and guided (hikein) backcountry trips in the natural and 

primitive zones, along with shuttle services

for these activities. New campgrounds and 

higher concentrations of visitors in 

developed zones may create the need for 

an additional camp store. Any new 

concessions would require a feasibility 

study, and would expand commercial 

activities not associated with existing 

concessions in the park.

The National Park Service would strive to 

make all proposed facilities (whether new 

or rehabilitated) and services accessible to 

all people, including those with disabilities, 

in compliance with existing laws and NPS 

policies.

INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION

Self-guided interpretive opportunities 

would provide visitors with a sense of 

being the first to discover remote, hard-tofind places, such as an old cabin or a 

secluded spring. Guided opportunities 

would include ranger-led tours of special 

features, such as old settlements, springs, 

and river environments. This would help 

reach visitors who are looking for different 

or additional activities to the traditional 

float trip. Resource management staff 

would develop opportunities for visitors 

and volunteers to engage in hands-on 

resource management projects. A learning 

center would be established at Powder Mill 

and a school curriculum would be 

developed. Learning center programs 

could provide more structured 

environmental education opportunities, 

especially for school groups.

Cultural demonstrations of traditional 

crafts, as well as special events, would 

continue to be offered throughout the year. 

Events such as the Haunting in the Hills, 

An Ozark Christmas, Ozark Heritage Day,

the Alley Spring Independence Day 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

76

Celebration, and the Ozark Dinner Theater 

would provide visitors with unique 

opportunities to learn about the natural 

and cultural history of the Riverways.

NATURAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT

Natural resources would be maintained or 

restored to more natural conditions that 

lack signs of substantial development or 

use. Restoring degraded biological 

communities and improving the natural 

setting would be emphasized. A focused 

program of resource monitoring, research, 

and preservation projects would actively 

support and strengthen management 

capabilities and ensure accurate visitor 

information.

Natural conditions would be restored to 

approximately 45 miles of roads. Effects of 

visitor use on river/karst habitats would be 

evaluated.

A fisheries management plan would be 

developed and implemented. This plan 

would assess the effects of nonnative game 

fish stocking and the timing / locations of 

fishing activities on native aquatic species. 

The plan would be developed by the 

National Park Service in cooperation with 

the Missouri Department of Conservation, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

other appropriate partners.

The National Park Service would work 

closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service regarding programmatic 

consultation under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act for the general 

management plan and would continue to 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service on all applicable phases of the 

plan’s implementation. The National Park 

Service would also work with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to develop and 

implement conservation plans and 

strategies to protect all federal listed 

species in the Riverways to fulfill the intent 

of section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered 

Species Act. Ongoing monitoring of listed 

species (e.g., Indiana bat, gray bat, and 

Ozark hellbender) would continue, along 

with involvement in associated interagency 

research efforts.

The National Park Service would strive to 

partner with surrounding communities

about wastewater to improve water quality 

in the riverways. It would also strive to 

work within a regional context to protect 

the night sky quality from light pollution 

and continue to foster partnerships for 

natural resource stewardship.

The National Park Service would seek to 

partner with the county and state to 

replace Cedargrove low-water bridge with 

a high-water bridge. The National Park 

Service would also seek to partner with the 

county to construct a new bridge at Akers, 

a crossing currently served by a 

concessioner-run ferry. Installation of 

these bridges would restore more natural 

conditions and provide better emergency 

access for this area of the county.

CULTURAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT

Alternative B would continue to protect 

and preserve archeological resources, 

historic structures, and cultural landscapes. 

Selected structures and sites may receive 

special attention to support Ozark heritage 

educational programs. A focused program 

of resource monitoring, research, and 

preservation projects would actively 

support and strengthen management 

capabilities and ensure accurate visitor 

information.

An oral history program would be restarted

and the archive/collections program would 

be enhanced. Efforts to coordinate cultural 

resource education, interpretation, and 

protection activities across management 

divisions would be enhanced. This would 

include ensuring that cultural resource 
Alternative B (NPS Preferred)

77

information was accurately conveyed to 

the public. The National Park Service

would seek to partner with volunteers and 

others to accomplish cultural resource 

stewardship projects.

Additional historic structures would be 

restored and made available to the public 

as interpretive exhibits. These additional 

structures and associated landscapes 

would complement the historic 

representation of the continuum of Ozark 

cultural history in this region. 

Approximately five additional cemeteries 

would be maintained. The more than 400

known archeological sites would continue 

to be monitored. Appropriate protection 

measures such as riverbank stabilization or

trail rerouting would be taken where 

archeological sites are threatened by 

erosion, visitor use, or other impacts.

A cultural affiliation landscape plan for 

pastoral areas would be completed and 

implemented according to the 

management zones. This would increase 

areas managed as meadows and 

agricultural sites that were once part of 

Ozark farms and settlement areas.

The park unit’s curatorial facility would be 

expanded to provide additional 

archeological storage space for smaller 

national park units in the region. The park 

unit would become a regional curatorial 

hub.

WILDERNESS

This alternative would recommend 

wilderness designation for 3,430 out of 

3,434 acres within the Big Spring 

Wilderness Study Area. The entire Big 

Spring Wilderness Study Area would be 

zoned primitive.

The fire tower, incinerator, barn, and 

Civilian Conservation Corps era camp 

would be retained. The NPS training range

would be removed and the area would be 

restored.

Alternative B would eliminate current 

administrative vehicle use of the access 

roads to the fire tower, NPS training range, 

and barn. The roads could be evaluated to 

determine the feasibility of restoring them 

to a Civilian Conservation Corps era 

condition for possible use as hiking trails.

The area above the buried utility 

communication cable that serves the Big 

Spring cabins and residents located further 

down the line would be proposed as 

potential wilderness addition and would be 

maintained for its current use until the 

cable failed or until another utility route 

outside the wilderness was designated.

Once the cable was decommissioned (it 

could be removed or left in place), the area 

would be evaluated to determine the 

feasibility of administratively converting it 

to wilderness.

In accordance with NPS policies, park unit 

managers would employ the “minimum 

requirements” concept to ensure that nonmechanized equipment is used in 

wilderness to the greatest extent possible. 

In particular, emergency situations such as 

wildfire suppression would continue as 

they are today. Fire suppression activities 

would be conducted in ways that minimize 

the lasting impacts of suppression actions.

PARK OPERATIONS

One multioperational facility would be 

constructed. The maintenance and field 

staff offices would be consolidated into 

this facility. Approximately 10 obsolete 

structures that are part of the deferred 

maintenance backlog and pose health and 

safety concerns would be removed and 

their sites would be restored.

Two sustainable (current technology) 

sanitary systems would be installed at 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

78

Akers and Pulltite to improve water 

quality.

PARTNERSHIPS

Park staff would promote measures that 

foster a spirit of cooperation with 

neighbors and stakeholders. Various 

strategies would be undertaken to 

encourage compatible adjacent land uses 

and provide landowners, land managers, 

local governments, and the public with 

important information about NPS 

management activities. Collaborative 

partnerships would assist efforts to 

proactively anticipate, avoid, and resolve 

potential conflicts to protect the National 

Riverways’ resources, provide quality 

visitor experiences, and preserve the 

quality of life for community residents. 

Partnerships with local community 

organizations and chambers of commerce 

for park cultural demonstrations and 

special events could help generate 

additional business opportunities in local 

communities. Regional cooperation would 

involve federal, state, and local agencies, 

associated tribes, neighboring landowners, 

and all other concerned parties. 

In efforts to improve communications, the 

park would develop a communication plan 

to facilitate and expand communications, 

provide opportunities for more direct 

input with park staff, and help promote 

awareness and understanding of park 

issues. The plan would propose measures 

for regularly gathering and distributing 

information to the public, responding to 

concerns about park operations, and 

encouraging feedback on park issues.

Under alternative B, in addition to the 

above partnership initiatives, Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways would

 seek to establish a friends group

 continue to share office space at the 

Van Buren headquarters with other 

federal and state agencies

 continue to use the services of a 

cooperating association to operate 

bookstores at park visitor contact 

facilities, such as the Van Buren 

headquarters, Round Spring, and 

Alley Mill

 seek to partner with volunteers and 

others to accomplish cultural and 

natural resource stewardship 

projects

 seek to establish partnership 

agreements regarding road 

management, including closures

and maintenance

 seek to partner with the county and 

state to replace the Cedargrove 

low-water bridge with a high-water 

bridge and construct a new bridge 

at Akers

 seek to partner with communities 

about waste systems to improve 

water quality

 work within a regional context to 

protect the night sky quality and 

natural lightscape by partnering 

with communities and participating

in planning meetings at the state 

and county level to promote the 

protection of the night sky from 

light from new developments 

adjacent to the Riverways continue 

to partner with the state to enhance 

healthy native game fish 

populations

 continue to regularly share 

information (such as a “Riverways 

Reflections” column) about park 

events and important issues 

(available on the park website, 

distributed to local and regional 

media outlets, and accessible via 

social media)


81

ALTERNATIVE C

ZONING

See the alternative C map for a depiction of 

management zones within the Riverways

under this alternative. See table 6 for 

numbers of acres in each land-based 

management zone and figure 5 for the 

percentage of the Riverways’ land in each 

land-based management zone. See table 7 

for numbers of river miles in each riverbased management zone and figure 6 for 

the percentages of the Riverways’ river 

miles in each river-based management 

zone.

VISITOR EXPERIENCES

AND ACTIVITIES

Visitors could experience a diverse range 

of motorized and nonmotorized 

recreational activities in a variety of 

outdoor settings. Visitors would encounter 

more intensive management to ensure that 

the greater levels and types of visitor use do 

not cause excessive impacts on National 

Riverways resources or diminish public 

safety. Visitors would experience higher 

levels of social interaction, especially 

during the peak season, which is defined as 

March 15 through Labor Day. 

Opportunities for community and family 

gatherings would be emphasized.

River-based Recreation

All sections of the riverways would 

continue to be open to nonmotorized 

watercraft year-round. Concession dropoff

and pickup locations for river users using 

nonmotorized watercraft would be 

redistributed to reduce peak-season 

crowding effects and to protect river 

resources in response to potential changes 

in river flow conditions. This would 

require closure and restoration of about 20 

access points and the careful design and 

opening of 20 new designated access 

points. Total designated access points 

would remain constant or decrease.

The National Park Service would pursue a 

change in the existing regulations to allow

60/40 hp motors on certain portions of the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. See table 4

for motorboat horsepower limits by 

alternative.

The riverways would continue to be 

available for fishing and gigging activities,

consistent with applicable restrictions set 

forth by the park unit or state. For 

example, fishing by motorized boat would 

be allowable in areas zoned by alternative 

C for motorized boating. The National 

Park Service would continue to partner 

with the state to sustain healthy native fish 

populations.

Land-based Recreation

Additional walking and hiking trails would 

be opened over time. About 5 miles of 

roads in primitive zones would be removed 

and replaced with hiking trails. Additional 

accessible trails would be opened. 

Mountain biking would be a new,

allowable trail use, but only on designated 

trails. Mountain biking would not be 

allowed in primitive zones.

A recreational horse use and trail 

management plan would be prepared. 

Approximately 45 miles of additional 

designated horse trails would be provided 

to allow for longer distance riding, 

including some new stream crossings. An 

approximate 25-campsite horse 

campground along the Jacks Fork may be 

established. Approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated horse trails would be closed 

and restored. Design of the designated 

approximately 23-mile-long horse trail 

system would be improved to discourage 

creation of social trails; decrease impact of 

horses on sensitive areas, including streams 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

82

and riparian areas; reduce conflicts with 

other users; and reduce trail damage, 

erosion, and manure pollution. A 

permitting system would be established, as 

necessary, to manage impacts of horse use.

Law enforcement would be increased for 

compliance.

Two additional developed campgrounds 

would be provided: Upper Current River 

(Akers) and Upper Jacks Fork (Blue 

Spring). 

Currently, and under alternative C, gravel 

bar camping would continue to be allowed 

for those accessing gravel bars by 

motorized and nonmotorized watercraft, 

as long as the location of the campsite was

0.5 mile away from any designated 

campground and at least 50 feet away from 

any designated river access. For some 

gravel bars that are accessed by vehicles,

alternative C would propose designated 

gravel bar camping areas and/or campsites. 

Some number of gravel bars would

continue to be accessible to licensed 

vehicles. The number of gravel bars 

accessible to vehicles and associated 

designated camping areas and/or campsites 

would be identified in a subsequent 

planning process.

Backcountry campsites would continue to 

be provided throughout the Riverways and 

would require a fee. The total number of 

backcountry campsites may increase, but 

backcountry campsites would be removed 

from primitive zones. Some backcountry

sites would continue to have some basic 

amenities, such as restrooms, tables, fire 

rings, and/or lantern posts.

Primitive campsites would continue to be 

provided in primitive and natural zones 

and would not require a fee. The total 

number of primitive campsites may be 

increased, but roads to primitive sites 

would be removed. Primitive sites would 

have no amenities.

Currently all caves in the National 

Riverways, other than Round Spring cave, 

are closed in attempt to limit the spread of 

white-nose syndrome amongst bats. 

Guided cave tours at Round Spring would 

continue to be provided unless resource 

impacts were identified. The caves are 

home to a wide variety of unique and 

important natural resource species. 

Depending upon the notable effects on the 

natural resource species the Park may 

continue to keep other caves closed or 

determine certain caves may be reopened 

in the future depending upon impact to the 

natural resources.

VISITOR SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Additional facilities would be necessary to 

accommodate higher levels and different 

types of visitor use. There would be more 

types of designated camping opportunities, 

including primitive, semiprimitive, 

semideveloped, and developed sites. There 

would also be more trails for hiking and 

horseback riding.

The visitor entry services and information 

conditions that were described for the noaction alternative would continue. 

However, the size of current visitor contact 

locations at some sites may be expanded 

based on demand. One or two additional 

visitor contact locations may be provided.

NPS roads and river access points would 

be managed by zoning prescriptions. The 

National Park Service would seek to 

establish a partnership with the counties 

regarding road management, including 

closures. Undesignated NPS roads, traces, 

crossings, and river access points would be 

closed. Natural conditions would be 

restored to approximately 40 miles of 

roads. Law enforcement would be 

increased for compliance.

There would be potential opportunities for 

new concessions to provide shuttle 

services for river users using nonmotorized 
Alternative C

83

watercraft and overnight activities such as 

guided float trips and guided (hike-in) 

backcountry trips in the natural and 

primitive zones. New concessions would 

require a feasibility study. New 

campgrounds and higher concentrations of 

visitors in developed zones may create the 

need for an additional camp store.

INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION

Interpretive and educational opportunities 

would expand for visitors to connect with 

the natural and cultural resources while 

improving their outdoor recreation skills. 

The goal of such programs would be to 

encourage resource stewardship and lowimpact recreational uses. Example 

activities could include boating safety, safe 

hunting and fishing practices, and 

traditional Ozark lifeway skills.

NATURAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT

Natural resources would be managed to 

provide high-quality scenery. There would 

be a higher tolerance for resource impacts 

in more heavily used areas. Impacted 

environments would be stabilized or 

restored to retain the natural settings. 

Monitoring efforts would be emphasized 

to track natural resource conditions so that 

unacceptable impacts from recreational 

activities do not occur.

Undesignated NPS roads, traces, crossings, 

and river access points would be closed. 

The National Park Service would work 

closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to conduct a programmatic 

consultation under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act for the general 

management plan. The National Park 

Service would also work with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to develop and 

implement conservation plans and 

strategies to protect all federal listed 

species in the Riverways to fulfill the intent 

of section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered 

Species Act.

The National Park Service would work 

closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to conduct a programmatic 

consultation under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act for the general 

management plan. The National Park 

Service would also work with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to develop and 

implement conservation plans and 

strategies to protect all federal listed 

species in the Riverways to fulfill the intent 

of section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered 

Species Act. Ongoing monitoring of listed 

species (e.g., Indiana bat, gray bat, and 

Ozark hellbender) would continue, along 

with associated involvement in interagency 

research efforts.

CULTURAL RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT

Alternative C would continue to protect 

and preserve archeological resources, 

historic structures, and cultural landscapes. 

Opportunities would be expanded for 

visitors to access and experience historic 

structures and cultural landscapes 

throughout the National Riverways.

To accommodate more visitors, some 

historic structures and sites may require

more intensive management actions to 

protect resource integrity. Efforts to track 

cultural resource conditions would be 

emphasized so that unacceptable 

conditions do not occur.

Additional historic structures would be 

restored and made available to the public 

as interpretive exhibits. These additional 

structures and associated landscapes 

would complement the historic 

representation of the continuum of Ozark 

cultural history in this region. 

Approximately five additional cemeteries 

would be maintained. The more than 400
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

84

known archeological sites would continue 

to be monitored. Appropriate protection 

measures, such as riverbank stabilization or 

trail rerouting would be taken where 

archeological sites are threatened by 

erosion, visitor use, or other impacts.

A cultural affiliation landscape plan for 

pastoral areas would be completed and 

implemented according to the 

management zones. This would increase 

areas managed as meadows and 

agricultural sites that were once part of 

Ozark farms and settlement areas.

The park unit’s certified curatorial facility 

would continue to be managed for park 

unit resource collections only.

WILDERNESS

Under this alternative, 1,779 acres of the 

Big Spring Wilderness Study Area, 

consisting of the area south of Chilton 

Creek, would be recommended for 

wilderness designation. This amount is 

52% of the total wilderness study area.

The area recommended for wilderness 

designation would be zoned primitive. The 

remaining area would be zoned natural.

The fire tower, incinerator, barn, NPS 

training range, and Civilian Conservation 

Corps era camp would be outside the area 

proposed for wilderness designation and 

would continue to be retained. The fire 

tower, barn, and NPS training range would 

continue to be used for administrative 

purposes. The access roads to these 

facilities would continue to be maintained 

for Riverways administration.

The buried utility communication cable 

that serves the Big Spring cabins and 

residents located further down the line 

would be maintained.

PARK OPERATIONS

Three multioperational facilities, one for 

each management district, would be 

constructed. Each facility would be 4,500 

square feet. Maintenance and field staff 

offices would be consolidated into these 

facilities and removed from Civilian 

Conservation Corps structures. 

Approximately 10 obsolete structures that 

are part of the deferred maintenance 

backlog and pose health and safety 

concerns would be removed and their sites 

would be restored.

Approximately four new housing duplex 

units to support additional need for 

seasonal or term staff would be provided.

No additional water systems are proposed.

PARTNERSHIPS

The National Park Service would seek to 

develop a friends group. 

The park unit would continue to share 

office space at the Van Buren headquarters

with other federal and state agencies.

A cooperating association would continue 

to operate bookstores at park visitor 

contact facilities, including the Van Buren 

headquarters, Round Spring, and Alley 

Mill. When the Big Spring contact facility is 

opened, A cooperating association may

provide services there.

Under alternative C, the National Park 

Service would

 seek to partner with volunteers and 

others to accomplish cultural and 

natural resource stewardship 

projects

 seek to establish a partnership with 

the counties regarding road 

management, including closures

 seek to partner with the county and 

state to replace Cedargrove low-
Alternative C

85

water bridge with a high-water 

bridge

 seek to partner with communities 

about waste systems to improve 

water quality

 continue to partner with the state to 

enhance healthy native game fish 

populations
This page is intentionally left blank


89

MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Congress has charged the National Park 

Service with managing the lands under its 

stewardship “in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations” (NPS 

Organic Act, 16 USC 1). As a result, the 

National Park Service routinely evaluates and 

implements mitigation whenever conditions 

occur that could adversely affect the 

sustainability of national park system 

resources.

To ensure that implementation of the final 

selected management alternative protects 

natural and cultural resources unimpaired for 

future generations and provides for a highquality visitor experience, a consistent set of 

mitigation measures would be applied to all 

alternatives.

As global and regional climates continue to 

change, a management approach that 

enhances the protection and resilience of 

climate-sensitive resources will become 

increasingly important.

For all future actions that resulted from the 

implementation of this plan, the National 

Park Service would prepare appropriate 

environmental compliance reviews, such as

those required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act, National Historic 

Preservation Act’s sections 106 and 110, 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 

Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, 

and other relevant legislation. As part of the 

environmental review, the National Park 

Service would avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

adverse impacts. The park unit could 

consider implementing a compliance

monitoring program that would apply these 

mitigation measures and also include 

reporting protocols.

The following mitigation measures and best 

management practices would be applied to 

avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts 

from implementation of the general 

management plan.

NATURAL RESOURCES

General

 Periodically inventory and monitor 

the Riverways’ resources, including 

air, water, soils, vegetation, and 

wildlife, to provide information 

needed to avoid or minimize impacts 

of future development.

 Manage any museum collections 

related to natural resources generated 

by such activities according to NPS 

policies.

 Whenever possible, build new 

facilities in previously disturbed areas 

or in carefully selected sites with as 

small a construction footprint as 

possible and with sustainable design. 

During design and construction 

periods, use NPS natural and cultural 

resource staff to identify areas to be 

avoided and monitor activities.

 Use fencing or other means to protect 

sensitive resources adjacent to 

construction areas.

 Keep construction materials in work 

areas, especially if the construction 

takes place near streams, springs, 

natural drainages, or other water 

bodies.

 Inform visitors of the importance of 

protecting the Riverways’ natural 

resources and leaving these 

undisturbed for the enjoyment of 

future generations.

Vegetation

 Monitor areas used by visitors (for 

example, trails) for signs of native 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

90

vegetation disturbance. Use public 

education, revegetation of disturbed 

areas using native plant species, 

erosion control, and barriers to 

control potential impacts on plants 

from trail erosion or social trail

creation.

 Develop revegetation plans for 

disturbed areas and require the use of 

native species. Revegetation plans 

should specify features such as 

seed/plant source, seed/plant mixes, 

and soil preparation. Salvage 

vegetation should be used to the 

extent possible.

 Survey proposed sites for new trails 

and other facilities for sensitive 

species before construction. If 

sensitive species were present, 

relocate new developments to avoid 

impacts.

Wildlife

 Employ techniques to reduce impacts 

on wildlife, including visitor 

education programs, restrictions on 

visitor activities, and park ranger 

patrols.

 Reduce the potential for wildlife to 

get food from humans. Require 

wildlife-proof garbage containers in 

developed areas, such as visitor 

centers, picnic areas, trails, and 

interpretive waysides. Educate visitors 

about the need to refrain from feeding 

wildlife. 

 Site new or rehabilitated facilities, to 

the extent possible, to avoid sensitive 

wildlife habitats, including feeding 

and resting areas, major travel 

corridors, nesting areas, and other 

sensitive habitats.

 Restrict visitor use and NPS 

operational activities if their potential 

level of damage or disturbance 

warrants such restrictions.

 Implement a natural resource 

protection program that includes 

standard measures such as the 

following:

– Schedule construction during 

seasons that are best for wildlife.

– Monitor for adverse impacts.

– Implement best management 

practices to prevent and reduce 

erosion and sediment.

– Install and maintain fences or 

other barriers to protect sensitive 

resources adjacent to 

construction sites.

– Remove all food-related items to 

reduce or prevent bear intrusion.

– Salvage topsoil.

– Replant with native vegetation.

– Provide periodic monitoring by 

resource management specialists 

or other park staff who would 

provide treatment and status 

reports.

Invasive Species

 Apply an integrated pest management 

approach to comprehensively address 

invasive, nonnative plants and 

animals, in terrestrial, aquatic, and 

subterranean environments. 

Implement integrated pest 

management at existing, developed 

park sites, at proposed future sites, 

and other areas in need of pest 

management. Standard measures 

could include the following elements:

– Ensure construction- and 

maintenance-related equipment 

arrives onsite free of mud or seedbearing material.

– Use only seeds and straw material 

certified as weed-free.

– Identify areas of noxious weeds

before construction.
Mitigation Measures Common to the Action Alternatives

91

– Use registered herbicides, where 

applicable (and low-toxicity 

applications in areas with 

sensitive resources).

– Treat noxious weeds or noxious 

weed topsoil before construction 

(for example, using topsoil 

segregation, storage, or herbicide 

treatment).

– Revegetate with appropriate 

native species.

– Consider use of other 

management techniques such as 

mechanical removal, biological 

controls, or prescribed fire.

 Implement an abatement program for 

nonnative, invasive wildlife, such as 

the feral hogs and Asiatic clam.

 Address nonnative animals with 

direct, species-specific control 

methods. In many cases, NPS control 

methods would be in cooperation 

with other agencies, such as the 

Missouri Department of 

Conservation.

Threatened and Endangered Species

and Species of Concern

Mitigation actions would occur during 

normal park operations as well as before, 

during, and after construction to minimize 

immediate and long-term impacts on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. These 

actions would vary, depending on the type of 

project and its location. These mitigation 

measures would be incorporated, as 

necessary, into each specific action as the 

general management plan is implemented.

These measures may vary slightly for each 

specific project and for each affected area of 

the Riverways. Many of the measures listed 

previously for vegetation and wildlife would 

also benefit rare, threatened, and endangered 

species by helping to preserve habitat. 

Mitigation actions specific to rare, 

threatened, and endangered species would 

include the following:

 Conduct surveys for rare, threatened, 

and endangered species before 

deciding to take any action that may

cause harm or disturb habitat value. 

To provide baseline data, conduct 

surveys before any introduced action 

or disturbance, including recreational 

facilities and uses. In consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and/or the Missouri Department of 

Conservation, take appropriate 

measures to protect any sensitive 

species whether identified through 

surveys or presumed to occur.

 If breeding or nesting areas for 

threatened and endangered species 

were observed in the Riverways, 

protect these areas from human 

disturbance to the greatest extent 

possible, in accordance with the 

guidelines and recommendations of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and/or Missouri Department of 

Conservation.

 Locate and design new facilities and 

management actions to avoid adverse 

effects on habitat for rare, threatened, 

and endangered species. If avoidance 

of adverse effects on rare, threatened, 

and endangered species is not 

possible, take appropriate 

conservation measures in 

consultation with the appropriate 

resource agencies.

 Develop and implement a special 

status species education plan that 

targets all human occupants of the 

park unit (including NPS staff, 

contractors, concessioners, and the 

public). The plan would aim at 

providing important information 

about the various species in an 

attempt to minimize or eliminate 

avoidable habitat disturbances from 

human activity.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

92

 Develop and implement restoration 

or monitoring plans in accordance 

with the recommendation and 

standards of the appropriate resource 

agencies. Plans would include 

methods for implementation, 

performance standards, monitoring 

criteria, and adaptive management 

techniques. The plans would include 

scheduling future surveys of special 

status species, which would be used to 

assess the impact of management 

actions and public uses on the various 

species.

 Take measures to reduce adverse 

effects of nonnative plants and 

wildlife on habitat for rare, 

threatened, and endangered species.

Water Resources

 Establish effective water quality best 

management practices to prevent 

offsite soil erosion and sedimentation 

into creeks, rivers, and other water 

bodies (including measures such as 

silt fences, geotech fabric, or coconut 

fiber matting). Apply on all 

construction projects on Riverways

lands. 

 Use erosion control measures in 

accordance with best management 

practices, minimize discharge to water 

bodies, and regularly inspect 

construction equipment for leaks of 

petroleum and other chemicals to 

prevent water pollution during 

construction. 

 Design, build, and/or maintain all 

trails and traces that would receive 

motorized vehicle, hiking, biking, or 

equestrian use (for NPS operations or 

public use) to prevent disruption of 

natural surface water flows. Keep trail 

surfaces at the natural grade of the 

surrounding landscape. Mitigate trail 

rutting that could otherwise occur in 

wet areas through “at-grade” 

maintenance, trail stabilization with 

aggregate material, the use of culverts, 

and/or low-water crossings. Preserve 

the natural sheet flow across the 

landscape. If trail conditions 

eventually become degraded in areas 

and surface flow becomes altered, 

apply an indicator and standards 

monitoring program to remedy the 

situation and restore surface water 

flows. 

 Exercise caution to protect water 

resources from activities with the 

potential to damage water resources, 

including damage caused by 

construction equipment, erosion, and 

siltation. Take measures to keep fill 

material from escaping work areas, 

especially near rivers, streams, 

springs, natural drainages, and 

wetlands.

 Implement storm water management 

measures for new facilities, and to the 

extent practicable for existing 

facilities, to reduce nonpoint source 

pollution discharge from parking lots 

and other impervious surfaces. Such 

actions could include use of 

oil/sediment separators, street 

sweeping, infiltration beds, permeable 

surfaces, and vegetated or natural 

filters to trap or filter storm water

runoff.

 As per NPS policy (Director’s Order 

77-2), develop a “floodplain 

management statement of findings”, 

which identifies and analyzes all park 

development and uses in floodplain 

areas and the associated effects, 

implications, and risks. 

Wetlands

 Avoid wetlands if possible, and apply 

protection measures during 

construction. Wetlands would be 

delineated by qualified NPS staff or 

certified wetland specialists and 

clearly marked before construction 

work. Perform construction activities 
Mitigation Measures Common to the Action Alternatives

93

in a cautious manner to prevent 

damage caused by equipment, 

erosion, or siltation.

 Conduct additional future wetland 

impact and mitigation analysis, in 

accordance with NPS policy and 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (as 

administered by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers). NPS policy requires the 

development of a “Wetlands 

statement of findings,” which 

identifies and analyzes all wetland 

functions and values affected by NPS 

actions in a park unit. Although 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

pertains only to wetland filling and 

dredging, the NPS statement of 

findings policy addresses the impacts 

on several other wetland values, such 

as wildlife habitat, soils, vegetation 

communities, surface hydrology, 

aesthetics, and cultural values. The 

detailed functional analysis of wetland 

impacts and the development of 

wetland avoidance and mitigative 

measures would be completed as part 

of the wetlands statement of findings.

Soils

 Build new facilities on soils suitable 

for development. 

 Minimize soil erosion by limiting the 

time that soil is left exposed and by 

applying other erosion control 

measures, such as erosion matting, silt 

fencing, and sedimentation basins in 

construction areas to reduce erosion, 

surface scouring, and discharge to 

water bodies. Once work is 

completed, revegetate construction 

areas with native plants in a timely 

period. 

 Use best management practices for 

trail construction to minimize soil 

erosion on new trails, including 

installing water bars, check dams, and 

retaining walls; providing contouring 

to avoid erosion; and minimizing soil 

disturbance.

 Identify potential acid-bearing rocks 

prior to construction activities and 

take proper precautions to prevent 

acid drainage from rocks exposed 

during construction.

Air Quality

 Implement a dust abatement program. 

Standard dust abatement measures 

could include the following elements: 

water or otherwise stabilize soils, 

cover haul trucks, employ speed limits 

on unpaved roads, minimize 

vegetation clearing, and revegetate 

after construction.

Soundscape (Noise Abatement)

 Implement standard noise abatement 

measures during park operations. 

Standard noise abatement measures 

could include the following elements: 

a schedule that minimizes impacts on 

adjacent noise-sensitive uses, use of 

the best available noise control 

techniques wherever feasible, use of 

hydraulically or electrically powered 

impact tools when feasible, and 

location of stationary noise sources as 

far from sensitive uses as possible.

 Site and design facilities to minimize 

objectionable noise.

 Explore options to reduce the noise 

levels from vehicular traffic, including 

motorcycles.

Lightscape and Natural Night Skies

 Seek to minimize the intrusion of 

artificial light into the night scene. In 

natural areas, limit artificial outdoor 

lighting to meet basic safety 

requirements and provide proper 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

94

shielding to prevent light pollution 

into the night sky, where possible.

 Site and design facilities to minimize 

unnecessary light pollution into 

surrounding areas and skies.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

In general, all reasonable measures would be 

taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

effects in consultation with the Missouri State 

Historic Preservation Office, traditionally

associated tribes, local governments, and 

other concerned parties as appropriate, in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800 and the 2008 

Programmatic Agreement Among the 

National Park Service (U.S. Department of 

the Interior), Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and National Conference of 

State Historic Preservation Officers for 

Compliance with section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act.

General

 Survey all areas selected for 

construction (including any trail 

improvements) to ensure that cultural 

resources (that is, archeological, 

historic, ethnographic, and cultural 

landscape resources) in the area of 

potential effects are adequately 

identified and protected by avoidance 

or, if necessary, that appropriate 

mitigation measures are completed 

prior to construction disturbance. 

Archeology

 Follow the mitigation measures 

concerning archeological resources in 

Director’s Order 28A for 

archeological management and The

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation (1983, as amended and 

annotated). Curate archeological 

collections in accordance with the 

regulations in 36 CFR 79.

 Wherever possible, construct new 

facilities in previously disturbed areas 

where archeological resources are not 

likely to occur. Archeological surveys 

would precede any ground 

disturbance of undisturbed or 

unsurveyed lands. National registerlisted or -eligible archeological 

resources would be avoided during 

construction activities. Mitigation 

activities associated with invasive 

species may also require cultural 

resource compliance to ensure that 

ground-disturbing activities such as 

collecting soil samples, installing data 

collection devices have minimal 

impact and avoid archeological 

resources or other cultural resources.

 If previously unknown archeological 

resources are discovered during 

construction, halt all work in the 

immediate vicinity of the discovery 

until the resources could be assessed 

and documented. If the resources 

cannot be avoided or preserved in 

situ, an appropriate mitigation 

strategy would be developed, 

following prompt notification and 

consultation with the state historic 

preservation officer, American Indian 

tribes traditionally associated with 

park lands, and other concerned 

parties, as necessary. 

 In the unlikely event that human 

remains, funerary objects, sacred 

objects, or objects of cultural 

patrimony are discovered during 

construction, follow provisions 

outlined in the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001). If nonIndian human remains were 

discovered, standard reporting 

procedures to notify the proper 

authorities would be followed, as 

would all applicable federal, state, and

local laws.
Mitigation Measures Common to the Action Alternatives

95

Cultural Landscapes

 Undertake the preservation and 

rehabilitation of cultural landscapes in 

accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior's Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties with Guidelines 

for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes.

 Rehabilitate and/or restore cultural 

landscape resources to the extent 

feasible. This could entail restoring 

important historic viewsheds through 

manual thinning, rehabilitating 

agricultural fields and orchards, 

removing noncontributing and 

incompatible structures, and 

incorporating new additions using 

compatible design.

 Whenever possible, modify project 

design elements to avoid adversely 

affecting cultural landscapes. Careful 

design would ensure that new 

construction would minimally affect 

the scale and visual relationships 

among significant landscape features. 

The topography, vegetation, 

circulation features, and land use 

patterns of the cultural landscape 

would be minimally affected. If 

necessary, use vegetative screening, as 

appropriate, to minimize visual 

impacts on cultural landscapes.

Ethnography

 Protect ethnographic resources by 

identifying and maintaining access for 

recognized and associated groups to 

traditional, spiritual/ceremonial, 

resource gathering, and other activity 

areas. As practical, screen new 

developments from these areas, and 

relocate or time conflicting uses to 

minimize disruptions. 

 Accommodate and facilitate access to 

and ceremonial use of sites and 

resources of significance to American 

Indians or other associated 

individuals and groups in a manner 

that is consistent with the park unit

purposes, and avoids adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of 

these sites and resources. 

 Document cultural and ethnographic 

landscapes and other resources in the 

park unit and identify treatments to 

ensure their preservation.

Historic Structures

 Undertake the preservation and 

rehabilitation of National registerlisted or -eligible structures in 

accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties (1995) to ensure 

that the character defining features 

and integrity of the structures are 

minimally affected. 

 Evaluate any materials removed 

during rehabilitation efforts to 

determine their value to the park 

unit’s museum collections and/or for 

their comparative use in future 

preservation work at the sites. 

 Perform further background research, 

resource inventories, and National 

Register of Historic Places evaluation 

of historic properties wherever

management information is lacking. 

The surveys and research necessary to 

determine the eligibility of a structure, 

district, or cultural landscape for 

listing in the national register are a 

prerequisite for understanding the 

resource’s significance, as well as the 

basis of informed decision making in 

the future regarding how the resource 

should be managed. The results of 

these efforts would be incorporated 

into site-specific planning and 

compliance documents.

 Do not allow any National Register of 

Historic Places-listed or -eligible 

property to decay naturally 

(“molder”) without prior review by 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

96

NPS cultural resource specialists and 

consultation with the Missouri State 

Historic Preservation Office. Before a 

national register-listed or -eligible 

property is allowed to molder,

appropriate documentation recording 

the property would be prepared in 

accordance with section 110 (b) of the 

National Historic Preservation Act 

and the documentation submitted, as 

appropriate, to the Historic American 

Buildings Survey / Historic American 

Engineering Record / Historic 

American Landscapes Survey 

Program.

 Educate visitors on the importance of 

protecting the Riverways’ historic 

properties and leaving them 

undisturbed for the enjoyment of 

future visitors.

Museum Collections

 Protect museum collections in 

accordance with all approved NPS 

curatorial policies and guidelines. 

 Collections items would be 

professionally and securely handled 

and packaged for temporary storage 

in the event that a new/expanded

collections storage facility is 

constructed at the park unit.

VISITOR SAFETY AND EXPERIENCE

 Implement Riverways-wide or sitespecific traffic control plans, as 

warranted. Standard measures 

include strategies to maintain safe and 

efficient traffic flow during the 

construction period.

 Implement measures to reduce 

adverse effects of construction on 

visitor safety and experience, 

including project scheduling.

 Implement an interpretation and 

education program that integrates 

visitor safety concerns. Continue 

directional signs and education 

programs to promote understanding 

among Riverways visitors.

 Conduct an accessibility study to 

understand barriers to Riverways

programs and facilities. Based on this 

study, implement a strategy to provide 

the maximum level of accessibility.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

 Follow and update the NPS spill 

prevention and pollution control 

program for hazardous materials. 

Standard measures could include 

hazardous materials storage and 

handling procedures; spill 

containment, cleanup, and reporting 

procedures; and limitation of 

limitations on where refueling and 

other hazardous activities can be 

performed.

SCENIC RESOURCES

 Where appropriate, use facilities such 

as boardwalks and fences to route 

people away from sensitive natural 

and cultural resources while still 

permitting access to important 

viewpoints.

 Design, site, and construct facilities to 

avoid or minimize visual intrusion 

into the natural environment or 

landscape.

 Provide vegetative screening, where 

appropriate.

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

 During the future planning and 

implementation of the approved 

general management plan, work with 

local communities and county 

governments to further identify 
Mitigation Measures Common to the Action Alternatives

97

potential impacts and mitigation 

measures that would best serve the 

interests and concerns of both the 

National Park Service and the local 

communities. 

 Pursue partnerships to improve the 

quality and diversity of community 

amenities and services.

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

AND AESTHETICS

Sustainable Development

 Design projects so that they will avoid 

or minimize adverse impacts on 

natural and cultural resources. 

 Design development projects, such as 

buildings, utilities, roads, and bridges,

and reconstruction projects, such as 

road reconstruction, building 

rehabilitation, and utility upgrade, to 

work in harmony with the 

surroundings, particularly in historic 

districts. 

 Encourage projects that would 

reduce, minimize, or eliminate air and 

water pollution. 

 Make projects sustainable whenever 

practicable by recycling and reusing 

materials, minimizing materials, 

minimizing energy consumption 

during the project, and minimizing 

water and energy consumption 

throughout the lifespan of the project.

Sustainable Trails

 Design and construct trails in a 

sustainable manner so they minimize 

natural and cultural resource damage,

including erosion; accommodate 

appropriate uses; require minimum 

maintenance while providing 

maximum ecological variety; and 

minimize conflict between trail users.

 Conduct archeological investigations 

on a site-specific basis to ensure that 

there is no impact to cultural or 

historic resources before trail 

alignments are considered. 

 Where possible, align trails to 

conform with the following 

characteristics:

– Follow the natural contour.

– Incorporate drainage to prevent 

erosion.

– Have a durable tread.

– Maintain a grade of less than 

10%.

– Avoid environmentally sensitive 

areas, including wetlands and 

habitat for species of concern.

– Avoid wildlife migration routes.

 Choose trail construction materials, 

grades, and trail clearances to reflect 

sustainability goals, based on the type 

and volume of use anticipated, 

stability of native materials, and type 

of terrain along the route. Choose

surface treatments on some trails to 

provide accessibility in compliance 

with the Uniform Federal Accessibility 

Standards and the Architectural 

Barriers Act of 1968 and Rehabilitation

Act of 1973 Guidelines. Treatments 

could include crushed gravel, asphalt, 

and appropriate grading.
98

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT AND VISITOR CAPACITY

General management plans for national park 

system units, including the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways, must address visitor use

management and visitor capacity. The 

National Park Service defines visitor use 

management as the proactive and adaptive 

process of planning for and managing 

characteristics of visitor use and the physical, 

social, and managerial setting through a 

variety of strategies and tools to sustain 

desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences. In short, visitor use management 

strives to maximize the benefits of visitor use 

while meeting resource and experiential 

protection goals. This planning and 

management process provides the framework 

within which visitor capacity should be 

addressed, where it is necessary. As part of 

the visitor use management process, visitor 

capacity is the maximum amount and type of 

visitor use that an area can accommodate 

while sustaining desired resource conditions

and visitor experiences consistent with the 

values for which the area was established.

Managing visitor use in national parks is 

inherently complex and depends not only on 

the number of visitors, but also on where the 

visitors go, what they do, and the “footprints” 

they leave behind. In managing visitor use, 

the park staff and partners rely on a variety of 

management tools and strategies rather than 

relying solely on regulating the number of 

people in a park area. In addition, the everchanging nature of visitor use in park units 

requires a deliberate and adaptive approach 

to visitor capacity and visitor use 

management.

The foundations for making visitor use 

management decisions in this general 

management plan are the purpose, 

significance, special mandates, and 

management zones associated with the 

Riverways. The purpose, significance, and 

special mandates define why the park unit

was established and identify the most 

important resources, values, and visitor 

opportunities that would be protected and 

provided. The management zones in each 

action alternative describe the desired 

resource conditions and visitor experiences, 

including appropriate types of activities and 

general use levels, for different locations 

throughout the Riverways. The zones, as 

applied in the alternatives, are consistent 

with, and help the National Park Service

achieve the Riverways’ specific purpose, 

significance, and special mandates. As part of 

the National Park Service’s commitment to 

implement visitor use management, the 

Riverways staff would abide by these 

directives for guiding the types and levels of 

visitor use that would be accommodated 

while sustaining the quality of Riverways

resources and visitor experiences consistent 

with the purposes of the Riverways.

In addition to these important directives, this 

plan includes indicators and standards. 

Indicators and standards are measureable 

variables that would be monitored to track 

changes in resource conditions and visitor 

experiences. Indicators and standards are 

important feedback mechanisms that help the 

National Park Service make decisions about 

managing all aspects of visitor use to ensure

desired conditions are attained and that

Riverways’ legislative and policy mandates

are fulfilled. The general management plan

also identifies the types of management 

actions that would be taken to achieve 

desired conditions and related legislative and 

policy mandates.

Table 8 includes the indicators, standards, 

and potential future management strategies, 

allocated by management zones that would 

be implemented as a result of this planning 

effort. The planning team considered many 

potential issues and related indicators that 

would identify impacts of concern, but those 

described below were considered the most 

significant, given the importance and 

vulnerability of the resource or visitor 

experience affected by visitor use. The 
Visitor Use Management and Visitor Capacity

99

planning team also reviewed the experiences 

of other park units with similar issues to help 

identify meaningful indicators. Standards that 

represent the minimum acceptable condition 

for each indicator were then assigned, taking 

into consideration the qualitative 

descriptions of the desired conditions, data 

on existing conditions, relevant research 

studies, staff management experience, and 

scoping on public preferences. Some 

management strategies in table 8 vary across 

alternatives and would be implemented upon 

completion of the plan. The rest of the 

strategies represent a range of strategies that 

could be used if needed to ensure standards 

are maintained and desired conditions are 

achieved. Several of these strategies are 

currently in use within the Riverways to 

varying degrees, and may be increased in 

response to changing conditions. If new 

strategies are needed, an analysis will be done 

to identify the most effective and feasible 

action for implementation. Implementation 

of some of these management strategies in 

the future may require additional compliance 

and public involvement.

Some of the indicators and standards are 

more directly tied to helping the National 

Park Service address visitor capacity. These 

indicators include numbers of campers on 

gravel bars designated for camping, density of 

parked cars at visitor-created river crossings 

and access points, and number of watercraft 

on the riverways. These indicators and 

standards directly inform management of the 

kinds and amounts of use that can be 

accommodated in different areas of the park 

while maintaining desired conditions. 

Further guidance for addressing visitor 

capacity will be found in subsequent 

implementation level plans that have a 

significant visitor use management 

component. These types of plans may include 

trails and camping management plans, site 

plans, and commercial services plan, amongst 

others.

Visitor use management is a form of adaptive 

management (see figure 7) in that it is an 

iterative process in which management 

decisions are continuously informed and 

improved. Indicators are monitored, and 

adjustments are made as appropriate. As 

monitoring of conditions continues, 

managers may decide to modify or add 

indicators if better ways are found to measure 

important changes in resource and social 

conditions. Monitoring indicators help the 

National Park Service determine the most 

effective way to manage kinds and amounts 

of visitor use in order to attain desired visitor 

experience and resource conditions. 

Information on the NPS monitoring efforts, 

related visitor use management actions, and 

any changes to the indicators and standards 

would be available to the public.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE INDICATORS 

AND STANDARDS

The priority visitor experience indicators for 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways are 

associated with the following topics:

 percent of facilitated interpretive 

contacts per year regarding programs, 

demonstrations, and activities

 number of campers on gravel bars 

designated for camping

 density of parked cars at visitorcreated river crossings and access 

points

 number of watercraft on the 

riverways

 number of citations related to 

inappropriate behavior

Percent of Annual Visitors with Facilitated 

Interpretive Contacts as a Result of

Programs, Demonstrations, and Activities

The Riverways staff puts a great deal of time 

and energy into NPS interpretive and 

outreach programs. These programs aim to 

educate visitors and local community 

members about what makes Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways unique and worthy of 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

100

conservation. The number of visitors 

participating in interpretive programs and the 

time Riverways staff members spend 

participating in outreach activities are part of 

existing monitoring protocols. The standard 

would be no less than 8% of total visitors per 

year participating in interpretive programs 

and activities at the Riverways, which is 

consistent with current participation rates. If 

participation rates begin to trend downward, 

then Riverways staff would evaluate the 

effectiveness of current program offerings, 

provide more opportunities for outreach and 

interpretation, increase community 

engagement programs, or bring on additional 

interpretive staff to reach more visitors.

Number of Campers at One Time at 

Designated Campsites on Gravel Bars 

Designated for Camping

Gravel bars along and within the rivers are a 

popular place for visitors to relax during the 

day and camp at night. Currently, camping is 

allowed for those accessing gravel bars by 

motorized and nonmotorized watercraft, as 

long as the location is 0.5 mile away from any 

designated campground and at least 50 feet 

away from any designated river access. 

FIGURE 7. VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Visitor Use Management and Visitor Capacity

101

On the designated gravel bars accessible by 

motorized vehicles (for example, cars and 

recreational vehicles), there are limited 

designated sites for camping and high 

demand for these sites. Increasing demand 

for these sites often leads to crowded 

conditions along the gravel bars that may 

detract from visitors’ experiences on the 

riverways and may also impact natural 

resources such as vegetation and 

soundscapes of the Riverways. The gathering 

of several vehicles on the gravel bars along 

the river can also detract from the scenic 

experience of those visitors floating on the 

river.

To address the issues related to visitor 

experience and the density of vehicles parked 

(camping) next to the river, an indicator 

measuring the number of campers on the 

designated gravel bars was developed. The 

standard was set at no more than 6 campers

per designated site on gravel bars within 50 

feet of the river. This standard would provide 

more space between campers and manage the 

total number of people on the gravel bars.

If this standard begins to trend upward or is 

exceeded, Riverways managers may 

incorporate this standard into the 

superintendent’s compendium, add signage

at campsites, and require permits to camp on 

the gravel bars. If the standard is repeatedly 

exceeded, the National Park Service may 

consider temporary or permanent closure of 

the gravel bars to camping.

Density of Parked Cars at Visitor-created 

Access Points and River Crossings Outside

Designated Parking Areas and Designated 

Campsites

The riverways have many designated river 

access points and crossings for visitors to 

enjoy. However, there are also many 

undesignated, visitor-created river crossings 

and river access points that have become 

popular areas for visitors to congregate.

When visitors begin to cluster around 

undesignated river crossings and access 

points, the noise level is typically high. This 

congestion along the river also has a negative 

impact on those visitors who are floating the 

river, looking for a primitive experience and 

solitude.

Due to the potential for visitors to impact the 

natural qualities of the Riverways through 

congestion at visitor-created river crossings 

and access points, the density of parked cars 

at these areas was developed as an indicator. 

To emphasize existing management direction 

that visitors use only designated river 

crossings and access points, the standard was 

established as no parked vehicles in these 

areas.

Due to the zero tolerance nature of this 

standard, many potential management 

strategies may need to be implemented 

immediately. This includes increasing the 

amount of education related to regulations 

associated with visitors’ use of designated 

and nondesignated river crossings and access 

points.

In addition to visitors accessing undesignated 

river access points, visitors will sometimes 

park outside the established parking areas at 

designated river crossings and access points. 

Parking outside designated areas often leads 

to congestion at the river crossing and access 

points and can also impact natural and 

cultural resources. In order to achieve the 

standard of no parked vehicles outside 

designated parking areas, managers might

need to implement management strategies

including better signage for designated river 

crossing and access points to delineate 

appropriate use areas, creating new parking 

areas, expanding existing parking areas, and 

providing better delineation of current 

parking areas, if appropriate.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

102

Number of Watercraft per River Mile at 

Specified Locations

A popular activity and means of travel on the 

riverways is through the use of motorboats. 

Motorboats are used to access fishing areas, 

cruise the river, and take families out on the 

weekends to enjoy scenic views. Motorboat 

use is currently managed with horsepower 

regulations based on river sections. In 

addition to these existing regulations, there 

are concerns about the volume of motorboat 

use in certain sections of river. One concern 

is the effect of noise on those visitors seeking 

a quiet experience (for example, visitors in 

canoes). Also, on busy weekends during the 

summer, the total number of motorboats on 

certain sections of the riverways can pose a 

safety hazard due to conflicts between 

visitors.

Weekends during the summer season also 

bring many different types of nonmotorized 

use to the riverways. Many access points

along the river have become popular areas for 

concessioners and private users to launch 

their nonmotorized watercraft (for example,

tubes, rafts, canoes, and kayaks). Often,

several different groups enter the river at the 

same place and time, which can lead to 

congestion and conflicts.

Most visitors to the Riverways rent their 

nonmotorized watercraft from Riverwaysapproved concessioners and then return 

them at the end of their trip. However, over 

the past 20 years, the number of 

nonmotorized river users bringing their own 

equipment has steadily increased. If the 

number of private nonmotorized users on the 

river continues to increase at a similar rate, 

issues related to crowding and conflicts

would also likely increase. On some river

sections most popular with nonmotorized 

users, motorized boat use is also occurring, 

increasing the potential for conflict among 

users and creating potentially dangerous 

situations, such as people in tubes, rafts, 

kayaks, and canoes being overwhelmed by 

waves.

The need to manage the number of 

motorized and nonmotorized users on the 

river to promote high quality visitor 

experiences, minimize conflicts among the 

different users groups, and promote a safer

environment was recognized in the 1989 river 

use management plan. At that time the 

dominant nonmotorized watercraft used in 

the Riverways were canoes. The 1989 plan 

developed standards for the maximum 

number of canoes by river section and 

provided for monitoring and review of 

concession operations in order to achieve 

canoe standards. These standards were 

characterized as ranges for three types of use 

levels (low, medium, and high) in order to 

provide a variety of high quality river 

experiences. The 1989 plan also designated 

zones of motorboat operation and maximum 

horsepower, and provided for monitoring of 

impacts to natural resources. The 1989 river 

use management plan acknowledged there 

may be concerns with current and future use 

levels by motorboats and tubes, but the plan 

did not propose maximum use levels for 

these types of uses.

To better reflect changing watercraft use 

patterns on the riverways, particularly the 

greater diversity of watercraft, this general 

management plan applies the standards set in 

the 1989 plan for canoes to include all 

watercraft (motorized and nonmotorized).

The indicators and standards for watercraft 

included in this plan are important tools for 

continuing to alleviate crowding in certain 

areas during times of high use, as well as to 

address potential resource and safety 

concerns of multiple uses in one area. 

Research conducted in 2010 (Park 2011) was 

compared to past research (Brown and 

Chilman 1999; Chilman and Vogel 2001; and 

Brown and Chilman 2002) and the 1989 river 

use management plan to help confirm that 

these indicators and standards are still 

effective and valid. For more specific 

information on these research studies, see the 

“Visitor Use and Experience” section in

chapter 4. Some of these river sections 

overlap with areas outside the park unit 

boundary. Standards for number of 
Visitor Use Management and Visitor Capacity

103

watercraft per mile would not apply to any 

area outside of the park unit boundary.

Use patterns at the Riverways have changed 

over the past 30 years, but overall use levels 

have not varied dramatically (NPS 2011a

Public Use Statistics), with the exception of 

the section of river from Chilton Creek to the 

park unit boundary north of Watercress. 

Most of the current watercraft use levels 

(such as for canoes, kayaks, motorboats, and 

tubes) for the majority of river sections are 

within the use levels established by the 1989 

plan (Park 2011). The Chilton Creek to 

Watercress section (within park unit 

boundaries) is above the use levels 

established in the 1989 plan. Other 

exceptions exist along the riverways, but they 

are few and occur only on weekends during 

peak season.

The only changes in application of the 

standards set in the 1989 river use 

management plan is to apply the standards to 

all watercraft and to amend the direction for 

the river section from Chilton Creek to the 

park unit boundary north of Watercress. The 

1989 plan identified this section as medium 

use, but did not account for other river use 

besides canoes. Tube use has grown 

dramatically in this particular river section. 

This general management plan would 

reassign this section of river from a medium 

use to high use section, as defined in the 1989 

plan. That plan defined high use zones as 

social park settings with moderate to high 

development and visitation and allowed up to 

70 canoes per mile. Converting this section of 

river to a high use zone is more consistent 

with the desired conditions established for 

this area in the general management plan. 

This standard will apply to all watercraft and 

will allow for a higher level of use than the 

1989 plan, but is below current use levels in 

this section of river. This reduction in use 

from current levels is needed to ensure 

ranger patrols are able to navigate river traffic 

and respond to emergencies safely and 

appropriately, as well as help minimize visitor 

use conflicts and crowding. 

If use levels are nearing or exceed the 

standards for a section of river, management 

actions would be needed. The standards 

allow for some flexibility to accommodate 

high-use times on the riverways by assigning 

a percentage to the amount of time the river 

section will need to be within standard. For 

example, there would be no more than 70 

watercraft per mile from Akers to Pulltite for 

85% of the summer season (see table 8).

To ensure compliance with the standards,

staff at the Riverways may develop an 

education outreach program to encourage 

voluntary dispersal of use on the rivers to 

reduce the number of watercraft in certain 

popular areas. Also, current concessioner

contracts or operating plans may be 

evaluated and modified to better distribute 

and manage the number of watercraft, both 

across times of day and by physical location. 

Riverways staff may also consider a shuttle 

system to further disperse use on the rivers.

Finally, if needed to ensure compliance with 

standards, watercraft permits may also be 

required. Implementation of some of these 

management strategies may require 

additional compliance and public 

involvement.

Number of Citations or Documented 

Warnings Related to Inappropriate 

Behavior

The Riverways attracts a wide variety of 

visitors from different parts of the country. 

Many come to enjoy the peace and serenity 

the Riverways has to offer, while others come 

to unwind and be outdoors with their friends 

and family. There are times when the social 

atmosphere of the river leads to 

inappropriate activities (e.g., disorderly 

conduct, alcohol, and drug violations) and 

related conflicts between user groups. These 

conflicts can detract from the family-friendly 

atmosphere of the Riverways. Law 

enforcement personnel respond to many 

incidents of inappropriate behavior on the 

river, along the banks of the river, and in the 

campgrounds.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

104

Although Riverways managers have been 

working toward minimizing the incidences of

these behaviors, an indicator measuring the 

number of citations related to inappropriate 

behaviors would be used to ensure protection 

of resources and high-quality visitor 

experiences. The case records at the 

Riverways shows that incidents related to 

alcohol, drugs, and disorderly conduct are 

the most frequent and disruptive. 

For this reason, the standard would be that 

no more than 120 citations or documented 

warnings per month would be related to 

drugs, alcohol, or disorderly conduct. To 

ensure that this standard is not violated and 

the number of citations related to 

inappropriate behavior improves, Riverways

managers may institute an educational 

program in partnership with other agencies 

and local media outlets. Increasing the 

number of interpretive contacts and 

potentially instituting a gravel bar greeter 

program might be appropriate. Increased law 

enforcement presence on the riverways might

help to increase the family-friendly 

atmosphere, as well as possibly offering 

alcohol-free zones on the rivers. If this 

standard is repeatedly violated, managers 

might consider temporarily or permanently 

closing areas of concern.
105

TABLE 8. VISITOR USE INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

Indicator Zone Standard Potential management strategies1

Visitor experience indicators and standards

Percent of annual visitors with 

facilitated interpretative contacts as a 

result of programs, demonstrations, and 

activities.

Parkwide At least 8% of annual visitors would participate in facilitated interpretive programs, demonstrations, and activities • Increase interpretation contacts from law enforcement and maintenance.

• Create new programs to reach a more diverse audience.

• Seek out funding for additional programming.

• Increase interpretive staff to reach more visitors.

Number of campers at one time at 

designated campsites on gravel bars

designated for camping.

Parkwide No more than 6 campers per designated site on gravel bars within 50 feet of the river • Provide education related to the sensitive nature of the river and gravel bar 

environment.

• Post signs.

• Designate campsites on the gravel bars.

• Establish a pay station for campers.

• Require permits to camp on gravel bars.

• Implement temporary or permanent closure of gravel bars to camping.

Density of parked cars at visitor-created 

access points and river crossings outside 

designated parking areas and 

designated campsites.

Parkwide Zero vehicles parked at visitor-vehicle-created access points and crossings outside designated parking and 

designated campsites

• Provide education programs directed at resource damage caused by visitorcreated access points.

• Use signs to direct visitors to designated access points.

• Designate and delineate parking, such as with barriers or boulders.

• Create parking areas.

Number of watercraft per river mile at 

specified locations.

Note: The term “watercraft” applies to 

all forms of watercraft, motorized and 

nonmotorized, allowed within a 

particular section of river.

Parkwide

(based on 

1989 river use

management 

plan zoning 

protocol)

The numbers of watercraft per river mile at specified locations listed below

will not be exceeded for 85% of the peak season

• Educate visitors to encourage voluntary dispersal of use and off-peak times on 

the riverways. Modify concession contracts/operating plans to better distribute 

and manage the number of nonmotorized watercraft across areas of the 

riverways and throughout various times of the day. 

• Require motorboats to have quieter engines.

• Use a shuttle system to better distribute watercraft.

• Implement seasonal, temporary, or permanent closures.

• Implement a permit system for watercraft use.

River section Weekends and holidays 

(number of watercraft per mile)

Weekdays

(number of watercraft per mile)

Upper Current

Cedargrove to Akers up to 70 up to 40

Akers to Pulltite up to 70 up to 40

Pulltite to Round Springs up to 40 up to 40

Round Spring to Two Rivers up to 10 up to 10

Lower Current

Two Rivers to Powder Mill up to 10 up to 10

Powder Mill to Chilton Creek up to 10 up to 10

Chilton Creek to Big Spring2 up to 70 up to 40

Big Spring to Gooseneck (previously 

Hawes)

up to 10 up to 10

Jacks Fork

Prongs to Alley Spring2 up to 40 up to 40

Alley Spring to Two Rivers2 up to 40 up to 40

Number of citations or documented 

warnings related to inappropriate 

behavior.

Parkwide There would be no more than 120 citations or documented warnings per month related to disorderly conduct and 

alcohol/drug-related activity.

• Provide education through the media outlets.

• Work with other agencies to cut down on inappropriate behavior.

• Increase interpretive contacts.

• Institute gravel bar greeters.

• Provide more uniformed presence at river.

• Designate family-friendly zones.

• Prohibit public intoxications beyond a preset limit (per Missouri State Statutes 

and 36 CFR).

• Ban alcohol at trouble spots.
106

TABLE 8. VISITOR USE INDICATORS AND STANDARDS (CONTINUED)

Indicator Zone Standard Potential management strategies1

Resource indicators and standards

Number of incidents of reported 

intentional vandalism.

Parkwide There would be no more than six incidents of intentional vandalism per year to park unit facilities.

There would be no more than one incident of intentional vandalism to cultural resources per year.

• Take appropriate law enforcement action.

• Provide visitor education.

• Use community outreach.

• Post signs. 

• Partner with local law enforcement for community patrols.

• Increase ranger patrols.

• Increase surveillance. 

• Rehabilitate affected sites.

• Limit access.

• Closure sites.

Number of times bacteria in the rivers 

exceed existing state of Missouri 

standard.

Parkwide There would be zero tolerance for violations during the recreational season of the Missouri standard for Escherichia 

coli.

• Increase education and awareness.

• Continue to monitor to detect changes in water quality, especially during highuse periods.

• Continue immediate temporary closures when water quality standards are 

exceeded.

• Increase regulation of events and activities, such as requiring permits for horse 

use.

• Increase regulation of use levels and/or group sizes with a goal of dispersing

visitors to lesser-used areas or limiting group sizes.

• Initiate permanent site closures and/or relocations, such as specific trails and

crossings; consider closures during rain events.

• Other mitigation techniques as appropriate.

Number of visitor-created 

roads and campsites.

Parkwide There would be zero tolerance for visitor created roads, camping areas, and traces leaving designated county, state,

or NPS roads per year (over baseline).

• Provide education and awareness on low-impact practices.

• Increase enforcement of off-road and off-trail travel.

• Institute a trail permit system.

• Promptly close visitor-created roads.

• Provide better signage and delineation of designated trail and road system.

• If appropriate, designate additional trails.

• Better delineation of roads.

• Increase road maintenance techniques, such as installing water bars.

• Harden road to better accommodate use type and levels.

• Reduce use levels.

• Reroute roads.

• Implement temporary or permanent road closure.

Number of horse crossings. Parkwide There would be no new equestrian crossings other than those associated with a designated trail. • Use education to increase awareness.

• Convert crossing to an access point with associated parking and trail access to 

the river.

• Close and rehabilitate unauthorized crossings.

Number of crossings associated with 

motorized vehicles.

Parkwide There would be no motorized crossings other than those associated with a county road. • Use education to increase awareness.

• Convert crossing to an access point with associated parking and trail access to 

the river.

• Close and rehabilitate unauthorized crossings.

Number of incidents of reported 

intentional vandalism in caves.

Parkwide There would be no more than four incidents of intentional vandalism per year in caves. • Investigate and report all cases to establish an accurate incident count.

• Continue immediate treatment of impacts.

• Implement temporary or permanent closure via gating caves.

1 Some management strategies vary across alternatives and would be implemented upon completion of the plan. The rest of the strategies represent a range of strategies that could be used if needed to ensure that standards are maintained and desired conditions are achieved. Several of these strategies 

are currently in use within the Riverways to varying degrees, and may be increased in response to changing conditions. If a new strategy is needed, the National Park Service will evaluate if the strategy requires additional compliance and public involvement in order to implement.

2 River sections are based off the 1989 river use management plan (see the River Sections Map). These sections were used in further research by both Chilman (1999, 2001, and 2002) and Park (2010) for consistency when collecting data. Standards for number of watercraft per mile would not apply to 

any area outside the Riverways boundary.

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

108

RESOURCE INDICATORS

AND STANDARDS

The priority resource indicators for Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways are associated 

with the following topics:

 number of incidents of reported 

intentional vandalism

 number of times bacteria in the 

rivers exceed the state of Missouri 

standard

 number of visitor-created roads 

and campsites

 number of horse crossings

 number of crossings associated 

with motorized vehicles

 number of incidents of intentional 

vandalism in caves

Number of Incidents of Reported 

Intentional Vandalism

Visitor use impacts include unintentional 

wear and disturbances to park unit

facilities, infrastructure, and other 

resources, along with intentional 

vandalism. In order to maintain park unit

facilities and continue to provide high 

quality visitor experiences and services, the 

Riverways created an indicator for 

intentional visitor caused vandalism to 

park unit facilities. The proposed standard 

is no more than six incidents of intentional 

vandalism to park unit facilities per year.

The Riverways also created an indicator 

and standard for vandalism to cultural 

resources within the park unit. Cultural 

resources are nonrenewable, so vandalism 

must be minimized to the greatest extent 

possible. The Riverways staff is already 

using internal guidelines to monitor these 

resources. The indicator for human 

impacts to cultural resources and sites is

based on this existing monitoring protocol. 

Management efforts would be focused on 

maintaining the integrity and condition of 

all sites, with the proposed standard being

no more than one incident of intentional 

vandalism per year. To ensure that both 

standards on vandalism are met, visitor 

education and enforcement of park 

regulations would be continued, and 

closures of particularly vulnerable areas 

would be considered, if needed.

Number of Times Bacteria in the Rivers 

Exceed the Existing State Standard

In locations of high recreational use, 

bacterial counts can be elevated. The 

presence of bacteria in the water is a threat 

to human health and safety as well as the 

health of the aquatic communities.

The Riverways already has a monitoring 

program in place to determine the levels of 

Escherichia coli in the water column. This 

monitoring protocol is based on water 

quality standards developed by the state of 

Missouri. The standard would be zero 

tolerance for violations of the Missouri 

standard during the recreational season.

To ensure that this standard is not violated, 

the Riverways managers might consider 

increasing educational efforts to raise

awareness of the impacts that river users 

can have on water quality. Increased

monitoring efforts, especially during 

periods of high use, may be needed to 

remain within standard. If conditions are 

trending toward the standards, 

management actions such as moving trails 

farther from the river could be considered.

Number of Visitor-created

Roads and Campsites

Visitors leaving designated roads with their 

vehicles can lead to impacts to areas 

adjacent to the road, such as erosion, 

compaction of soils, loss of vegetation, and 

the creation of disturbed areas that become 

prime habitat for invasive plant species. 

Visitor-created roads leading to precarious 
Visitor Use Management and Visitor Capacity

109

overlooks, areas of loose rock, and 

sensitive cultural and natural areas are also 

a concern due to safety and potential 

resource impact issues. These roads often 

lead to visitor-created camping areas that 

have the potential for similar impacts on

natural and cultural resources.

Monitoring the number of visitor-created 

roads, traces, and camping areas per year 

would allow Riverways staff to ensure that 

the resources adjacent to these areas are 

not being adversely impacted. Monitoring 

would also allow the Riverways to close 

visitor-created roads and rehabilitate 

visitor-created camping areas. To 

emphasize existing management direction 

that visitors use only designated roads and 

campsites, the standard was established as

zero new visitor-created roads and 

camping areas per year compared to 

baseline conditions.

If the standard for this indicator was

exceeded and if it was determined that 

unauthorized roads and camping areas 

were caused by visitor use, initial 

management strategies may include visitor 

education, increased enforcement, and 

installation of temporary or permanent 

signs. If the standard is continually 

violated, increased law enforcement 

patrols may be necessary. Riverways staff 

may also consider official designation of 

certain visitor-created roads, traces, or 

camping areas, if they meet the criteria for 

a suitable site.

Number of Horse Crossings

Horseback riding is a popular activity at 

the Riverways and is enjoyed by many 

visitors throughout the year. The 

Riverways has 23 miles of designated trails 

with seven designated river crossings for 

visitors to use. However, miles and miles of 

undesignated trails have developed over 

time, with 24 identified undesignated river 

crossings associated with these trails (Park 

2011).

The undesignated trails and crossings are 

not designed to withstand the use they 

receive or control potential impacts to

natural resources. Typically, undesignated 

trails and crossings are susceptible to 

erosion and a loss of vegetation, which can 

lead to impacts on wildlife habitat, 

hydrologic processes, and water quality, 

including increased turbidity. These sites 

also become prime habitat for invasive 

plant species. Water quality can also be 

impacted by the horses entering the water 

at the unplanned crossings. A decrease in 

water quality, the physical disturbance to 

the river bed, and a proliferation of horse 

river crossings can also impact wildlife at 

the site of the crossing as well as down 

river of the crossing.

There are significant resource concerns 

associated with the use of undesignated 

river crossings and the connection of these 

crossings to informal trail proliferation. 

Following completion of a roads and trails 

management plan, which would designate 

horse trails and crossings, undesignated 

horse river crossings would be restored to 

their natural condition. However, to 

ensure that further crossings are not 

created, an indicator measuring the 

number of new horse river crossings was 

developed. The standard would be no new 

horse river crossings that are not 

associated with a designated trail.

Law enforcement would be increased for 

compliance. In addition, the NPS staff 

would need to implement an education 

and awareness plan to help visitors 

understand regulations associated with the 

use of designated trails and river crossings, 

along with raised awareness on the impacts 

associated with undesignated crossings.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

110

Number of Crossings Associated

with Motorized Vehicles

Vehicles crossing the rivers can also cause a 

variety of resource concerns. These 

include, but are not limited to, vegetation 

loss, wildlife disturbances (in and adjacent 

to the rivers), erosion, and water quality 

degradation directly associated with 

vehicles crossing the rivers.

The indicator and standard for the number 

of vehicle crossings is based on the existing 

Riverways management policy, which does

not allow river crossings except at 

designated areas associated with a 

designated county or state road. The 

standard of zero motorized crossings not 

associated with a designated county or 

state road would help strengthen the 

existing policy.

This indicator and standard would require 

the Riverways staff to begin closing and 

rehabilitating undesignated river crossings 

immediately. In the future, the Riverways

staff would use visitor education to 

encourage the use of designated crossings 

and inform visitors of the resource damage 

caused by visitor-created crossings. If the 

standard has been violated on several 

occasions and other management strategies 

have not been successful, the Riverways

staff may consider converting 

undesignated crossings to a river access 

point with associated parking and trail 

access to the river.

Number of Incidents of Reported 

Intentional Vandalism in Caves

Karst resources, especially caves, are 

vulnerable to intentional acts of vandalism 

such as graffiti on cave walls and floors, 

trash dumping or littering, digging, and 

building campfires. These behaviors 

impact the aesthetics of the cave, but more 

importantly may impact sensitive, caveadapted species such as bats and 

salamanders. The National Park Service is 

already monitoring these impacts to cave 

resources. The indicator for vandalism is 

based on the existing monitoring protocol.

Management efforts would be focused on 

maintaining the integrity and condition of 

caves by not allowing more than four 

incidences of intentional vandalism per 

year. To ensure that this standard is 

maintained, visitor education and 

enforcement of park unit regulations 

would be continued. A possible increase in 

surveillance and closure of particularly 

vulnerable areas would be considered. 

(Note: All of the caves at the Riverways, 

with the exception of Round Spring cave,

are currently closed due to white-nose 

syndrome.)

LONG-TERM MONITORING

The National Park Service would continue 

to monitor visitor use levels and patterns 

throughout the Riverways. In addition, it

would monitor the visitor use indicators. 

The rigor of monitoring the indicators, 

such as the frequency of monitoring cycles, 

and area monitored, may vary considerably 

depending on how close existing 

conditions are to the standards. If the 

existing conditions are far from exceeding 

the standard, the rigor of monitoring 

would be less than if the existing 

conditions were close to or trending 

toward the standard.

Initial monitoring of the indicators would 

determine if the indicators were accurately 

measuring the conditions of concern and if 

the standards truly represented the 

minimally acceptable condition of the 

indicator. The National Park Service may

decide to modify the indicators or 

standards and revise the monitoring 

program if better ways are found to 

measure changes caused by visitor use. 

Most of these types of changes should be 

made within the first several years of 

initiating monitoring. After this initial 
Visitor Use Management and Visitor Capacity

111

testing period, adjustments would be less 

likely to occur.

If use levels and patterns change 

appreciably, the National Park Service 

would need to identify new indicators to 

ensure that desired conditions are achieved 

and maintained. This iterative learning and 

refining process, a form of adaptive 

management, is a strength of the NPS 

visitor use management program.
112

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE

CLIMATE CHANGE AND OZARK 

NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS

Climate change has the potential to adversely 

affect the future resource conditions of the 

Riverways. As global and regional climates 

continue to change, a management approach 

that enhances the protection and resilience of 

climate-sensitive resources is becoming 

increasingly important. The following 

outlines such a strategy that adapts to the

growing understanding of climate change 

influences and the effectiveness of 

management to contend with them.

Climate change science is a rapidly advancing 

field and new information is continually 

being collected and released. However, the 

full extent of climate change impacts on 

resource conditions is unknown. As such, 

park unit managers and policy makers have 

not determined the most effective response 

mechanisms for minimizing impacts and 

adapting to change. Because of this, the 

proposed management strategies in this 

section do not provide definitive solutions or 

directions; rather they provide science-based 

and scholarship-based management 

principles to consider when implementing 

the broader management direction of the 

Riverways.

Climate change presents considerable threats 

and challenges to park unit natural and 

cultural resources, infrastructure, and visitor 

experience. While some effects of climate 

change are known and are already visible on 

the landscape, many are just beginning to be 

understood. Most climate change impacts are 

complex and far-reaching. Some of the 

known and future effects that may directly or 

indirectly affect the Riverways include

 warming temperatures 

 changing weather patterns 

 accelerated melting of sea ice (which 

can further alter global weather 

patterns)

 expanded fire seasons

 species range and migration shifts 

 more frequent precursor conditions 

for pests, pathogens, disease, and 

nonnative species invasion 

 potential for river flows to be affected 

by altered precipitation regimes (due 

to climate change) which may affect 

surface flows as well as aquifer 

recharge

Most notably, climate change has the greatest 

potential to alter ecological systems in the 

Riverways. Changes to the frequency and 

degree of weather patterns, temperature 

ranges, extreme events, and other climaterelated variables may alter one or several 

components of the park unit’s ecological 

system. Given the direct ecological 

connectivity of hydrology, plant 

communities, wildlife, and other building 

blocks of a healthy ecological system, even a 

small change in one or two of these

components could potentially have “domino 

effects” through the overall system. Surface 

water and groundwater flow quantities and 

water quality and plant and animal species 

composition (e.g., biodiversity) are just two 

examples of park unit resources that may 

change as a result of climate change.

Climate change is also anticipated to have an 

overall adverse effect on the park unit’s 

cultural resources, primarily as a result of the 

increased intensity and frequency of severe 

storm activity contributing to damaging 

winds and erosion. Heavy, prolonged, and/or 

frequent rainstorms could result in rising 

river levels and swifter currents, potentially 

resulting in the erosional disturbance of 

archeological sites located along riverbank 

terraces. Many archeological sites also retain 

ethnographic importance for traditionally

associated tribes and other groups. Site 

disturbances would diminish the cultural 

connections that many have for traditional 
Management Strategies to Address Climate Change

113

use areas and sites, and possibly impede their

ability to access these areas.

Historic buildings, structures, and cultural 

landscape features may also be adversely 

impacted by increased storm-related 

weathering, high winds, drought, and fire that

could result in the loss or damage of historic 

fabric and other character-defining features.

STRATEGY

To effectively respond to the challenge of 

rapid climate change and its impacts, the 

National Park Service is undertaking a 

collective and coordinated strategy that 

involves park units, regions, national 

program offices, and external partners 

including universities, nonprofit 

organizations, and other federal agencies. 

The Climate Change Response Program is 

providing guidance, recommendations, and 

information that support NPS actions to 

preserve the natural and cultural resources 

and values of the National Park System from 

detrimental impacts due to rapid climate 

change.

The NPS Climate Change Response Program

aims to prepare the agency and its park units 

for the anticipated management needs that 

result from climate change. To help park 

units cope with the uncertainty in future 

climate conditions, this program helps park 

managers determine the extent to which they 

can and should act to protect the park units' 

current resources while allowing the park 

units' ecosystems to adapt to new conditions. 

Strategies of the NPS Climate Change 

Response Program are outlined below.

Science

 Conduct scientific research and 

vulnerability assessments necessary to 

support NPS adaptation, mitigation, 

and communication efforts. 

 Collaborate with scientific agencies 

and institutions to meet the specific 

needs of management as it confronts 

the challenges of climate change. 

 Learn from and apply the best 

available climate change science.

Mitigation

 Reduce the carbon footprint of the 

National Park Service. 

 Promote energy efficient practices, 

such as alternative transportation. 

 Integrate mitigation into all business 

practices, planning, and the NPS 

culture.

Adaptation

 Develop the adaptive capacity for 

managing natural and cultural 

resources and infrastructure under a 

changing climate. 

 Inventory resources at risk and 

conduct vulnerability assessments. 

 Prioritize and implement actions, and 

monitor the results. 

 Explore scenarios, associated risks, 

and possible management options. 

 Integrate climate change impacts into 

facilities management.

Communication

 Provide effective communications to 

the public about climate change and 

impacts. 

 Train park staff and managers in the 

science of climate change and 

decision tools for coping with change. 

 Lead by example.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

114

MANAGEMENT APPROACH

With the guidance of the above strategies, the 

Riverways would use the following 

management approach to address climate 

change throughout the implementation of 

this plan. Many of these specific management 

strategies are adopted from “Some 

Guidelines for Helping Natural Resources 

Adapt to Climate Change” (Baron et al. 2008). 

Further elaboration and adaption of these are 

anticipated as implementation of the plan 

proceeds.

 Through targeted vulnerability 

assessments, identify key natural and 

cultural resources and processes that 

are at risk from climate change; 

establish baseline conditions for these 

resources, identify their thresholds, 

and monitor for change. Increase 

reliance on adaptive management to 

minimize risks.

 Restore key ecosystem features and 

processes, protect cultural resources 

to increase their resilience to climate 

change, and examine the potential for 

Riverways to provide climate refugia 

for sensitive species. Use best 

management practices to reduce 

human-caused stresses (that is, park 

unit infrastructure and visitor-related 

disturbances) that hinder the ability of 

species or ecosystems to withstand 

climatic events.

 Form partnerships with other 

resource management entities to 

maintain regional habitat connectivity 

and refugia that allow species 

dependent on Riverways resources to 

better adapt to changing conditions.

 Reduce or mitigate greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with Riverways

operations and visitor use, such as 

alternative transportation options (for 

example, using shuttles and 

employing low-emission vehicles in 

the park unit’s fleet) and biofuels and 

other renewable energy sources for 

contact stations, administrative 

buildings, and campgrounds.

 Use the fragile environments of the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways as 

an opportunity to educate visitors 

about the effects of climate change on 

the resources they are enjoying. 

Inspire visitors to take action through 

leadership and education.

 Manage Riverways facilities and 

infrastructure, such as structures, 

trails, roads, and drainage systems, in 

a way that prepares for and adapts to 

the effects of climate change.
115

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED

INTRODUCTION

After completion and approval of this general 

management plan, other more detailed 

studies and plans would be needed before 

certain actions could be implemented. Some 

of these actions would require additional 

environmental compliance, public 

involvement, and consultation. The extent of 

further public input and environmental 

analysis would vary, depending on the 

impacts anticipated from a proposed action. 

Appropriate permits may also be needed for 

certain actions.

Implementation of these studies and plans 

would also depend on future funding and 

staffing levels. The approval of this general 

management plan does not guarantee that the 

funding needed for implementation would be 

forthcoming.

This section identifies future studies 

(including inventories, evaluations, and 

condition assessments) and plans (including 

strategies) that would likely be needed to 

implement the action alternatives. If a 

particular study or plan is only associated 

with one of the action alternatives, that is 

noted in the list. The list is organized by 

Riverways-wide management strategies 

presented earlier in this chapter.

Please note that certain plans and studies that 

are similar in nature may be combined for 

efficiency.

Natural Resources

 Update the fire management plan.

 Develop an open fields management 

plan.

 Update the land protection plan.

 Develop a resource stewardship 

strategy that provides comprehensive, 

long-range direction for natural 

resource management (NPS policy 

now requires that a resource 

stewardship strategy be completed to 

replace the resource management 

plan). This strategy would establish a 

multiyear, ecosystem-based planning 

process for the natural resource 

program to implement inventories, 

condition assessments, monitoring, 

and restoration projects for the 

following:

– vegetation, including both native 

and invasive species

– wildlife, including mammals, 

birds, reptiles, fish, and 

amphibians

– wetlands, including bogs, springs, 

seeps, and riparian areas

– ecologically sensitive areas, 

including globally imperiled 

habitats, state natural heritage 

areas, conservation sites, and 

critical habitat for endangered 

species

– special status species, including 

federally and state-listed plants 

and animals

 Develop a water quality and air 

quality monitoring plan.

 Develop a restoration plan or plans 

that provide guidance for restoring 

rare habitats and special status 

species.

Climate Change

 Develop a climate change action plan 

that builds on the NPS’ approach to 

addressing climate change outlined in 

this general management plan, 

including strategies to reduce the 

Riverways’ carbon footprint and an 

analysis to determine the effects of 

climate change on park resources, 

values, facilities, and visitor services.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

116

 Pursue data collection and research 

that addresses climate change effects 

on natural and cultural resources, as 

well as human dimensions. These 

efforts could include scenario 

planning with the assistance of the 

Climate Change Response Program 

and partnership research efforts with 

other agencies or institutions.

 Pursue climate change adaptation 

planning as a part of all other planning 

processes included in this section (e.g. 

RSS, river use management plan, etc.). 

Climate change will affect all aspects 

of park stewardship and operations 

and therefore should be considered as 

part of any park strategic planning 

effort. 

 Pursue studies concerning the 

relationship between projected 

climate changes, output from the 

natural springs, river flows and an 

examination of potential future fire 

regimes.

Cultural Resources

 Develop a resource stewardship 

strategy that provides comprehensive, 

long-range direction for cultural 

resource management, including the 

establishment of a multiyear planning 

process for resource inventory, 

assessment, research, interpretation, 

and protection. Cultural resources 

such as archeological sites, historic 

structures, and cultural landscapes 

would continue to be inventoried and 

assessed Riverways-wide. 

 Update the collection and archive 

management plan, integrated pest 

management plan for collections, and 

scope of collections, as needed.

 Develop a Riverways-wide strategy to 

identify, monitor, and mitigate the 

impacts of climate change on cultural 

resources.

 Develop treatment plans for special 

cultural resource areas and cultural 

landscapes.

 Develop treatment plans for cultural 

resources in need of rehabilitation 

and stabilization.

 Develop a cultural affiliation 

landscape plan (pastoral areas).This 

would increase areas managed as 

meadows and agricultural sites that 

were once part of Ozark farms and

settlement areas.

Visitor Use and Interpretation

 Develop a roads and trails plan.

 Develop development concept plans 

for Akers, Alley Spring, Big Spring, 

Round Spring, Pulltite, Two Rivers, 

and Powder Mill.

 Develop an implementation plan or 

plans to upgrade campgrounds.

 Update the river use management 

plan, which was published in 1989.

 Develop a horse use management 

plan.

 Develop a right-of-way management 

plan.

 Develop a sign plan.

 Rewrite the long-range interpretation 

plan.

 Develop a visitor use management 

plan.

 Develop an implementation plan or 

plans to substantially increase the 

number of visitors contacted over 

current levels, such as by improving

visitor orientation services. 

 Develop a visitor use management

strategy for the Riverways consistent 

with the visitor use management

framework presented in this general 

management plan.

 Update visitor use and analysis data to 

serve as a foundation for a variety of 
Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed

117

other implementation studies and 

plans.

 Develop new methods to reach a 

wider variety of audiences using 

available new technologies.

 Develop a new commercial services 

plan to provide viable concession 

services at all locations to ensure the 

long-term availability of watercraft 

rentals, lodging, food, and other 

services. An implementation plan 

would be developed if either upgrades 

to infrastructure or the addition of 

new facilities is appropriate.

Partnerships

 Incorporate strategies to enhance 

existing partnerships or actively 

pursue new ones with public and 

private entities into the future studies 

and plans listed previously. 

 Develop a communication plan to 

facilitate and expand 

communications, provide 

opportunities for more direct input 

with park staff, and help promote 

awareness and understanding of park 

issues. The plan would propose 

measures for regularly gathering and 

distributing information to the public, 

responding to concerns about park 

operations, and encouraging feedback 

on park issues.
118

STAFFING AND COST ESTIMATES

National Park Service decision makers and 

the public must consider the costs and 

advantages of various alternatives, including 

the no-action alternative, to make relevant 

comparison among the alternatives.

The costs presented here are estimates for 

comparison purposes only and are not to be 

used for budgetary purposes or 

implementation funding requests. If and 

when the actions are implemented, actual 

costs would vary. Specific costs would be 

determined in subsequent, more detailed 

planning and design efforts.

Presentation of costs in this plan does not 

guarantee future NPS funding. Project 

funding would not come all at once; it would 

likely take many years to secure, and some 

could be provided by partners, donations, or 

other nonfederal sources. Although Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways hopes to secure 

this funding and would prepare itself 

accordingly, the Riverways might not receive 

enough funding to achieve all desired 

conditions within the timeframe of the 

general management plan (the next 20 or 

more years).

The estimates in this section include annual 

operating, staffing, deferred maintenance, 

one-time facility and nonfacility, and other 

costs. These are defined as follows:

 Annual Operating Costs are the total 

costs per year for operations and 

maintenance associated with each 

alternative, including utilities, 

supplies, staff salaries and benefits, 

leasing, and other materials. Cost and 

staffing estimates assume that the 

alternative is fully implemented as 

described.

 Staffing is the total number of personyears of staff required to maintain the 

assets of the park unit at an acceptable 

level, provide visitor services, protect 

resources, and generally support the 

park’s operations. The full-time 

equivalency (FTE) number indicates 

NPS staffing levels, including seasonal 

staff, but not volunteer positions or 

positions funded by partners. Fulltime equivalency salaries and benefits 

are included in the annual operating 

costs. 

 Deferred Maintenance Costs include 

costs related to maintenance that was 

not performed when it was scheduled.

A lack of funding is the primary 

reason for delays in addressing 

maintenance needs.

 One-time Facility Costs include costs

for the design, construction, 

rehabilitation, upgrades, or adaptive 

reuse of visitor centers, campgrounds, 

picnic areas, roads, parking areas, 

administrative facilities, comfort 

stations, educational facilities, 

maintenance facilities, trails, and 

other visitor and management 

facilities. 

 One-time Nonfacility Costs include 

actions for the preservation of cultural 

or natural resources not related to 

facilities, the development of visitor 

use or management tools, and other 

park management activities that 

would require substantial funding 

above annual operating costs.

 Other Costs are identified separately 

for projects that are wholly or 

partially funded from other sources.

Staffing and annual operating cost estimates 

for the action alternatives are calculated by 

adding additional staffing and annual 

operating costs associated with the 

implementation of each action alternative to 

the staffing and annual operating costs under 

the no-action alternative. 

Table 9 provides cost estimates and staffing 

levels for implementing the four alternatives.
Staffing and Cost Estimates

119

STAFFING

Staffing levels expressed as full-time 

equivalents (FTEs) shown under the noaction alternative in table 10 (72 total), 

indicate the actual number of positions 

funded in fiscal year 2011. Due to current 

funding limitations the authorized funding 

level (of 95) has not been reached and 23 fulltime positions are currently vacant in various 

divisions at the Riverways.

Table 10 also shows the total number of 

proposed additional staff required above the 

2011 funded staffing levels to implement the 

management strategies described under 

alternatives A, B, and C. The 2011 staffing 

levels are identified for the no-action 

alternative and serve as a baseline for 

comparison against the action alternatives. 

The increase in annual operating cost above 

the no-action alternative is mainly the result 

of the increased number of staff proposed to 

fully implement each action alternative.

Volunteers would continue to be key 

contributors to NPS operations under all of 

the alternatives. In 2011, the National 

Riverways had 214 volunteers working in the 

following categories:

 Interpretation: 6,534 hours

 Maintenance: 2,677 hours

 Natural Resource Management: 416

hours

 Protection / Operations / Law 

Enforcement: 60 hours

 Campground Hosts: 6,840 hours

These volunteer contributed a total of about 

16,500 hours, which is equivalent to eight

full-time positions. Volunteers (and future 

partners) would continue to be an important 

part of ongoing management and a vital 

component of the Riverways’ efforts to 

implement any of the action alternatives.

Staffing for each of the alternatives is 

described below. The Interpretation and 

Education Division and Resource 

Management and Science Division are 

discussed in more detail because the 

substantial number of additional personnel 

that would be needed in these divisions to 

fully implement alternative A, B, or C.

No-action Alternative

The NPS staffing level under this alternative 

would remain at the Operation of the 

National Park Service currently authorized

level of 95 full-time equivalent positions.

The Interpretation and Education Division is 

the only park unit division that relies on 

Operation of the National Park Service basefunded seasonal positions to carry out its 

program from year to year. For consistent 

comparison purposes, only permanent and

seasonal full-time equivalent positions are 

reflected in these general management plan

staffing estimates.

Alternative A

The NPS staffing level under alternative A 

would require additional employees, 34 fulltime equivalent positions, relative to the noaction alternative and current funding levels. 

The proposed additional 34 full-time 

positions equates to an additional 11 staff 

over the current authorized funding level of 

95 full time positions.

The Interpretation and Education Division 

would use the additional 12 full-time 

equivalent positions to improve 

informational services, educational services, 

and orientation services along the riverways. 

This alternative emphasizes visitor awareness 

of the historical human presence in the Ozark 

region, and includes regularly scheduled

cultural demonstrations as well as guided 

hikes and float trips.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

120

TABLE 9. COST ESTIMATES AND STAFFING FOR FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Cost type No-action Alternative A Alternative B 

(NPS preferred) Alternative C

Staffing 

(full-time equivalency) 72 34 (106 total) 26 (98 total) 47 (119 total)

Annual operating costs $6,582,000 $9,304,000 $8,821,000 $10,072,000

One-time facility costs $0 $7,498,000 $6,703,000 $12,259,000

Deferred maintenance $27,083,000 $23,062,000 $23,803,000 $23,228,000

TABLE 10. ESTIMATED STAFFING LEVELS (FTES) TO IMPLEMENT THE ALTERNATIVES

Division

No -

action Alternative A Alternative B (NPS preferred) Alternative C

Funded New 

FTEs

Total 

FTEs

New 

FTEs

Total 

FTEs

New 

FTEs Total FTEs

Total FTEs 72 34 106 26 98 47 119

Superintendent’s Office 5 0 5 0 5 0 5

Administration 5 2 9 2 7 2 7

Maintenance and 

Engineering 28 7 35 12.5 40.5 10 38

Interpretation and 

Education 10 12 22 3 13 13 23

Resource Management 

and Science 7.5 8 15.5 0 7.5 10 17.5

Law Enforcement, Safety 

and Emergency Services 16.5 5 21.5 8.5 25 12 28.5

The Resource Management and Science 

Division would significantly expand resource 

monitoring, including aquatic resources, 

karst systems, and threatened species. The 

additional 8 full-time equivalent positions 

would also support restoration of 

environmentally degraded park unit lands 

and facilities.

The Law Enforcement, Safety, and 

Emergency Services Division would require 

an additional 5 full-time equivalent positions 

to improve protection and monitoring of 

cultural and natural resources in key areas of 

the park unit.

The Maintenance and Engineering Division 

would use the additional 7 full-time 

equivalent positions to help close unofficial 

accesses, crossings, and trails and to 

rehabilitate accesses, crossings, roads, and 

facilities that would remain in use. This 

additional staff also would work to restore 

and protect degraded surface and karst 

communities and ensure water quality in the 

Riverways. The relatively small increase in 

this division’s staff relate to the no-action 

alternative is the result of rehabilitation and 

making improvements to existing 

developments, rather than adding substantial 

new infrastructure to the Riverways.

Alternative B (NPS Preferred)

The NPS staffing level under this alternative 

would increase by 26 full-time equivalent 

positions relative to the no-action alternative 

and current funding levels. The proposed 

additional 26 full-time positions equates to 3 

additional staff over the current authorized 

funding level of 95 full time positions.
Staffing and Cost Estimates

121

The Interpretation and Education Division 

would use the additional 3 full-time 

equivalent positions to expand visitor 

services at key locations along the riverways 

to meet visitor needs. The additional staff 

would increase visitor contacts over current 

staffing levels; improve information, 

education, and orientation services; and 

provide indirect monitoring along the river 

and its adjacent lands.

Alternative B proposes a more 

comprehensive approach to Resource 

Management; however, this approach would 

not require additional full-time equivalent 

positions in the Resource Management and 

Science Divisions to implement the natural 

and cultural resource protection components 

of the preferred alternative. The proposed 

management strategies are not about doing 

substantially more; but rather are more about 

managing differently, in a more proactive way 

that is in accordance with the purpose of the 

park. Strategies would include monitoring of 

aquatic resources, karst systems, and 

threatened species. They would also help 

restore environmentally degraded park unit 

lands and facilities.

In the Maintenance and Engineering 

Division, the additional 12.5 full-time 

equivalent positions would assist with the 

coordination of upgrades to campgrounds, 

picnic areas, trail systems, wastewater 

treatment, maintenance, and visitor service 

facilities.

In the Law Enforcement, Safety, and 

Emergency Services Division, the additional 

8.5 full-time equivalent positions would help 

improve protection and monitoring of 

cultural and natural resources in key areas of 

the Riverways.

Alternative C

The NPS staffing level under this alternative 

would include an additional 47 full-time 

equivalent positions relative to the no-action 

alternative and current funding levels. The 

proposed additional 47 full-time positions 

equates to 24 additional staff over the current 

authorized funding level of 95 full time 

positions.

The Interpretation and Education Division 

would use the additional 13 full-time 

equivalent positions to expand visitor 

services at key locations along the riverways, 

partially due to the switch from a six-month 

to a nine-month season, and the ensuing 

switch from seasonal to permanent staff. 

Furthermore, visitor services would be 

expanded to a 12-month visitor season at 

several other locations along the National 

Riverways. This division would also improve 

information and orientation services at the 

north and south entrances to the National 

Riverways and in several major access points 

for visitors to the Riverways. The goal would 

be to substantially increase visitor contacts 

over current levels. Staff increases would also 

improve interpretive media and educational 

programs.

The Resource Management and Science 

Division would gain 10 full-time equivalent 

positions to implement the natural and 

cultural resource protection components of 

alternative C that would result from the 

increase in river activities. The additional 

staff would allow the Riverways to pursue a 

comprehensive, ecosystem-based approach 

to natural resource management and to 

improve management of historic settlement 

sites as cultural landscapes.

The Maintenance and Engineering Division 

would use the additional 10 full-time 

equivalent positions to assist with the 

coordination of upgrades to campgrounds, 

picnic areas, trail systems, and other visitor 

service facilities, and to perform 

maintenance.

The additional 12 full-time equivalent 

positions in the Law Enforcement, Safety, 

and Emergency Services Division would 

improve protection and monitoring of 

cultural and natural resources in key areas of 

the park unit.
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

122

Deferred Maintenance

The deferred maintenance backlog is the 

same for all of the action alternatives. As 

shown in table 9, accumulated operational 

deficiencies have led to a $27 million deferred 

maintenance backlog at the Riverways. This 

backlog represents 9.4% of the Riverways’

$288 million asset current replacement value 

(CRV).

All three action alternatives would address 

this deferred maintenance backlog. As shown 

in table 11, the $3.2 million budgeted in 

alternative B would address approximately 

12% of the backlog.

One-time Facility Costs

One-time facility costs are included in table 

12, followed by a more detailed description 

of each cost category.

TABLE 11. ESTIMATED DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

ADDRESSED BY ONE-TIME FACILITY COSTS

Type of deferred maintenance Deferred maintenance Targeted project funds 

in alternative B

Trails $1,600,764 $353,796

Landscapes $1,684,232 $263,896

Buildings1 $5,091,146 $2,154,660

Wastewater systems $1,571,729 $507,780

Total DM Targeted $9,947,871 $3,280,132

Total DM Backlog in Riverways $27,082,740 $23,802,608

1 Includes only structures, not associated infrastructure and utilities.

TABLE 12. ESTIMATED ONE-TIME FACILITY COSTS TO IMPLEMENT THE ALTERNATIVES

Cost type No-action Alternative A Alternative B

(NPS preferred) Alternative C

Upgrade selected

campgrounds and picnic areas $0 $166,205 $91,576 $166,205

Upgrade selected visitor 

service facilities $0 $423,521 $480,000 $1,230,000

Upgrade selected

maintenance facilities $0 $3,117,500 $1,600,000 $3,117,500

Improve trail systems 

and access points $0 $1,553,136 $2,594,136 $3,384,784

Other one-time facility costs $0 $521,300 $1,085,210 $521,300

Total one-time facility costs $0 $5,781,662 $5,850,922 $8,419,789

Upgrade Selected Campgrounds and 

Picnic Areas. Estimated one-time facility 

costs to upgrade selected campgrounds and 

picnic areas shown in table 12 are $166,205 in 

alternative A and C while the cost of 

upgrades in alternatives B is approximately 

40% less, at $91,576. All three action 

alternatives would bring primitive sites up to 
Staffing and Cost Estimates

123

standards. Alternatives A and C would 

address 15 sites each, while alternative B 

would address eight. Each action alternative 

would also include restoration of 20 acres of 

disturbed areas.

Upgrade Selected Visitor Service Facilities.

Alternative A would add a boathouse at Big 

Spring with an estimated one-time facility 

cost of $424,000. Alternative B would add an

estimated one-time facility cost of $480,000 

for adaptive reuse of the existing Powder Mill 

building, which would be rehabilitated and 

used as a visitor learning center. Alternative C 

one-time facility costs are approximately $1.2 

million, reflecting the higher cost for the 

addition of the new Ozarks Highland 

Institute Center and the open-air exhibit 

Living History Farm.

Upgrade Selected Maintenance Facilities.

All three action alternatives would add new 

multioperational facilities; alternatives A and

C would add three of these facilities at a cost 

of $3.1 million, while alternative B would add 

one at a cost of $1.6 million.

The combined visitor service and 

maintenance facility upgrades specified in 

alternative B would direct $2.15 million 

toward the building-related deferred 

maintenance backlog of $5.09 million,

contributing 42% of the total deferred 

maintenance in the riverways related to 

buildings.

Improve Trail Systems and Access Points.

Table 12 shows one-time facility costs to 

improve selected trail systems and access 

points. The total estimated costs are 

approximately $790,000 lower under 

alternative B than under alternative C. The 

one-time cost in alternative B of $2.59 million 

to fully implement upgrades and 

enhancement to trails and access points 

includes funds to address the $1.6 million in 

trail-related deferred maintenance, which 

accounts for about 6% of the total deferred 

maintenance backlog in the Riverways.

In addition, all action alternatives include 

$50,000 for restoration of five historic 

cemeteries, $123,000 to stabilize 

archaeological sites, $20,000 to restore 

disturbed areas, $212,000 for historic 

landscape restoration, and $75,000 for 

removal of 10 obsolete structures and site 

reclamation.

One-time Nonfacility Costs

Estimated one-time nonfacility costs under 

all action alternatives include the restoration 

of damaged cultural and other archeological 

sites and the preservation of historical

cemeteries within Riverways lands. 

Additional improvements under alternative A 

are approximately two times higher than 

improvements under alternative B, the 

preferred alternative. Improvements under 

alternative C are approximately five times

higher than alternative B. The additional cost 

allocated in alternative A and alternative C 

are associated with a more comprehensive 

and extensive interpretative and resource 

protection approach requiring more 

management tools.

Other Costs

Other costs include the removal and 

replacement of the bridge at Cedargrove and 

construction of a new bridge at Akers. The

National Park Service would need to pursue 

other funding sources for such construction. 

These bridge replacements could be funded 

partly or in full through a combination of 

federal highway and/or state highway 

improvement design and construction

funding.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The National Park Service will evaluate 

proposed facility investments prior to project 

approvals using the best scientific 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

124

information available and the climate 

change strategies described within this plan 

to ensure the long-term sustainability of these 

investments. It is feasible that the National 

Park Service may conclude that such financial 

investments for facilities would be unwise 

and that other options would be considered 

or potentially the project would not be 

pursued or implemented. Additional 

adaptation strategies will be developed 

relevant to climate change projections and 

scenarios as part of general management plan

implementation.
125

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE

The National Park Service is required to 

identify the environmentally preferable 

alternative in its NEPA documents for public 

review and comment. Guidance from the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

defines the environmentally preferable 

alternative as the alternative that causes the 

least damage to the biological and physical 

environment; it also means the alternative 

which best protects, preserves, and enhances 

historical, cultural, and natural resources” (46 

Federal Register 18026, Q6a). It should be 

noted there is no requirement that the

environmentally preferable alternative and 

the NPS preferred alternative be the same.

The National Park Service has identified 

alternative A as the environmentally 

preferable alternative. Alternative A would 

best protect the biological and physical 

environment by zoning larger portions of the 

Riverways as primitive, natural, and 

nonmotorized when compared to the other 

alternatives. Although alternatives A and B 

contain similar strategies to meet the goal that 

identifies the environmentally preferable 

alternative, alternative A was selected 

primarily because its greater ability to protect 

geologic resources and soils and water 

resources. The no-action alternative and 

alternative C would protect natural and 

cultural resources in accordance with NPS 

policies, but provide for more recreation and 

place less emphasis on biological and physical 

resource protection than alternatives A and 

B. All action alternatives would clarify 

desired conditions and provide more 

comprehensive direction to manage for these 

conditions than framework currently 

provided through the no-action alternative.

Alternative A would use management zones 

to place a stronger emphasis on managing 

natural resources in the Riverways. Negative 

effects to water and geologic resources and 

soils would be reduced from greater limits on 

development, more closure and restoration 

of undesignated horse stream crossings, 

roads and traces, and prohibition of vehicular 

access to all gravel bars. Geologic resources 

and soils would benefit most under 

alternative A from reduction in karst 

degradation, erosion, sedimentation, and 

compaction. Out of all the alternatives, 

alternative A would manage the greatest 

portion of the riverways as nonmotorized.

This would substantially reduce riverbed 

disturbances, minimize and control wake 

disturbances and associated erosion along 

riverbanks, and reduce petroleum-based 

pollutants from motorboats in nonmotorized 

areas and downstream. Other benefits to 

water resources from management strategies 

under alternative A include, reduced 

sedimentation and erosion, reduction in 

levels of nutrient loading in waterways from 

horse manure, and minimization of negative 

effects from facility development and park 

operations.

Each of the action alternatives, as well as the 

no-action alternative, would have similar

minimal impacts on cultural resources. The

action alternatives (A, B, and C) would 

enhance preservation of Riverways cultural 

resources through the introduction of land 

and river management zones and 

implementation of additional cultural 

resource protection, restoration, and 

interpretation strategies. For example, under 

alternative A, protection and preservation of 

cultural landscapes, including open fields to 

preserve pastoral scenes would be 

emphasized. Under alternative B, selected 

structures and sites may receive special 

attention to support Ozark heritage 

educational programs. An oral history 

program would be restarted and the archive 

and collections program would be expanded 

to provide additional archeological storage 

space. Under alternative C, monitoring of 

cultural resource conditions would be 

emphasized in order to achieve desired 

conditions while allowing for expanded 

visitor access to historic structures and 

cultural landscapes.
126

CONSISTENCY OF THE ALTERNATIVES WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY ACT SECTION 101(B)

The National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended requires an analysis of how 

each alternative meets or achieves the 

purposes of the act, as stated in section 

101(b). Each alternative analyzed in a NEPA 

document must be assessed as to how it 

meets the following purposes:

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the 

environment for succeeding 

generations.

2. Assure for all Americans safe, 

healthful, productive, and 

aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings.

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial 

uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk to health or safety, 

or other undesirable and unintended 

consequences.

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, 

and natural aspects of our national 

heritage, and maintain, wherever 

possible, an environment that 

supports diversity and variety of 

individual choice.

5. Achieve a balance between 

population and resource use that 

would permit high standards of living 

and a wide sharing of life’s amenities.

6. Enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the 

maximum attainable recycling of 

depletable resources.

The Council on Environmental Quality has 

promulgated regulations for federal agencies’ 

implementation of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Parts 

1500–1508). Section 1500.2 states that federal 

agencies shall, to the fullest extent possible, 

interpret and administer the policies, 

regulations, and public laws of the United 

States in accordance with the policies set 

forth in the act (sections 101[b] and 102[1]); 

therefore, other acts and NPS Management 

Policies 2006 are referenced, where 

applicable, in the following discussion.

CRITERION 1: FULFILL THE 

RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH 

GENERATION AS TRUSTEE OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT FOR SUCCEEDING 

GENERATIONS

All alternatives considered in this plan, 

including the no-action alternative, must 

comply with law and NPS policy requiring 

the agency to manage parks by such means 

and in such a manner “that will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations.” While each alternative, 

including the no-action alternative meets this 

criterion, the action alternatives (A, B, and C) 

would enhance stewardship of the 

Riverways’ resources through the 

introduction of zoning for land management 

and river management. Management zones

would provide the Riverways with a 

comprehensive vision for broad resource 

management objectives, as well as a clear 

direction on desired types and levels of 

recreational activity and visitor services. The 

zoning approach, along with other 

management strategies proposed in this 

general management plan, would help to 

achieve desired conditions within each zone.

Alternatives A and B would place stronger 

emphasis on managing for natural resources, 

while alternative C would place stronger 

emphasis on monitoring water quality, 

aquatic ecology, and terrestrial ecology to 

keep track of and mitigate impacts from

increased recreation. Each action alternative 

includes some ecological restoration. In 

addition, alternative B would increase 

opportunities for volunteer stewardship 

projects and information sharing.
Consistency of the Alternatives with the National Environmental Policy Act Section 101(B)

127

CRITERION 2: ASSURE FOR ALL 

AMERICANS SAFE, HEALTHFUL, 

PRODUCTIVE, AND AESTHETICALLY 

AND CULTURALLY PLEASING 

SURROUNDINGS

Under all alternatives, including the noaction, the National Park Service would strive 

to provide for safe, healthful, productive, and 

aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings. The ability of the Riverways to 

achieve this purpose would be enhanced 

under all action alternatives. Each action 

alternative provides greater opportunities for 

Riverways visitors to learn about the natural 

and cultural resources of the Riverways and 

enjoy a variety of outdoor recreation 

activities in settings that are safe and 

aesthetically and culturally rich. It is 

important to note that judgment about 

whether or not surroundings are 

“aesthetically and culturally pleasing” is 

subjective. As such, surroundings that are 

pleasing to one person may not be pleasing to 

another person. Therefore, the Riverways

aim to provide for appropriate experiences 

that can effectively meet a broad spectrum of 

visitor interests and expectations (that is, for 

“all Americans”) without impairing the 

Riverways’ fundamental resources and 

values.

Each of the action alternatives has been 

designed to provide high-quality visitor 

experiences and include improved visitor 

contact facilities and interpretation.

Alternatives A and B would reduce 

congestion and disperse use across the 

Riverways, which would help alleviate 

crowding, reduce user conflicts, and 

ultimately improve public safety. While 

alternative C would reduce congestion in 

some areas, overall levels of recreation could 

increase.

CRITERION 3: ATTAIN THE WIDEST

RANGE OF BENEFICIAL USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT 

DEGRADATION, RISK TO HEALTH OR 

SAFETY, OR OTHER UNDESIRABLE 

AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Each of the alternatives has been designed to 

provide a varying degree of high-quality 

recreation opportunities while providing 

additional resource protection. Among the

alternatives, there are some differences in the 

amounts of opportunities provided for each 

use, including reductions in some types of 

recreation specifically in order to expand 

opportunities for other types of recreation. 

For example, alternative A would favor

nonmotorized recreation at the expense of 

motorized recreation. Alternative C would 

expand motorized and nonmotorized river 

use, thereby possibly limiting opportunities 

for a slow paced river experience for other 

visitors.

Alternative B would provide a balanced and 

wide range of visitor use opportunities, while 

reducing crowding and enhancing resource 

protection. This alternative would strive to 

provide a manageable mix of recreational 

opportunities, while also increasing visitor 

awareness of the Riverways’ special resources 

and values. Restoration of biological 

communities and resource monitoring would 

actively support achieving desired conditions 

and avoiding undesirable consequences.

CRITERION 4: PRESERVE IMPORTANT 

HISTORIC, CULTURAL, AND NATURAL 

ASPECTS OF OUR NATIONAL 

HERITAGE; AND MAINTAIN, 

WHEREVER POSSIBLE, AN 

ENVIRONMENT WHICH SUPPORTS 

DIVERSITY AND A VARIETY OF 

INDIVIDUAL CHOICES

The preservation of important historic, 

cultural, and natural aspects of our national 

heritage would be maintained under the 

implementation of all alternatives. In 

addition, mitigation measures common to all 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

128

action alternatives, defined earlier in this 

chapter, would be implemented to minimize 

adverse effects to resources. Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways is a large park unit with 

diverse resources and diverse opportunities 

for visitors. As such, all three action 

alternatives also support a variety of choices,

including many self-directed activities. While 

alternative A would provide greatest 

protection of natural resources, all 

alternatives would have similar minimal

impacts on cultural resources. Alternative B 

would support a larger variety of individual 

choices by providing a mix of traditional 

recreational activities, an assortment of 

guided and self-guided activities, and 

expanded educational and interpretive 

opportunities.

CRITERION 5: ACHIEVE A BALANCE

BETWEEN POPULATION AND 

RESOURCE USE WHICH WOULD 

PERMIT HIGH STANDARDS OF LIVING 

AND A WIDE SHARING OF LIFE’S 

AMENITIES

All alternatives provide appropriate resource 

protection while accommodating use of 

resources by providing river- and land-based 

recreation opportunities. Each action 

alternative would enhance river- or landbased recreation opportunities, but in 

different ways, as discussed under criterion 3.

CRITERION 6: ENHANCE THE 

QUALITY OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES 

AND APPROACH THE MAXIMUM 

ATTAINABLE RECYCLING OF 

DEPLETABLE RESOURCES

In accordance with NPS Management Policies 

2006, all action alternatives incorporate 

measures to ensure actions are conducted in 

an environmentally responsible and 

sustainable manner. Conservation and 

recycling of resources is encouraged 

throughout the National Park Service and, 

therefore, would be implemented under any 

alternative.

CONCLUSION

After evaluation of alternatives in this general 

management plan, each alternative in this 

plan meets the National Environmental 

Policy Act section 101 criterion.
129

ALTERNATIVE AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT

DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

The management alternatives and actions in 

this document were developed over several 

years through an iterative process that 

incorporated public input and new 

information at every step. This process is 

described in detail in the “Introduction” at 

the beginning of this chapter.

ALTERNATIVE DISMISSED

Public scoping identified a desire by some 

members of the public to eliminate the use of 

alcohol on the river. The planning team 

determined that it would be infeasible to 

enforce a ban on alcohol due to the high 

levels of law enforcement that would be 

required. In addition, the National Park 

Service already has specific regulations to 

limit problems associated with alcohol use 

and other, sometimes-related, dangerous 

behavior:

 Volume-drinking devices are 

regulated by Missouri State Statutes

within the park unit boundary.

 Excessively loud sound systems (such 

as stereos or boom boxes) that intrude 

on an area’s enjoyment by familyfriendly groups with young children, 

seniors, or any group members who 

desire experiences free of disruptive 

behaviors, are not allowed. Visitors 

also cannot use air horns and other 

loud-noise-producing devices. 

Rangers use audio decibel readers to 

enforce NPS regulations on noise. 

 Glass containers are regulated by 

Missouri State Statute on the rivers

within the park unit boundary and 

there is active enforcement against the 

use of dry-ice bombs. Jumping from 

some cliffs and bluffs and the use of 

rope swings are prohibited. Cliff 

jumping is a serious safety issue that

also impacts fragile vegetation 

growing in thin soils on the cliffs.

In addition, requirements in 36 CFR, along 

with applicable state and local laws, prohibit 

the following types of alcohol uses:

 It is prohibited for a person to be 

publicly intoxicated in regards to 

aberrant behavior or endangerment to 

oneself, another person, or damage to 

property or park resources. 

 Carrying or storing a bottle, can, or 

other receptacle containing an 

alcoholic beverage that is open or seal 

is broken, or the contents of which 

have been partially removed, within a 

motor vehicle in a park unit is also 

prohibited.

 Operating a bicycle while consuming 

an alcoholic beverage or carrying in 

hand an open container of an 

alcoholic beverage is prohibited.

 It is prohibited for a minor to be in 

possession of alcohol (under 21 years 

of age) as well as any type of sale or 

gift of alcohol to a minor.

 It is also prohibited to operate or be in 

actual physical control of a vehicle/

vessel while under the influence of 

alcohol or a drug, or drugs, or any 

combination thereof, to a degree that 

renders the operator incapable of safe 

operation, or if the alcohol 

concentration in the operator’s blood 

or breath is 0.08 or greater.

Finally, further limiting or attempting to 

eliminate alcohol use on part or all of the 

riverways is an action that can be considered 

separately from the general management plan

in the future. 
130

SUMMARY OF KEY DIFFERENCES AMONG THE ALTERNATIVES

AND SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Table 13 provides a summary of key 

differences among the alternatives. The table 

is organized by the following topics:

 concept

 zoning

 visitor experiences and activities

 visitor services and facilities

 interpretation and education

 natural resource management

 cultural resource management

 wilderness

 park operations

 partnerships

Table 14 summarizes the environmental 

consequences that would result from each 

alternative. A more detailed explanation of 

the impacts is presented in “Chapter 5: 

Environmental Consequences.”
131

TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF KEY DIFFERENCES AMONG THE ALTERNATIVES

Topic No-action alternative Alternative A Alternative B (NPS preferred) Alternative C

Concept The no-action alternative describes how Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways has been and continues to be managed. It reflects 

current resource conditions and trends, existing recreational 

opportunities, types of development, and levels of service. The 

primary purpose of describing the no-action alternative is to 

provide a baseline for comparing the other management 

alternatives. 

Management would focus on creating visitor experiences and 

providing resource conditions that help visitors better 

understand the riverways of the past, including the traditional 

river recreation activities reminiscent of those that occurred 

when the National Riverways was established. Management 

would emphasize greater opportunities for traditional, 

nonmechanized forms of recreation and visitor experiences that 

are quieter, less crowded, and slower paced.

Management would provide a high level of protection of 

natural and cultural resources, while expanding ways for visitors 

to experience and learn about these resources in interesting and 

enjoyable ways. Management would strive to improve visitors’ 

connection to the natural, cultural, and scenic elements of the 

National Riverways with the major goal of helping improve 

visitor appreciation of its resources. Management would 

enhance visitor opportunities to discover and learn about the 

National Riverways’ natural wonders and Ozark heritage. 

Management would seek to provide a diversity of outdoor 

recreational opportunities and experiences while maintaining 

the highly scenic natural setting and cultural resources.

Management would primarily seek to provide a diversity of 

outdoor recreational opportunities and experiences while 

maintaining the highly scenic natural setting and cultural 

resources. Management would provide a diversity of river 

recreational opportunities and experiences similar to that 

provided in the no-action alternative. In addition, 

management would offer land-based recreational 

opportunities. This is reflected in the increased amount of 

acreage for the resource-based recreation zone and the 

developed zone.

Zoning The no-action alternative does not include management 

zones, but would continue to use river use management 

zones set forth in the 1989 river use management plan. 

Land-based zone:

• developed: 1.4%

• resource-based recreation: 3.2%

• natural: 68.6%

• primitive: 26.8%

River-based Zone:

• mixed-use river: 36% 

• seasonal mixed-use river: 13%

• nonmotorized river: 51%

Land-based zone:

• developed: 2.8%

• resource-based recreation: 8.8%

• natural: 72%

• primitive: 16.4%

River-based zone:

• mixed-use river: 52% 

• seasonal mixed-use river: 48%

Land-based zone:

• developed: 5.7%

• resource-based recreation: 59.6%

• natural: 28.2%

• primitive: 6.5% 

River-based zone:

• mixed-use river: 59%

• seasonal mixed-use river: 20%

• nonmotorized river: 21%

Visitor 

experiences 

and activities

The current wide variety of visitor experiences and recreational 

activities would continue to occur. River-based recreational 

opportunities would continue to include canoeing, kayaking, 

tubing, rafting, johnboating, and fishing. Different stretches of 

the river would continue to be managed for different boating 

experiences. The current variety of land-based recreational 

opportunities would also continue to be offered, including 

hiking, horseback riding, hunting, picnicking, and camping. 

Visitors would have opportunities to float secluded stretches of 

the river where they would not experience the sights and 

sounds of motorized boats or vehicles. Along other stretches of 

the river, visitors would encounter low to moderate densities of 

lower-horsepower motorboats that evoke the traditional 

johnboat river experience. Family-friendly recreation would also 

be emphasized, including activities such as guided float trips, 

gravel bar camping, and fishing. Motorized forms of recreation 

would be deemphasized.

A manageable mix of traditional recreational activities, such as 

floating, boating, and horseback riding, would still be provided. 

Also, a variety of guided and self-guided activities would be 

offered to help visitors discover the array of natural and cultural 

resource-based opportunities available and increase visitor 

awareness of the Riverways’ many special resources and values.

Visitors would have opportunities to experience a diverse 

range of motorized and nonmotorized recreational activities 

in a variety of outdoor settings. Visitors would encounter 

more intensive management to ensure that greater levels 

and types of visitor use do not cause excessive impacts on 

National Riverways resources or diminish public safety. 

Visitors would experience higher levels of social interaction, 

especially during the peak season. Opportunities for 

community and family gatherings would be emphasized.

Nonmotorized 

watercraft

All sections of the riverways would continue to be open to 

nonmotorized watercraft year-round.

Management would continue to provide for visitor 

opportunities and experiences that result in high-density 

canoe use in the upper Current River. The frequency of river 

access points along this stretch would continue to allow for 

float trips of one day or less.

The percentage of the rivers zoned for nonmotorized recreation 

would increase, including specific areas for low-density 

nonmotorized use, even during the peak-use season. 

Concession dropoff and pickup locations for visitors using 

nonmotorized watercraft would be redistributed to reduce 

peak-season crowding effects.

All sections of the riverways would continue to be open to 

nonmotorized watercraft year-round.

The percentage of the rivers zoned for nonmotorized recreation 

would increase during the peak-use season.

Concession dropoff and pickup locations for river users using 

nonmotorized watercraft could be redistributed to reduce peakseason crowding effects or to protect river resources if changes 

in river flow conditions impact existing locations

All sections of the riverways would continue to be open to 

nonmotorized watercraft year-round.

Concession dropoff and pickup locations for visitors using 

nonmotorized watercraft would be redistributed to reduce 

peak-season crowding effects.

Code of 

Federal 

Regulations

motorboat 

horsepower 

limits

Management would continue to allow boats to use 60/40 hp

motors on certain portions of the Current and Jacks Fork 

Rivers. It is recognized that continuation of this approach is in 

violation with the existing regulation. The no-action alternative 

is characterized this way to provide a baseline for comparison 

in evaluating the changes and impacts of the other 

alternatives. The 1989 river use management zones that set 

horsepower limits on motorboats and maximum numbers for 

canoes within the National Riverways would continue. See 

table 4 for motorboat horsepower limits by alternative. 

Existing regulation that prohibits the use of motors that are 

rated higher than 40 hp by the manufacturer on certain 

portions of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers would be 

enforced. Enforcement of this regulation would prohibit 60/40 

hp motors. See table 4 for motorboat horsepower limits by 

alternative.

See table 4 for motorboat horsepower limits. The National Park 

Service would pursue rule-making for changes in motorboat 

regulations. This would include rule-making to change the 

existing 40 hp regulation to allow the use of engines rated 60 

at the powerhead, as long as they are equipped with a jet unit.

Rule making would also be pursued to establish a 150 hp limit 

from Big Spring to the southern boundary of the park.

The National Park Service would pursue a rule-making to 

change the existing regulation to allow 60/40 hp motors on 

certain portions of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. See 

table 4 for motorboat horsepower limits by alternative.

Motorboat 

horsepower 

limits

See table 4 for motorboat horsepower limits by alternative.
132

Table 13. Summary of Key Differences Among the Alternatives (continued)

Topic No-action alternative Alternative A Alternative B (NPS preferred) Alternative C

Concession 

floating

Concessioners would continue to be required to limit 

nonmotorized watercraft rentals to adhere to the 1989 river 

management plan.

Concession dropoff and pickup locations for visitors using 

nonmotorized watercraft would be redistributed to reduce 

peak-season crowding effects. This would require closure and 

restoration of about 20 access points. Some new access may 

be needed; however, total designated access points would 

decrease.

Concession dropoff and pickup locations for river users using 

nonmotorized watercraft could be redistributed to reduce 

peak-season crowding effects or to protect river resources if 

changes in river flow conditions impact existing locations.

Concession dropoff and pickup locations for visitors using 

nonmotorized watercraft would be redistributed to reduce 

peak-season crowding effects. This would require closure and 

restoration of up to 20 access points and the careful design 

and opening of up to 20 new designated access points. Total 

designated access points would remain constant or decrease.

Fishing/

gigging

The Riverways would continue to be available for fishing and gigging activities, consistent with applicable restrictions set forth by the park unit or state. The National Park Service would continue to partner with the state to enhance healthy, native game fish 

populations.

Hiking trails Designated trails totaling 49 miles and ranging in length from 

less than a mile to over 13 miles would continue to be 

provided.

The location of primitive and natural zoning would increase the 

amount of hiking trails compared to the no-action alternative. 

About 15 miles of roads in primitive zones would be removed 

and replaced with hiking trails.

The location of primitive and natural zoning would increase the 

amount of hiking trail access compared to the no-action 

alternative. Approximately 10 miles of park-owned roads and 

traces in primitive zones would be removed and replaced with 

hiking trails. When needed, trails would be developed to access 

some discovery sites. Some of these trails may link to the Ozark 

Trail.

Additional walking and hiking trails would be opened over 

time. And about 5 miles of roads in primitive zones would be 

removed and replaced with hiking trails.

Accessible 

trails

Some developed area paved trails would continue to be 

accessible and two campgrounds would continue to provide 

accessible campsites.

Additional accessible trails would be established.

Mountain bike 

trails

All trails would continue to be off limits to mountain bikes. Mountain biking may become an allowable trail use, but only 

on designated trails. Mountain biking would not be allowed in 

primitive zones.

Mountain biking may become an allowable trail use, but only 

on designated trails, as determined through development of a 

roads and trails management plan and subsequent 

rulemaking. Mountain biking would not be allowed in 

primitive zones.

Mountain biking may become an allowable trail use, but only 

on designated trails. Mountain biking would not be allowed 

in primitive zones.

Horse riding 

and camping

The current horse trail system of 23 miles of designated horse 

trails would continue to be provided, with seven designated 

stream crossings for horse riders. At least 90 miles of 

undesignated horse trails, with 24 undesignated stream 

crossings used by horse riders and 38 undesignated access 

points could continue to be utilized. Horse camping would 

continue to not be allowed.

A recreational horse use and trail management plan would be 

prepared. Approximately 25 miles of additional, designated 

horse trails would be provided, but no new stream crossings. 

Approximately 65 miles of undesignated horse trails would be 

closed and restored. Design of the existing, approximately 23-

mile-long horse trail system would be improved to discourage

creation of social trails; decrease the impact of horses on 

sensitive areas, including streams and riparian areas; reduce 

conflicts with other users; and reduce trail damage, erosion, 

and manure pollution. A permitting system would be 

established, as necessary, to manage impacts of horse use. 

Horse camping may be allowed in designated sites.

The existing designated, approximately 23-mile long horse trail 

system would continue to be provided. Additional equestrian 

trails would be designated. As part of the roads and trails 

management plan, the National Park Service would consider 

designating some of the existing, unauthorized trails by 

incorporating about 25 to 45 miles of these trails into the 

existing Riverways’ trail system, as well as some of the 

associated stream crossings. The remaining 45 to 65 miles of 

unauthorized horse trails and associated stream crossings 

would be restored to their natural condition. The roads and 

trails management plan would clearly identify authorized trails 

and corresponding trail uses, where trails should be redesigned 

or improved to reduce trail user impacts, and suitable locations 

for improved trail signage to more clearly delineate authorized 

trails and orient trail users. All horse trails would be designed to 

discourage creation of social trails; decrease impacts of horses 

on sensitive areas, including streams and riparian areas; reduce 

conflicts with other users; and reduce trail damage, erosion, 

and manure pollution. In the interim, until a roads and trails 

management plan was completed, unauthorized trails that

pose the greatest threat to park resources and visitor safety 

could be closed on a case-by-case basis. An approximate 25-

campsite horse campground may be established. A permitting 

system could be established, as necessary, to manage impacts 

of horse use. Law enforcement would be increased for 

compliance.

A recreational horse use and trail management plan would 

be prepared. Approximately 45 miles of additional 

designated horse trails would be provided to allow for longer 

distance riding, including some new stream crossings. An 

approximate 25-campsite horse campground along the Jacks 

Fork may be established. Approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated horse trails would be closed and restored. 

Design of the existing, approximately 23-mile-long horse trail 

system would be improved to discourage creation of social 

trails; decrease the impact of horses on sensitive areas, 

including streams and riparian areas; reduce conflicts with 

other users; and reduce trail damage, erosion, and manure 

pollution. A permitting system would be established, as 

necessary, to manage impacts of horse use.

Developed 

camping

Six developed fee campgrounds at Big Spring, Powder Mill, Two Rivers, Alley Spring, Round Spring, and Pulltite would continue 

to provide approximately 450 sites.

Two additional developed campgrounds may be provided: Upper Current River (Akers) and Upper Jacks Fork (Blue Spring).
133

Table 13. Summary of Key Differences Among the Alternatives (continued)

Topic No-action alternative Alternative A Alternative B (NPS preferred) Alternative C

Gravel bar 

access

Vehicular access to gravel bars for day use and overnight 

camping would continue to be allowed. This includes those 

with existing designated sites.

Vehicular access to all gravel bars would be eliminated. Gravel 

bar access would be by float-in or walk-in only. 

Designated campsites or camping areas may be established on 

some gravel bars that are accessed by licensed vehicles in order 

to reduce crowding, improve safety, and enhance visitor 

experience. On these gravel bars, all camping would be limited 

to the designated camping areas. These locations would be 

identified in a subsequent planning process.

Some number of gravel bars would continue to be accessible 

to vehicles. The number of gravel bars accessible to vehicles 

and associated designated camping areas and/or campsites 

would be identified in a subsequent planning process. 

Gravel bar 

camping

Gravel bar camping would continue to be allowed for those 

accessing gravel bars by motorized and nonmotorized 

watercraft, as long as the location of the campsite is 0.5 mile 

away from any designated campground and at least 50 feet 

away from any designated river access.

Gravel bar camping would continue to be allowed for those 

accessing gravel bars by nonmotorized watercraft, as long as 

the location of the campsite is 0.5 mile away from any 

designated campground and at least 50 feet away from any 

designated river access.

Visitors utilizing motorized and non-motorized watercraft could 

continue to camp on gravel bars, as long as the location of that 

campsite was 0.5 mile away from any designated camping area 

and at least 50 feet away from any designated river access.

Gravel bar camping would continue to be allowed for those 

accessing gravel bars by motorized and nonmotorized 

watercraft, as long as the location of the campsite is 0.5 mile 

away from any designated campground and at least 50 feet 

away from any designated river access. For some gravel bars 

that are accessed by vehicles, alternative C proposes 

designated gravel bar camping areas and/or campsites. 

Backcountry 

camping

Backcountry campsites would continue to be provided 

throughout the Riverways and would require a fee. 

Backcountry sites may have some basic amenities (restrooms, 

tables, fire rings, and/or lantern posts).

Backcountry campsites would continue to be provided in designated areas throughout the Riverways and may require a fee. 

Backcountry campsites would be removed from primitive zones. Backcountry sites may have some basic amenities (restrooms, 

tables, fire rings, and/or lantern posts).

Backcountry campsites would continue to be provided in 

designated areas throughout the Riverways and would 

require a fee. The total number of backcountry campsites 

may be increased, but backcountry campsites would be 

removed from the primitive zones. Backcountry sites may 

have some basic amenities (restrooms, tables, fire rings, 

and/or lantern posts).

Primitive 

camping

Primitive campsites would continue to be provided throughout 

the Riverways and would not require a fee. Primitive sites 

would have no amenities. Some primitive sites are accessible 

by vehicles.

Primitive campsites would continue to be provided in primitive 

and natural zones and would not require a fee. Roads to 

primitive campsites would be removed. Primitive campsites 

would have no amenities.

Primitive campsites would continue to be provided in primitive 

and natural zones and would not require a fee. In some cases, 

roads or parking areas to primitive sites would stop slightly 

short of the campsite. The National Park Service would 

incorporate universal design principals to the extent practicable 

and some primitive sites would be accessible to persons with 

mobility impairments. No decision has been made about which 

primitive campsites this would affect. Primitive sites would have 

no amenities.

Primitive campsites would continue to be provided in 

primitive and natural zones and would not require a fee. The 

total number of primitive campsites may be increased, but 

roads to primitive campsites would be removed. Primitive 

campsites would have no amenities.

Caving Guided cave tours at Round Spring would continue to be provided unless resource impacts were identified.

Visitor services 

& facilities

Visitor orientation and information services would continue to 

be available at NPS headquarters in Van Buren, at the 

multiagency visitor center in Salem, and at a few contact points 

and ranger stations throughout the National Riverways. Major 

recreation sites would continue to be found at Akers, Pulltite, 

Round Spring, Alley Spring, Two Rivers, Powder Mill, and Big 

Spring. These areas would include visitor facilities for day use 

and overnight camping. Existing visitor services would also 

continue, which include equipment rentals, restrooms, and in 

some cases concession stores and food services. Rental cabins 

would also continue to be available at Big Spring. Smaller 

recreation sites with facilities for day and overnight use would 

continue to include Cedargrove, Jerktail, Blue Spring, Log Yard, 

and Gooseneck. River access, primitive camping, restrooms, 

and parking would continue to be provided at various sites 

along the rivers.

There are approximately 350 miles of roads in the National 

Riverways—50 miles are paved, 120 miles are graded, and 150

miles are two-track dirt roads. There are 72 miles of trails 

designated for hiking and/or horseback riding. Different 

segments of the road and trail networks would continue to be 

managed by the National Park Service or state or county 

agencies.

Only a network of designated roads, trails, and river crossings 

would be retained to provide access for specific recreational 

activities and administrative purposes. Management would 

close roads and trails that have been illegally developed. 

Native vegetation impacted by these unauthorized routes may 

be rehabilitated. Commercial services may be limited or 

modified along different portions of the rivers to achieve 

desired visitor experiences and resource conditions.

Additional trails (some with universal accessibility) would be 

developed for visitors to access a network of discovery sites. A 

small learning center at Powder Mill, with educational and 

interpretive programs and exhibits, would be developed to 

better orient and inform visitors. This facility may include 

classrooms and may provide some limited quarters for visiting 

experts.

Additional facilities would be necessary to accommodate 

higher levels and different types of visitor use. There would 

be more types of designated camping opportunities, 

including primitive, semiprimitive, semideveloped, and 

developed sites. There would also be more trails for hiking 

and horseback riding.
134

Table 13. Summary of Key Differences Among the Alternatives (continued)

Topic No-action alternative Alternative A Alternative B (NPS preferred) Alternative C

Additional 

contact 

locations

No additional contact locations would be provided. One additional visitor contact location may be provided as part 

of the learning center at Powder Mill.

The sizes of current visitor contact locations at some sites 

may be expanded based on demand. One or two additional 

visitor contact locations may be provided.

NPS roads and 

river access 

points

NPS roads and river access points that are currently open and 

accessible would continue to be managed and patrolled.

NPS roads and river access points would be managed by zoning 

prescriptions.

The National Park Service would seek to establish a partnership 

with the counties regarding road management, including 

closures.

Law enforcement would be increased for compliance.

NPS roads and river access points would be managed by zoning 

prescriptions.

The National Park Service would seek to establish a partnership 

with the counties regarding road management, including 

closures. 

For some discovery sites, old access roads would be reopened 

to provide vehicular access.

NPS roads and river access points would be managed by 

zoning prescriptions.

The National Park Service would seek to establish a 

partnership with the counties regarding road management, 

including closures.

Law enforcement would be increased for compliance.

Undesignated 

NPS roads, 

traces, 

crossings, and 

river access 

points

The National Park Service would continue to strive for closure 

of NPS roads, traces, crossings, and river access points that are 

not part of the NPS designated system.

Undesignated NPS roads, traces, crossings, and river access 

points would be closed. 

Natural conditions would be restored to approximately 50 miles

of roads. 

Law enforcement for compliance would be increased.

Undesignated NPS roads, traces, crossings, and river access 

points would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in a 

subsequent plan and may either be closed or designated for 

authorized use. Natural conditions would be restored to 

approximately 45 miles of roads and traces. 

Law enforcement for compliance would be increased.

Undesignated NPS roads, traces, crossings, and river access 

points would be closed. 

Natural conditions would be restored to approximately 40

miles of roads. 

Law enforcement for compliance would be increased.

Concessions There are currently 23 concession contracts that provide 

services to visitors. These businesses would continue to 

operate under their existing contracts to provide visitor 

support and river recreational services (canoe, tube, and raft 

rentals and shuttle services), cabin rentals and a restaurant at 

Big Spring, and five camp stores near the campgrounds.

There would be potential opportunities for new concessions for 

overnight river activities such as guided float trips and guided 

(hike-in) backcountry trips in the natural and primitive zones. 

New concessions would require a feasibility study.

There would be potential opportunities for new concessions for 

overnight activities such as guided float trips and guided (hikein) backcountry trips in the natural and primitive zones, along 

with shuttle services for these activities. New campgrounds and 

higher concentrations of visitors in developed zones may create 

the need for an additional camp store. Any new concessions 

would require a feasibility study and would expand commercial 

activities not associated with existing concessions operations in 

the park.

There would be potential opportunities for new concessions 

to provide shuttle services for visitors using nonmotorized 

watercraft and overnight river activities such as guided float 

trips and guided (hike-in) backcountry trips in the natural 

and primitive zones. New concessions would require a 

feasibility study. New campgrounds and higher 

concentrations of visitors in developed zones may create the 

need for an additional camp store.

Interpretation 

and education

A variety of interpretive and educational programs would 

continue to be provided for visitors. The goal of these 

programs is to ensure that visitors have all the information 

needed to fully enjoy and experience the National Riverways

through (1) promoting individual awareness about the 

facilities, features, and activities available to them, (2) 

interpreting the cultural and natural features of the area, and 

(3) educating visitors on the safe and proper use of National 

Riverways resources.

Interpretation and education would strive to enhance visitor 

awareness of the continuum of people’s cultural connections 

to the area that spans thousands of years. Living history 

programs would be emphasized to provide visitors with a 

better understanding of traditional, subsistence ways of life in 

the Ozarks. For example, an interpretive “float camp” would 

be developed to let visitors experience what river recreation 

was like in the past.

Self-guided interpretive opportunities would provide visitors 

with a sense of being the first to discover remote, hard-to-find 

places, such as an old cabin or a secluded spring. Guided 

opportunities would include ranger-led tours of special 

features, such as old settlements, springs, and river 

environments. This would help reach visitors who are looking 

for different or additional activities to the traditional float trip. 

Resource management staff would develop opportunities for 

visitors and volunteers to engage in hands-on resource 

management projects. 

A learning center would be established at Powder Mill and a 

school curriculum would be developed. Learning center 

programs could provide more structured environmental 

education opportunities, especially for school groups.

Interpretive and educational opportunities would expand for 

visitors to connect with the natural and cultural resources 

while improving their outdoor recreation skills. The goal of 

such programs would be to encourage resource stewardship 

and low-impact recreational uses. Example activities could 

include boating safety, safe hunting and fishing practices, 

and traditional Ozark lifeway skills.
135

Table 13. Summary of Key Differences Among the Alternatives (continued)

Topic No-action alternative Alternative A Alternative B (NPS preferred) Alternative C

Natural 

resource 

management

Natural resource management would continue to preserve 

and protect the natural resources, processes, systems, and 

values of the National Riverways in accordance with NPS 

policies. In particular, programs would emphasize protection 

of outstanding natural features, including sites that 

encompass geological, scientific, and ecological characteristics 

that warrant special protection. Examples include caves, 

springs, and other rare habitats that support threatened and 

endangered species. Ongoing programs also would include 

the administration of scenic easements on privately owned 

tracts, collaborative management efforts on state-owned 

lands, and management of agricultural leases to preserve 

certain pastoral landscapes within the National Riverways’ 

boundary.

Natural resources would be maintained or restored to more 

natural conditions that lack signs of substantial development or 

use. The emphasis would be on restoring degraded biological 

communities and improving the overall natural setting.

Undesignated NPS roads, traces, crossings, and river access 

points would be closed.

Natural conditions would be restored to approximately 50 miles

of roads. 

The National Park Service would seek to partner with the 

county and state to replace Cedargrove low-water bridge with 

a high-water bridge.

The National Park Service would seek to partner with 

communities about waste systems to improve water quality.

Natural resources would be maintained or restored to more 

natural conditions that lack signs of substantial development or 

use. Restoring degraded biological communities and improving 

the overall natural setting would be emphasized. A focused 

program of resource monitoring, research, and preservation 

projects would actively support and strengthen management 

capabilities and ensure accurate visitor information.

Undesignated NPS roads, traces, crossings, and river access 

points would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in a 

subsequent plan and may either be closed or designated for 

authorized use. Natural conditions would be restored to 

approximately 45 miles of roads. 

Effects of visitor use on river/karst habitats would be 

investigated.

The National Park Service would seek to partner with the 

county and state to replace Cedargrove low-water bridge with 

a high-water bridge.

The National Park Service would also seek to partner with the 

county to construct a bridge at Akers, a crossing currently

served by a concession-run ferry. Installation of these bridges 

would restore more natural conditions and provide better 

emergency access for this area of the county.

The National Park Service would seek to partner with 

communities about waste systems to improve water quality.

The National Park Service would also strive to work within a 

regional context to protect the night sky quality from light 

pollution and continue to foster partnerships for natural 

resource stewardship.

Natural resources would be managed to provide high-quality 

scenery. There would be a higher tolerance for resource 

impacts in more heavily used areas. Impacted environments 

would be stabilized or restored to retain the natural settings. 

Monitoring efforts would be emphasized to track natural 

resource conditions so that unacceptable impacts from 

recreational activities do not occur.

Undesignated NPS roads, traces, crossings, and river access 

points would be closed. 

The National Park Service would seek to partner with the 

county and state to replace Cedargrove low-water bridge 

with a high-water bridge.

The National Park Service would seek to partner with 

communities about waste systems to improve water quality.

Cultural 

resource 

management

Cultural resource management would continue to include 

efforts to preserve historic structures, archeological resources, 

and cultural landscapes in accordance with NPS policies. 

Cultural resource programs would also include adaptive reuse 

of some historic structures; management of some historic 

cemeteries (that is, provide appropriate access); the study of 

Ozark folklife; and the preservation and cataloging of historic 

objects, documents, and other collections.

The protection and preservation of archeological resources, 

historic structures, and cultural landscapes, including the 

restoration of selected open fields to preserve pastoral scenes, 

would be emphasized. Management would seek to partner 

with volunteers and others to accomplish cultural resource 

stewardship projects.

Management actions would protect and preserve archeological 

resources, historic structures, and cultural landscapes. Selected 

structures and sites may receive special management attention 

to support Ozark heritage educational programs. A focused 

program of resource monitoring, research, and preservation 

projects would actively support and strengthen management 

capabilities and ensure accurate visitor information.

An oral history program would be restarted. The archive/

collections program would be enhanced. Efforts to coordinate 

cultural resource education, interpretation, and protection 

activities across management divisions would be enhanced. 

Management would ensure that cultural resource information 

is accurately conveyed to the public. Partnerships with 

volunteers and others would be sought to accomplish cultural 

resource stewardship projects.

Management actions would protect and preserve 

archeological resources, historic structures, and cultural

landscapes. Opportunities would be expanded for visitors to 

access and experience historic structures and cultural 

landscapes throughout the National Riverways. To 

accommodate more visitors, some historic structures and 

sites may require more intensive management actions to 

protect resource integrity. Efforts to track cultural resource 

conditions would be emphasized so that unacceptable 

conditions do not occur.

Historic 

structures

The 249 structures on the List of Classified Structures would 

continue to be stabilized and maintained; many of these are 

listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places. Some of these structures have been restored 

and are available as interpretive exhibits. Others would 

continue to be adaptively used for other park operations and 

maintenance uses.

Additional historic structures would be restored and made 

available to the public as interpretive exhibits. These additional 

structures and associated landscapes would complement the 

historic representation of the continuum of Ozark cultural 

history in this region.

Additional historic structures would be restored and made 

available to the public as interpretive exhibits. These additional 

structures and associated landscapes would complement the 

historic representation of the continuum of Ozark cultural 

history in this region. These could include structures such as the 

Civilian Conservation Corps shower house and park entry 

station near Big Spring.

Additional historic structures would be restored and made 

available to the public as interpretive exhibits. These 

additional structures and associated landscapes would 

complement the historic representation of the continuum of 

Ozark cultural history in this region.

Cemeteries Cemeteries would continue to be maintained. Five additional cemeteries would be maintained.

Archeological 

sites

The Riverways’ more than 400 known archeological sites 

would continue to be monitored.

The Riverways’ more than 400 known archeological sites would continue to be monitored. Appropriate protection measures, such as riverbank stabilization or trail rerouting would be taken 

where archeological sites are threatened by erosion, visitor use, or other impacts.
136

Table 13. Summary of Key Differences Among the Alternatives (continued)

Topic No-action alternative Alternative A Alternative B (NPS preferred) Alternative C

Cultural 

landscapes

A cultural affiliation landscape plan for pastoral areas would 

be completed and implemented. This would increase areas 

managed as meadows and agricultural sites that were once 

part of Ozark farms and settlement areas.

A cultural affiliation landscape plan for pastoral areas would be completed and implemented according to the management zones. This would increase areas managed as meadows and 

agricultural sites that were once part of Ozark farms and settlement areas. 

Curatorial 

facility

The National Riverways’ certified curatorial facility would continue to be managed for park resource collections only. The Riverways’ curatorial facility would be expanded to provide 

additional archeological storage space for smaller national park 

units in the region. The Riverways would become a regional 

curatorial hub.

The Riverways’ certified curatorial facility would continue to 

be managed for park resource collections only.

Wilderness The National Park Service would continue to maintain the Big 

Spring tract’s primitive, natural character to maintain its 

wilderness eligibility. See chapter 3 for details about the 

wilderness study and proposed zoning, management of 

structures, roads, and utilities within the Big Spring tract.

Under this alternative, 3,424 out of 3,434 acres within the Big 

Spring Wilderness Study Area would be recommended for 

wilderness designation. This amount is 99% of the total 

wilderness study area. Ten acres would be excluded as a small 

developed area and its narrow access corridor from the 

proposed wilderness designation to allow for continued 

administrative use of the access roads, barn, NPS training 

range, and utility corridor. Most of the wilderness study area 

would be zoned primitive with the exception of the access 

road, barn, NPS training range, and utility corridor. These areas 

would be zoned natural. The fire tower, incinerator, barn, NPS 

training range, and Civilian Conservation Corps-era camp 

would be retained. The barn and NPS training range would be 

excluded (approximately 6 acres) from the recommended 

wilderness designation and would continue to be maintained 

for administrative use. Motorized vehicle use of the access road 

to the fire tower would be prohibited. This road may be 

restored to a Civilian Conservation Corps-era condition. The 

access road to the barn and NPS training range would be 

excluded from the proposed wilderness designation and 

maintained for administrative access. The buried utility 

communication cable that serves the Big Spring cabins and 

residents located further down the line would be excluded 

from the proposed wilderness designation (approximately 4 

acres) and maintained.

Under this alternative, 3,430 out of 3,434 acres within the Big 

Spring Wilderness Study Area would be recommended for 

wilderness designation. The entire Big Spring Wilderness Study 

Area would be zoned primitive. The fire tower, incinerator, 

barn, and Civilian Conservation-era camp would be retained. 

The NPS training range would be removed and the area 

restored. Administrative vehicle use of the access roads to the 

fire tower, NPS training range, and barn would be prohibited. 

The roads would be evaluated to determine the feasibility of 

restoring them to a Civilian Conservation Corps-era condition. 

The buried utility communication cable that serves the Big 

Spring cabins and residents located further down the line 

would be proposed as potential wilderness addition and would 

remain in use until it failed, or until another utility route outside 

the wilderness was designated. Once decommissioned, it 

would be evaluated to determine the feasibility of 

administratively converting it to wilderness. Once the 

nonconforming use was extinguished, the utility corridor would 

be administratively converted to wilderness. In accordance with 

NPS policies, park unit managers would employ the “minimum 

requirements” concept to ensure that non-mechanized 

equipment is used in wilderness to the greatest extent possible. 

In particular, emergency situations such as wildfire suppression 

would continue as they are today. Fire suppression activities 

would be conducted in ways that minimize the lasting impacts 

of suppression actions.

Under this alternative, 1,779 acres of the Big Spring 

Wilderness Study Area, consisting of the area south of 

Chilton Creek, would be recommended for wilderness 

designation. This amount is 52% of the total wilderness 

study area. The area recommended for wilderness 

designation would be zoned primitive. The remaining area 

would be zoned natural. The fire tower, incinerator, barn, 

NPS training range, and Civilian Conservation Corps-era 

camp would be outside the wilderness study area and would 

continue to be retained. The fire tower, barn, and NPS 

training range would continue to be used for administrative 

purposes. The access roads to the fire tower, barn, and NPS 

training range would continue to be maintained for 

administrative uses. The buried utility communication cable 

that serves the Big Spring cabins and residents located 

further down the line would be maintained.

Park 

operations

Park maintenance operations would continue to be managed 

out of current facilities, including several Civilian Conservation 

Corps structures that do not meet health or safety 

requirements.

Twenty two staff housing units would continue to be provided 

throughout the waterways.

Twenty water systems and 23 waste water systems would 

continue to be provided within the waterways.

Three multioperational facilities would be constructed, one for 

each management district (4,500 square feet each). 

Maintenance and field staff offices would be consolidated into 

these facilities and removed from Civilian Conservation Corps

structures. Approximately ten obsolete structures that are part 

of the deferred maintenance backlog and pose health and 

safety concerns would be removed and sites would be 

restored.

Approximately four new housing duplex units to support the 

additional need for seasonal or term staff would be provided.

No additional water systems are proposed.

One multioperational facility would be constructed. 

Maintenance and field staff offices would be consolidated into 

this facility. Approximately ten obsolete structures that are part 

of the deferred maintenance backlog and pose health and 

safety concerns would be removed and sites would be restored.

Two sustainable (current technology) sanitary systems would be 

installed at Akers and Pulltite to improve water quality.

Three multioperational facilities would be constructed, one 

for each management district (4,500 square feet each). 

Maintenance and field staff offices would be consolidated 

into these facilities and removed from Civilian Conservation 

Corps structures. Approximately ten obsolete structures that 

are part of the deferred maintenance backlog and pose 

health and safety concerns would be removed and sites 

would be restored.

Approximately four new housing duplex units to support 

additional need for seasonal or term staff would be 

provided.

No additional water systems are proposed.
137

Table 13. Summary of Key Differences Among the Alternatives (continued)

Topic No-action alternative Alternative A Alternative B (NPS preferred) Alternative C

Partnerships Currently, there are few partnerships. Unlike most national 

park units, the Riverways do not have a friends group. 

Management is currently working to develop a friends group.

The park unit would continue to share office space at the Van 

Buren headquarters with other federal and state agencies.

A cooperating association would continue to operate

bookstores at park visitor contact facilities, such as the Van 

Buren headquarters, Round Spring, and Alley Mill.

The National Park Service would seek to develop a friends 

group. 

The park unit would continue to share office space at the Van 

Buren headquarters with other federal and state agencies.

A cooperating association would continue to operate 

bookstores at park visitor contact facilities, such as the Van 

Buren headquarters, Round Spring, and Alley Mill. When the 

Big Spring contact facility is opened, a cooperating association

may also provide services there. 

The National Park Service would pursue partnerships with

• volunteers and others to accomplish cultural and 

natural resource stewardship projects

• the counties regarding road management, including 

closures

• the county and state to replace the Cedargrove lowwater bridge with a high-water bridge

• communities about waste systems to improve water 

quality

• the State of Missouri to enhance healthy native game 

fish populations

Park staff would promote measures that foster a spirit of 

cooperation with neighbors and stakeholders. Various 

strategies would be undertaken to encourage compatible 

adjacent land uses, and provide landowners, land managers, 

local governments and the public with important information 

about NPS management activities.

The park would develop a communication plan to facilitate and 

expand communications, provide opportunities for more direct 

input with park staff, and help promote awareness and 

understanding of park issues. 

The National Park Service would seek to develop a friends 

group. 

The park unit would continue to share office space at the Van 

Buren headquarters with other federal and state agencies.

A cooperating association would continue to operate 

bookstores at park visitor contact facilities, such as the Van 

Buren headquarters, Round Spring, and Alley Mill. 

The park would also continue to regularly share information 

about park events and important issues.

The National Park Service would pursue partnerships with

• local community organizations and chambers of 

commerce for park cultural demonstrations and 

special events to help generate additional business 

opportunities in local communities

• volunteers and others to accomplish cultural and 

natural resource stewardship projects

• the counties regarding road management, including 

closures

• the county and state to replace the Cedargrove lowwater bridge with a high-water bridge

• Shannon County to construct a bridge at Akers

• communities about waste systems to improve water 

quality

• communities, the state, and federal agencies in a 

regional context to protect the night sky quality and 

natural lightscape from the effects of artificial lighting

• the State of Missouri to enhance healthy native game 

fish populations

The National Park Service would seek to develop a friends 

group. 

The park unit would continue to share office space at the 

Van Buren headquarters with other federal and state 

agencies.

A cooperating association would continue to operate

bookstores at park visitor contact facilities, such as the Van 

Buren headquarters, Round Spring, and Alley Mill. When the 

Big Spring contact facility is opened, a cooperating 

association may also provide services there. 

The National Park Service would pursue partnerships with

• volunteers and others to accomplish cultural and 

natural resource stewardship projects

• the counties regarding road management, 

including closures

• the county and state to replace the Cedargrove 

low-water bridge with a high-water bridge

• communities about waste systems to improve water 

quality

• the State of Missouri to enhance healthy native 

game fish populations
138

TABLE 14. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

(see Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences for details)

No-action alternative Alternative A Alternative B (NPS preferred) Alternative C

Natural resources

Geologic 

resources & 

soils

Long-term, moderate, adverse, and localized to regional 

impacts. 

Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, localized to regional 

impacts; and long-term, minor, adverse, and localized impacts.

Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional impacts; and short- to long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, and localized adverse impacts.

Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional impacts; and short- to long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, and localized to regional impacts.

Water 

resources

Long-term, minor to moderate, adverse, and regional impacts. Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional impacts. 

Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional impacts; and short- to long-term, moderate, adverse, 

and localized impacts.

Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional beneficial impacts; and short- to long-term, moderate, 

adverse, and localized to regional impacts.

Vegetation Long-term, moderate, adverse, and regional impacts. Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional impacts; and long-term, minor, adverse, and localized 

impacts. 

Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional impacts; and short- to long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, and localized impacts.

long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional impacts; and short- to long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, and localized to regional impacts. 

Fish & wildlife 

habitat

Long-term, moderate, adverse local to regional impacts. Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional impacts; and long-term, minor to moderate, adverse, 

and localized to regional impacts.

Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional impacts; and short- to long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, and localized to regional impacts. 

Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional impacts; and short- to long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, and localized to regional impacts. 

Natural 

soundscapes

Long-term, moderate, adverse, and localized impacts. Long-term, moderate, beneficial, and localized impacts. Long-term, moderate, beneficial, and localized impacts. Long-term, moderate, beneficial, and localized impacts.

Cultural resources

Archeological 

resources

Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor, beneficial, and 

localized impacts; and Long-term or permanent, negligible to 

minor, adverse, and localized impacts.

Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor, adverse, and 

localized impacts.

Section 106 summary: no adverse effect.

Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor, adverse, and 

localized impacts.

Section 106 summary: no adverse effect.

Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor, adverse, and 

localized impacts.

Section 106 summary: no adverse effect.

Historic 

buildings, 

structures, & 

cultural 

landscapes

Long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial, and localized 

impacts; and Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor, 

adverse, and localized impacts.

Long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial, and localized 

impacts; and Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor, 

adverse, and localized impacts.

Section 106 summary: no adverse effect.

Long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial, and localized 

impacts; and Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor, 

adverse, and localized impacts.

Section 106 summary: no adverse effect.

Long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial, and localized 

impacts; and Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor, 

adverse, and localized impacts.

Section 106 summary: no adverse effect.

Ethnographic 

resources

Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor, beneficial, and 

localized impacts; and Long-term or permanent, negligible to 

minor, adverse, and localized impacts.

Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor, beneficial, and 

localized impacts; and Long-term or permanent, negligible to 

minor, adverse, and localized impacts.

Section 106 summary: no adverse effect.

Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor, beneficial, and 

localized impacts; and Long-term or permanent, negligible to 

minor, adverse, and localized impacts.

Section 106 summary: no adverse effect.

Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor, beneficial, and 

localized impacts; and Long-term or permanent, negligible to 

minor, adverse, and localized impacts. 

Section 106 summary: no adverse effect.

Museum 

collections

Long-term, beneficial, and localized impacts. Long-term, beneficial, and localized impacts. Long-term, beneficial, and localized impacts. Long-term, beneficial, and localized impacts.

Visitor use & 

experience

Long-term, minor to moderate, adverse, and localized impacts. Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized 

impacts.

Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized 

impacts.

Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, and localized 

impacts; and Long-term, minor to moderate, adverse, and 

localized impacts.

Park 

operations

Long-term, minor to moderate, adverse, and localized impacts. Long-term, moderate, beneficial, and localized impacts. Long-term, minor, beneficial, and localized impacts. Long-term, minor, beneficial, and localized impacts.

Socioeconomic 

environment

Long-term, moderate, beneficial, and localized to regional 

impacts.

Long-term, minor, beneficial, and localized to regional impacts; 

and long-term, minor to moderate, adverse, and localized to 

regional impacts.

Long-term, negligible, beneficial, and localized to regional 

impacts; and short- to long-term, negligible to minor, adverse, 

and localized to regional impacts.

Long-term, negligible to moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional impacts.


141

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of wilderness designation, 

which is accomplished solely through 

congressional action, is to preserve 

wilderness characteristics and protect lands 

in their natural condition in order to provide 

opportunities for solitude or an unconfined 

form of recreation. With passage of the 1964 

Wilderness Act (16 USC 1131 et seq.), 

Congress declared that it is national policy to 

secure for present and future generations the 

benefits of an enduring wilderness resource. 

This eligibility assessment and wilderness 

study may lead to a wilderness proposal from 

the NPS director to the Secretary of the 

Interior, who may then make a 

recommendation to the president and finally 

Congress. Only Congress has the authority to 

designate federal land as wilderness.

The 1984 general management plan for the 

Riverways identified three areas (Cardareva, 

Upper Jacks Fork, and Big Spring) within the 

park unit for assessment of their suitability as 

wilderness. All three areas were determined 

to have wilderness characteristics, but land 

ownership and nonconforming conditions 

made these areas unsuitable for wilderness 

designation at that time. The Big Spring tract 

contained an actively used road and a fire 

tower used for radio communication. 

Conditions at Cardareva and the Upper Jacks 

Fork continue to preclude these areas from 

being studied for wilderness, but the 

nonconforming conditions at Big Spring have 

been resolved, so the Big Spring tract is being 

reconsidered for its potential management as 

wilderness. As stated before, the National 

Park Service would review the other areas for 

designation when and if the current 

nonconforming conditions are resolved.

The 1984 general management plan 

committed the National Riverways to 

conducting a formal study if the 

nonconforming conditions changed such that 

the area became suitable for wilderness 

designation. Because the fire tower is no 

longer used for communications equipment 

and the road is no longer needed for 

maintaining the equipment, this new 

eligibility assessment and wilderness study 

are part of this general management plan.

This analysis combines a wilderness eligibility 

assessment with a wilderness study. The first 

step is to determine which lands within the 

park unit are eligible for wilderness based on 

their characteristics and values, and then to 

study those lands to determine if they are 

suitable for inclusion in the national 

wilderness preservation system. If 

determined to be suitable, those lands would 

be proposed for wilderness designation, 

including alternative treatments for 

nonconforming uses within the study area.

WILDERNESS DEFINITION

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-

577) describes and defines a wilderness area 

as follows:

A wilderness, in contrast with those 

areas where man and his own works 

dominate the landscape, is hereby 

recognized as an area where the 

earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man 

himself is a visitor who does not 

remain. An area of wilderness is 

further defined to mean in the Act 

an area of undeveloped Federal land 

retaining its primeval character and 

influence, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation, 

which is protected and managed so 

as to preserve its natural conditions 

and which

 generally appears to have been 

affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s 

work substantially unnoticeable
CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS STUDY

142

 has outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and

unconfined type of recreation

 has at least five thousand acres of land 

or is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in 

an unimpaired condition

 may also contain ecological, 

geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historical value

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

The wilderness study area is shown in 

wilderness study area map. It consists of 

approximately 3,434 acres of hilly, largely 

undisturbed land within the Big Spring tract 

of Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The Big 

Spring Wilderness Study Area is located 

southwest of the Town of Van Buren in 

Carter County, Missouri.

The landscape of the Ozarks, characterized 

by steep slopes and narrow valleys, thick 

forests, and meandering streams, is replicated 

here at Big Spring. The terrain is rugged with 

forested ridges sharply rising above a maze of 

deeply cut narrow valleys. 

The Missouri Natural Area Committee 

designated Big Spring Pines Natural Area, 

which is included in the study area. Big 

Spring Pines is one of the most outstanding 

mature pine-oak forests in the lower Ozarks 

section. Shortleaf pine and scarlet and white 

oaks dominate the canopy, while sassafras, 

black cherry, flowering dogwood, and black 

gum occur in the mid-canopy. The forest 

floor is rich with sedges, grasses, and 

wildflowers. Several small springs in Chubb

Hollow maintain the rare heart-leaf plantain 

and petaltail stonefly. 

The study area lies adjacent to, but does not 

include the Current River. Most of the river’s 

water supply comes from hundreds of springs 

that discharge continuously. The largest of 

these is Big Spring, which supplies the 

Current River with an average of 276 million 

gallons a day. 

Chilton Creek, which is on the list of 

Missouri Aquatic Conservation Opportunity 

Areas (ACOA), flows through the study area. 

ACOA designation is applied to areas deemed 

desirable to conserve as prime representative 

segments of the Missouri riverine ecosystem.

The study area is within the state’s original 

Big Spring Wildlife Refuge. It has been 

managed as a no-hunting zone since before 

the creation of the Riverways when it was a 

state park.

The Big Spring Historic District (315 acres) 

was listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places on March 17, 1981, at a state level of 

significance. It is an excellent example of 

naturalistic style landscape design and the 

rustic architectural style that is associated 

with Civilian Conservation Corps-era park 

construction. The area, originally designated 

as a historic district, was incorporated into 

the Big Spring State Park in 1925, and was 

eventually acquired by the National Park 

Service in 1972. The historic district included 

the dining lodge, recreational cabins, picnic 

shelters, and foot trails.

A 2009 cultural landscape inventory 

determined the established historic district 

did not sufficiently include all of the 

significant contributing features historically 

associated with the Civilian Conservation 

Corps and suggested that the boundary be 

expanded to an area of 3,456 acres in order to 

include additional features such as the Big 

Spring Fire Tower, the Camp ruins (stone 

and mortar incinerator and large-scale 

limestone quarry), and an extensive network 

of hiking trails. A determination of eligibility 

(DOE) issued by the Missouri State Historic 

Preservation Office concurred with the 

findings of the cultural landscape inventory. 

Approximately 554.7 acres of the Big Spring 

Historic District overlap with the wilderness 

study area.
Introduction

143

The study area includes several 

nonconforming uses: a utility right-of-way 

consisting of a buried telephone line serving 

the Big Spring cabins and residents further 

down the line; a barn and NPS training range 

NPS training range (see figure 8); a state parkera road leading to the barn, NPS training 

range, and a fire tower (see figure 9) and 

access road identified in the 1984 general 

management plan.

The adjacent Big Spring parcel of the Mark 

Twain National Forest is not a designated 

wilderness area. However, the U.S. Forest 

Service currently manages it for 

nonmotorized, semiprimitive, dispersed 

recreation (Management Prescription 6.1 as 

described in the 2005 Mark Twain National 

Forest Plan).

Introduction

145

FIGURE 8. BARN AND NPS TRAINING RANGE

FIGURE 9. FIRE TOWER
146

WILDERNESS STUDY

WILDERNESS ELIGIBILITY

Eligibility refers to an objective assessment of 

the qualities of wilderness character that 

make an area of federal land eligible for 

inclusion in the national wilderness 

preservation system.

The first phase of a wilderness study is to 

conduct an initial determination of 

wilderness eligibility, which is a factual 

determination of whether a park contains 

lands that possess wilderness character. The 

Wilderness Act, departmental regulations at 

43 CFR 19, secretarial orders, and NPS 

management policies prescribe the criteria 

that are used to make an objective 

determination of whether wilderness-eligible 

lands exist in the subject area. In general, 

roadless areas exhibiting characteristics 

described in the Wilderness Act and that are 

at least 5,000 acres in size (or of sufficient size 

to make management as wilderness 

practicable) are considered eligible for 

wilderness.

Using these criteria, an evaluation of the 

study area was conducted by the National 

Park Service. The evaluation concludes that 

approximately 3,434 acres of National Park 

Service land within the study area are eligible 

for inclusion in the national wilderness 

preservation system.

The Big Spring Study Area possesses

wilderness characteristics, where:

 The earth and its community of life 

are untrammeled by humans, where 

humans are visitors and do not 

remain.

 The area is undeveloped and retains 

its primeval character and influence 

without permanent improvements or 

human habitations.

 The area generally appears to have 

been affected primarily by the forces 

of nature, with the imprint of humans’ 

work substantially unnoticeable.

 The area is protected and managed so 

as to preserve its natural conditions.

 The area offers outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation.

A wilderness area may also contain significant 

ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historical 

value; although it does not need these things 

to be considered eligible for wilderness 

designation.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 and NPS policies 

affirm that “NPS lands will be considered 

eligible for wilderness if they are at least 5,000 

acres or of sufficient size to make practicable 

their preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition” (NPS Management Policies 2006).

Although the Big Spring Study Area is smaller 

than 5,000 acres, it satisfies the criteria for 

wilderness eligibility and practicability.

WILDERNESS STUDY

A wilderness study refers to a process 

whereby a determination is made if eligible 

federal lands are suitable for inclusion in the 

national wilderness preservation system. 

While the Secretary of the Interior makes this 

determination, staff members completed the 

following assessment for his consideration.

The study area is adjacent to, and contiguous 

with, 3,518 acres of the Mark Twain National 

Forest. In 2005, the U.S. Forest Service

completed a plan which did not include 

proposing wilderness for the Mark Twain 

National Forest’s Big Spring parcel. The U.S. 

Forest Service currently manages this area in 

a way that is compatible with wilderness 

designation of the Big Spring Study Area.
Wilderness Study

147

The study area includes several 

nonconforming uses, including two roads, a 

utility right-of-way, a barn, the NPS training 

range, a maintenance facility, and a fire 

tower.

The Big Spring Historic overlaps the study 

area. Included in the study area are several 

miles of trails and roads constructed by the 

Civilian Conservation Corps, the quarry they 

mined for limestone blocks, the ruins of a 

camp they occupied, and a fire tower. Also 

included in the district, but outside the 

wilderness study area, are several features 

associated with the Civilian Conservation 

Corps-era construction and state park, 

including rental cabins, a lodge,

infrastructure associated with the former 

state park recreation facilities, and the home 

of the refuge manager who managed the 

reintroduction of deer into the region.

The camp ruins, quarry, and trails are 

substantially unnoticed within the context of 

the natural landscape, and contribute to the 

integrity of the historic landscape and 

district, some of which is outside the study 

area. The natural landscape appears to be 

affected primarily by the forces of nature 

with humans as visitors who do not remain.

Considering these Civilian Conservation 

Corps-era features, the area is generally 

undeveloped and provides an opportunity 

for solitude and unconfined recreation, while 

supporting the greater context of the historic 

landscape within and outside the study area.

These features of historic value enhance the 

wilderness character of the area by providing 

a modest representation of the historic 

period of development within the context of 

natural surroundings.

The fire tower and road are also associated 

with the Civilian Conservation Corps-era 

camp and developments, and are within the 

study area. While the fire tower is historic like 

the other Civilian Conservation Corps-era 

features, unlike the other features, its stature 

over the landscape makes the structure a 

more noticeable development, which 

conflicts somewhat with the undeveloped 

quality of wilderness. The viewshed from 

which the fire tower is visible is shown on the 

Big Spring Pines Fire Tower viewshed map.

The fire tower is no longer used or equipped 

for radio communications, and the access 

road is closed to the public and is no longer 

needed to maintain radio equipment. The fire 

tower itself does not prohibit the area from 

being eligible for designation as wilderness. It

does, however, bring into question the 

balance between preservation of historic 

resources and protection of wilderness 

character, specifically the undeveloped 

quality.

The historic Civilian Conservation Corps

projects at Big Spring reflect a trend toward 

providing recreational facilities in a pastoral,

naturalistic environment. The types of 

facilities reflect the active recreation uses that 

brought the visitor in contact with nature.

The buildings (outside the study area) were 

designed to fit within the natural landscape, 

instead of simply imposing upon it.

As a Civilian Conservation Corps project and 

campsite, Big Spring Historic District 

represents historically important federal 

policies and periods of public works, has a 

direct association with events that promoted 

the betterment of society, and is associated 

with national trends in the development of 

outdoor recreation. By October 1936, over 

2,000 camps were established, with 346 of 

them occupied in state parks such as Big 

Spring (NPS 1991a).

Wilderness designation today would 

represent a continuum connecting federal 

policies of the past with a modern 

interpretation of wilderness in the present 

concerning recreation in the environment, 

environmental protection, and the 

experience of wilderness character. The 

Historic District and Civilian Conservation 

Corps-era camp are enhancing qualities in 

the Big Spring study area, affording the 

opportunity to embrace the historic values of 

the study area rather than simply tolerate

them. The Wilderness Act, when describing a 
CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS STUDY

148

wilderness area, includes the passage: may 

also contain ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historical value. In the case of the Big Spring 

study area, these historic features are 

recognized as part of the wilderness character 

to be managed and preserved.

Within the study area, 3,434 acres of land are 

found to possess the characteristics and 

values of wilderness as defined in the Act of 

1964, and are considered suitable for 

inclusion in the national wilderness 

preservation system because the area is, or 

appears to be; untrammeled, without longterm human occupation, undeveloped, 

without permanent improvements; natural 

and physical processes occur without 

contemporary human manipulation, the area 

is federally owned so that resources are 

protected, and there are opportunities for 

solitude, with primitive and unconfined 

forms of recreation.

Nonconforming Uses

The Big Spring barn, NPS training range,

maintenance area, and associated roads are

located together as one site. The barn is 

presumed to have been built in the 1930s or 

1940s and is known to have existed in 1950.

Because of its age and potential association 

with Big Spring State Park operations, the 

barn, shown in figure 8, may be eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places. NPS cultural resource specialists

intend to evaluate it for such eligibility. 

National register status influences, but is not 

the sole criterion for deciding, whether 

cultural resources in wilderness are actively 

preserved. If it is determined to be eligible, 

the park may elect to actively preserve it in a 

way consistent with wilderness character 

preservation, and historic preservation 

treatments would be carried out in 

accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties. The barn could also be 

recorded and dismantled and the area 

restored to a more natural condition. 

Proposed actions affecting the structure 

would be carried out in consultation with the 

state historic preservation officer and others 

in accordance with section 106 requirements.

As a constructed feature, the barn somewhat 

conflicts with the undeveloped quality of 

wilderness character. The barn is potentially 

associated with the gamekeeper who raised 

and reintroduced deer into the area, and may 

have been used to store hay grown on the 

adjacent open fields. The barn and fields do 

not preclude the area from being proposed as 

wilderness, though a balance must be struck 

along the spectrum of historic resource 

management and wilderness character 

preservation.

An NPS training range is located adjacent to 

the barn, as shown in figure 8. The NPS 

training range is used periodically by the 

park’s law enforcement staff to fulfill 

requirements for firearms training and 

qualification. Park rangers would cease using 

the NPS training range and would

consolidate use at one of the two other 

ranges. The site would be rehabilitated and

lead contamination mitigated.

There is a gated service road within the 

wilderness study area that links the barn and

NPS training range to Highway 103. This 

road is minimally maintained by the National 

Riverways, but can still accommodate 

automobiles as far as the barn. If the area 

were proposed as wilderness, the road would 

cease to be maintained.

CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS STUDY

150

An NPS-administered utility easement 

including, a buried telephone line serving the 

Big Spring cabins concession and residents 

located further down the line, is located in 

the northeast section of the study area. If the 

area were proposed as wilderness, the 

National Park Service would seek to vacate 

the utility easement, close off the telephone 

lines, and rehabilitate and restore to natural 

conditions the surface of the easement. The 

utility corridor would be proposed as a 

potential wilderness addition until such time 

as the utility right of way was extinguished 

and the area rehabilitated.

A fire tower and road identified in the 1984 

general management plan are found at the 

southern edge of the Big Spring Historic 

District. The fire tower, which is shown in 

figure 9, is a Civilian Conservation Corps-era 

structure that has received a determination of 

eligibility from the Missouri State Historic 

Preservation Office at a state level of 

significance. 

Wilderness Alternatives

Options for wilderness were created by the 

planning team and aligned with each 

alternative using the overall vision for each 

action alternative and public comment. Each 

wilderness alternative is included as part of 

one of the action alternatives discussed in 

“Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative.”

The options for wilderness that are 

associated with each alternative are described 

below and summarized in table 15. The 

consequences of these alternatives are 

analyzed in “Chapter 5: Environmental 

Consequences.”

No-action Alternative

Under the no-action alternative (see noaction map in chapter 2), the National Park 

Service would continue to manage the Big 

Spring study area’s primitive, natural 

character to maintain its wilderness 

eligibility.

Zoning. There are no proposed management 

zones for the no-action alternative.

Structures. The fire tower, incinerator, barn, 

NPS training range, and Civilian 

Conservation Corps-era camp would be 

retained. The fire tower, barn, and NPS 

training range would continue to be used for 

administrative purposes.

Roads. The access roads to the fire tower, 

barn, and NPS training range would continue 

to be maintained for administrative use.

Utilities. The buried utility communication 

cable that serves the Big Spring cabins and 

residents located further down the line would 

be maintained.

Alternative A

The proposed wilderness under alternative A 

is depicted on the alternative A proposed 

wilderness map. Under this alternative, 3,424

out of 3,434 acres within the Big Spring 

Wilderness Study Area would be 

recommended for wilderness designation. 

This amount is 99% of the total wilderness 

study area. Ten acres would be excluded in a 

cherry-stem configuration from the proposed 

wilderness designation to allow for continued 

administrative use of the access roads, barn, 

NPS training range, and utility corridor.

Zoning. Most of the wilderness study area 

would be zoned primitive. The access road, 

barn, NPS training range, and utility corridor 

areas would be zoned natural.

Roads. Motorized vehicle use of the access 

road to the fire tower would be prohibited. 
Wilderness Study

151

This road may be restored to a Civilian 

Conservation Corps-era condition. The 

access road to the barn and NPS training 

range would be excluded from the proposed 

wilderness designation and maintained for 

administrative access.

Utilities. The buried utility communication 

cable that serves the Big Spring cabins and 

residents located further down the line would 

be excluded from the proposed wilderness 

designation (approximately 4 acres) and 

maintained.

Alternative B (NPS Preferred)

The proposed wilderness under alternative B 

is depicted on the alternative B proposed 

wilderness map. Under this alternative, 3,430

out of 3,434 acres within the Big Spring 

Wilderness Study Area would be 

recommended for wilderness designation.

Zoning. The entire Big Spring Wilderness 

Study Area would be zoned primitive.

Structures. The fire tower, incinerator, barn, 

and Civilian Conservation Corps-era camp 

would be retained. The NPS training range

would be removed and the area restored.

Roads. This alternative would prohibit 

motorized vehicle use of the access roads to 

the fire tower, NPS training range, storage 

area, and barn. The roads would be evaluated 

to determine the feasibility of restoring them 

to a Civilian Conservation Corps-era 

condition, allowing them to melt away or 

eliminating them altogether.

TABLE 15. WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY

Feature No-action

alternative Alternative A Alternative B

(NPS preferred) Alternative C

Proposal No wilderness 

designation

3,424 acres 

recommended for 

wilderness designation, 

10 acres excluded in a 

cherry-stem 

configuration 

3,430 acres

recommended for 

wilderness 

designation

1,779 acres 

recommended for 

wilderness designation 

(south of Chilton Creek)

Management 

zoning

No zones—

continue 

managing for 

primitive character 

under 1984 

general 

management plan

Most would be zoned 

primitive with some 

areas zoned natural

The entire area 

would be zoned 

primitive

The area south of 

Chilton Creek would be 

zoned primitive; the 

remaining area would 

be zoned natural

Fire tower plus road 

(5 acres)

Retain Retain tower and restore 

road to Civilian 

Conservation Corps-era

facilities

Retain tower,

rehabilitate road

Outside study area

Barn plus road 

(5 acres)

Retain Retain in a cherry-stem 

configuration

Retain barn and 

road

Outside study area

Utility cable

(4 acres)

Retain Retain in a cherry-stem 

configuration

Potential wilderness 

addition 

Outside study area

NPS training range (1

acre)

Retain Retain in a cherry-stem 

configuration

Remove Outside study area

Civilian Conservation 

Corps camp

Retain Retain Retain Outside study area
CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS STUDY

152

Utilities. The buried utility communication 

cable that serves the Big Spring cabins and 

residents located further down the line would 

be proposed as potential wilderness addition 

and would remain in use until it fails, or until 

another utility route outside the wilderness 

was designated. Once decommissioned, it 

would be evaluated to determine the 

feasibility of removing the cable and restoring 

the area. Once the nonconforming use was

extinguished, the utility corridor would be 

administratively converted to wilderness.

Alternative C

The proposed wilderness under alternative C 

is depicted on the alternative C proposed 

wilderness map. Under this alternative, 1,779

acres of the Big Spring Wilderness Study 

Area, south of Chilton Creek, would be 

recommended for wilderness designation. 

This amount is 52% of the total wilderness 

study area.

Zoning. The area recommended for 

wilderness designation, located south of 

Chilton Creek, would be zoned primitive. 

The remaining area would be zoned natural.

Structures. The fire tower, incinerator, barn, 

NPS training range, and Civilian 

Conservation Corps-era camp would be 

outside the area proposed for wilderness 

designation and would be retained. The fire 

tower, barn, and NPS training range would 

continue to be used for administrative 

purposes.

Roads. The access roads to the fire tower, 

barn, and NPS training range would continue 

to be maintained for administrative uses.

Utilities. The buried utility communication 

cable that serves the Big Spring cabins and 

residents located further down the line would 

be maintained.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT REGARDING

BIG SPRING WILDERNESS

In summer 2006, the National Park Service 

distributed Newsletter #1, which informed 

the public that the Riverways was beginning a 

general management plan and wilderness 

study. The newsletter requested public input 

on a comment form contained in the 

newsletter, by internet, and at public 

meetings.

Newsletter 3, issued in spring/summer 2009, 

presented four preliminary alternatives for 

management that were developed with public 

input and represented different ways to 

manage the Riverways. Two of these 

management alternatives included proposing 

3,434 acres of the Big Spring tract for 

wilderness designation. The remaining two 

alternatives would continue to protect the 

area as primitive, but not as wilderness.

Public comments from meetings and written 

submissions were fairly evenly divided 

between those that favored wilderness 

designation for the Big Spring tract and those 

that were opposed to such designation. For 

example, responses both supported 

wilderness designation to increase and 

preserve roadless areas and opposed such 

designation as being too restrictive, or 

favored a roadless area that is not designated 

as wilderness. Most comments were in favor

of an area where motorized vehicles are 

prohibited, but were not necessarily in favor 

of a wilderness designation to achieve that 

condition. The public will have another 

opportunity for further input during the 

wilderness study formal public hearing 

process held in conjunction with the 

environmental impact statement public 

meetings. The times, dates and location of the 

public meetings will be announced in the 

media following release of this document. 



CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS STUDY

156

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

A wilderness proposal may include two 

categories: (1) lands proposed for immediate 

wilderness designation and (2) potential 

wilderness additions. The former are lands 

that are wholly federally owned and are fully 

qualified to become wilderness. The latter are 

lands that are surrounded by or adjacent to 

lands proposed for wilderness designation, 

but that do not qualify for immediate 

designation due to temporary, 

nonconforming, or incompatible conditions. 

Potential wilderness additions, if so 

authorized by Congress, will become 

designated wilderness upon the Secretary of 

the Interior’s determination that the 

nonconforming use has ended.

This study recommends that approximately 

3,434 acres of the Big Spring study area 

within Ozark National Scenic Riverways be 

proposed for wilderness designation, 

including 4 acres of potential wilderness 

additions.

WILDERNESS STUDY

REVIEW PROCESS

The findings and conclusions of this 

wilderness study will be forwarded to the 

director of the National Park Service. If the 

director concurs, the proposal will be sent to 

the Secretary of the Interior. The secretary 

will then review the proposal and may 

forward his recommendation to the 

president. The president then formally 

transmits his recommendation to both

houses of Congress for action. It is up to 

Congress to enact the legislation necessary to 

designate the area as wilderness.

The final study could also recommend that 

certain nonconforming uses be 

recommended as potential wilderness 

additions, because of current, temporary 

conditions that are not compatible with 

wilderness. The wilderness study may 

recommend lands as potential wilderness, 

because of certain temporary conditions that 

are not compatible with immediate 

wilderness designation. In this circumstance, 

the National Park Service would have the 

responsibility to remove or rectify those 

noncompatible conditions and convert the 

area to wilderness as soon as practicable.
157

IMPLICATIONS OF MANAGING LANDS PROPOSED FOR WILDERNESS

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

If wilderness is designated, a wilderness 

stewardship plan would be developed to 

guide preservation, management, and use of 

NPS wilderness areas. Such a plan is 

developed with public involvement and 

contains specific, measurable objectives for 

preservation of wilderness characteristics and 

values as specified in the Wilderness Act and 

NPS management policies. Wilderness 

stewardship plans integrate wilderness 

planning, management, and monitoring and 

articulate management actions that preserve 

or enhance wilderness character.

Management decisions affecting wilderness 

would be consistent with the “minimum 

requirements” concept. Parks are to 

complete this documented process to 

determine whether administrative activities 

affecting wilderness resources or visitor 

experiences are necessary in wilderness, and 

if so, how to minimize impacts from such 

activities.

Where practical alternatives do not exist, 

maintenance or other park activities may 

occasionally be accomplished through the 

use of motorized equipment. The use of 

motorized equipment should be based on the 

minimum requirements concept. Motorized 

equipment need not be allowed for park 

operations that can reasonably be 

accomplished using nonmotorized means, 

and exceptions are never for ease or comfort, 

but for the purpose of administering 

wilderness for the purpose of the act.

PRIVATE RIGHTS

Wilderness designation does not extinguish 

valid existing private rights, such as land or 

right-of-way ownership or valid mineral 

interests. Valid private rights in wilderness 

are administered in keeping with the specific 

terms and conditions of each right. At the 

Riverways, the utility company has an 

easement allowing access to its buried cables 

for inspection and maintenance. Designation 

as wilderness would not extinguish this right.

RECREATIONAL USE

Recreational uses of NPS wilderness areas are 

to be of a type and nature that enable the 

areas to retain their undeveloped primeval 

character and influence, protect and preserve 

natural conditions, leave the imprint of man’s 

work substantially unnoticeable, provide 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined types of recreation, 

and preserve wilderness in an unimpaired 

condition. Public use of motorized 

equipment or any form of mechanical 

transport is not allowed, except as provided 

for in specific legislation. Operating a motor 

vehicle or possessing a bicycle in wilderness 

is not allowed. The use of a wheelchair, as 

defined by the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990, is allowed in wilderness.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

In emergency situations involving the health 

and safety of persons, the use of aircraft and 

other motorized or mechanical equipment is 

allowed. Wildfires would be controlled as 

necessary to prevent loss of life, damage to 

property, the spread of wildfire to lands 

outside wilderness, or unacceptable loss of 

wilderness values. The minimum 

requirements concept would be followed for 

all emergency activities in wilderness.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

AND RESEARCH

Wilderness designation does not prevent the 

National Park Service from actively managing 

natural, cultural, physical, or experiential 

resources, or protecting and maintaining 

historic and prehistoric resources located 

within wilderness areas. Using the minimum 
CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS STUDY

158

requirements concept, these resources would 

be protected and maintained according to the 

pertinent laws and policies. Resource 

management activities would generally be 

undertaken to provide information that 

better informs the management and 

protection of wilderness resources, or that 

addresses the impacts of past and current use 

or influences on wilderness character. 

Natural processes would be allowed, insofar 

as possible, to shape and control wilderness 

ecosystems.

Scientific activities are appropriate in 

wilderness. Even scientific activities that 

involve a potential impact to wilderness 

resources or character are allowed when the 

benefits of what can be learned outweigh the 

impacts on wilderness character, resources, 

or values. However, all such activities must be 

evaluated using the minimum requirements 

concept, keeping in mind that the impacting 

activity must be for the purpose of 

wilderness.

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

MANAGEMENT 

As noted above, proposed wilderness 

designation of the Big Spring study area 

would not alter the National Park Service’s 

responsibility to manage and protect cultural 

resources located in this area. Under the NPS 

preferred alternative, the Civilian 

Conservation Corps-constructed fire lookout 

tower and associated cultural landscape 

features; a wood frame barn; and the site of 

Civilian Conservation Corps camp 1710 

would be preserved. The fire tower and 

Civilian Conservation Corps camp have been 

determined eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places, although the 

eligibility of the barn has not yet been 

formally assessed. Consistent with NPS 

Management Policies 2006 (6.3.8) and 

Director’s Order #41 (6.9), these and other 

potential cultural resources in the study area 

would continue to be managed in accordance 

with the laws pertaining to the preservation 

of the nation’s cultural heritage (e.g., 

National Historic Preservation Act, 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act). 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation would continue to provide 

guidance for the protection and treatment of 

historic properties. Although these laws and 

policies remain applicable within wilderness, 

preservation treatments and other 

management actions would employ the 

“minimum requirements” concept to ensure 

that techniques, tools, and equipment do not 

adversely affect or diminish wilderness 

character and values. 

CONCLUSION

Approximately 3,434 acres of Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways, in the Big Spring study area 

are determined suitable for inclusion in the 

national wilderness preservation system 

because they possess wilderness 

characteristics and values. Of the wildernesssuitable land, all are proposed for wilderness

in the NPS preferred alternative. This 

includes 3,430 acres (99%) proposed for 

immediate wilderness designation, and 4

acres (1%) proposed for potential wilderness 

addition.


161

INTRODUCTION

IN GENERAL

This chapter describes the existing 

environment of Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways and the surrounding region. It is 

focused on key natural and cultural 

resources, visitor uses and experiences, 

soundscapes, park operations, and

socioeconomic characteristics that have the 

potential to be affected if any of the 

alternatives were implemented. Some 

features, such as threatened and endangered 

species, are discussed because they provide 

context or must be considered in an 

environmental impact statement.

This chapter does not provide an exhaustive 

description of these resources; but rather 

enough detail to understand the impacts of 

implementing the alternatives. These impact 

topics were selected on the basis of federal 

law, regulations, executive orders, NPS 

expertise, and concerns expressed by other 

agencies or members of the public during 

project scoping. The conditions described in 

this chapter establish the baseline for 

“Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences.”

During scoping, the planning team 

conducted preliminary analysis of resources 

to determine the context, duration, and 

intensity of effects that the alternatives may 

have on the Riverways’ environment. If the 

magnitude of effects was determined to be 

negligible or minor, then there would be no 

potential for substantial impact and further 

impact analysis is unnecessary. Therefore, the 

resource was dismissed as an impact topic. 

However, if resource effects could be greater 

than a minor level of intensity, then the 

impact topic was retained for detailed 

analysis. This chapter discusses the impact 

topics that have been retained and analyzed 

in detail.

Please refer to the impact topics section at the 

end of chapter 1 for a summary of impact 

topics retained or dismissed and an 

explanation for why certain impact topics 

were eliminated from detailed analysis.

For additional information on Ozark

National Scenic Riverways, see the official 

website (http://www.nps.gov/ozar).

The effects of climate change on the 

Riverways environment are also included as 

part of the introduction of this chapter.

CLIMATE CHANGE

To understand future trends in the condition 

of the Riverways environment, a summary of 

projected regional climate changes and their 

potential influences on the Riverways’

resources and visitor experience are 

provided. Rather than incorporate these 

potential effects throughout the various 

impact topics discussed in this chapter, the 

following provides a synopsis.

According to a report prepared for the 

National Park Service on historic and 

projected climate trends for Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways, climate of the Midwest 

Region of the United States is anticipated to 

become warmer and slightly wetter, resulting 

in a wide range of impacts on plants, wildlife, 

water flow regimes, and people over the next 

century. Climate models indicate the 

Midwest states, including Missouri, will likely 

experience great variability in precipitation. 

Overall, annual precipitation may increase 

slightly due to warmer and wetter winters, 

but rain is projected to decrease during the 

summers with longer periods in between rain 

events (NPS 2013).

Models indicate average temperatures in the 

Midwestern U.S. are expected to rise roughly 

4.1 to 5.3 degrees Fahrenheit by mid-century, 

based on carbon dioxide emission levels from 

the A2 scenarios published by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) in 2007 (NPS 2013). The number of 

very hot days (above 95 degrees Fahrenheit) 
CHAPTER4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

162

and the number of days above freezing 

during the winter are both expected to 

increase. More variability is also likely, 

resulting in extreme weather events and more 

frequent droughts (IPCC 2007).

These types of projected changes are 

important because climate is a dominant 

factor affecting the physical and ecological 

processes of the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways and the Midwest region as a 

whole. For example, the Riverways is home 

to some of the largest freshwater springs in 

the country and the world. These springs are 

a major driver of the terrestrial and aquatic 

systems of the area. The magnitude, duration, 

and timing of precipitation changes could 

affect the groundwater recharge regime that 

powers these springs.

Changes to the frequency and degree of 

weather patterns, temperature ranges, 

extreme events, and other climate-related 

variables may alter one or several 

components of the park unit’s ecological 

system. Given the direct ecological 

connectivity of hydrology, plant 

communities, wildlife, and other building 

blocks of a healthy ecological system, even a 

small change in one or two of these 

components could potentially have “domino 

effects” through the overall system. Surface 

water and groundwater flow quantities and 

water quality and plant and animal species 

composition (e.g., biodiversity) are just two 

examples of park unit resources that may 

change as a result of climate change.

Long-term patterns in temperature and 

precipitation are some of the primary climate

variables that affect ecosystem structure and 

function. However, secondary climate 

variables such as the frequency, duration, and 

intensity of weather events and seasonal 

variability (such as first and last frosts), can 

also have profound effects on soil-water 

relationships, plant development processes, 

the reproductive success of wildlife, nutrient 

cycling, natural disturbance regimes (such as 

wildfires), nonnative species infestations, and 

the spread of pathogens. As a result, small 

changes in climate can affect the overall 

health and resilience of entire ecosystems. 

And once again, given the ecological 

connectivity between the Riverways’ 

hydrology and its natural communities, small 

changes can reverberate through the 

Riverways’ entire ecological system. 

With surface and subsurface water being such 

a key component of the Riverways’ natural 

system, climate change also brings serious 

concerns for changes in water quality and 

water quantity. For example, severe droughts

(in duration, intensity, or both) would 

decrease stream flows and groundwater 

recharge into the Riverways' karst subsurface 

geology. This would have profound effects 

on the regions plant and animal communities. 

In addition, low water flows in streams and 

groundwater, compounded with higher 

temperatures, could also lead to water quality

degradation. Conversely, the increased 

frequency and intensity of flash flooding 

(brought on by extreme weather events) 

would result in more runoff that would 

increase soil erosion and river water turbidity 

and would wash pesticides, fertilizers, and 

other toxins into the Riverways’ rivers and 

streams.

Since many of the Riverways’ sensitive 

wildlife species are dependent on high water 

quality and sustained surface flows for 

reproduction and foraging, increases in the 

frequency, intensity, and duration of floods 

and droughts could also have detrimental 

effects on some already imperiled species 

such as the Ozark hellbender. It is not yet 

known how such species will respond when 

the existing effects of regional land use and 

human activities are compounded by 

additional ecological stressors from climate 

change. 

Likewise, at a larger scale, climate change also 

has the potential to cause considerable shifts 

in the overall ranges and distributions of 

many plant and animal species due to rising 

temperatures and changes in precipitation 

patterns. For example, as average 

temperatures increase, species are expected 
Introduction

163

to move northward or seek higher elevations 

in search of cooler climates. Over time, 

considerable changes to the Riverways’

forests, and the wildlife species that inhabit 

them, would likely occur. In addition, 

invasive plants and animal species that 

currently thrive in warmer climates to the 

south could eventually pose new threats to 

the Riverways’ ecology. 

Climate change is also anticipated to have an 

overall adverse effect on the park unit’s 

cultural resources, primarily as a result of the 

increased intensity and frequency of severe 

storm activity contributing to damaging 

winds and erosion. Periodically heavy, 

prolonged, and/or frequent rainstorms could 

result in rising river levels and swifter 

currents. Increased storm activity, 

punctuated by periods of drought, could 

destabilize the riverbank terraces resulting in 

the potential erosion of buried archeological 

sites (NPS 2013). Archeological sites and 

resources exposed by erosion would be at 

risk of further disturbance by illegal 

collection or looting. Many archeological 

sites also retain ethnographic importance for 

traditionally associated tribes and other 

groups. Site disturbances could diminish the 

cultural connections that many have for 

traditional use areas and sites, and possibly 

impede their ability to access these areas.

Historic buildings, structures, and cultural 

landscape features may also be adversely 

impacted by increased storm-related 

weathering, high winds, drought, and fire that 

could result in the loss or damage of historic 

fabric and other character-defining features. 

Wide temperature and humidity fluctuations 

would present preservation challenges as 

predominantly wood and other historic 

building materials deteriorate at accelerated 

rates. The cultural landscapes associated with 

historic farms and other sites may be affected 

by climate-related changes to the distribution 

and composition of vegetation, along with 

potential alteration of land forms and other 

features that existed during the periods of 

historical significance.

By altering natural and cultural resources, 

climate change also poses potential impacts 

to visitor use and experience at the 

Riverways. The majority of visitors come to 

the area to float the rivers, but others come to 

camp, hike, tour historic sites, examine 

springs, horseback ride, and fish or hunt, 

amongst other activities. Potential 

fluctuations or reductions in river flows may 

cause temporary closures of various river 

sections limiting motorized and 

nonmotorized watercraft access at certain 

times. Lower river flows are also causing 

more river users to utilize downstream 

sections of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers 

for river-based recreational activities. If low 

flows continue or worsen, the migration of 

upstream river users to downstream areas 

may increase crowding and conflicts amongst 

user groups. Potential destabilization of 

riverbanks from increased erosion could 

cause deterioration of certain river access 

points, river-trail crossings, and campsites 

adjacent to the river affecting visitors’ ability 

to use these sites. Impacts to historic sites 

from climate change may limit visitors’ 

abilities to explore and learn about these 

sites.

The full extent of climate change impacts on 

resource conditions is unknown, and new 

information is continually being collected 

and relapsed. Potential management 

strategies for the Riverways are outlined in 

the “Management Strategies to Address 

Climate Change,” in chapter 2. 
164

NATURAL RESOURCES

The natural resource sections describe the 

natural resource components of the National 

Riverways’ environment that could be 

affected by the management alternatives. It 

does not provide an exhaustive explanation 

of these resources; rather, only enough detail 

is provided to understand the effects of the 

alternatives. These descriptions are concise 

summaries organized by the resource topics 

listed below, which match the impact topics 

analyzed in “Chapter 5, Environmental 

Consequences”

 geologic resources and soils

 water resources

 vegetation

 fish and wildlife (including federally

and state-listed species)

A brief overview of the National Riverways’

physiography and climate is also provided.

PHYSIOGRAPHY

Ozark National Scenic Riverways is located 

in the Ozark Plateau’s physiographic 

province in southeastern Missouri. The 

underlying geology consists of a large,

igneous dome that covers an area of 

approximately 40,000 square miles and 

includes parts of four states. Sedimentary 

rocks dip away from the center of the dome 

and form three distinct physiographic 

sections: the Springfield Plateau, the Salem 

Plateau, and the Boston Mountains.

The National Riverways is located on the 

Salem Plateau, which is a dissected karst 

terrain consisting of rolling uplands and 

rugged hills with deeply entrenched stream 

valleys. The rivers and streams in this 

subprovince follow a dendritic (tree-like) 

pattern and there are abundant sinkholes, 

caves, springs, and losing streams (NPS 

2007).

Elevations of the National Riverways vary 

from about 510 feet above mean sea level on 

the Current River to 1,273 feet on Wildcat 

Mountain. The channel gradient on the 

Current River ranges from 8.3 feet per mile in 

the upper reaches to 3.2 feet per mile near the 

downstream end of the park unit. The upper 

Jacks Fork has a slightly steeper gradient of 

8.6 feet per mile and falls to 5.6 feet per mile 

near its confluence with the Current River 

(Fenneman 1938).

CLIMATE

South-central Missouri has a temperate 

climate due to its mid-latitude, interiorcontinental location. Long summers and 

relatively short winters are characteristic for 

the area. January is the coldest month with 

mean minimum and maximum temperatures 

of 19 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 44°F, 

respectively. July is the warmest month with 

mean minimum temperatures of 65°F and 

mean maximum temperatures of 92°F.

Annual precipitation in the Current River 

basin is approximately 42 to 47 inches. March 

is the wettest month, with approximately 5 

inches of precipitation, and January and 

February are the driest with less than 3 

inches. March through June is the wettest 

period of the year (MDC 1982).

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES AND SOILS

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways is 

situated in a geologically complex area along 

the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. The 

geology of these two watersheds is primarily 

composed of soluble dolomite rock 

formations of Upper Cambrian and Lower 

Ordovician age, dating back 520 million 

years. In addition to dolomite, other 

predominant rock components of the 

Riverways are sandstone, rhyolite, and chert.

Exposures of older rock are mainly from 

erosion and down-cutting associated with the 
Natural Resources

165

major stream valleys. The bedrock is 

Precambrian, dating back 1.5 billion years, 

which consists of igneous rocks with some 

granite.

The dolomite rock formations in the 

Riverways may be as thick as 1,800 feet and 

often contain chert, sandstone, and orthoquartzite. This sedimentary carbonate rock, 

in combination with over 40 inches of annual 

precipitation, dissolves to form an intricate 

karst landscape of losing streams, sinkholes, 

springs, caves, and subterranean passages, all 

of which are prevalent throughout the 

Riverways.

The geology of the area is a major 

contributing factor to the National 

Riverways’ high biological diversity. It is 

perhaps the oldest continuously exposed 

land mass in North America, providing 

refuge for plants and animals for the last 230 

million years. In particular, none of the four 

major continental glaciations of the past two 

million years have extended into the Ozarks. 

The resulting biodiversity of plants and 

animals is described in detail in the vegetation 

and wildlife sections.

Today, the karst landscape and its associated 

hydrogeologic processes are fundamental to 

maintaining the ecological health and 

biodiversity of the Riverways. In particular, 

caves and springs are the most visible 

expressions of the karst landscape and, as 

such, are good indicators of changing 

environmental conditions. They are also 

highly susceptible to human impact and 

require a high degree of management 

attention. Because infiltration into 

groundwater is rapid in karst terrain, the 

National Riverways and its spring systems are 

more sensitive to land use practices than 

other geologic regions. Chemicals and waste 

products deposited on the land can wash 

rapidly into losing streams, sinkholes, and 

other conduits, polluting springs and rivers in 

the park unit (NPS 2007). These hydrologic 

features and processes are described in 

greater detail under the water resources 

section below.

Caves and Subterranean Passages

There are 402 known caves within the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways boundaries. This 

is the highest density of caves in the national 

park system, and second only to the Grand 

Canyon in total number of caves in a park 

unit. Of these, 60 caves have perennial 

streams, 33 caves have intermittent water 

sources, and seven caves have lakes. The 

largest of these lakes is in Devils Well Cave. 

This is one of the largest cave lakes known in 

the United States, and it is about 400 feet 

long, up to 50 feet wide, and up to 200 feet 

deep. Round Spring Cave, Jam Up Cave, and 

Meeting House Cave are other equally 

impressive karst features of the National 

Riverways and are popular visitor attractions. 

Many of the caves within the National 

Riverways also provide important habitat for 

rare and endemic species. 

Subterranean aquatic karst passages may be 

more widespread at Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways than air-filled cave passages. 

Nevertheless, there is a greater diversity of 

terrestrial cave fauna than aquatic, in part 

because the water-filled passages are 

generally inaccessible. It is currently 

unknown how subsurface drainage patterns 

or surface topography affects the distribution 

of these cave species.

Soils

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways is 

located within the Current River Hills 

Subsection of the Ozark Highlands. Soils in 

this area are derived from the geologic 

formations and associated landforms 

described above. As such, they are rocky and 

formed mainly from carbonate and sandstone 

bedrock. Most of the soils are classified as 

either alfisols or ultisols soil orders. These 

orders are characteristic of forested mineral 

soils with a horizon of clays or sodium. 

Alfisols have greater base saturation and are 

generally more fertile than the more 

weathered ultisols (NRCS 2003).
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

166

Upland soils are moderate to well drained, 

dominated by gravelly silt overlying gravelly 

clay. Depth of these soils ranges from very 

deep (>60 inches) to very shallow (<10 

inches). Soils found on river terraces range 

from poor to well-drained, loamy alluvium. 

Floodplain soils are dominated by sandy and 

gravelly alluvium and range from well- to 

excessively well-drained (NPS 2007). The 

following four major soil types are found 

within the National Riverways (NPS 1991b).

Poynor Cherty Silt Loam. The Poynor soils 

consist of deep, well-drained, moderately 

permeable soils of the uplands. These soils 

are found on narrow ridge tops and steepsided slopes. They exhibit medium to rapid 

runoff. More than half of these soils underlie 

second-growth forests of oak, hickory, ash, 

maple, dogwood, and pine within the 

National Riverways. Glades are found on 

about 25% of these soils.

Clarksville Very Cherty Silt Loam and 

Clarksville Stony Silt Loam. The Clarksville 

soils consist of deep, excessively well-drained 

soils on steep-sided slopes and narrow ridge 

tops. Runoff is medium to rapid with 

moderately rapid permeability. Most of these 

soils are located within native forest of black 

oak, white oak, blackjack oak, post oak, 

hickory, ash, sugar maple, and dogwood.

Wideman Fine Sandy Loam. The Wideman 

soils consist of deep, excessively drained, 

moderately permeable soils formed in sandy 

alluvium. These soils are on floodplains and 

natural levees along streams that flood 

occasionally. Most of these soils are used for 

pasture. Native trees found within this soil 

type include eastern cottonwood, American 

sycamore, sweetgum, and other bottomland 

hardwoods.

Gladden Loam. This soil type consists of 

deep, well-drained soils formed in acidic 

alluvium in the floodplains of narrow upland 

valleys. Permeability is moderate in the upper 

part of these valleys and rapid or very rapid in 

the lower part. Runoff is slow and, as a result, 

this type of soil is subject to occasional 

flooding. This soil is commonly used in the 

region for cultivated crops, such as corn, 

small grains, and hay. Native vegetation 

consists of mixed hardwoods and shortleaf 

pine.

WATER RESOURCES

Ozark National Scenic Riverways contains 

134 miles of exceptionally clear, free-flowing 

rivers. This remarkable water clarity is 

primarily because most of the water that 

flows into the Jacks Fork and Current Rivers 

is filtered through the karst groundwater 

system.

Interactions between surface water and 

groundwater processes are greatly enhanced 

in karst terrain due to a complex network of 

surface and subterranean features, including 

losing streams, sinkholes, springs, and seeps. 

Losing streams represent one of the ways that

surface water is transported or lost to the 

groundwater system in karst landscapes. This 

occurs when a stream’s surface water flows 

through permeable geologic materials into an 

underground aquifer or conduit, causing it to 

lose water as it flows downstream. Sinkholes 

provide another point for surface water to 

enter the groundwater system. Sinkholes are 

natural depressions or holes in the surface 

topography caused by the removal of soil or 

bedrock by water runoff. In contrast, springs 

and seeps are the naturally occurring outlets 

of groundwater systems.

Another karstic feature of the National 

Riverways is that its surface watershed 

boundary does not match with its subsurface 

watershed. In fact, its subsurface watershed 

(1.43 million acres) adds 23 % to the size of 

its surface watershed (1.1 million acres). To 

explain, rainfall or snowmelt that occurs 

within the surface watershed (or drainage 

basin) will either: (1) flow along the surface 

via tributaries and eventually drain into the 
Natural Resources

167

Jacks Fork and Current Rivers, or (2) 

recharge the groundwater by flowing into the 

subsurface watershed via losing streams, 

sinkholes, or filtering though soil strata in 

wetlands. Given the karst geology, once 

surface water enters the groundwater system, 

it may flow underground well beyond the 

surface drainage basin on the surface and in 

often unpredictable routes. This makes for 

interesting natural phenomena, such as water 

entering the ground at one location and then 

discharging from multiple springs that are 

miles apart from one another (NPS 2007).

Conversely, springs and seeps located within 

the Current and Jacks Fork surface

watersheds may actually be discharging water 

that originated from well beyond the 

boundary of the two respective surface 

watersheds of these rivers. The National Park 

Service Inventory and Monitoring Program 

has conducted “vital signs” monitoring of fish 

and large springs within the Riverways in 

recent years. Some preliminary indications 

based on the initial monitoring years suggest 

the following conditions:

 The high numbers of fish species and 

sensitive taxa, high Index of Biotic 

Integrity scores, and low occurrences 

of tolerant taxa indicate a highly 

diverse and healthy fish community.

 The invertebrate fauna occurring in 

all of the large springs was dominated 

by environmentally sensitive 

taxa—the dominance of intolerant 

taxa, and mainly representatives of the 

caddisfly genus, Lepidostoma, 

occurring in the springs indicates 

their respective water quality 

conditions are good.

Plant community structure in the springs has 

changed little since Steyermark studied them 

in the 1940s, although some species were not 

observed while others were documented for 

the first time.

Subterranean Passages and Springs

The hydrogeologic processes of the 

Riverways’ karst landscape have created a 

complex, subterranean aquatic system with a 

dendritic (tree-like) drainage network that 

resembles surface stream systems. The flow 

of water through this ancient groundwater 

system is generally concentrated in large 

conduits that discharge through several 

major springs at high flow rates. Big Spring, 

located in the lower portion of the National 

Riverways, produces an average flow of 

approximately 287 million gallons of water 

per day and has a measured peak flow of 800 

million gallons per day. Big Spring is the 

largest freshwater spring in the national park 

system.

The National Riverways also has an unusually 

high density of springs. Within the Current 

River watershed, more than 400 springs have 

been identified, with combined discharges 

that account for up to 90 % of the combined 

flow of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers 

(Mugel et al. 2009).

Another interesting aspect of the springs in 

the National Riverways is that they have a 

uniform water temperature that is equal to 

the mean annual air temperature of the 

region. Springs maintain a water temperature 

in a narrower, year-round range than that of 

runoff-based streams. As a result, relict 

species may have used these constant 

conditions to survive periods of extreme 

climatic change. Springs also cause localized 

changes in water temperature, flow regime, 

and substrate where they enter the river 

channels, further diversifying the aquatic 

habitat of the National Riverways. As a result, 

a number of specialized aquatic species have 

adapted to these conditions. The use of these 

springs as refugia may once again increase as 

recent and projected climate change restricts 

species to the cool waters and consistent 

flows near springs within the National 

Riverways.
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

168

Rivers and Streams

Much of the aquatic biodiversity of rivers and 

streams in the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways has resulted from the complex 

stream channel conditions. A mosaic of 

aquatic habitats have established from 

various combinations of channel depth, 

stream velocity, substrate types, and cover, 

which are typified by the variety of pool, 

edge-water, and riffle habitats throughout the 

park unit. This variety of habitats is reflected 

in the diversity of aquatic species. For 

instance, 125 fish species have been 

documented within the National Riverways, 

almost one-half of all fish species that occur 

in the entire Mississippi River basin.

The Current and Jacks Fork Rivers are also 

ideal for recreation, because their gradients 

are steeper than other Missouri rivers, which 

allows for leisurely float trips. The rivers have 

large spring inflows to maintain stable flows 

and keep the water cool, even during the 

hottest, driest months of the year.

August through October is considered to be 

the normal flow season of the National 

Riverways, with average flows of about 1,000 

cubic feet per second on the Current River. 

From November through April, average flows 

increase from about 1,700 to 3,400 cubic feet 

per second. They then gradually decease 

from May through July, dropping to about

1,300 cubic feet per second. The average river 

flow at Van Buren is approximately 2,000 

cubic feet per second. The highest recorded 

flow at this site was 72,000 cubic feet per 

second on November 15, 1993, and the 

lowest was 476 cubic feet per second on 

October 8, 1956 (NPS 2007).

With soils rich in chert, the historic changes 

in land use, such as logging booms, clearing 

of riparian forests, and grazing, may have 

allowed large amounts of chert gravel to 

erode into the river channels (NPS 2007). 

This past disturbance is still having an effect 

on channel instability within the National 

Riverways. Today, these chert gravels are 

slowly moving downstream, infilling pools 

and riffle habitat. This causes stream 

channels to become more uniform, reducing 

their structural complexity and biological 

productivity. Currently, this wave of gravel is 

primarily in the middle portion of rivers and 

streams in the park unit. The upper sections 

are recovering and lower sections of the 

Current River are in the early stages of being 

impacted.

Wetlands

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

include a variety of different wetland types, 

including seeps, fens, sinkholes, and 

seasonally flooded riparian areas. Seeps are 

numerous and most common along the base 

of hillsides in the Ozarks. Seeps formed from 

alkaline groundwater are known as fens, and 

they are relatively rare. Because of their cool 

and wet microclimate, fens often contain 

plants typical of more northern states, many 

of which are rare or endangered in Missouri.

Riparian areas are some of the most diverse, 

dynamic, and complex habitats in the 

National Riverways. They are also some of 

the most disturbed ecosystems in the park 

unit due to historic land uses, such as logging. 

The accelerated rate of channel movement 

and deposition that resulted from clearing 

bottomland forests caused excessive bank 

erosion and channel migration. These 

disturbed sites have substantially lower 

species composition and richness compared 

to undisturbed areas (NPS 2007).

Today, wetlands exist throughout the 

riparian forests and bottomlands along the 

rivers, but little is known about their current 

species composition or condition. Wetland 

maps of the Riverways are available online 

through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

National Wetlands Inventory at 

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/

Mapper.html. This broad-level analysis has 

classified wetlands along the Current and 

Jacks Fork Rivers into two major types: 

riverine and palustrine. Riverine wetlands are 

contained within a channel that periodically 
Natural Resources

169

or continuously contains moving water. 

Palustrine wetlands include inland marshes, 

swamps, bogs, and small ponds that lack 

flowing water. This wetland type occurs 

along the outer fringes of the river channel in 

the adjacent riparian area of the floodplain.

Riverine wetlands are further classified by the 

permanence of water and the substrate 

composition of the river bottom and 

shoreline. Based on this classification system, 

the riverine wetlands of the National 

Riverways are defined as lower perennial 

(some water flows throughout the year) with 

an unconsolidated bottom and shoreline of 

cobble, gravel, sand, mud, and organic 

material.

Palustrine wetlands in the National 

Riverways are further subdivided into three 

types, based on dominant vegetation. They 

include scrub-shrub and forested wetlands. 

Scrub-shrub wetlands are dominated by 

woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall, such 

as true shrubs and young trees. Scrub-shrub 

wetlands may also represent a successional 

stage that eventually leads to a forested 

wetland. Forested wetlands of the area are 

dominated by broad-leaved deciduous trees.

The riverine and palustrine wetland types 

described above can be further classified by 

their water regimes, which depend on the 

duration and timing of surface inundation 

and fluctuations in groundwater levels. 

Wetlands found along the rivers are 

considered to be either temporarily, 

seasonally, intermittently, or permanently 

flooded, depending on minor variations in 

topography, rainfall patterns, vegetation 

composition, and other local environmental 

conditions.

Because the wetland mapping data are based 

on high-altitude photography, the National 

Wetlands Inventory tends to overlook 

smaller wetlands with forest cover, such as 

oxbows and sloughs that are known to occur 

within the National Riverways. Additional 

inventory and monitoring data are needed to 

more accurately determine the type, size, and 

distribution of riparian wetlands in the park 

unit. To provide a general idea of the extent 

of wetlands found within the vicinity of the 

National Riverways, the Missouri natural 

heritage database identifies 30 fens, seven 

oxbows and sloughs, two deep muck fens, 

and one pond marsh within the Current 

River and Jacks Fork watersheds (NPS 2007).

Floodplains

Floodplains and associated riparian areas are 

the most diverse, dynamic, and complex 

terrestrial environments in the National 

Riverways. This is due in part to the high 

frequency of flooding, which is an important 

force in shaping the physical and biological 

features of the park unit. Flooding also 

represents a hazard, and past flooding in the 

National Riverways has damaged park 

infrastructure and threatened the lives of 

visitors.

The Current and Jacks Fork Rivers typically 

rise 6 to 10 feet above the average low-water 

mark during the rainy season, from March to 

May. These rivers can be expected to rise 19 

feet once every 10 years and over 30 feet 

during a 100-year flood event. Because many 

of the Riverways’ popular recreation areas 

and facilities are in flat, low-lying areas, this 

large increase in river height during flood 

events places many of these facilities and high 

use areas in the floodplain risk zone. The

frequency of flooding and the rapid rise that 

occurs during flash flood events have 

prompted the Riverways to relocate certain 

facilities and establish closures based on river 

levels.

Water Quality

The Jacks Fork and Current Rivers within the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways are 

designated as Outstanding National Resource 

Waters because of their exceptional water 

quality. This designation has national, 

recreational, and ecological significance. 

Both rivers are also classified as Tier Three 

Waters by the State of Missouri. These 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

170

stringent federal and state standards are 

designed to protect against any degradation 

in the water quality of these rivers.

The National Riverways’ water resources are 

of exceptional quality; however, they are also 

highly susceptible to pollution. This is 

because karst terrain does not allow for 

effective filtration and absorption of 

pollutants from surface water as it travels into 

the groundwater system. Also, faster travel 

rates provide less time for bacteria and 

viruses to die. Polluted water that may have 

been on the surface yesterday could be in the 

groundwater system today and then 

discharged into the rivers from one of the 

major springs within a week. In fact, 

groundwater can travel up to 3 miles per day 

in the Current River watershed.

Because the karst system of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways extends well 

beyond the boundary of the park unit, 

adjacent land use practices can directly affect 

its water quality. For example, animal and 

human waste can be rapidly washed into 

sinkholes and conduits, and then quickly 

pollute springs and rivers downstream. The 

flow regime of the rivers in the park unit can 

also be altered by adjacent land use practices 

and infrastructure. Bridges, culverts, river 

access points, and bank hardening can alter 

the hydrologic regime downstream, as well as 

cause scouring, sedimentation, and bank 

instability.

Gravel mining in the Current River 

watershed and Jacks Fork watershed can 

alter channel structure and influence the 

volumes and timing of flow patterns. Gravel 

mining operations can increase stream 

gradient, relocate channels, and cause 

scouring and bank erosion. Removal of 

larger-sized gravel can also release fine 

sediments into the stream system, which 

degrade the habitat for species requiring a 

variety of substrate particle sizes. As of 2003, 

the Missouri Department of Conservation 

(MDC) tracked 41 active mines in the 

Current River basin. All but one of these 

active mines were sand and gravel operations 

(MDC 2003, MDC 2011d). Much of the 

permitted sand and gravel removal activity 

has occurred on the lower Current River 

below Doniphan and on Big Creek. Since 

1998, there have been four permitted gravel 

removal operations in the Jacks Fork 

watershed (MDC 2011a).

Urban encroachment, larger-scale industrial 

or agricultural development, and new mining 

operations are other examples of land uses 

that can potentially threaten karst landscapes.

One of the greatest issues facing park 

resource management is dealing with the 

threat of adjacent mineral development and 

its potential effects on the karst system of the 

National Riverways. The world’s largest leadzinc mining district, the Viburnum Trend, 

extends into the Current River watershed, 

and exploration for similar mineral deposits 

has also occurred on the southeastern edge of 

the river basin in the Mark Twain National 

Forest. In 2000, the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways was listed as one of the top ten 

most endangered parks by the National Parks 

and Conservation Association, because of 

concerns about lead mining.

Other adjacent land uses that have the 

potential to threaten the water quality and 

clarity of the streams and rivers in the 

National Riverways include the following:

 poor agricultural and forestry 

practices

 faulty sewage disposal facilities, 

including municipal treatment plants 

 garbage dumps, and salvage yards

 industrial runoff sites

 transportation routes, including new 

road building and maintenance

 pipelines

 petroleum and other chemical storage 

sites

Recreation activities also have the potential 

to threaten the water quality of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways if they are not 
Natural Resources

171

managed properly. For example, manure 

from horses and petroleum byproducts from 

gas-powered motorboats can contaminate 

river water. In their 2006 study, Davis and 

Barr reported elevated bacteria levels within 

the lower Jacks Fork River that exceeded the 

existing Missouri single sample standard, and 

was attributed to horses and other land uses. 

More recently, the Missouri bacteria 

standard was changed, eliminating the single 

sample limit, and utilizing the seasonal mean

(Davis & Barr 2006).

Monitoring data suggests that water quality 

has declined over the years in certain areas of 

the Riverways. Statistical analyses of water 

quality data collected from 1973 to 1998 

determined the following trends:

 Nutrient levels are generally low 

throughout the park unit. However, 

springs generally have higher total 

nitrogen levels when compared to 

rivers and tributaries. In addition, the 

upper Current River showed higher

levels of total nitrogen than other 

river stretches.

 Total phosphorus is generally at low 

levels throughout the National 

Riverways and there was no evidence 

of an increasing trend at any 

monitoring site. An analysis of 

nitrogen to phosphorus ratios 

suggests that phosphorus is probably 

the limiting nutrient for algal growth.

 Alkalinity, pH, and specific 

conductance (ability of water to 

conduct an electrical current) 

increased in the downstream 

direction.

 Bacteria densities were generally 

below the state criterion for 

swimmable waters. The highest 

bacteria densities were consistently 

observed in the lower Jacks Fork.

VEGETATION

Major Vegetation Communities

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways lies 

within the oak/hickory forest region of the 

eastern deciduous forest. Four major 

vegetation communities with 12 vegetation 

associations are found within the National 

Riverways. These vegetation communities, 

which are described below, and associations 

are composed predominately of forest, 

except for some open areas and cultivated 

sites.

Upland Plant Community

The upland plant community is found on the 

Riverways’ upper slopes and ridges. This 

community type contains four different 

climax forests and two distinct types of open 

upland sites (NPS 1991b).

The most common upland association in the 

park unit is the oak/hickory forest, found on 

dryer upper slopes and ridges. This 

association includes black, white, and red 

oak; Ozark pignut; and shagbark and 

mockernut hickory. Understory plants 

include high and low-bush huckleberry, 

smooth sumac, sassafras, cinquefoil, and 

dwarf iris.

The sugar maple / white oak association 

dominates west- and south-facing slopes due 

to intense solar radiation. On the wetter eastand north-facing slopes, this association also 

includes northern red oak and red ash. 

Understory species include paw-paw, 

bladdernut, flowering dogwood, and wild 

geranium.

The oak/pine association is found on 

narrower ridges with acidic soils, derived 

from sandstone, chert, and felsite. 

Understory vegetation is dominated by lowbush huckleberry and farkleberry.

In upper slopes of hills and ravines, the white 

oak / red maple association is found. This 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

172

association also includes winged elm and 

mockernut hickory.

The rock ledge association is one of two open 

upland plant associations found scattered 

throughout the park unit. Common species 

include red cedar, blue ash, chinquapin oak, 

poison ivy, and golden current.

The open glades or “barrens” association is 

found on felsite rock exposures and ridges. 

Characteristic species include hairy lip fern, 

spikemoss, early saxifrage, pine weed, and 

woodrush.

Streambank Community

(riparian areas)

The streambank community is one of the 

most diverse, dynamic, and complex 

terrestrial habitats in the park unit. These 

riparian areas are divided into three 

vegetation associations, including silver 

maple / cottonwood, American elm / green 

ash, and sugar maple / bitternut hickory.

The silver maple / cottonwood association 

occurs on stabilized gravel bars with deeper 

alluvial deposits. It supports a number of 

herbaceous species, such as clearweed, 

greenheaded cone flower, and leatherwood.

The American elm / green ash association is 

found on richer soils that receive less 

frequent flooding. Understory plants include 

trumpet creeper, spice bush, blackbrush, 

poison ivy, and blue phlox.

The sugar maple / bitternut hickory 

association is the climax forest of the 

streambank community. Herbaceous species 

consist of wild ginger, bloodroot, wood 

nettle, and maidenhair fern.

Flooding is an important factor in the 

formation and maintenance of the National 

Riverways’ riparian environments. Not only 

does it shape the physical landscape, but 

flooding can also aid in the dispersal and 

propagation of plant seeds and distribute 

nutrients. In turn, riparian areas perform a 

range of important ecological functions, such 

as stabilizing streambanks, regulating stream 

temperatures, filtering pollutants, retaining 

nutrients, and providing habitat for 

numerous wildlife species.

In addition to the streambank vegetation 

communities described above, riparian areas 

of the Riverways are also classified based on 

variations in physical landform 

characteristics. These include active 

channels, active low floodplains, stable 

floodplains, and terraces.

 Active channels are characterized by 

proximity to the river where frequent 

flooding occurs. Vegetation 

development is limited and coarse 

materials such as gravel and sand are 

common. 

 Active low floodplains are slightly 

elevated above active channels and

typically receive several seasonal 

floods each year. Soils are relatively 

sandy and vegetation is characteristic 

of frequently flooded riverfront 

forests of sycamore, elm, ash, and 

hackberry. 

 Stable floodplains are higher in 

elevation and are subject to only 

occasional flooding by the highest 

seasonal floods. Flood disturbance is 

minimal, resulting in more developed, 

silty soils that support less floodtolerant plant species such as oaks, 

maple, and hickory. 

 Terraces are remnants of former 

floodplains and rarely flood except 

during the most extreme storm 

events. Soils are well-developed,

loamy and silty alfisols that support 

flood-intolerant species, such as mesic 

forest shrubs and herbs. Most terraces 

in the National Riverways have been 

cleared in the past for agricultural use 

(USGS and MDC 2000).
Natural Resources

173

Gravel Bar Community

The gravel bar community consists of the 

Ward’s willow / witch-hazel association, 

which is commonly found with alder and 

sycamore trees. These trees help to stabilize 

gravel bars and allow other plants to become 

established, such as swamp dogwood, water 

willow, and chairmaker’s rush.

Agricultural Land

The last vegetation community of the park 

unit is made up of cultivated agricultural 

lands. Approximately 2,800 acres of these 

open areas are maintained through a longstanding agricultural special use permit

program administered by the National Park 

Service to preserve certain pastoral scenes 

and improve wildlife habitat. These areas are 

maintained by local farmers through haying 

operations. When left uncultivated for 

extended periods of time, honey locust, 

bitterweed, dwarf fleabane, yarrow, 

crabgrass, and horseweed typically become 

established.

Rare Natural Communities

In addition to the broad vegetation 

communities described above, a number of 

rare natural communities occur within the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways. These rare 

communities are interrelated assemblages of 

unique plants, animals, and other living 

organisms that are shaped by their physical 

surroundings, climate, and other natural 

processes. These natural communities 

provide essential habitat for a number of

federally and state-listed species found 

within the National Riverways.

The Missouri Natural Heritage Program, 

which is managed by the Missouri 

Department of Conservation, has ranked 

these community types based primarily on 

the number of occurrences found within the 

state. Other factors considered for state 

ranking include total acres, distribution, 

number of protected sites, and degree of 

threats. This same classification system is 

used to determine species of conservation 

concern listed in the federally and state-listed 

species section below. The following 

paragraphs describe the state rankings 

established for the natural communities that 

occur within the National Riverways. Table 

16 lists the rare natural communities of the 

park unit and their associated state rank 

(MDC 2009a).

S2: Imperiled. Imperiled in the nation or 

state because of rarity or because of some 

factor(s) making it very vulnerable to 

extirpation from the nation or state. Typically 

6 to 20 occurrences are remaining.

S3: Vulnerable. Vulnerable in the nation or 

state either because rare and uncommon, or 

found only in a restricted range (even if 

abundant at some locations), or because of 

other factors making it vulnerable to 

extirpation. Typically 21 to 100 occurrences 

are remaining.

S4: Apparently Secure. Uncommon, but not 

rare and usually widespread in the nation or 

state. Possibly cause of long-term concern. 

Usually more than 100 occurrences are 

remaining.

S5: Secure. Common, widespread, and 

abundant in the nation or state. Essentially 

ineradicable under present conditions. 

Typically with considerably more than 100 

occurrences and more than 10,000 

individuals. 

Information about these rare natural 

communities can be found on the Missouri 

Department of Conservation’s online library 

at http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/applications/

MDCLibrary/MDCLibrary2.aspx?NodeID=1

69.
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

174

Global rarity rankings are not used by the 

Missouri Department of Conservation due to 

the difficulty in reconciling Missouri’s state 

ranking system with this more widely used 

classification system. One rare community 

type not specifically mentioned on the state 

ranking is canebrakes. These dense thickets 

of giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) form in 

the alluvial floodplains of the Current and 

Jacks Fork Rivers. Canebrakes are considered 

critically endangered habitats that have been 

reduced to less than 2 % of their former 

range. This substantial reduction in habitat 

primarily resulted from overuse of the giant 

cane for livestock feed by early European

TABLE 16. RARE NATURAL COMMUNITIES

Community type State rank

Forests

Mesic bottomland forest S2

Dry-mesic chert forest S4

Mesic limestone/dolomite forest S3

Riverfront forest S4

Woodlands

Dry igneous woodland S4

Dry-mesic chert woodland S4

Dry-mesic igneous woodland S4

Dry chert woodland S4

Glades

Dolomite glade S3

Igneous glade S3

Wetlands

Ozark fen S2

Stream Edge

Gravel wash S3

Caves

Cave S4

Cave spring S4

Springs and spring branches S4

Cliffs

Dry igneous cliff S4

Moist limestone/dolomite cliff S4

Dry limestone/dolomite cliff S5

settlers. Canebrakes provide important 

habitat for a number of rare species, 

including the Swainson’s warbler, which is a 

Missouri state listed endangered species. 

Canebrakes are also important habitat for 

black bears, spotted skunks, golden mice, 

swamp rabbits, white-tailed deer, and gray 

squirrels.

FISH AND WILDLIFE

The National Riverways’ widely varied

aquatic, terrestrial, and subterranean habitats 

support a diversity of animals, including 

endemic species (species that exist nowhere 

else in the world). This is due in part to its 

location in the south-central part of the 

continent, which served a refuge for species 

escaping major continental glacial and 

geologic events.

The Ozark Plateau is perhaps the oldest 

continuously exposed land mass in North 

America and one of the oldest on earth, 

dating back 230 million years. At various 

times in the past, the mid-continental 

location of this uplifted region placed it at a 

crossroads of boreal, prairie, desert, 

deciduous forest, and alluvial floodplain 

ecosystems. Continental climate fluctuations 

then encouraged species movements to and 

from the surrounding regions. 

Simultaneously, the lack of glaciation or 

inundation of the plateau allowed the region 

to serve as lasting refuge for species 

colonization and adaptation. During this 

time, the soluble geologic material of the 

plateau was developing the complex karst 

terrain of springs, losing streams, caves, and 

seeps, which further diversified habitats 

available to animals. In particular, the 

National Riverways’ numerous caves and 

springs likely provided stable environments 

for species to survive during these climatic

events (Nature Conservancy 2003).

The influx of plants and animals from 

different regions, combined with the

sustained remnant populations of native 

plants and animals in this ancient landscape,
Natural Resources

175

allowed for the evolution of new species, 

making the Ozark Plateau a unique and 

important region of North America. 

Combined with the high quality of the 

Current River watershed, the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways continues to provide an 

important center for conservation of the 

ecological systems and processes that are 

unique to the Ozark Plateau.

This combination of factors has created an 

interconnected system of aquatic, terrestrial, 

and subterranean habitats that contribute to 

the National Riverways’ high biological 

diversity. The following describes the broad 

range of animals associated with these major 

ecosystems of the park unit (NPS 1979).

Aquatic Species

The Current and Jacks Fork Rivers support a 

diversity of aquatic fauna, including 125 of 

the approximately 260 fish species that are 

found in the entire Mississippi River valley. 

This diversity results from a unique 

combination of aquatic habitat conditions 

characteristic of upland, lowland, and large 

rivers.

Upland stream fish species are the most 

common and include minnows, shiners, 

suckers, sunfish, and darters. Of these, six 

species are endemic to the Ozark Uplands. 

They include the bleeding shiner, wedgespot 

shiner, Ozark shiner, checkered madtom, 

Ozark madtom, and Arkansas saddled darter.

The large, sustained flows of the Current 

River provide habitat suitable for fish species 

normally found in much larger rivers. This is 

due to the abundance of large springs that 

provide 90% of the flow of the river. Such 

species include paddlefish, shovelnose 

sturgeon, American eel, gar, skipjack herring, 

and blue sucker. The Current River and 

adjacent drainages also support fish species 

that are widely separated from the remainder 

of their species’ populations, providing 

evidence of changes in fish distribution 

caused by the last ice age. These species 

include the least brook lamprey, Ozark chub, 

whitetail shiner, southern cavefish, and 

barred fantail darter.

Sport fishing is popular in the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways and smallmouth bass is the 

most commonly sought-after species by 

anglers. Rock bass, largemouth bass, green 

sunfish, longear sunfish, spotted bass, 

bluegill, catfish, and walleye are also part of 

the hook-and-line catch. Suckers are another 

important part of the fishery, and they are 

mostly caught by gigging, which is a 

traditional method of night fishing with 

spears, called “gigs,” used during the fall 

season in the Ozarks.

Rainbow and brown trout, nonnative species 

to Missouri, is present in the upper Current 

River and is periodically stocked by the 

Missouri Department of Conservation. The 

stretch of river between Baptist and 

Cedargrove is designated by the state as a 

blue ribbon trout area and the stretch 

between Cedargrove and Akers Ferry is 

designated as a white ribbon trout area 

(MDC 2009b).

The National Riverways’ aquatic habitats also 

support a variety of nonfish species, such as 

amphibians, mussels, snails, crayfish, and 

insects. Many of these are species of 

conservation concern. One is the Ozark 

hellbender, the largest salamander in North 

America. It lives exclusively in the water of 

the Black and White River drainages in 

Arkansas and Missouri, including the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. It is believed to 

be declining throughout its range and no 

populations appear to be stable. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service recently listed the Ozark 

hellbender as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act.

A total of 43 species and subspecies of 

mussels occur in the Current watershed. Of 

these, the Curtis pearlymussel and pink 

mucket are federally and state-listed as 

endangered. An additional eight species are 

listed as species of conservation concern. 

Nineteen species of mussel occur in the Jacks 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

176

Fork watershed, including a number of 

species of conservation concern.

Fourteen species of crayfish occur in the 

Current River watershed and five are in the 

Jacks Fork watershed. Of these, the Salem 

cave crayfish is listed as a species of 

conservation concern. The nonnative 

northern crayfish (Orconectes virilis) has also 

been found in the upper Current River. The 

Black River drainage, which includes the 

Jacks Fork and Current Rivers, is listed as one 

of the top conservation priorities in the 

Ozark Plateau because of the taxonomic 

richness and diverse habitat requirements of 

its crayfish species.

The National Riverways’ numerous springs 

provide important aquatic habitat for 

crenobionts (species confined to springs). 

The constant environmental conditions of 

these waters have allowed many of these 

species to occur far outside their normal 

geographic ranges. At least 38 animal species 

are found only in Ozark springs and 

subterranean waters (NPS 2007).

Terrestrial and Avian Species

The terrestrial and avian species of the 

Riverways is characteristic of the Ozarks and 

contains animals common to both eastern 

deciduous forests and prairies to the west. 

Common wildlife observed in the National 

Riverways includes the white-tailed deer, 

gray and fox squirrel, eastern chipmunk, 

muskrat, beaver, cottontail rabbit, raccoon, 

coyote, striped skunk, and wild turkey. Less 

conspicuous mammals include black bears, 

river otters, mountain lions, shrews, weasels, 

bats, and mice. Also, an elk reintroduction 

program was initiated by the Missouri 

Department of Conservation in the spring of 

2011. The initial reintroduction effort took 

place in Peck Ranch Conservation Area, state 

land that abuts the National Riverways

southeast of Eminence. In addition, 

amphibian and reptile species include 30 

snakes, eight lizards, 18 turtles, 16 

salamanders and newts, and 15 frogs and 

toads. Of the snakes recorded in the park

unit, four are pit vipers, with the copperhead 

being relatively common.

Numerous bird species are frequently seen 

along the riverways, such as the belted 

kingfisher, great blue heron, Louisiana 

waterthrush, red-eyed vireo, red-tailed hawk, 

and red-bellied woodpecker. Resident birds 

of prey include six species of hawks and six 

species of owls. Many species of songbirds 

migrate through the area, including warblers, 

sparrow, grosbeaks, and finches. Other 

noteworthy bird species include the pileated 

woodpecker, osprey, and bald eagle.

Hunting and trapping are allowed within the 

National Riverways and are popular 

activities, especially amongst local residents 

in the region. Common game species include 

the white-tailed deer, squirrel, fox, raccoon, 

coyote, mink, skunk, bobcat, opossum, 

beaver, and muskrat. Gamebirds that include 

turkey, various species of waterfowl, doves, 

and quail are hunted within the park unit

during various open seasons.

A number of mammals and birds were 

historically present in the area of the National 

Riverways but have been extirpated. They 

include bison, elk, red and gray wolves, 

Carolina parakeet, passenger pigeon, ivorybilled woodpecker, red-cockaded 

woodpecker, and ruffed grouse. Of these, the 

Carolina parakeet and passenger pigeon are 

now extinct.

At least nine nonnative animal species have 

been introduced by humans into the park

unit. These include the house sparrow, 

European starling, Norway rat, feral hog, and 

horse. These species compete with native 

wildlife for food resources and nesting sites, 

and they can damage vegetation and other 

natural resources.

Subterranean Species

Many of the caves and subterranean passages 

within the National Riverways provide 
Natural Resources

177

important habitat for rare and endemic 

aquatic species, including troglobitic crayfish, 

cavefish, and various invertebrates. Two 

federally endangered bat species, the gray bat 

and Indiana bat, also reside in numerous 

caves in the park unit. The rare grotto 

salamander, also known as the Ozark blind 

salamander, is found in several of the 

Riverways’ caves that contain streams or 

pools. This salamander is listed as a species of 

conservation concern in Missouri.

Subterranean aquatic karst passages are more 

typical at Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

than emergent cave passages. This is reflected 

in a greater diversity of aquatic cave fauna (46 

total species) than terrestrial cave fauna (31 

total species) in the region. The distribution 

patterns of these animal species are related 

more so to subsurface bedrock and aquifer 

patterns than to surface topography.

Federally and State -listed Species

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, requires that federal agencies 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service before taking any action that could 

jeopardize the continued existence of any 

federally listed threatened or endangered 

plant or animal species. As a result, the 

National Park Service must consider 

potential effects that any proposed action 

may have on these species. NPS policy also 

requires the protection of all federal 

candidate species, as well as state listed 

special status species.

In a letter dated March 22, 2011, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service provided information 

about federally listed species that may 

potentially exist in the National Riverways. 

The Missouri Department of Conservation, 

through the state’s Natural Heritage 

Program, was also consulted regarding state

listed species that may occur within the park

unit. In a letter dated January 26, 2011, the 

department provided a list of special status 

species that may occur in this area. Both 

letters are included in appendix E.

Table F-1 in appendix F includes a full list of

federally and state-listed species that may 

exist in Ozark National Scenic Riverways, 

based on the above-referenced information 

provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Missouri Department of 

Conservation. These determinations are also 

based on the NPS’ certified species list from 

the Integration of Resource Management 

Applications program (2009a). 

Table F-2 in appendix F includes federally

and state-listed species that historically 

occurred with the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways vicinity, but have since been 

extirpated. This information is based on 

Missouri Natural Heritage database of 

historic listings. These species are not 

included in the impact analysis (chapter 5), 

because they no longer occur within the 

National Riverways, and they would not be 

affected by the management alternatives. 

However, they are included as part of this 

chapter to document their historic presence.

The narrative discussions of special status 

species in this chapter focus on species that 

are federally and state-listed as endangered

(there are no state or federal threatened

species in the park unit). Table 17 identifies 

this subset of species found in the park unit

that are federally or state listed as being 

threatened or endangered.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service use the 

following categories to determine the federal 

status of species that are included in table 17.

E: Endangered. A species that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all, or a significant 

portion, of its range.

PE: Proposed Endangered. A species 

officially proposed for listing as endangered. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not yet 

issued final rule on determination. 

The Missouri Department of Conservation 

uses the following categories to determine 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

178

the state status and rank of species that are 

included in table 17.

E: Endangered. A species that is in danger of 

extinction within the State of Missouri.

TABLE 17. FEDERALLY AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES KNOWN TO BE PRESENT WITHIN

OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS

Common name Scientific name Federal 

status

State 

status

State 

rank

Mammals

Gray bat Myotis grisescens E E S3

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E E S1

Northern long-eared bat 

(Northern myotis) Myotis septentrionalis PE n/a S3

Plains spotted skunk Spilogale putorius interrupta E S1

Birds

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus E S2

Swainson’s warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii E S2

Amphibians

Ozark hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis 

bishopi E E S1

S1: Critically Imperiled. Critically imperiled 

in the nation or state because of extreme 

rarity or because of some factor(s) making it 

especially vulnerable to extirpation from the 

state. Typically 5 or fewer occurrences or 

very few remaining individuals (<1,000).

S2: Imperiled. Imperiled in the nation or 

state because of rarity or because of some 

factor(s) making it very vulnerable to 

extirpation from the nation or state. Typically 

6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining 

individuals (1,000 to 3,000).

S3: Vulnerable. Vulnerable in the nation or 

state either because rare and uncommon, or 

found only in a restricted range (even if 

abundant at some locations), or because of 

other factors making it vulnerable to 

extirpation. Typically 21 to 100 occurrences 

or between 3,000 and 10,000 individuals.

The following narratives provide brief 

descriptions of each state and federal listed 

endangered species that could occur in the 

National Riverways. A detailed description 

and regulatory profile of all federal listed 

species can be found at http://www.fws.gov/

species/#endangered. Information about 

Missouri state listed species can be found at 

http://mdc.mo.gov/nathis/heritage/, which 

provides summaries for species of 

conservation concern by county.

Gray Bat. The gray bat’s range is generally 

limited to the limestone karst areas of the 

southeastern United States. Gray bats usually

live in caves year-round. In summer, they 

typically roost in caves near streams or rivers. 

During this time, they forage for flying insects 

above streams, riparian vegetation, and lakes. 

In winter, they hibernate in deep, vertical 

caves. Gray bats are listed as endangered at a 

state and federal level largely because they 

live in very large numbers in a very limited 

number of caves, which makes them highly 

vulnerable to human disturbance. In 

hibernacula, human disturbance causes the 

bats to use vital fat reserves, their only source 
Natural Resources

179

of energy throughout winter. In maternity 

caves, pregnant females may abort unborn 

young or panicked mothers may drop babies 

to their deaths if they are forced to flee from 

intruders. Severe or repeated disturbance 

may cause reproductive failure of an entire 

colony.

Gray bats have been recorded in the National 

Riverways and are known to forage along 

streams, rivers, and reservoirs in this part of 

Missouri. While loss of habitat and suitable 

trees are threats to this species, current 

National Riverways practices of protecting 

riparian areas, not cutting hazard trees during 

certain times of year, and inspecting trees that 

might be used by these bats are important for 

the protection of gray bats. A fungus called

white-nose syndrome is an ongoing potential 

threat to the population of gray bats in the 

park unit.

Indiana Bat. Indiana bats are small, 

migratory bats that roost together in large 

groups in caves and mines, typically in the 

vicinity of water sources. Each fall, these bats 

migrate to the caves and mines in their home 

territory to hibernate in large clusters. Only 

seven hibernacula locations have been 

identified in the United States. Through 

spring and summer, most males use caves to 

roost, while females and young often roost 

under loose bark and in tree hollows of 

hickory and oak in riparian areas. The 

Indiana bat is nocturnal, primarily feeding on 

flies, moths, and other insects flying above 

streams and riparian trees.

Indiana bat populations were first surveyed 

in the late 1950s. More recent surveys 

concluded that while many Missouri 

hibernacula populations have decreased, 

Indiana bats occur in or within a half-mile of 

the Riverways. They have been found 

hibernating during the winter in the southern 

half of Missouri, and are found during the 

summer months primarily north of the 

Missouri River, roosting and raising their 

young.

Indiana bats are highly vulnerable to 

disturbance, habitat change, and 

environmental contamination, and are at 

particular risk because of their very 

concentrated and very limited hibernation 

sites. While loss of habitat and suitable trees 

are threats to the Indiana bat, current park 

practices of protecting riparian areas, not 

cutting hazard trees during certain times of 

year, and inspecting trees that might be used 

by these bats are important for the protection 

of Indiana bats. As with the gray bat, whitenose syndrome is an ongoing potential threat 

to the population of Indiana bats in the 

National Riverways.

Northern Long-Eared Bat (or Northern 

Myotis). Northern long-eared bats are 

medium-sized bats with noticeably long ears 

relative to other bats in the same genus. They 

are most common in the eastern U.S. and the 

Atlantic coast states, but also occur as far 

west as Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Montana. 

They typically spend winters hibernating in 

large, abandoned mines and caves with large

entrances, constant temperatures, and high 

humidity. In summer months, northern longeared bats roost in colonies or individually in 

tree cavities and underneath bark, and 

occasionally in mines. 

The northern long-eared bat is a nocturnal 

feeder in forest understories of hilly terrain 

and on waterbodies. Their diet focuses on 

beetles, flies, and moths.

In October 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service proposed that this species be listed as 

endangered. The decision is currently under 

review and the agency will issue a decision on 

the bat’s status by April 2015. White-nose 

syndrome is considered the predominant 

threat to the northern long-eared bat and has 

caused very large population reductions of 

this species in its historic hibernation sites in 

many areas of the eastern U.S. This threat 

contributed directly to the reasoning for the 

proposed listing, as the disease is spreading 

from the eastern U.S. to several areas of the 

Midwest, where similar bat population 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

180

reductions are expected. Other threats to the 

northern long-eared bat include habitat 

disturbances (e.g., cave disturbances and 

vandalism, removal of roosting trees), wind 

energy development, climate change, and 

chemical pollutants.

Plains Spotted Skunk. The plains spotted 

skunk historically lived throughout the plains 

states of the United States, and could be 

found most commonly in open grasslands, 

brushy areas, and cultivated land. They have 

a smaller, more slender body than striped 

skunks and a distinct white triangular patch 

on the forehead with four to six broken white 

stripes along their back.

These skunks build their dens underground 

in grassy banks and rocky crevices as well as 

aboveground in woodpiles, hollow logs, or 

trees and brush heads. The skunks mate in 

late winter and the litters that are born in 

spring usually contain five young. Plains 

spotted skunks are nocturnal and 

omnivorous, feeding on insects, mice, rats, 

some birds, and vegetables. The skunk’s diet 

contributes to the natural control of insects 

and rodents.

The plains spotted skunk was formerly most 

common in western Missouri, but their 

population began declining in the mid-1900s. 

The decrease was possibly related to changes 

in agricultural practices that eliminated skunk 

habitat and the increased use in pesticides. 

Surveys date the last sighting of a plains 

spotted skunk within a half-mile of the 

Riverways to 1982. Current park practices of 

limiting the use of pesticides and herbicides 

and avoiding burning of downed logs and 

trees in areas where skunks may be present

would continue to protect the plains spotted 

skunk should they occur in the National 

Riverways (MDC 2000a).

Northern Harrier. Northern harriers are a 

rare breeding species in Missouri, and 

currently are listed as endangered by the 

State of Missouri. Typically, they arrive in 

Missouri in March to April to breed, when 

cold weather prompts migration from the 

upper Midwest and Canada. Northern 

harriers are medium-sized hawks with 

slender, rounded wings, white rumps, with 

feathers on their faces arranged like those of 

owls. These feathers form dishes that catch 

sounds made by their prey of mice and other 

small mammals. They nest often in loose 

colonies fairly late in the season on dry 

ground in undisturbed marshes, prairies, and 

pastures, or on elevated ground in low 

shrubby vegetation or tall weeds. The 

number of northern harriers declined as a 

result of wetland drainage, conversion of 

native prairies to agriculture, and 

reforestation of grasslands. During the mid1900s, northern harrier populations suffered 

great losses due to pesticide-related egg shell 

thinning and losses of wetland nesting 

habitat.

It is uncertain whether any northern harriers 

are present in the National Riverways.

Current park practices of protecting nesting 

areas of wetlands and tall, densely vegetated 

grasslands, particularly during breeding 

season, and limiting the use of pesticides 

would continue to aid the northern harrier 

should they occur in the National Riverways

(MDC 2011b) (Dechant et al. 2002).

Swainson’s Warbler. Swainson’s warblers 

are secretive, neotropical migrant songbirds 

that nest in the southeastern United States 

and winter in Belize and on Caribbean 

islands. The warbler primarily breeds in 

wooded swamplands and bottomland forests 

with a dense understory of giant cane, 

building cup-like nests with moss, pine 

needles, and grass. As a carnivore, the 

Swainson’s warbler feeds primarily on insects 

that they find among leaf litter.

There are no records indicating Swainson’s 

warblers were ever common in Missouri. 

However, large-scale timber harvest and 

conversion of bottomland forests to 

agriculture and reservoirs has likely caused 

dramatic declines in populations. In 
Natural Resources

181

particular, cane removal eliminates preferred 

breeding habitat for these migratory birds. 

The warbler may still be found in the 

southeastern part of the state, as well as in 

favorable habitat along the southern border, 

though it is state designated as endangered. 

Surveys have identified the warbler last seen 

in the Riverways area in 2004. Due to their 

very narrow habitat requirements, park 

practices of erosion and sediment control, 

maintaining tall dense stands of cane and 

overstory canopy habitat, and human 

avoidance of wetland habitat during breeding 

season are important (Meanley 1971; MDC 

2000b and 2011c.

Ozark Hellbender. The Ozark hellbender is 

a species of rare salamander found only in 

southern Missouri and northern Arkansas.

The species is permanently aquatic and 

restricted to the Ozark Plateau in rivers that 

drain into the Missouri-Mississippi river 

systems. The Ozark hellbender’s well-being 

depends on high-quality water systems with 

constant levels of dissolved oxygen, 

temperature, and flow.

These salamanders are solitary in nature and

make their homes under flat rocks in large, 

permanent streams and rivers. They have a 

broad, flat head with very small, lidless eyes. 

They range in color from reddish-brown to 

dull gray-brown. Hellbenders breed from late 

September to November, and their 200 to 700 

eggs are fertilized externally and laid in 

depressions under flat rocks in rivers. Larvae 

hatch four to six weeks later. Hellbenders 

feed mainly on crayfish and other aquatic 

animals.

The Ozark hellbender is listed as endangered 

at both the state and federal level, by the State 

of Missouri and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, respectively.

Because hellbenders remain active 

throughout the year and maintain their home 

territories year-round, it is important to 

minimize activities that change physical 

characteristics of rivers and streams and alter 

the flow and quality of water for long periods

of time. Current park practices of avoiding 

riparian corridor and channel alterations and 

implementing erosion and sediment control 

would continue to protect these salamanders

(MDC 2000c; USFS 2003; USFWS 2011).

Future changes to the river flow-regime due 

to climate change may necessitate additional 

management actions to protect the 

hellbender and other endangered species.

NATURAL SOUNDSCAPE

The natural soundscape is an inherent 

component of “the scenery and the natural 

and historic objects and the wild life” 

protected by the Organic Act of 1916. NPS 

Management Policies 2006 (section 4.9) 

require the National Park Service to preserve 

the park unit’s natural soundscape and 

restore the degraded soundscape to the 

natural condition wherever possible. 

Additionally, the National Park Service is 

required to prevent or minimize degradation 

of the natural soundscape from noise (that is, 

inappropriate or undesirable human-caused 

sound).

Although the NPS’ management policies 

currently refer to the term soundscape as the 

aggregate of all natural sounds that occur in a 

park unit, the NPS Natural Sounds and Night 

Skies Division aims to update this 

terminology. Because the National Park 

Service works to protect and enhance park 

resources and visitor experiences, the 

Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division 

differentiates between the physical sound 

sources and human perceptions of those 

sounds. Currently, the Natural Sounds and 

Night Skies Division refers to the physical 

sound resources, such as wildlife, waterfalls, 

wind, rain, and cultural or historic sounds, 

regardless of audibility, at a particular 

location as the acoustical environment, while 

the human perception of that acoustical 

environment is defined as the soundscape. 

The Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division 

would like to move away from using 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

182

soundscape as a blanket definition for both 

the physical sounds and the human 

perception of those sounds. Making this 

distinction will allow managers to create 

objectives for safeguarding both the 

acoustical environment and the visitor 

experience.

Characteristics of Sound

Sound is perceived as an auditory sensation 

created by pressure variations that move 

through a medium such as water or air and is 

measured in terms of amplitude and 

frequency (Templeton and Sacre 1997; Harris 

1998). Noise, essentially the negative 

evaluation of sound, is defined as extraneous 

or undesired sound (Morfey 2001). Sound 

pressure level is measured in decibels (dB). 

The decibel is a logarithmic scale unit that is 

commonly used to relate sound pressures to 

some common reference level, thus 

producing a smaller, more manageable range 

of numbers. The loudness of a sound as 

heard by the human ear is estimated by an Aweighted decibel scale, where the Aweighting provides a formula for discounting 

sounds at low (<1 kilohertz) and high (>6 

kilohertz) frequencies. This adjustment for 

human hearing is expressed as dB(A). For this 

discussion, A-weighted values are used to 

describe potential effects on the National 

Riverways’ acoustical environment and 

soundscape. Table 18 provides examples of 

A-weighted sound levels.

TABLE 18. EXAMPLES OF SOUND LEVELS

Reference sound dB(A) Level

Normal breathing 10

Leaves rustling 20

Crickets (at 16 feet) 40

Normal conversation (at 5 feet) 60

Two-stroke snowmobile (30 miles 

per hour at 50 feet) 70

Helicopter landing (at 200 feet) 80

Heavy truck or motorcycle (at 25 

feet) 90

Thunder 100

Military jet (at 110 feet) 120

Shotgun firing 130

Wildlife

The protection of the National Riverways’

acoustical environment is vitally important to 

ecosystem health. Sound plays a critical role 

in intra-species communication, courtship 

and mating, predation and predator 

avoidance, and effective use of habitat.

Additionally, studies have shown that wildlife 

can be adversely affected by sounds and 

sound characteristics that intrude on their 

habitats. While the severity of the impacts 

varies depending on the species being studied 

and other conditions, research strongly 

supports the fact that wildlife can suffer 

adverse behavioral and physiological changes 

from intrusive sounds (noise) and other 

human disturbances. Documented responses 

of wildlife to noise include increased heart 

rate, startle responses, flight, disruption of 

behavior, and separation of mothers and 

young (Selye 1956; Clough 1982; USFS 1992;

Anderssen et al. 1993, NPS 1994; and Barber 

et al. 2010).

When noise elevates ambient sound levels, 

signals that might otherwise have been 

detected and recognized are missed. The 

noise is said to mask these signals. Masking 

degrades an animal’s auditory awareness of 

its environment and fundamentally alters 

interactions among predators and prey.

There are many animal species that rely 

almost exclusively on sounds to locate their 

prey, including owls and gleaning bats.

Masking also affects communication. 

Animals have been shown to alter their 

calling behavior and shift their vocalizations 

in response to noise (Brumm and 

Slabbekoorn 2005; Patricelli and Blickley 

2006; Warren et al. 2006; Slabbekoorn and 

Ripmeester 2008; and Barber et al. 2010). 

These shifts have been documented in a 

variety of signal types

 begging calls of bird chicks (Leonard 

and Horn 2008)

 alarm signals in ground squirrels 

(Rabin et al. 2006)
Natural Resources

183

 echolocation cries of bats (Gillam and 

McCracken 2007)

 sexual communication signals in frogs 

and birds (Brumm and Slabbekoorn 

2005; Patricelli and Blickley 2006;

Warren et al. 2006; Slabbekoorn and 

Ripmeester 2008; and Parris et al. 

2009)

Vocal adjustment likely comes at a cost to 

both energy balance and information 

transfer; however, no study has addressed 

receivers. Some species are unable to adjust 

the structure of their sounds to cope with 

noise even within the same group of 

organisms (Lengagne 2008). These 

differences in vocal adaptability could

partially explain why some species respond 

more negatively than others in loud 

environments (Patricelli and Blickley 2006;

Slabbekoorn and Ripmeester 2008).

Visitor Experience

The opportunity to experience an 

unimpaired acoustical environment is also a 

key element of visitor experience and 

enjoyment at Ozark. Although many aspects 

of visitor experience are discussed in the 

“Visitor Use and Experience” sections, 

natural soundscape is a natural resource so its 

effects on visitor experience are included 

within analysis of natural resources.

A visitor’s ability to see is a powerful tool for 

experiencing our national parks, but natural 

sound adds additional richness. In many 

cases, hearing is the only option for 

experiencing certain aspects of our 

environment. Natural sounds often present 

the best opportunities to find wildlife because 

animals, such as birds, can be heard at much 

greater distances than they can be seen. Many 

natural sounds such as bird songs or the 

rustling of leaves can have a calming and 

relaxing effect. Other sounds such as the 

chirp of crickets or a gentle breeze can trigger 

memories of pleasant past experiences. 

Visitors to national parks often indicate that 

an important reason for visiting the parks is 

to enjoy the relative quiet that parks can 

offer. In a 1998 survey of the American 

public, 72% of people identified 

opportunities to experience natural quiet and 

the sounds of nature as an important reason 

for having national parks (Haas and

Wakefield, 1998). Additionally, 91% of NPS 

visitors “consider enjoyment of natural quiet 

and the sounds of nature as compelling 

reasons for visiting national parks” 

(McDonald et al. 1995). In studies of general 

visitor preferences, respondents consistently 

rate many natural sounds such as birds, 

animals, wind, and water as very pleasing 

(Newman et al. 2005).

The presence of unwanted, uncharacteristic, 

or inappropriate sounds can interfere with or 

alter the soundscape and degrade the visitors’ 

experience. Uncharacteristic sounds or 

sound levels affect visitors’ perceptions of 

solitude and tranquility and can generate 

high levels of annoyance. Visitor evaluations 

of annoyance are affected by many factors,

including the setting in which the sounds 

occur, the visitors’ recreational activities, and 

their expectations of quiet and solitude. 

Characteristics of the sound also contribute 

to levels of annoyance. Annoyance is related 

to rate of occurrence, duration, loudness, and 

sporadic nature of sounds (Newman et al.

2005).

Acoustical Conditions in Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways

During July and August 2010, the Natural 

Sounds and Night Skies Division conducted 

acoustical monitoring at three Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways sites (NPS 2011b). 

The monitoring locations, at Sinking Creek, 

Rymer’s Landing, and Raft Yard, are shown 

on the acoustic monitoring sites map. These

sites were selected to provide information on 

the noise associated with a range of 

recreational activities throughout the 

National Riverways.
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

184

In addition, the acoustical monitoring effort 

provided information on natural and existing 

ambient sound levels and the types of sound 

sources that can be heard in the National 

Riverways. Natural ambient sound level 

refers to the acoustical conditions that exist 

in the absence of human-caused noise. 

Existing ambient sound level refers to the 

current sound intensity of an area, including 

both natural and human-caused sounds. 

Natural ambient sound levels measured at the 

three sites ranged from 39 to 49 dBA during 

the day and 49 to 53 dBA at night (table 19). 

Louder levels during the nighttime hours 

resulted from increased cicada and other 

insect activity.

TABLE 19. NATURAL AND EXISTING

AMBIENT SOUND LEVELS FOR

OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS

Site

Existing 

ambient 1

Natural 

ambient

Day 2 Night Day Night

OZAR001: 

Sinking Creek 54.6 54.4 48.5 52.6

OZAR002: 

Rymer's Landing 42.2 50.4 36.7 48.8

OZAR003: 

Raft Yard 46.0 51.6 38.8 50.2

1 For comparison, nighttime sound level in a typical 

residential area is about 40 dBA.

2 Day hours are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.; night hours are 

4 p.m. to 8 a.m.

Existing ambient sound levels at the three 

sites ranged from 42 to 55 dBA during the day 

and 50 to 54 dBA at night. Of the three sites, 

Rymer’s landing was the quietest, with a 

daytime natural ambient sound level of 37 

dBA and a daytime existing ambient sound 

level of 42 dBA.

In addition to the ambient measurements 

discussed above, the Natural Sounds and 

Night Skies Division also collected data on 

pass-by noise from typical jet boats at Big 

Spring and jet boats, canoes, and kayaks at 

Jerktail. At Big Spring, jet boats had a 

maximum sound level ranging from 67 to 83 

dBA (at a distance of 40 to 60 meters). At 

Jerktail, jet boats had a maximum sound level 

ranging from 78 to 88 dBA (at a distance of 

approximately 20 meters). The noise from 

canoeists or kayakers voices, oar splashes, 

and oar bangs had a maximum sound level 

ranging from 39 to 67 dBA (NPS 2011c).

The Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division 

also calculated the percentage of time that 

human cause (extrinsic) sounds were heard at 

the three monitoring sites. Overall, extrinsic 

sounds were audible 79 % of the time at 

Sinking Creek, 71 % at Rymer’s Landing, and 

74 % at Raft Yard. The average noise free 

interval between noise events was 20 minutes 

at Sinking Creek, 75 minutes at Rymer’s 

Landing, and 51 minutes at Raft Yard.

Throughout the National Riverways, wildlife 

sounds as eastern screech owls, eastern whippoor-wills, barred owls, bullfrogs, deer, 

squirrels, and raccoons could be heard. Birds 

were heard at all sites throughout the day and 

early dawn (24.3% to 37.5% of a 24 hour 

day). Another common sound heard at all 

areas of the park unit was cicadas. 

Specifically, insects could be heard 92.5% to 

98.7% of a 24-hour day. Other natural sounds 

that can be heard throughout the National 

Riverways include amphibians, small 

mammals, thunderstorms, rain, and flowing 

water.

Examples of human-caused sounds 

commonly heard in Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways include vehicle traffic, commercial 

jets, human voices, and motorboats. 

Specifically, a person visiting Sinking Creek 

during the day would hear commercial jets, 

motorboats, vehicle traffic, radios, and 

human voices.

Over the entire day (24-hour period), the 

most commonly heard human sound at 

Sinking Creek was vehicle traffic (49.1% time 

audible). At night, campers near Sinking 

Creek would still hear a low hum of vehicle 

traffic along with natural sounds like cicadas.

At Rymer’s Landing a visitor would mostly 

hear commercial jets, vehicle traffic, and 

human voices. Over the entire day (24-hour 

period), the most pervasive human sound at 
Natural Resources

185

Rymer’s Landing was vehicles (44.1% time 

audible). At night, vehicle traffic became even 

more prominent, since other human sounds 

decreased.

A visitor to Raft Yard would hear commercial 

jets, vehicle traffic, motorboats, radios, and 

human voices. Over the entire day, the most 

common human sound was motorboats 

(28.9% time audible). Similar to Sinking 

Creek, visitors near Raft Yard would 

continue to hear a low hum of vehicle traffic 

at night, along with cicadas. In total, humancaused sounds could be heard at all three 

sites 71.3% to 78.6% of a 24-hour day (NPS 

2011b).

187

CULTURAL RESOURCES

HISTORIC OVERVIEW

Prehistory

For thousands of years, American Indians 

have used the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers 

as transportation corridors, settled along the 

river terraces, and utilized the region’s 

abundant resources for subsistence. As a 

tributary of the Black River (which in turn 

flows into the White River in northeast 

Arkansas), the Current River is part of the 

river system linking the large springs and 

karst topography of the eastern Ozark 

Mountains with the western lowlands of the 

Mississippi River alluvial valley. The river 

system facilitated cultural exchange and 

expanded the range of resources that could 

be procured by groups traveling or trading 

between these regions (Finney 2006).

From approximately 12,000 to 8000 BC, at 

the close of the last Ice Age, small bands of 

Paleo-Indian hunters and gatherers pursued 

large Pleistocene megafauna, such as

mammoths and other now-extinct species of 

bison, horse, and camel, across North 

America. The Clovis culture, associated with 

the early Paleo-Indian stage, is most clearly 

distinguished in the archeological record by 

fluted, lanceolate-shaped projectile points. 

Three well-documented early Paleo-Indian 

sites have been recorded in Missouri, each 

with Clovis points among the artifact 

assemblages. Within the boundary of Ozark

National Scenic Riverways, Clovis points 

have been identified from the Partney Farm, 

Sinking Creek, and Two Rivers sites (Finney 

2006).

The Dalton cultural period (approximately 

8500 to 7000 BC) marked a transition 

between the late Paleo-Indian and early 

Archaic periods in the Ozarks and 

throughout the Midwest and Southeast 

United States. The settlement and social 

patterns of Dalton period peoples were 

similar in many respects to those of the 

earlier Paleo-Indian period, although Dalton 

sites exhibit an adaptation to hunting smaller 

game, such as deer, rabbits, and squirrels, and 

a greater dependence on wild fruits, nuts, and 

vegetables. Small nomadic bands of hunters 

and foragers from this period are believed to 

have moved frequently between the Ozark 

uplands and the Mississippi alluvial valley. 

Dalton period sites have been recorded in the 

Riverways at Akers Ferry, Powder Mill 

Visitor Center, Alley Spring, Jerktail Landing,

and other locations (NPS 1991a; Finney 

2006).

The Archaic period followed next, divided 

into Early, Middle and Late stages. The 

period was characterized by more specialized 

foraging strategies and more complicated 

patterns of social organization. During the 

Early Archaic stage (ca. 7,000 to 5,000 BC), 

seminomadic groups adapted to the warmer 

and dryer climatic conditions and traveled 

between selected base camps to hunt, fish,

and gather plant foods. A wide variety of tool 

types and projectile point styles emerged 

during the Early Archaic stage that reflected 

adaptations to changing subsistence 

activities. Sites in the Riverways associated 

with Early Archaic period occupation and 

activities have been recorded at Gnat Alley 

Woods, Johnson Farm, Two Rivers, Alley 

Mill, and several other locations (NPS 1991a;

Finney 2006).

The Middle Archaic stage (ca. 5,000 to 3,000 

BC) was marked by adaptations to 

increasingly dryer climatic conditions and 

occasional periods of prolonged drought in 

the Ozarks. These factors influenced Middle 

Archaic people to modify their territorial 

organization to improve their access to 

resources. Populations became more 

concentrated along the stream valleys of the 

Ozark Highlands. The Current River shrank 

considerably during this time, and Middle 

Archaic people commonly used the first 

terrace level above the floodplain for 

habitation areas. Small side-notched 

projectile points, grooved axes, and twined-
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

188

fiber fabrics are among the items of material 

culture associated with the period. Several 

sites in the National Riverways have Middle 

Archaic components, including Gnat Alley 

Woods, Cherty Branch, Two Rivers, Akers 

Ferry, and other locations (NPS 1991a; 

Finney 2006).

During the Late Archaic stage (ca. 3,000 to 

500 BC) populations increased in the Ozarks 

and settlement patterns reflected intensive 

use of both upland and floodplain 

environments. A large number of sites have 

been identified from the period, including 

large seasonal and/or semisedentary base 

camps and other specialized camps (for 

example, rockshelters, lithic workshops, 

ridge top camps, and fishing sites). Late 

Archaic artifacts include a wide variety of 

diagnostic projectile points and an 

abundance of specialized lithic tools 

associated with increased utilization and 

processing of plant foods. Long-distance 

trade networks appeared during this time, 

with copper, galena, and marine shells among 

the more commonly exchanged items. Late 

Archaic stage site components have been 

recorded at Owls Bend, Pulltite, Two Rivers, 

Alley Mill and several other locations within 

the Riverways (NPS 1991a; Finney 2006).

The Woodland cultural tradition followed 

the Archaic period, divided into Early, 

Middle, and Late Woodland substages. The 

Woodland period broadly extends from ca. 

1,000 BC to AD 1000 in eastern North 

America and is characterized by the 

development of ceramics, plant cultivation 

and domestication, burial mound and 

earthwork construction, increasing longdistance trade networks, and the 

establishment of sedentary villages. In the 

Ozarks, the Early Woodland substage (ca. 500 

to 0 BC) likely represented a continuation of 

Late Archaic period cultural trends. Sandtempered Tchula ceramics are diagnostic of 

the stage in the eastern Ozarks and the 

Mississippi alluvial valley. Few Early 

Woodland site components have been 

identified in the National Riverways (NPS 

1991a; Finney 2006).

The Middle Woodland substage (ca. AD 0 to 

400) coincides with the Hopewell cultural 

tradition in the Midwest. The period is noted 

for the development in some areas of 

complex mortuary practices and the 

construction of large ceremonial earthen 

mounds. Grave offerings associated with the 

mounds and other objects were often 

fashioned from nonlocal, nonnative materials 

(for example, copper, obsidian, and shells) 

procured from places as distant as the Rocky 

Mountains and the Gulf of Mexico. These 

materials were delivered along extensive 

trade networks to the cultural centers. 

However, the Ozark Highlands were only 

peripherally linked to the dominant 

Hopewell culture of western Illinois and the 

lower Mississippi valley. Isolated occurrences

of trade goods, ceramic artifacts, small burial 

mounds, and possible evidence of small-scale 

village agriculture point to the limited or 

sporadic influence of the Middle Woodland 

substage in the eastern Ozarks (NPS 1991a; 

Finney 2006).

The Late Woodland substage (ca. AD 400 to 

700) witnessed the emergence of more 

distinct local cultures as the preceding 

Middle Woodland culture declined along 

with the extensive, long-distance trade 

networks. In the Ozarks, villages grew larger 

and more isolated. Although horticultural 

activities increased to support growing 

populations, hunting and gathering remained 

the primary means of subsistence in the 

Ozarks. Limestone-tempered ceramics 

diagnostic of the Late Woodland stage have 

been found in association with several sites 

along the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers, 

including Campbell Farm, Culpepper, Alley 

Mill, and Owls Bend (NPS 1991a; Finney 

2006).

The late prehistoric or Mississippian cultural 

stage followed the Woodland period, broadly 

extending from ca. AD 1000 to 1600. The 

Emergent Mississippian substage (AD 700 to 

1000) is characterized in the eastern Ozarks 

by shell-tempered ceramics and small, shortstemmed arrow points. Although the 

Mississippian period is most notably 
Cultural Resources

189

associated with large ceremonial temple 

mounds (such as that at Cahokia–St. Louis),

reflecting a rigid socio-political and religious 

order, no known earthen mounds have been 

identified within the Riverways. An Emergent 

Mississippian mound, however, exists at a 

site in the Eleven Point River drainage in the 

eastern Ozarks. Emergent Mississippian sites 

along the Current River typically represent 

ceremonial centers, small villages, and 

temporary campsites. Sedentary or 

semisedentary populations occupied the 

village sites along the river terraces. Small 

village sites, some with evidence of habitation 

structures, have been recorded at Shawnee 

Creek, Round Spring, Isaac Kelly, Owls Bend, 

and Gooseneck within the Riverways. 

Numerous other Emergent Mississippian 

sites have been recorded in the Riverways

(NPS 1991a; Finney 2006).The Early 

Mississippian stage (ca. AD 1000 to 1450) is 

not well-represented in the National 

Riverways, although a small site at Shawnee 

Creek provided evidence of 11th century 

occupation with a wall trench structure and 

other pit features. Triangular arrow points 

and an increased focus on corn for 

agricultural subsistence are characteristic of 

the stage. Small artifact scatters are often the 

only evidence for Early Mississippian 

activities in the Riverways (Finney 2006).

The Middle (Powers Phase) of the 

Mississippian stage began ca. AD 1300. There 

is evidence that populations from the eastern 

Ozarks moved during this time into the 

western lowlands of the Mississippi alluvial 

valley, where they concentrated in large 

villages centered around mound structures 

and utilized smaller habitation sites for 

specialized activities. Although the 

Mississippian culture grew and thrived in the 

central Mississippi alluvial valley between ca. 

AD 1275 and 1400, there is little archeological 

evidence for Mississippian people in the 

vicinity of the Current River after AD 1250, 

and the culture largely disappeared from the 

region by AD 1350 (NPS 1991a; Finney 2006).

Historic Period

American Indian Settlement. The Ozark 

uplands continued to be sparsely settled from 

the Mississippian stage through the initial 

contact period with European explorers in 

the early 16th century. The expedition of 

Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto (1540–

1543) marks the beginning of the Historic 

period as documented accounts of European 

and American Indian encounters began to 

enter the written record. The de Soto 

expedition crossed the Mississippi River in 

1541 and entered the area of present-day 

northern Arkansas and southeast Missouri.

By about 1700 (the beginning of the Historic 

period in the Missouri Ozarks), the Osage 

nation dominated much of the area south of 

the Missouri River. Three Osage tribal groups 

(the Great Osage, the Little Osage, and the 

Arkansas Osage) occupied permanent villages 

and undertook far-ranging hunting trips that 

frequently entered the eastern Ozarks.

The Osage were often in conflict with 

outlying tribes such as the Sac and Fox, the 

Pawnee, and the Caddo. These conflicts 

intensified following the Louisiana Purchase 

of 1803, a consequence of the mounting 

cultural pressures and dislocations that 

accompanied the movement of large numbers 

of European American pioneers west of the 

Mississippi. Although often hostile as well to 

white settlers, the Osage grew increasingly 

dependent on the trade goods supplied 

initially by the French and Spanish and later 

by the goods and annuities provided by the 

American government.

Tribal impoverishment and the loss of 

independence led the Osage to eventually 

relinquish the area of present-day Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways in 1808. By the 

Treaty of 1825, the tribe ceded the remainder 

of their lands (some 45,000 square miles in 

Missouri and Arkansas) to the United States 

(NPS 1991a; Finney 2006).

Following their departure from Missouri, the 

Osage moved west to present-day Kansas and 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

190

Oklahoma. In turn, other displaced eastern 

tribes, such as the Delawares, Shawnees, 

Cherokees, and Choctaws, moved into 

southeast Missouri. During the 1780s, in 

efforts to buffer their colonial settlements

from the hostile Osage and other western 

tribes, the Spanish government awarded land 

grants in the Missouri Ozarks to large 

numbers of Shawnees and Delawares. These 

tribes established farming villages and also 

became part of the lucrative trade network 

that persisted in the Ozarks until about 1830.

The tensions that arose during the War of 

1812 between American settlers and the 

Shawnee and Delaware led the tribes to 

relocate again. Some Delaware established 

villages on the Jacks Fork near present-day 

Eminence that existed briefly from about 

1815 to 1822. Most of the Delaware and 

Shawnee left the Ozarks by the 1830s. The 

land and structural improvements they left 

behind would later benefit Euro-American 

settlers. The brief presence of the Delawares

and Shawnees in the area is reflected in place 

names and historical accounts. Archeological 

investigations have uncovered limited 

evidence of their village sites, although 

research has identified a probable village 

location near Alley Spring (NPS 1991a; 

Finney 2006).

European American Settlement. After the 

War of 1812, increasing numbers of 

European American settlers, predominantly 

native-born Americans of Scots-Irish 

ancestry, moved into Missouri. They initially 

located along the Mississippi River and 

Missouri River valleys and in the fertile 

farming region around Springfield. The 

Ozark uplands were largely bypassed by the 

early wave of immigration, although groups 

of pioneers eventually established farmsteads 

and rural communities in the region that were 

commonly organized along close kinship ties.

In many respects, the incoming settlers 

replicated the settlement pattern that had 

prevailed along the Current River since 

prehistoric times, using the river terraces and 

broad level areas at the river bends for 

habitation and crop cultivation. They used 

the rocky higher elevations for livestock 

grazing and foraging; cattle and hogs were 

typically allowed to roam freely in the woods. 

Hunting wild game and gathering plant foods 

and herbs remained important subsistence 

activities. Extractive industries such as fur 

trapping and mining for lead, copper, and 

saltpeter also drew settlers to the Ozarks and 

led to the development of support 

communities. Although never completely 

isolated, the early settlers adapted to the 

rugged terrain of the Ozarks. The 

individualism and self-sufficiency of these 

settlers became enduring hallmarks of their 

frontier culture (NPS 1991a).

Notable among the early 19th century 

pioneers who settled along the Current River 

were Isaac Kelley, Zimri Carter, and Thomas 

Boggs Chilton. They established farms on the 

river terraces, traded with the Indians in the 

area, and became successful commercial and 

political leaders. Their descendants and other 

families also established farms along the river.

Small clusters of dispersed homes and 

buildings began to proliferate and grow into 

villages between 1820 and 1840. The village 

of Van Buren was founded in 1833 as the seat 

of Ripley County with a store, grist mill, and 

log courthouse. County reorganization in the 

1850s led to Van Buren becoming the county

seat of Carter County in 1859.

Other settlements emerged along the upper 

Current River, concentrated between Owls 

Bend and Round Spring, and west along the 

Jacks Fork at Alley Spring and other 

locations. The first site of Eminence, the seat 

of Shannon County, was founded in 1841 

across the river from Round Spring. Social 

interaction among the settlements was 

facilitated to some extent by the network of 

trails and roads that typically followed the 

creeks and rivers and connected the 

settlements and family farmsteads (NPS 

1991a).

Several grist mills developed along the 

Current River to grind corn, primarily for 
Cultural Resources

191

home consumption. Some of the community 

mill sites developed into small hamlets. 

Sawmills also were established to provide 

mostly pine lumber for local use, although 

some commercial mills supplied lumber for 

regional markets. The mill sites also served as 

social gathering centers for the settlers and 

places where other goods could be traded 

(NPS 1991a).

Two regional types of economic subsistence 

emerged along the Current River during the 

19th century that reflected, with some 

exceptions, the geographic contrast between 

the upper and lower stretches of the river 

valley. Large commercial farms and 

plantations (such as those of Zimri Carter 

and Isaac Kelly) developed along the lower 

valley below Van Buren where wider and 

more fertile lands were better suited to largescale agriculture. The lower Current River 

was also navigable throughout most of the 

year for small boats and barges, which 

enabled the transport of produce to outside 

markets. The upper Current watershed, 

which is characterized by more rugged 

terrain, narrow valleys, and less available 

tillable land, supported a more generalist 

economic strategy centered largely on 

noncommercial farming, livestock raising and 

hunting (NPS 1991a).

Changes to the early 19th century pattern of 

settlement in the Ozarks occurred prior to 

the Civil War in response to new federal land 

policies and legislation, extractive industries, 

and the rapid growth of railroads and other 

internal improvements. The Graduation Act 

of 1854 allowed the federal government to 

sell public lands at significantly reduced rates 

based on the length of time these lands had 

been available on the market. As a 

consequence of the act, Missouri 

experienced a state-wide land boom that 

attracted squatters, new settlers, and 

speculators. A dramatic increase in the 

number of land entries filed in the Ozark 

uplands occurred at this time, and the 

average size of the land parcels sold also 

increased to over 200 acres. Land speculators 

(many from out of state and often 

representing railroad and lumber companies) 

purchased much of the higher elevation hill 

country that was unsuited for cultivation 

(NPS 1991a).

The construction of railroads in Missouri 

occurred relatively late (during the 1850s) 

compared to other states. The first railroad to 

enter the Ozarks, the St. Louis and Iron 

Mountain Railroad, ran approximately 45 

miles northeast of the Current River and 

connected St. Louis with Pilot Knob, the 

terminus of a lead and iron mining district in 

the eastern Ozarks. The railroad, however, 

had little effect on the region’s patterns of 

transportation or commercial development. 

Overland roads that frequently evolved from 

earlier Indian trails continued to provide the 

primary trade and transportation routes 

through the Current River valley. Van Buren 

and Eminence served as principal crossroads 

communities. Because there were almost no 

bridges across the Current River, early 

settlers crossed at established ferry locations 

or forded the river at shallow crossing points 

(NPS 1991a).

Civil War. Although no major battles were 

fought in the Ozark uplands during the Civil 

War, the area and the settlers along the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers were not 

spared the hardships and devastation of the 

conflict. Admitted to the Union as a slaveholding state in 1821, Missouri had long been 

at the forefront of the sectional differences 

that arose between North and South over 

issues regarding state’s rights and the 

extension of slavery. In common with other 

border states, the divided loyalties among 

families and communities were particularly 

heightened. At the outset of the Civil War in 

1861, Missouri retained a sizeable minority of 

southern sympathizers who supported the 

Confederacy. Missouri governor Claiborne 

Jackson favored secession, refused President 

Lincoln’s call for troops, and established a 

pro-Confederacy government-in-exile. ProUnion supporters controlled the state capital 

at Jefferson City (NPS 1991a).
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

192

Following the Union victory at Pea Ridge, 

Arkansas in March 1862, approximately 

10,000 federal troops were concentrated in 

southeastern Missouri. Brigadier General 

John W. Davidson was placed in command of 

the Army of Southeastern Missouri. 

Davidson’s troops constructed bridges and 

roads to facilitate the movement of troops 

and supplies through the difficult terrain of 

the Ozarks, but the success and durability of 

these improvements were limited. Military 

engagements consisted for the most part of 

occasional skirmishes with partisan bands of 

guerillas and a cavalry assault against 

Confederate forces at Batesville, Arkansas 

(January 1863). Davidson established a 

command post (Camp Lincoln) at Van Buren, 

and Union troops constructed a nearby 

pontoon bridge across the Current River. 

Because supply lines were difficult to 

establish and maintain, the pressing need to 

secure provisions forced the troops to forage 

and confiscate food from among the livestock 

and meager supplies of the resident settlers. 

Widespread violence was also directed at the 

local inhabitants from bands of guerrilla 

raiders who were only loosely associated with 

the Confederate or Union armies. The 

lawlessness, distrust, and dislocation brought 

about by the Civil War persisted in the area 

long after the war ended (NPS 1991a).

Post–Civil War Development. Following 

the Civil War (from about 1870 to 1920), 

large-scale commercial lumber and mining 

companies acquired extensive land holdings 

in the Ozarks and extracted the area’s 

abundant timber and mineral resources to 

supply the nation’s rapidly expanding 

industrial development and economic 

growth. These industries were facilitated by 

railroads that began to penetrate the Ozark 

Highlands. The St. Louis and Iron Mountain 

Railroad constructed a branch line from Pilot 

Knob into Arkansas. This railroad 

reorganized in 1881 to become part of the 

Missouri Pacific Railroad. A branch of the 

Kansas City, Fort Scott, and Memphis 

Railroad reached the Current River in the late 

1880s. A third company, the Cape Girardeau 

and Springfield Railroad, extended a line 

eastward into the Ozarks from Cape 

Girardeau. The entry of the railroads was 

accompanied by a corresponding growth in 

towns and hamlets, and a marked population 

increase in the southeast Missouri Ozarks. 

During the 1870s, the county seats of 

Eminence, Van Buren, and Doniphan 

expanded to support a more diversified range 

of occupations, businesses, and services (NPS 

1991a).

The large stands of yellow pine in the Ozarks 

were targeted by the corporate milling 

operations following the depletion of much 

of the pine resources in the eastern and 

northern United States. In addition to the 

regional transportation efficiencies provided 

by the railroads, the proliferation of steampowered sawmills enabled dramatic increases 

in lumber production. The steam mills 

allowed annual lumber production to reach 

into the tens of millions of board feet. The 

Missouri Lumber and Mining Company (ML 

& M), incorporated in 1880 by a group of 

Pennsylvania investors, emerged as the 

largest among several lumber companies 

operating in the Ozarks. By 1903, the 

company owned over 300,000 acres of timber 

land in Carter, Ripley, and Shannon counties. 

In 1888, the Current River Railroad reached 

Grandin, the company town and mill site 

established by the ML & M in southern 

Carter County. The ML & M extended 

additional tram railroads into the timber 

areas and floated logs down the Current 

River to the Grandin mill. In 1909, the 

company moved the mill and town site to a 

new location (West Eminence) near the 

existing town of Eminence (NPS 1991a).

To a lesser extent than the large-scale pine 

lumber operations, hardwood logging 

companies also harvested mostly oak and 

hickory in the Ozarks. The hardwoods were 

used for railroad ties, flooring, furniture, and 

other products. Mining operations did not 

extract the mineral deposits of the Current 

River basin on a scale comparable to the 

removal of timber resources by the lumber 

companies. However, some communities
Cultural Resources

193

such as Bonne Terre and Joplin developed in 

the latter 19th century to support lead, iron, 

zinc, and other mining and smelting 

operations in the region (NPS 1991a).

The corporate lumber and mining operations 

introduced far-reaching changes that affected 

many facets of southeastern Ozarks culture,

including technology, transportation, 

commerce, and social institutions. Organized 

churches and public schools became more 

prevalent, and a cash-based economy gained 

greater acceptance among the local 

communities although many continued to 

rely on the customary trade and barter of 

goods and services. To some extent, the 

former isolation and self-sufficiency that 

characterized the area’s pioneer settlers 

began to lessen as they became more closely 

bound to the broader economic and social 

forces that accompanied the arrival of the 

large corporations. However, the adaptability 

of the settlers allowed many aspects of their 

frontier upland culture to coexist alongside 

the changes occurring during the new era 

(NPS 1991a).

The large pine lumber companies began to

move their operations out of the region as 

they exhausted the area’s formerly vast stands 

of timber by the early 1900s. Smaller timber 

products companies and “tie-hackers” then 

removed most of the remaining hardwood 

forest. The environmental damage from 

erosion, declining fish and wildlife 

populations, and loss of other forest 

resources had devastating consequences for 

the upland inhabitants. Efforts to promote 

the region for orchard growing and ranching 

proved unsuccessful. The marginal fertility of 

the upland soils was not well-suited for 

agricultural production, and the soils were 

further depleted by farming and grazing 

practices. Stockmen annually burned the 

timbered areas to improve open grazing 

lands, but the practice hindered regeneration 

of the pine forest (NPS 1991a).

Recreation and Park Development. Despite 

the area’s environmental damage, the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers became 

popular recreation destinations for 

sportsmen during the latter 19th and early 

20th centuries. Several hunting and fishing 

clubs and cabin retreats were established that 

provided recreational opportunities for 

wealthy businessmen from St. Louis, Kansas 

City, Springfield, and other cities. Many 

arrived by the railroads that first entered the 

Ozarks for the logging operations.

Floating the rivers on johnboats became a 

popular activity. A river float trip and visit to 

Alley Spring in 1909 by Missouri Governor 

Herbert S. Hadley highlighted the area’s 

scenic beauty and brought it national 

attention. In 1912, the Crystal Spring Townsite Company purchased the mill hamlet of 

Alley and promoted it as a middle-class 

“pleasure resort.” The company constructed 

a two-story store at Alley and made other 

tourist-related improvements, although the 

site continued to be too isolated to support a 

large tourist industry. The Crystal Spring 

company sold the property to the state of 

Missouri in 1924, and it became one of 

Missouri’s first state parks (NPS 1991a).

By the 1920s, growing numbers of tourists 

traveling by automobile entered the Current 

River region from outlying urban areas. State 

and federal support for construction of 

highways and bridges enabled those with 

available time for leisure and recreation to 

visit in increasing numbers.

The Missouri state parks program 

(established in 1919 and placed under the 

administration of the State Game and Fish 

Commission) added eight parks in the Ozarks 

totaling 23,224 acres. Along the Current and 

Jacks Fork Rivers, state parks were created at 

Montauk, Big Spring, Alley Spring, and 

Round Spring as recreational destinations for 

the auto-touring public. The parks were also 

variously managed as wildlife refuges and fish 

hatcheries. The influence of local political 

leaders and business promoters helped 

garner support for the establishment of these 

parks.
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

194

Cultural differences occasionally led to 

tensions between the resident upland 

inhabitants and the new wave of visitors. 

However, an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 

people attended a major event in Van Buren 

in 1926 that marked the completion there of a 

new highway bridge across the Current River 

and the establishment (in 1924) of nearby Big 

Spring State Park. The state parks program 

carried out improvements such as roads, 

trails, and buildings to the Current River 

parks during the 1920s (NPS 1991a).

More extensive development activities were 

completed by the Civilian Conservation 

Corps during the Great Depression of the 

1930s. In 1933, Civilian Conservation Corps

camps of mostly young men were established 

at Alley Spring and Big Spring state parks 

with oversight and technical assistance 

provided by the National Park Service. 

Among their many projects, Civilian 

Conservation Corps laborers constructed 

several miles of gravel roads and trails. They 

also built campgrounds, picnic shelters, 

cabins, and water lines to deliver pumped 

water to the campgrounds. In 1936, the 

Civilian Conservation Corps built a dining 

lodge at Big Spring and a walled entrance 

station to the National Riverways. The 

buildings and structures were typically 

constructed of timbers, lumber, and roughhewn, locally quarried stone. These were 

built in the rustic style that came to typify 

NPS and Civilian Conservation Corps

construction throughout the country during 

this period (NPS 1991a).

In addition to the public parks, several 

private recreational resorts, health spas, and 

river guide/outfitting services were 

developed along the Current River during the 

1920s and 1930s. Guided johnboat trips 

remained a popular activity, and local 

craftsmen often built the shallow-draft 

wooden boats as another source of income.

The deepening economic crisis of the 1930s 

led to increasing government intervention in 

the Ozarks, and many of the independent 

residents found it necessary to accept federal 

relief. Another significant outcome was the 

establishment of national forests, particularly

the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri. 

Despite considerable initial opposition from 

those resisting the expansion of federal 

control, supporters of the national forest 

prevailed and were able to remove state 

restrictions on the size of the federal forest 

lands. By 1935, the Mark Twain National 

Forest included more than 3 million acres; 44 

% of the land in Carter County and 

significant parts of Ripley and Shannon 

counties became national forest. The U.S. 

Forest Service employed thousands of 

Civilian Conservation Corps and Works 

Progress Administration (WPA) workers for 

conservation and recreation development 

projects (NPS 1991a).

Proposals to dam the Current River for 

commercial power and recreational 

development became topics of heated 

political debate after 1930. The Depression 

curtailed funding for private initiatives, but 

the U.S. Congress authorized the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers to construct 50 dams in 

Missouri during the 1930s. The Rural 

Electrification Administration (REA) 

supported the Corps’ dam construction 

projects in efforts to provide hydroelectric 

power.

A number of conservation groups and local 

opponents to dam construction strategized 

on means to maintain the Current as a freeflowing river. World War II delayed the 

Corps’ dam-building plans for the Current, 

and in 1949 Missouri Governor Forrest Smith 

voiced his strong support for maintaining the 

river in its free-flowing natural condition. 

The Corps ultimately withdrew its plans to 

dam the river in 1950.

A jointly prepared state and federal agency 

report in 1956 called for the creation of a 

national recreation area for the Current, 

Jacks Fork, and Eleven Point Rivers. A 

meeting was later held in Washington D.C. 

among agency and political leaders that 

resulted in the funding of a 1960 NPS study 

to investigate adding the rivers to the national 
Cultural Resources

195

park system. The broad coalition that had 

earlier formed to preserve the Current soon 

divided into two camps: those favoring NPS 

management of the Current, Jacks Fork, and 

Eleven Point Rivers to preserve natural values 

and promote tourism, and others who 

favored the multiple-use approach of the U.S. 

Forest Service with scenic easements (rather 

than federal acquisition) to regulate private 

farming and timber lands along the riverways 

(NPS 1991a).

A series of bills were introduced in Congress 

between 1960 and 1964 to preserve the Ozark 

riverways. However, the factional differences 

that had emerged between those with 

different visions for management of the rivers 

contributed to the bills’ defeat. Despite these 

setbacks, strong federal support for managing 

the riverways came from Secretary of the 

Interior Stewart L. Udall (who floated the 

Current River in 1961) and President John F. 

Kennedy, who endorsed the establishment of 

what was then envisioned as “Ozark National 

Monument.” 

In 1963, Missouri’s congressional delegation 

united in drafting a revised bill that retained 

provisions for scenic easements and allowed 

hunting and fishing according to state 

regulations, measures that the National Park 

Service had initially resisted. President 

Lyndon Johnson signed the legislation 

establishing Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

in 1964.

The Eleven Point River was dropped from 

the final legislation and remained largely 

under the control of the U.S. Forest Service. 

The lower Current River downstream of 

Gooseneck also was not included; much of 

the rich agricultural lands along that stretch 

were held by politically connected farmers 

and landowners who formed a solid block 

against designation.

In 1972, eight years after the enabling 

legislation was passed, a formal dedication 

ceremony for Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways was held at Big Spring. President 

Richard M. Nixon’s daughter, Patricia Nixon 

Cox, presided over the ceremony. As 

observed by NPS historian Don Stevens, the 

establishment of Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways represented a “complicated mix” 

of the traditional values and culture that 

persisted in the Ozark uplands and the 

emerging environmentalism of the 1950s and 

1960s that garnered national political support 

(NPS 1991a).

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Over 480 prehistoric and historic 

archeological sites have been recorded within 

the boundaries of the National Riverways. 

Some amateur and other limited 

archeological investigations occurred along 

the riverways prior to authorization of Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways in 1964. NPSdirected surveys and testing became more 

routine in the 1970s with attention directed 

initially toward Phase I site inventories of the 

primary park development areas.

A long-term archeological research program 

was developed for the National Riverways in 

1980. Investigations and research strategies 

were carried out primarily by Mark Lynott 

(NPS Midwest Archeological Center), James 

Price (NPS park archeologist since 2000 and 

later chief of resource management), and 

archeologist Cynthia Price (Finney 2006).

Over the ensuing years, a large body of 

archeological documentation was compiled 

for sites discovered and recorded as a result 

of cultural resource management projects, 

often completed in fulfillment of section 106 

compliance responsibilities. University and 

museum-sponsored research also 

contributed to the knowledge of 

archeological resources in the Riverways.

Several of the archeological sites are listed in 

the National Register of Historic Places, and 

site information is entered in the 

Archeological Site Management Information 

System maintained by the NPS Midwest 

Archeological Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. A 

synthesis of the archeological resource 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

196

information at the National Riverways was 

compiled in a 2006 report titled “An 

Archeological Overview and Assessment of 

the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, 

Missouri” (Finney 2006).

Most of the archeological investigations in 

the National Riverways have been conducted 

in the river valleys, where they revealed a 

high density of both prehistoric and historic 

sites. Many of the sites are large scale, 

complex, and/or multicomponent, and 

potentially overlap.

The three terraces above the floodplain of the 

modern Jacks Fork and Current Rivers 

correspond to the principal site locations, 

with the greatest percentage of identified 

sites along the second terrace. Prehistoric site 

types are commonly associated with lithic 

tool production, food processing, and longand short-term habitation areas.

Historic archeological sites include an early 

19th century trading post; the locations of 

farmsteads, dwellings, family cemeteries, and 

schools; a Civil War outpost; town and mill 

sites; and resources associated with extractive 

industries.

Natural erosional processes and humancaused impacts, such as those resulting from 

the use of horse trails and other recreational 

activities (particularly along the rivers), 

represent potential threats to the integrity of 

archeological resources as a result of ground 

disturbance. Despite these threats, current 

uses and activities present a low to medium 

probability that the overall data potential of 

most identified sites would be substantially 

degraded (Finney 2006).

The following sites are among the betterknown in the Riverways and have been 

investigated primarily in response to NPS

construction projects. Many have been tested 

and researched on multiple occasions.

 Akers Ferry. This stratified,

prehistoric site has been tested several 

times since the 1970s in response to 

park development proposals. 

Investigations have documented 

buried midden deposits, a rock-lined 

pit feature, and extensive numbers of 

ceramic and other lithic artifacts. The 

cultural materials support occupation 

from approximately the Dalton 

cultural stage, with Middle Woodland 

and Emergent Mississippian 

occupation components.

 Alley Mill. A buried prehistoric 

midden deposit with Dalton projectile 

points was identified at the site. 

Investigations were originally 

intended to locate evidence of an 

earlier mill that was replaced by 

construction of the existing Alley 

Spring Roller Mill in 1894. 

 Camp Lincoln. This site marks the 

location of the Union Army outpost, 

Camp Lincoln, which was briefly 

occupied during the Civil War from 

December 1862 to January 1863. A 

portion of the site lies beneath the 

National Riverways’ leased 

headquarters building in Van Buren. 

Both historic and prehistoric artifacts 

were identified during testing carried 

out for proposed headquarters area 

construction. 

 Chubb Hollow. Testing of this 

multicomponent site was carried out 

in the 1970s and 1980s. Cultural 

material recovered from the test 

excavations indicated intermittent 

prehistoric occupation from the Late 

Archaic to Mississippian stages. 

 Gnat Alley Woods. Site investigations 

carried out between 1989 and 1995 

for a road project determined that this 

site represents the entire local cultural 

sequence for the Early Archaic, 

Middle Archaic, and Late Archaic 

periods. 

 Gooseneck. This site was first reported 

by amateur archeologists in 1940 and 

was extensively tested in the 1970s 

and 1980s. Ceramics, bone, and other 

artifacts were recovered from a 
Cultural Resources

197

midden deposit, some supporting 

Archaic period occupation. Several 

subsurface features were tested, 

including post pits associated with 

Emergent Mississippian and 

Mississippian village sites. 

 Isaac Kelley. The site includes the 

original tract of land owned by 

pioneer settler Isaac Kelly along the 

Current River during the early 19th 

century. Several concentrations of 

prehistoric cultural material have 

been recorded at the site reflecting 

Archaic to Mississippian period 

occupation. Testing in the 1980s was 

conducted to test the hypothesis that 

the Kelley farm functioned as a 

plantation. The site was entered in the 

National Register of Historic Places in 

1988. 

 Limekiln Cave. This stratified site was 

identified within a cave near Round 

Spring. It was investigated by 

archeologists in the 1980s, and 

cultural materials and faunal remains 

were recovered. 

 Old Eminence. This site marked the 

original location of Eminence, 

established in 1841 as the first county 

seat of Shannon County. The town 

was destroyed during the Civil War. 

After the war, the town was relocated 

to its present location and the former 

site was abandoned. Archeological 

testing and field school excavations of 

the site were conducted in the 1980s. 

Investigations revealed a prehistoric 

component and a historic farmstead 

in addition to the original town site,

although few building sites were 

identified. The Old Eminence site was 

listed in the national register in 1988. 

 Owls Bend. The Owls Bend site along 

the Current River was first tested in 

the 1970s. Further testing and field 

school excavations in the 1980s 

recovered extensive amounts of lithic 

artifacts and ceramics. A large midden

deposit was identified associated with 

the Emergent Mississippian Owls 

Bend phase. Nine features were 

recorded representing cooking pits, 

and the locations of refuse disposal 

and human burials. The site was listed 

in the national register in 1988. 

 Pulltite. In the 1970s, a Late Archaic 

site was identified and tested at 

Pulltite. The site consists of a lithic 

assemblage indicative of a short-term 

resource procurement or processing 

station.

 Round Spring. The Round Spring site 

was first reported in 1948, when 

erosion at the spring exposed a 

human burial and associated grave 

goods diagnostic of the Mississippian 

period. Over the next 20 years, 

additional burials were exposed by 

erosion along with diagnostic lithic 

and ceramic artifacts. Testing in the 

1970s and 1980s revealed that the site 

was intensively occupied both 

prehistorically and historically and 

contains evidence of occupation from 

the Dalton, Late Archaic, Woodland, 

Emergent Mississippian, and 

Mississippian periods. An early 19th 

century farmstead was also identified. 

The Round Spring Archeological 

District was listed in the national 

register in 1993. 

 Shawnee Creek. This site, on a terrace 

above the Jacks Fork, was tested 

during the 1970s and 1980s. Several 

prehistoric artifacts were recovered, 

and a Mississippian period wall trench 

structure with hearth was identified 

that dated to ca. AD 1050. The site 

was listed in the national register in 

1990. 

 Two Rivers. The Two Rivers site was 

located in 1979 in advance of 

proposed ground-disturbing 

construction activities. The site 

contains significant deep subsurface 

deposits, and a gravel mound feature 

was identified in one of the project 

locations. A large number of projectile 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

198

points were identified from 

archeological monitoring conducted 

in 1988 during the placement of a 

pipeline. The site was listed in the 

national register in 1993. 

During 2010, NPS archeologists surveyed 

about 32 miles of authorized and 

unauthorized horse trails in the Two Rivers 

area of the Riverways and near the Red RockMartin Bluff campground and the Nichols 

Cabin. Investigations were conducted to 

assess the potential adverse impacts of horse 

use on known and previously unidentified 

archeological sites. The National Riverways

maintains four authorized horse trails in the 

Two Rivers area, and the area receives a high 

volume of horse riding traffic. As a 

consequence, trails have widened in places 

and become deeply incised and eroded; 

several unauthorized social trails have also 

developed as offshoots from the main 

designated trails.

The investigations yielded 15 prehistoric 

artifacts (three diagnostic of the Emergent 

Mississippian, Dalton, and Middle Archaic 

periods) in the Two Rivers area. Nine new 

archeological sites (isolated finds) were 

recorded, and artifacts were recovered from 

two previously identified sites.

It was recommended that annual monitoring 

be implemented to assess the ongoing 

condition of the archeological sites observed 

to be impacted by the horse trails and to assist 

possible stabilization efforts. Additional 

testing was recommended to document and 

evaluate the subsurface nature and areal 

extent of four identified sites (NPS 2011d).

HISTORIC BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, 

AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Most of Ozark National Scenic Riverways

historic structures, buildings, and associated 

cultural landscapes are listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places or have been 

determined eligible for listing. The 

Riverways’ List of Classified Structures 

presently lists 249 historic structures. The 

National Riverways’ Cultural Landscapes 

Inventory database lists 15 historic properties 

for which associated cultural landscape 

documentation has been completed.

The Maggard Cabin, Chilton House, and the 

Reed Log House (Macy Cabin) are the only 

national register-listed or -eligible buildings 

that predate the ca. 1880 to 1920 era of 

corporate railroad and lumber development.

The Chilton House (built ca. 1869 and altered 

in 1875) was listed in the national register in 

1981 as part of the Chilton-Williams Farm 

Complex. This latter 19th century complex at 

Owls Bend is representative of the more 

successful commercial farms that were 

established on the few fertile terrace lands 

along the upper Current River. Francis 

Chilton acquired the land in 1859, and the 

property remained in the Chilton family until 

1912. The farm’s 17 contributing 

outbuildings and other structures, along with 

the surrounding agricultural landscape, retain 

a high degree of integrity from the late 19th 

and early 20th century period of significance.

In efforts to convey a semblance of the early 

20th century field patterns, the National Park 

Service rents the property’s agricultural lands 

to local farmers primarily for hay production. 

Cultural landscape inventory documentation 

has been completed for the property and 

provides detailed information supporting the 

site’s historical, architectural, and landscape 

significance (NPS 1991a; List of Classified 

Structures: Chilton House; Cultural 

Landscape Inventory: Chilton-Williams Farm 

Complex).

The Reed Log House, which originally was 

built about 1857 with later additions, is 

representative of the more common rural 

vernacular building types of the region. The 

house is in Shannon County on a 37-acre 

parcel with surrounding open fields that 

provide a setting contributing to the site’s 

historic farmstead landscape. The one-story, 

single-pen log building was adapted and 

modified over subsequent historic periods, 

and its period of significance extends to 1940. 
Cultural Resources

199

It has clapboard siding, incorporates half 

dovetail-notched joinery and stone piers, and 

rests on a stone and mortar foundation. The 

house was listed in the national register in 

1991 and was stabilized in 2002. Cultural 

landscape inventory documentation has been 

completed for the property and provides 

detailed information supporting the site’s 

historical, architectural and landscape 

significance (NPS 1991a; List of Classified 

Structures: Reed Log House; Cultural 

Landscape Inventory: Reed Log House Site).

The Maggard Cabin may be the oldest 

structure in the National Riverways. It was 

built about 1855 by George Howell on a bluff 

overlooking the Current River in Shannon 

County. The cabin and the Reed Log House 

are the only single-pen log dwellings 

remaining in the National Riverways. 

Exterior log walls are square-hewn and are 

joined with half dovetail notching. Partially 

disassembled in the 1970s, the cabin was 

reconstructed in 2000 with mostly original 

materials. The period of significance extends 

to 1914 when the property passed from 

Howell family ownership. The cabin is 

surrounded by a small, open clearing and a 

split rail fence. It was determined eligible for 

the national register in 2004 (List of Classified 

Structures: Maggard Cabin; Cultural 

Landscape Inventory: Maggard Cabin Site).

The Pulltite Cabin was built in 1911 to 1913 

by a group of St. Louis businessmen for their 

use as a private seasonal dwelling for hunting, 

fishing, and other recreational pursuits. The 

1.5-story, log cabin is recognized as a notable 

example of “Creole” style architecture, with 

vertical log walls, broken-pitch gable roof, 

and shingled gable ends. The period of 

significance extends to 1967 when ownership 

passed from the heirs of the last original 

owner to the National Park Service. The 

cabin’s setting retains a high degree of rustic 

integrity from the period of significance.

Pulltite Spring, steep cliffs, and tree-covered 

slopes are among the property’s 

distinguishing landscape features. The cabin 

was determined eligible for the national 

register in 2004 (List of Classified Structures:

Pulltite Cabin; Cultural Landscape Inventory:

Pulltite Cabin Site). 

The Klepzig Mill and Farm Historic District 

along Rocky Creek was listed in the national 

register in 1990. Walter Klepzig purchased an 

earlier water mill and converted it in the 

1920s to operate on water turbine power. 

Klepzig also operated a farm and dairy on his 

property. The mill survives as the only one of 

dozens of small grist mills once common in 

the area. The cultural landscape of the site 

continues to reflect the relationship of a small 

subsistence-based milling operation and an 

associated farm site. The mill is also 

architecturally significant as the only extant 

example of a mill structure in the Ozarks with

the vernacular “sawmill” method of 

construction, with boards and battens nailed 

to top and bottom sills without framing. The 

district contains several contributing 

properties, including the ruins of a house, 

barn, and granary. A smokehouse, 

springhouse, road, mill dam, and headrace 

are also contributing structures (NPS 1991a; 

List of Classified Structures: Klepzig Mill; 

Cultural Landscape Inventory: Klepzig Mill 

and Farm; NPS, “Klepzig Mill”: park website 

article, n.d.b; Outlaw 1989). 

The Alley Spring Roller Mill, constructed in 

1893 to 1894, is an outstanding example of a 

rural, turn-of-the-20th-century, commercial

flour mill. The mill, the last of a succession of 

mills at Alley Spring, was powered by a waterdriven turbine. The iconic, 2.5-story, woodframe structure (larger than most along the 

riverways) rests on a stone foundation, has a 

gabled wood shingle roof, and weatherboard 

exterior siding. Most of the machinery inside 

the mill is original to its construction in the 

1890s. The mill became the focal point of a 

small hamlet that developed at Alley Spring, 

and often served as a popular local gathering 

place. The mill’s technology became obsolete 

by the mid-1920s. However, Alley Spring 

became a popular tourist destination and 

resort community; a state park was 

established there in 1924. The mill was 

restored by the Civilian Conservation Corps

in 1933. The structure was listed in the 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

200

national register in 1981. It is also part of the 

Alley Spring State Park Historic District 

(determined eligible for the national register

in 2004) that includes a 1924 ranger station 

and later structures that include cabins and a

pump house built by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps during the 1930s in the 

rustic style of park architecture. Cultural 

landscape inventory documentation has been 

completed for the historic district and 

provides detailed information supporting the 

district’s historical, architectural, and 

landscape significance (NPS 1991a; List of 

Classified Structures: Alley Spring Roller Mill; 

Cultural Landscape Inventory: Alley Spring 

State Park Historic District; NPS, “Alley Mill”:

park website article, n.d.a).

The Nichols Farm District was listed in the 

national register in 1989. The property in 

Parker Hollow was acquired by John and 

Susie Nichols in 1897 and includes their 

house and barn (both constructed ca. 1910) 

and a corncrib (ca. 1932). The well-preserved 

farm complex represents a significant 

example of traditional vernacular 

architecture in the Ozarks. The house (built 

from sawmill construction with a double-pen 

mirror-image façade) and the single crib log 

barn exhibit the most common architectural 

forms in the area. The structures, a spring, 

and other elements of the site’s cultural 

landscape reflect the persistence of ScotsIrish frontier traditions and subsistence 

patterns from the 19th century well into the 

20th century. Cultural landscape inventory

documentation has been completed for the 

farm complex and provides detailed 

information supporting the site’s historical, 

architectural and landscape significance 

(NPS 1991a; List of Classified Structures:

Nichols Cabin/House; Cultural Landscape 

Inventory: Nichols Farm).

Two small rural schools, the Buttin Rock 

School (ca. 1912) and the Lower Parker 

School (ca. 1906) were listed individually in 

the national register and were jointly 

included in the national register in 1991 as 

part of a multiple-property submission of 

“Missouri Ozarks Rural Schools.” 

Throughout most of their history, the oneroom wood frame schoolhouses provided 

education for small numbers of local children 

and also served as community social centers. 

The schools reflect the rise of public 

education as part of the larger social changes 

that occurred in the region between 1880 and 

1920. The schools remained in service until 

about the mid-20th century. Cultural 

landscape documentation has been 

completed for both schools (NPS 1991a; List 

of Classified Structures: Lower Parker

Schoolhouse; List of Classified Structures:

Buttin Rock School; Cultural Landscape 

Inventory: Buttin Rock School Site; Cultural 

Landscape Inventory: Lower Parker School 

Site).

The one-room stone veneer Owls Bend 

School (built in 1936) and the ruins of the 

Cedargrove Schoolhouse (built in 1939) were 

also determined eligible for the national 

register in 2004 within the historic context of 

the earlier, multiple property rural school 

nomination (List of Classified Structures:

Owls Bend School; List of Classified 

Structures: Cedargrove Schoolhouse Ruins).

The Big Spring Historic District was listed in 

the national register in 1981. The district is 

significant for its association with the 

development of tourism and recreation in 

Missouri and remains the most intact and 

accessible historic area within the Riverways. 

The national register nomination identified 

two primary periods of significance (1925–

1927 and 1933–1937) for the district, 

although recent Cultural landscape inventory

documentation suggests expanding the 

period of significance to 1950 and also 

including the period between 1928 and 1932.

Big Spring began as a state park (dedicated in 

1926) that became a popular destination for 

the emerging auto-touring public. In 1933, 

the Civilian Conservation Corps established 

Camp 1710 at Big Spring and undertook 

many site improvements. The first of these 

was the construction of a flood control dike 

system.
Cultural Resources

201

The district consists of over 40 structures 

listed on the List of Classified Structures, 

including an entrance building, several rental 

cabins, maintenance and service structures, a 

dining lodge, museum building, latrine, picnic 

shelters, foot bridge, trail and road system, 

and other structures associated with the 

Civilian Conservation Corps camp. As part of 

the landscape design for the area, buildings 

and structures were typically built in the 

“rustic” style of park architecture that 

incorporated natural materials such as logs, 

timber, rocks, and stone in construction to 

blend them with the surrounding 

environment.

In 1970, Big Spring State Park was conveyed 

by the state of Missouri to the federal 

government to become part of Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. The historic 

district retains a high degree of integrity and, 

as noted in the cultural landscape inventory, 

“all circulation patterns essentially maintain 

the historic layout, very few modern 

structures have been built, and the extant 

historic structures have been very well 

preserved.” (NPS 1991a; List of Classified 

Structures: Big Spring Historic District; 

Cultural Landscape Inventory: Big Spring 

Historic District).

In 2004, the Big Spring Fire Lookout Tower 

and its associated structural features that 

include access roads, an adjacent rock quarry, 

stone retaining wall, privy, and radio shed 

sites were determined eligible for listing in 

the national register. The steel frame, 80-

foot-tall fire lookout tower was built in 1935 

by the Civilian Conservation Corps as part of 

regional efforts to conserve and protect the 

surrounding forest. A 2009 cultural landscape 

inventory identified the fire lookout tower 

and site features as contributing elements of 

the larger Big Spring Historic District and 

recommended that the district boundaries be 

expanded to include the fire tower site. The 

state historic preservation officer concurred 

with the cultural landscape inventory

findings and recommendations.

A wood frame barn in the Big Spring area is 

thought to have been constructed for 

operations of Big Spring State Park in the late 

1930s or 1940s. The barn is currently outside 

the designated Big Spring historic district and 

cultural landscape boundaries. Presently used 

for NPS storage purposes, the barn has not 

been formally assessed for national register

eligibility. It was built on the site of an earlier 

(ca. 1900) farmstead developed by Robert 

Lee Coleman. Historic archeological and 

cultural landscape features associated with 

the site include building foundations, old 

agricultural fields, and historic road traces.

Foundation remains and other archeological 

evidence of Civilian Conservation Corps

Camp 1710 are also in the Big Spring area. 

Formal archeological investigations of the 

national register-eligible campsite have not 

been completed. The fire tower site, barn,

and Civilian Conservation Corps campsite 

are included in an area that has been 

proposed for possible wilderness designation 

(List of Classified Structures: Big Spring 

Historic District; Cultural Landscape 

Inventory: Big Spring Historic District; NPS, 

2012).

The 194-acre Partney Farm, located along the 

lower Current River in Carter County, 

includes a two-story farmhouse built in 1913, 

outbuildings, a pond, spring box, and small 

family cemetery. The farm site, which was

determined eligible for the national register

in 2004, was settled in 1875 by James Chilton, 

who cleared the land and built a log cabin 

(nonextant). To maintain the open 

agricultural field patterns, the National Park 

Service leases the fields to area farmers who 

use them for hay production. The farm house 

is currently used as seasonal quarters for NPS 

staff.

The farm and its cultural landscape retain a 

high degree of integrity representative of the 

area’s more prosperous early 20th century 

working farms. Cultural landscape inventory

documentation has been completed for the 

property and provides detailed information 

supporting the site’s historical, architectural,
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

202

and landscape significance (List of Classified 

Structures: Partney Farm; Cultural 

Landscape Inventory: Partney Farm).

The hamlet of Akers Ferry was determined 

eligible for the national register in 1993 as a 

rural historic district. The period of 

significance of the crossroads community is 

1930 to 1950. Important character-defining 

elements of the district include the open field 

patterns, cemetery, Mount Zion church, 

store, ferry, and the road system. The Mount 

Zion church, which was completed in 1948,

was originally determined a contributing 

feature of the district, and in 2010 was also 

determined individually eligible for the 

national register principally for the distinctive 

Ozark “giraffe” style of stonework exhibited 

in its exterior construction. Cultural 

landscape inventory documentation has been 

completed for the church site (List of 

Classified Structures: Akers; Cultural 

Landscape Inventory: Mt. Zion Church Site).

In 2004, the former recreational development 

known as Cardinal Acres at Buck Hollow 

along the Jacks Fork was determined eligible 

for the national register. The Cardinal Acres 

site presently consists of two frame summer 

cabins built for recreational tourists in the 

1920s and 1930s on a bluff overlooking the 

river. Other contributing structures include 

privies, a shed, and building foundations (List 

of Classified Structures: Buck Hollow: 

Cardinal Acres; Cultural Landscape 

Inventory: Cardinal Acres). 

The Cedargrove Community Site was the 

location of a small hamlet that emerged in the 

late 19th century along the Salem-West Plains 

Road near the Current River. The community 

prospered into the early 20th century, 

supported by the local agricultural and 

lumber economy. The site is now largely 

overgrown with natural vegetation and no 

standing structures exist, although a series of 

foundations, fences, stone walls, and 

domestic plantings provide evidence of the 

former community. The site was determined 

eligible for the national register in 2004 

(Cultural Landscape Inventory: Cedargrove 

Community Site).

The Welch Cave Site (located along the 

Current River about 1.75 miles north of 

Akers Ferry) was originally the site of a grist 

mill constructed ca. 1885. The property was 

later purchased by Dr. Christian H. Diehl in 

1913. In 1935, Diehl excavated an entrance to 

the cave and constructed a two-story 

concrete wall and stone veneer entrance 

building. He operated the property as a 

commercial spa/resort promoting the 

therapeutic value of the cool cave air for 

guests. Although adjacent guest cabins, picnic 

grounds, and workers quarters were 

constructed, the stabilized ruins of the stone 

cave entrance building is all that currently 

remains. The Welch Cave Site was 

determined eligible for the national register 

in 2011, locally significant for the Ozark 

“giraffe” style stonework of the entrance 

building and for its association with the 

region’s growing popularity as a recreational 

destination. The site’s period of significance 

extends from 1935 to Diehl’s death in 1940. 

The cultural landscape associated with the 

site has been documented and assessed as 

having overall good integrity (List of 

Classified Structures: Welch Cave Hospital; 

Cultural Landscape Inventory: Welch Cave 

Site).

Some of the National Riverways’ historic 

properties have been determined ineligible 

for the national register but are nevertheless 

managed as cultural resources by the 

National Park Service and are on the List of 

Classified Structures. Among these are the 

old general store at Round Spring (ca. 1925), 

and several family cemeteries (e.g., the Lower 

Grassy, Dyer, Kellys, and Weese cemeteries).

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES

Ethnographic resources are defined by the 

National Park Service in Director’s Order 28 

as “a site, structure, object, landscape, or 

natural resource feature assigned traditional 

legendary, religious, subsistence, or other 
Cultural Resources

203

significance in the cultural system of a group 

traditionally associated with it.” 

Ethnographic resources typically hold 

significance for traditionally associated 

groups whose sense of purpose, existence as a 

community, and identity as an ethnically 

distinctive people are closely linked to 

particular resources and places.

Ethnographic resources are likely to exist 

throughout Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

and the surrounding region, which have

traditional cultural associations with the 

Osage Nation and other tribes. During the 

historic period from about the early 18th to 

early 19th centuries, the Osage dominated 

much of the area south of the Missouri River 

that is now included in southern Missouri. 

From permanent villages concentrated 

primarily in southwestern Missouri, they 

undertook far-ranging seasonal hunting trips 

that frequently entered the eastern Ozarks 

and sometimes traveled as far as the Red 

River in Texas. Hunting expeditions were 

undertaken primarily for buffalo, deer, bear,

and other animals. They supplemented their 

hunting activities by collecting wild fruits, 

nuts, and other plants, and also grew small 

plots of corn, squash, and pumpkins. The 

Osage continued to hunt and trade in the 

eastern Ozarks following the relinquishment 

of much of their traditional tribal lands in 

1808 (NPS 1991a).

Following the Treaty of 1825 by which the 

Osage ceded the remainder of their lands to 

the United States, the tribe relocated to 

reservation lands in present-day Kansas and 

Oklahoma. Other displaced eastern tribes 

such as the Delaware, Shawnee, Cherokee,

and Choctaw relocated to southeast Missouri 

and established farming villages. During the 

early 19th century, the Delaware established 

short-lived villages on the Jacks Fork near 

present-day Eminence. By the 1830s, most 

members of these emigrant tribes also 

relocated to Kansas and later to Oklahoma 

reservations. However, there is evidence that 

some tribal members stayed or returned to 

the Ozarks and sometimes married members 

of other pioneer families (NPS 1991a; Zedeno 

and Basaldu 2003).

The National Riverways presently consults 

on a government-to-government basis with 

the following federally recognized tribes: 

 Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of 

Oklahoma (Shawnee, OK)

 Cherokee Nation (Tahlequah, OK)

 Delaware Nation (Anadarko, OK)

 Delaware Tribe of Indians 

(Bartlesville, OK)

 Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

(Seneca, MO)

 Osage Nation (Pawhuska, OK)

 Shawnee Tribe (Miami, OK)

 United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee 

Indians in Oklahoma (Tahlequah, 

OK)

A cultural affiliation study was completed for 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways by a team 

of ethnographic researchers from the 

University of Arizona’s Bureau of Applied 

Research in Anthropology. The study 

focused primarily on the cultural history of 

American Indian habitation and use of the 

area encompassing the National Riverways. 

Information gathered from the research was 

used to address the Riverways’ cultural 

affiliation and consultation requirements 

under the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act and other 

policy and regulatory provisions. Purposes of 

the study included (1) identifying the 

American Indian groups (both prehistoric 

and contemporary) determined to have 

cultural affiliations with the National 

Riverways and its resources; (2) determining 

potential relationships between objects in the 

National Riverways collections to culturally 

affiliated tribal groups and individuals; and 

(3) determining the relationships between 

other park resources to contemporary Indian 

groups (Zedeno and Basaldu 2003).
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

204

As supported in the archeological record, the 

cultural affiliation study concluded that 

prehistoric peoples have inhabited and 

exploited resources in the National 

Riverways and the surrounding region on a 

primarily seasonal and semipermanent basis 

since the late Paleo-Indian period. The 

seasonal patterns of use likely continued 

throughout the ensuing protohistoric and 

historic periods, when the Osage 

incorporated the area into their winter 

hunting grounds. Human remains, associated 

funerary objects, and sacred objects have 

been recovered from archeological sites in 

the National Riverways, and some have 

ancestral associations with the late 

prehistoric Mississippian groups who 

inhabited the central Mississippi valley and 

its hinterlands.

The study presented several 

recommendations for future research and 

interpretation, including a high probability 

that investigations would identify additional 

historic Indian campsites, village sites, trails, 

burial grounds, and cemeteries. The study 

recommended that further ethnographic 

resource investigations be conducted to 

document the cultural use and importance of 

features such as plants, animals, landforms, 

and mineral resources that may have 

significance to traditionally associated tribal 

groups. Information acquired from these 

investigations could, as appropriate, be 

incorporated into NPS interpretive programs 

(Zedeno and Basaldu 2003).

Ozark National Scenic Riverways also 

represents a significant ethnographic 

landscape for the descendants of the 

European American settlers who moved to 

the area during the early 19th century.

Predominantly of Scots-Irish ancestry, they 

established farmsteads and rural 

communities in the region that were 

commonly organized along kinship ties.

Although never completely isolated, the early 

settlers adapted to the rugged terrain of the 

Ozarks and became renowned for their 

strong sense of individualism and selfsufficiency. The distinctive folk customs and 

lifestyles they introduced to the region are 

enduring and deeply interwoven aspects of 

their cultural legacy.

Nineteenth century settlement often 

reflected continuity with land use patterns 

that had prevailed along the Current River 

since prehistoric times, with the river terraces 

and broad, level areas at the river bends used 

for habitation and crop cultivation. The 

settlers used the rocky, higher elevations for 

livestock grazing and foraging and often 

allowed their cattle and hogs to roam freely in 

the woods. Hunting and trapping wild game 

and gathering plant foods and herbs were 

other important subsistence activities.

Topography played a critical role in shaping 

the frontier culture of the Ozark settlers, with 

more extensive commercial farms and 

plantations developed along the lower, more 

navigable stretches of the Current River. The 

rugged terrain and narrow valleys of the 

upper Current River were more suited to the 

generalist economic strategies of the selfsufficient settlers who relied on 

noncommercial farming, livestock raising,

and hunting. Among the character-defining 

elements of the ethnographic landscape that 

evolved as the settlers adapted to the Ozark 

highlands are the patterns of agricultural 

fields and dense natural vegetation; the 

circulation network of roads, trails and river 

crossings; and the rivers themselves, which 

figured prominently in nearly all aspects of 

daily life, sometimes facilitating and at other 

times hindering transportation, 

communications, and commerce.

The small hamlets and villages that emerged 

along the rivers, some centered at the sites of 

saw and grist mills that often doubled as 

community gathering places, are enduring 

reminders of the patterns of settlement.

Several cemeteries are within the Riverways

with continuing family associations to the 

earliest periods of settlement (NPS 1991a).

A special-emphasis ethnographic study for 

the National Riverways examined the 

traditional and changing roles of women in 
Cultural Resources

205

the Ozarks, their traditional knowledge and 

relationship to the environment, and their 

shared experiences and commonalities as

well as their unique differences. The 

investigators researched historical sources,

including oral histories conducted for the 

National Riverways in the late 1970s and 

early 1980s, and interviewed several area 

women and men of different ages and 

economic backgrounds. The study examined 

the broad range of work carried out by 

women in and outside the home, their 

contributions in sustaining family livelihoods, 

and their far-reaching roles in community 

activities.

Although many of the women have witnessed 

profound environmental and cultural 

changes over their lifetimes, they and their 

families maintain important connections to 

aspects of their cultural heritage, and 

continue to use various areas of the 

Riverways in sometimes shared and genderspecific ways. The study found that Ozark 

women have held (and continue to hold) 

fundamental and diversified roles in fulfilling 

the tasks necessary to sustain their families.

As necessary, they have also applied 

themselves to tasks more traditionally 

associated with men’s roles, such as tending 

farm animals and livestock, plowing fields, 

gathering plants and medicinal herbs, and 

repairing structures, whereas men were less 

likely to reciprocate with regard to domestic 

activities commonly viewed as “women’s 

work.” Ozark women have also served 

indispensable if not always highly visible 

roles in church and other community affairs 

(NPS 2001, NPS 2005).

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

Ozark National Scenic Riverways maintains 

an extensive museum collection (currently 

placed at 529,587 items, nearly all of which 

have been catalogued) consisting primarily of 

archeological, historical, and biological 

objects and specimens. Most of the items are 

archeological artifacts obtained from surveys 

and excavations sponsored and/or 

conducted since the early 1970s by the NPS 

Midwest Archeological Center in Lincoln, 

Nebraska. The archeological artifacts, 

associated project reports, and records are 

curated offsite at Midwest Archeological 

Center facilities under controlled 

environmental conditions that meet NPS 

collections storage and management 

standards and guidelines. Site information is 

managed in accordance with the 

Archeological Site Management Information 

System.

Among the historical items included in the 

collections are mill machinery, the Bales float 

camp collection (including tents, johnboats, 

utensils, lanterns, and stoves), school 

furnishings, farm machinery, blacksmithing 

tools, and objects associated with the 

activities of the Civilian Conservation Corps. 

Also included are archival, manuscript, and 

photographic materials associated with 

National Riverways structures, activities, and 

adjacent communities. The natural history 

collection contains herbarium and fish 

specimens and associated field records.

The overall condition of the collection is 

good, although some items have sustained 

minor damage and deterioration that 

occurred primarily before the Riverways’

present collection storage facility was 

constructed in 1994. Before the new facility, 

museum collections were stored at various 

locations and outbuildings throughout the 

Riverways under generally poor conditions, 

and were susceptible to pest damage and 

deterioration resulting from a lack of 

environmental controls (NPS 1996; Finney

2006).

The National Riverways’ 1,650-square-foot 

collection storage facility is near Big Spring, 

about 4 miles from Van Buren and park 

headquarters. The secure, climate-controlled 

facility houses archeological artifacts, reports, 

and documentary sources generated, in most 

cases, from recently completed or in-progress 

investigations. Materials are subsequently 

transferred to the Midwest Archeological 

Center upon project completion. The storage 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

206

facility is equipped with fire detection and

intrusion alarm systems and an automatic fire 

suppression system. The facility includes an 

additional 450-square-foot office and 

curatorial work space for the use of 

researchers and NPS staff (NPS 1996).

The National Riverways’ museum collections 

management plan (NPS 1996) provided 

several recommendations to improve the 

storage and curatorial management of the 

collections in response to generally minor 

deficiencies noted at that time. These 

included recommendations to update and 

complete the accessioning and cataloging of 

collection items, and these recommendations 

were implemented over the ensuing years.

The plan noted that management decisions 

were needed with regard to the disposition of 

some collection items stored in the Ramsey 

Barn and the blacksmith shop at Powder Mill, 

and in the Cotton Barn at Big Spring. It was 

recommended that objects be deaccessioned 

if they were determined outside the National 

Riverways’ scope of collections statement 

and no longer important to the Riverways’

educational and interpretive goals. It was also 

noted that although the collection storage 

building provided adequate protection for 

the preservation of the collections, many 

items required some degree of curatorial 

treatment, in some cases requiring the 

services of a professional conservator.

Conservation treatment was identified as a 

high priority for the National Riverways

(NPS 1996).

In accordance with the NPS Midwest 

Region’s museum collection storage plan 

(2006), it was determined that the most 

practical and cost-effective means of 

achieving comprehensive stewardship for 

museum collections from the region’s various 

park units was for several parks to share 

curatorial storage resources and consolidate 

collections at 15 multipark facilities. The plan 

recommended that collections from 54 park 

facilities identified as being in poor to serious 

condition be relocated to the multipark 

facilities. It also recommended the retention 

of 43 existing collection storage facilities 

found to be in good condition and that met 

75% or more of the NPS museum standards.

With specific regard to the Riverways, the 

plan recommended that the existing 

collection storage building be retained, but 

that the storage of collections in outlying 

buildings be eliminated and items be 

deaccessioned if they were identified as being 

outside the scope of collections statement. It

was further recommended that planning 

begin for the development of a dedicated,

stand-alone, multipark collection storage 

facility at the National Riverways (NPS 

2006b).
207

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

VISITOR USE TRENDS

Visitors to Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

have opportunities to enjoy the beauty of the 

free-flowing rivers from motorboats; while 

floating, such as in tubes, kayaks, or canoes;

or fishing. Most visitors come to the area to 

float the river, while some come to the 

Riverways for opportunities to camp, hike, 

tour historic sites, examine springs, ride 

horseback, and join ranger-led activities. 

Other opportunities include scenery and 

wildlife viewing, special events, traditional 

craft and skill demonstrations, bicycling, 

stargazing, hunting, and fishing. Although 

many people come to the area for recreation, 

others simply pass through the Riverways

while traveling locally.

The National Riverways boundary parallels 

the rivers and is intersected by several state 

and county roadways leading to local towns 

and communities. For the purpose of this 

document, visitors are defined as anyone who 

enters the park unit or uses NPS facilities for 

any reason. Visitor use data include how 

many people visit the National Riverways, 

when they visit, how often they visit, how 

long they stay, where their travels originate, 

and activities in which they participate.

Visitation to Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways has remained fairly steady since 

the mid-1970s with around 1.5 million 

recreation visits in most years (figure 10). 

Typically, visitation peaks during the summer 

months and then begins to taper off in 

September (figure 11).

A peak in visitation occurred in 1972, when 

the Riverways was first established and more 

than 3 million people visited the park unit. 

Another peak in visitation occurred in 1991 

with just over 2.3 million recreation visits. 

NPS forecasting suggests a slight decline in 

recreation for the next few years (NPS 

2011a).

FIGURE 10. ANNUAL RECREATION VISITS, 1979–2009

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

Visitation

Year

Source: NPS Public Use Statistics Office 2011
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

208

FIGURE 11. MONTHLY RECREATION VISITS, 2005–2009

VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS, 

PERCEPTIONS, AND OPINIONS

In 2006, a visitor survey was conducted to 

obtain visitor use information for the 

National Riverways (Morgan 2007). The 

following types of information were 

collected: (1) demographic information, (2) 

activity style and participation, (3) 

environmental and social perceptions, 4) 

concessioner utilization, (5) preference and 

satisfaction measures, and (6) policy and 

management issues. The response rate was 

56.9% with 671 of 1180 questionnaires 

returned. Findings included the following:

 Most visitors to the National 

Riverways came with friends and 

family, with an average group size of 

7.9 people. 

 Of those that responded to the survey, 

83.5% of visitors were aware that 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways was 

managed by the National Park 

Service. 

 With 90.2% being repeat visitors, the 

two major sources of information 

about the National Riverways were 

previous visits and word of mouth. 

 Day visitors (33.9%) tended to spend 

about 6 hours in the National 

Riverways, while overnight visitors 

(66.1%) stayed an average of 3.9 days. 

 Many visitors used commercial 

service providers (35.6%). Of those,

73.3% rented a canoe, tube, or raft. 

 In reference to crowding issues, most 

visitors (84.2%) thought there was no 

need to limit the amount of visitor use 

on the river for now and 75% felt that 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways was 

not excessively crowded. 

 Most visitors (62.4%) thought the 

amount of recreational use they 

encountered neither detracted nor 

added to the quality of their 

experience. However, 22.2% thought 

it was somewhat detracting and 15.4% 

thought it added to the quality of their 

experience. 

 Of the visitors that thought the 

amount of recreational use detracted 

from their experience, 32.1% would 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Visitation

Month

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: NPS Public Use Statistics Office 2011
Visitor Use and Experience

209

change nothing and 32.4% would 

switch days of the week. 

 Although most environmental issues 

were rated as “not a problem” or a 

“slight problem,” the most severe 

issue was “litter or trash.”

ABILITY TO ACCESS THE

NATIONAL RIVERWAYS

The Riverways can be reached via wellmaintained state highways that intersect the 

park unit in several locations. These highways 

are hilly and winding, yet provide for 

excellent scenic driving.

Access to the Riverways backcountry areas is 

typically provided via dirt roads that are less 

maintained. Some of these roads are suitable 

for passenger vehicles and recreational 

vehicles, while others are not. Visitors 

interested in using these areas can check at 

ranger stations, sheriff’s offices, canoe rental 

shops, and at other local business for road 

conditions.

A 1991 roads and trails study at the Riverways

identified legal and illegal roads. Although 

there are many officially designated roads 

and access points along the length of the 

riverways, several illegal roads and access 

points exist. The official park-, state-, and 

county-maintained roads and access points 

are available for visitors; however, because of 

the numerous unofficial roads and access 

point, visitors can become confused and 

perpetuate the use of unofficial roads and 

access points.

Horseback rides occur at various places along 

the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers with major 

concentrations originating at the Cross 

County Trail Ride campground in Eminence 

for rides along the Jacks Fork. This 

campground provides stalls for horses, a 

dining hall, a large arena for entertainment, 

and other services (Chilman and Vogel 2001).

The National Riverways provides 23 miles of 

designated horse trails and several river 

crossing points for visitors to enjoy.

Visitors who are interested in motorized or 

nonmotorized river use can access the 

riverways via specified access points. A study 

conducted during the May–August 2010 peak 

season indicated that people floating in 

canoes, tubes, rafts, and kayaks launched

from more than 27 locations, within and

outside of National Riverways boundaries, as 

shown in table 20. The areas of the greatest 

activity for nonmotorized river users

included Aker’s Ferry, Cedargrove, and 

Pulltite. Waymeyer is also a busy location for 

nonmotorized watercraft users, but this is not

reflected in table 20 because visitors who 

launched at Waymeyer ended their trip in the 

gap outside the Riverways boundary, 

typically in the Town of Van Buren (Park 

2011).

At canoe rental stores in the area, visitors can 

rent all of the equipment they need to boat 

and float on the rivers, including canoes, 

kayaks, rafts, and tubes. Most rental shops

pick visitors up at the end of their river 

experience, and some provide pickup at hotel 

rooms and campsites for dropoff.

Many of the visitors to the Riverways use 

concessioner services to access the river. 

However, there appears to be an increase in 

the number of river users who are bypassing 

the concessioners.
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

210

TABLE 20. NONMOTORIZED WATERCRAFT 

LAUNCH LOCATIONS AND FREQUENCY DURING 

THE MAY–AUGUST

PEAK SEASON

Launch 

location

Launch 

frequency Percent

Aker's Ferry 104 31.0

Cedargrove 67 20.0

Pulltite 42 12.5

Van Buren 26 7.8

Baptist Camp 15 4.5

Alley Spring 13 3.9

Eminence 11 3.3

Two Rivers 10 3.0

Welch Spring/

Landing 6 1.8

Private Landing 6 1.8

William's 

Landing 5 1.5

Waymeyer 4 1.2

Round Spring 4 1.2

Big Spring RV 4 1.2

Watercress 3 0.9

Tan Vat 2 0.6

Jerktail Landing 2 0.6

Bay Creek 2 0.6

Sinking Creek 1 0.3

Raft Yard 1 0.3

Montauk 1 0.3

Jelly Stone 1 0.3

Deer Run 1 0.3

Circle B 1 0.3

Camp Zoe 

(floated down 

Sinking Creek)

1 0.3

Below Jerktail 

Landing 1 0.3

Anglein 1 0.3

Total 335 100.0

SOURCE: Logan Park (2011)

RIVER-BASED RECREATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES AND EXPERIENCES

Visitors have access to a wide range of riverbased recreational opportunities including 

motorboating, floating (canoeing, kayaking, 

rafting, and tubing), and fishing. The rivers are 

much less crowded on weekdays during the 

summer or during the off-peak season.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways aims to offer 

visitors a fun, family atmosphere where they 

can enjoy the natural wonders and enjoy the 

sparkling rivers. However, there have been 

problems with a small minority of 

nonmotorized watercraft users who have 

demonstrated rowdy behavior that has 

negatively affected the experience of other 

visitors. The Riverways staff is making an effort 

to encourage displaced families that have 

stopped coming to the Riverways to recreate in 

the park unit again by relying on Missouri State 

Statute and CFR to change behavioral issues

(Park 2011).

In 1989, visitor capacity monitoring was 

outlined by the river use management plan. The 

purpose of the monitoring was to determine 

whether

 management objectives for river use

were being met

 changes were occurring in use 

conditions and use patterns

 there were ways to improve quality for 

visitors

The 1989 plan was the result of research that 

began in 1972 by Chilman and has continued 

through the research conducted during the 

summer of 2010. As described by Brown and 

Chilman (1999 and 2002), monitoring should 

occur on a 3-year cycle on one-third of the 134

miles of river. This reduces the burden on the 

Riverways staff to have a full-scale monitoring 

effort every year but is still sensitive enough to 

detect changes in amount and type of use on the 

rivers.

Visitor counts and interviews were conducted 

at five river access points in 1998 and 2001. 

These points included Watercress, Van Buren 

Bridge, Big Spring canoe access, Big Spring boat 

access, and Cataract Landing. Though 

Watercress and VanBuren are outside the 
Visitor Use and Experience

211

National Riverways boundary, these sites were 

used by Chilman, Brown, and Park since they 

are primary access points to the riverways and 

allowed for the most contact with park visitors.

Due to the large number of tubes, the number 

of interviews with motorboaters decreased 

from 59 in 1998 to 41 in 2001, while the 

interviews with canoe and tube visitors 

increased from 59 to 73.

In 1998, results indicated that canoe use was in 

the historical range prescribed in the 1989 river 

use management plan objectives. However, use 

appeared to have increased among all user 

groups (canoes, tubes, and motorboats) on the 

Current River, especially the 11.9-mile-section 

between Chilton Creek and Big Spring (Brown 

and Chilman 1999). If managers counted 

motorboats and tubes in the calculation for 

maximum watercraft per zone, 13 sampling 

days exceeded the objective set for the river 

section between Chilton Creek and Big Spring. 

Similarly, 2001 results showed that 15 days 

exceeded the objectives set forth in the 1989 

river use management plan for the section of 

the river between Chilton Creek and Big Spring.

Both of the Brown and Chilman (1999 and

2002) study reports indicated that results did 

not suggest unreasonably high levels of 

dissatisfaction with the quality of the recreation 

experience on the riverways. It was also 

recommended that future management plans 

should establish both motorboat and tube 

density guidelines

In 2010, another study assessed visitor-related 

impacts for Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

during the May to August peak season, and 

answered the following questions related to 

river-based recreation:

 What are the current river use levels?

 What are the range of experiences 

available on the river with respect to 

crowding and conflict (Park 2011)?

As demonstrated in table 21, per hour 

maximum visitor use varied greatly based both 

on location and activity. As shown in table 22,

motorized and nonmotorized watercraft users

reported that they also participated in a wide 

range of other activities. While visitors in using 

motorized watercraft were more likely to fish 

and swim; those using nonmotorized watercraft

tended to camp, canoe, kayak, and tube (Park 

2011). Park (2011) reported the following 

regarding visitor encounters.

Among motorized watercraft users, 26% would 

have preferred to encounter fewer visitors and 

20% would have preferred to encounter more. 

About 37% of motorboaters did not have a 

preference and 17% would have preferred to 

encounter the same number of visitors as they 

did on the day of their trip (figure 12).

A higher percentage of nonmotorized 

watercraft users had a preference related to 

encounters, as shown in figure 13. Only 11% of 

these river users reported having no preference 

in relation to visitor encounters, while 38% 

reported that they would prefer to encounter 

the same amount of visitors that they 

encountered on the day of their trip. Almost 

40% of nonmotorized watercraft users would 

have preferred to encounter fewer visitors on 

the river, while 12% would have preferred 

seeing more visitors. When asked if information 

on less-crowded sections of the river would 

cause them to use those areas instead, 36% of 

nonmotorized watercraft users said they would 

use less busy sections if given the opportunity.

Motorized and nonmotorized watercraft users

were asked if other river users were a problem 

for them. Among motorboaters, 13.5% thought 

that other users were a problem, while only 

3.9% of nonmotorized watercraft users

perceived other users as a problem.
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

212

LAND-BASED RECREATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES AND EXPERIENCES

Research on trail riders has shown increased 

popularity of horseback riding at Ozark

National Scenic Riverways over the last several 

decades (Chilman and Vogel 2001). This study 

obtained management data on numbers and 

types of horse users, their distribution on local 

trails, and their perceptions of conditions. Data 

was collected in 1999 and 2000.

TABLE 21. PER HOUR MAXIMUM BY MONITORING SITE AND ACTIVITY

Sampling site Canoe Tube Kayak Johnboat

Concessioner 

watercraft Raft

Aker's Ferry 16 37 25 0 110 10

Alley Spring 16 58 25 1 172 5

Big Spring 16 52 18 54 7 4

Cataract 2 6 2 10 0 0

Cedargrove 7 8 1 0 5 0

Powder Mill 7 10 2 20 10 2

Pulltite 21 12 18 0 73 10

Round Spring 13 30 20 3 76 7

Two Rivers: Current 5 20 17 9 36 2

Two Rivers: Jacks Fork 3 15 10 10 69 0

Watercress 7 383 8 20 6 25

SOURCE: Logan Park (2011)

TABLE 22. ACTIVITIES AT THE NATIONAL RIVERWAYS

Activity

Percentage 

of motorized 

watercraft 

users

(n = 132)

Percentage of 

nonmotorized 

watercraft 

users

(n = 400)

Camping 5.3 45.3

Swimming 15.9 1.0

Canoeing 0.0 42.0

Fishing 36.4 8.0

Tubing 13.6 52.5

Rafting 0.8 0.5

Kayaking 0.0 3.0

Caving 0.0 0.5

Picnicking 2.3 0.3

Horseback 

riding

0.0 0.5

Wildlife 

viewing

0.0 0.3

SOURCE: Logan Park (2011)
Visitor Use and Experience

213

FIGURE 12. MOTORBOATER PREFERENCES ABOUT INTER-GROUP ENCOUNTER NUMBERS 

FIGURE 13. NONMOTORIZED WATERCRAFT USER PREFERENCES ABOUT INTER-GROUP ENCOUNTER NUMBERS 

More

20%

Less

26%

No preference

38%

Same as 

today

17%

Boaters: What Is Your Use Level 

Preference Relative to Today?

More

12%

Less

No preference 39%

11%

Same as today

38%

Floaters: What Is Your Use Level 

Preference Relative to Today?

Source: Logan Park (2011)

Source: Logan Park (2011)
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

214

Results showed that the numbers of trail 

riders visiting the Cross Country Trail Ride 

(CCTR) site near Eminence had increased 

substantially, with up to 3,000 riders present 

for some rides. Although a significant portion 

of the horse trails are not on land owned by 

the National Park Service, areas upstream 

and downstream of Cross Country Trail Ride 

that run along the Jacks Fork and Current 

River are managed by the National Park 

Service so understanding how many riders 

were on the trail and how they distribute 

their use was important.

Major findings from this research indicated 

that not all trail riders leave camp each day, 

and many enjoy other activities, such as 

sightseeing, canoeing, and socializing at 

camp. Another important finding was that 

77.3% of respondents that reported problems 

with the trails noted “getting lost,” “problems 

due to lack of trail markers or signs,” or 

“trouble finding way at trail crossings.” 

Findings also showed that there was little 

contact or conflict with other trail users such 

as hikers, mountain bikers, or all-terrain 

vehicles (Chilman and Vogel 2001).

A 2010 study (Park 2011) documented the 

location and extent of trails used by 

horseback riders. This study helped answer 

questions related to horseback riding, 

including the extent of visitor-created horse 

trails, and the condition of the trails.

Results showed that the National Riverways

has about 3.75 kilometers (2.3 miles) of 

summer-accessible informal horse trails for 

every 1.0 kilometer (0.6 miles) of formal trail. 

In total, the Riverways currently has about 

37.8 kilometers (23.5 miles) of parkmaintained and -signed trails and 141.8 

kilometers (88.1 miles) of informal, visitorcreated horse trails.

The condition of the informal horse trails 

were ranked with condition classes that 

ranged from zero, representing a barely 

visible trail, to condition class five,

representing a badly eroded trail running 

directly up slope. The extent of informal 

trails that fall into various condition class 

categories is presented in table 23. These

results included trail segments that were 

primarily created or used by the Riverways’

herd of free-roaming horses, but that also 

included signs of domesticated (that is, shod) 

horse use or human litter. How each trail 

segment was evaluated for its dominate use 

type is shown in figure 14. 

TABLE 23. INFORMAL HORSE TRAIL EXTENTS BY CONDITION CLASS

Condition class Kilometers Miles

0 – Barely visible 1.7 1.1

1 – Continuous loss of vegetation 12.6 7.8

2 – Loss of organic matter 45.2 28.1

3 – Continuously bare soil 27.0 16.8

4 – Isolated erosion sites 21.0 13.0

5 – Gully erosion 15.1 9.4

Other 1 19.0 11.8

Total informal trail 141.8 88.1

Total formal trail 37.8 23.5

SOURCE: Logan Park (2011) 1 The “other” category includes trail segments for which condition class cannot apply, 

such as segments with artificial surfaces like crushed stone applied decades ago.
Visitor Use and Experience

215

FIGURE 14. DOMINANT INFORMAL TRAIL USE TYPES 

Visitors who do not wish to be on the river or 

ride horses have the opportunity to enjoy

other activities. There are currently 49 miles 

of designated hiking trails ranging in length 

from less than a mile to the 13 mile section of 

the Ozark Trail. Many of these trails lead to 

caves that allow visitors to explore the unique 

karst geography of the area. However, 

currently most of the caves in the Riverways

are closed to visitors in an attempt to reduce 

the spread of white-nose syndrome among 

bats. The proposed wilderness designation of 

the Big Spring track within the National 

Riverways may provide additional 

opportunities for visitor use and experiences 

of land-based recreation within the park unit.

Camping is a popular activity at the 

Riverways. Visitors can chose to camp at one 

of the six developed fee campgrounds at Big 

Spring, Powder Mill, Two Rivers, Alley 

Springs, Round Springs, and Pulltite. 

Developed campgrounds provide sites and 

basic amenities for tent and recreational 

vehicle campers (i.e. restrooms, tables, fire 

grills, and lantern posts). These campgrounds 

might also include showers, RV dump 

stations, electric hook-ups, reservations 

systems, and campground hosts. Currently, a 

shortage of recreational vehicle sites in 

developed campgrounds is observed on some 

busy weekends only a few times a year.

Weekday occupancy is often below 

financially sustainable levels. 

If a visitor is looking for a more rustic 

experience, they have access to backcountry 

and primitive campsites, and gravel bars. 

Backcountry campsites require a fee and have 

basic, limited amenities such as restrooms, 

tables, fire grills, and lantern posts. Primitive 

campsites do not require a fee and do not 

have any amenities. Gravel bars provide 

visitors with the opportunity to camp along 

the river and at most gravel bars visitors can 

choose their own site, as long as the site is 0.5 

92.0

14.3

22.7

12.4 0.2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Predominantly 

Shod

Mostly Shod Even Mix Mostly 

Freeroaming

Predominantly 

Freeroaming

Informal Trail (km)

Dominant Informal Horse Trail Types

Source: Logan Park (2011)
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

216

mile away from any designated campground 

and at least 50 feet away from any designated 

river access. Some gravel bars also have 

camping areas. Camping areas are nondeveloped locations where dispersed 

camping is allowed. Camping areas may also 

include designated campsites.

OPPORTUNITIES TO UNDERSTAND 

THE SIGNIFICANT STORIES

Enjoying the Riverways and its resources is a 

fundamental part of the visitor experience. 

That experience is heightened when it 

progresses from enjoyment to an 

understanding of the reasons for the National 

Riverways existence and the significance of 

its resources. Participating in personal 

interpretive services (for example, staffed 

visitor contact stations and ranger-led 

activities) and making use of interpretive 

services such as wayside exhibits, contact 

station exhibits, publications, and computer 

technologies helps visitors form their own 

intellectual and emotional connections with 

the meanings and significance of the National 

Riverways resources.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways seeks to 

provide and promote opportunities for the 

scientific and public understanding of the 

natural and cultural resources and to offer 

opportunities for understanding and 

appreciation of the human experience 

associated with the Ozark Highlands 

landscape. Visitors have opportunities to 

connect with the unique stories of the 

Riverways, including the karst 

geomorphology, natural resources, water 

quality, archeology, Ozark culture, history, 

and recreation.

Due to the linear nature of Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways with its multiple access 

points, it is difficult to reach visitors to 

provide information, interpretation, and 

educational opportunities. As a result, the 

National Park Service recently established 

several seasonal visitor contact locations that 

provide interpretation and orientation 

services.

The educational opportunities and the ability 

to use the natural environment as a classroom 

for formal educational programs are also 

challenged by the linear nature of the 

Riverways. The Riverways provide a number 

of interpretive facilities and programs for 

visitors. A year-round visitor contact facility 

exists at park headquarters in Van Buren 

where visitors can get information about the 

Riverways and peruse items in the small 

bookstore. In addition, the National Park 

Service is a cooperating agency in the Salem 

Visitor Center, located in Salem, Missouri. 

This visitor center has information on visitor 

opportunities in the region, including the 

National Riverways, exhibits, and 

information on the cultural and natural 

history of the Ozarks.

The Riverways also provides interpretive 

programs at Alley Mill, Alley Spring General 

Store, Big Spring, and Round Springs. The 

interpretive staff reached an estimated 42,000 

visitors at these locations in 2010.

Hikes and ranger led tours are available at the 

National Riverways. The hikes attracted over 

2,000 visitors in 2010. Evening programs and 

programs designed for school groups were 

conducted for close to 8,000 visitors in 2010.

The Riverways provide several cultural 

demonstrations throughout the year. 

Haunting in the Hills, An Ozark Christmas, 

Ozark Heritage Day, Alley Spring 

Independence Day Celebration, and the 

Ozark Dinner Theater provide visitors with 

unique opportunities to learn about the 

natural and cultural history of the Riverways.

All of the visitor contact facilities and 

interpretive sites support orientation and 

education of visitors to the Riverways. 

However, there are concerns about the size, 

condition, and location of some of these 

facilities. The visitor contact facility in Van 

Buren has limited, inflexible space for 

exhibits and limited opportunities for direct 
Visitor Use and Experience

217

interaction between visitors and NPS staff

and volunteers. Further, this visitor facility is 

outside the immediate transportation routes 

through town, so it has limited visibility to 

out-of-town visitors. In addition, the current 

location is a distance from all of the 

concessions provided throughout the 

Riverways and, thus, few visitors access and 

make a trip to this location. The facility is 

open daily Memorial Day through Labor 

Day, Monday–Friday the rest of the year. It is 

closed on federal holidays. Finally, there are 

no views of the river from this facility.

Additional education and orientation is 

provided to visitors via nonpersonal services 

such as trailhead and boat dock bulletin 

boards, waysides, trail signs, Riverways

brochures, and the Riverways website.

VISITOR SAFETY

The safety of visitors is of great importance to 

the National Park Service. Statutory and 

regulatory provisions applicable to national 

park units require the National Park Service 

to not only provide safe facilities, utilities, 

and grounds within the park unit but also to 

promote safety in park programs and project 

operations (NPS Management Policies 2006, 

section 8.2.5). A 2010 study assessed visitorrelated impacts for Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways and showed that two-thirds of 

informal horse trails at the Riverways

included serious erosion and/or safety 

concerns. In fact, 29.8% of 141.8 kilometers

of informal horse trails were rated as trail 

class condition 4 (isolated erosion site) and 

class 5 (gully erosion), which can pose 

dangers to horseback riders due to loose, wet 

soil and cobble-size loose rock in steep slope 

areas (Park 2011).

Crowding on the river by motorized and 

nonmotorized watercraft users could also 

lead to safety issues, especially if it meant that 

having too many people on the river at one 

time would make access to a rescue boat 

more difficult. For example, the section of 

the Current River from Waymeyer to the 

National Riverways boundary has a tendency 

to become “clogged” with tubes and this 

could be a safety issue in the instance of a 

serious accident on the river. In other areas, 

this situation could lead to conflict between 

river users when motorboats passing by are 

perceived to be too close to those in 

nonmotorized watercraft. The level of health 

and safety in the National Riverways is 

reflected in the incident statistics collected by 

the park. Figure 15 provides incident 

statistics from 2005 through 2010 and table 

24 shows the six-year average for those 

violations. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

218

FIGURE 15. PERCENTAGE OF OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS VIOLATIONS 2005 THROUGH 2010

TABLE 24. SIX-YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE FOR THE NATIONAL RIVERWAYS VIOLATIONS 2005 THROUGH 2010

Violation Average number of violations 1

Disorderly conduct 33

Public intoxication 9

Alcohol (including gift to a minor and minor in possession) 355

Drugs 256

Littering 18

DUI 9

1 These statistics do not include arrests and citations issued by state officers within NPS boundaries.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Percentage

Year

Disorderly Conduct

Public Intox

Alcohol

Drugs

Littering

DUI
219

PARK OPERATIONS

PARK ORGANIZATION

Ozark National Scenic Riverways protects134

miles of the Jacks Fork and Current Rivers, 

encompassing more than 80,000 acres of 

riparian, forest, open field, and karst 

environments; seven major and dozens of 

other springs; more than 400 archeological 

sites; and 249 structures that are on the List 

of Classified Structures. The Riverways has 

approximately 350 miles of authorized and 

unauthorized roads, as well as approximately 

90 associated access points through which 

visitors can access the river. Combined with 

the sprawling layout of the park unit, these 

factors pose a formidable management 

challenge for park staff.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways is 

administered by a superintendent, deputy 

superintendent, and several division chiefs. 

Management of the Riverways is organized 

into the superintendent’s office and five 

functional divisions. As of 2011, there were 

72.2 funded full-time-equivalency employees, 

including those subject to furlough, at the 

Riverways.

STAFFING

The Riverways budget was $6,581,910 in 

fiscal year 2011. Over the course of the last 10

years, the staff of Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways has decreased by almost 30% as 

the park unit continued to operate within its 

current budget allocation. In fiscal year 2011,

a total of 23 out of 80 positions were vacant 

due to funding shortages.

It was estimated in fiscal year 2011 that fully 

replacing lost staff for the Riverways would 

require an operating increase of $1.3 million.

In addition, it was estimated that there is a 

$371,000 shortfall related to recurring costs 

needed to carry out the no-action alternative. 

Staffing is pressed to meet current demands, 

such as the following:

 natural and cultural resources

protection

 interpretation

 deferred maintenance

 education opportunities and outreach 

to school groups

 law enforcement

 fire management and trail 

maintenance needs

 volunteer coordination

 general inventorying and monitoring 

of park resources

 pressures on the National Riverways

from heavy recreational use and 

surrounding development

PARK OPERATIONS

Ranger Activities Division

The main base of operations for this division 

is the visitor and administration center 

building in Van Buren. There also are district 

ranger offices at Akers, Round Spring, Alley, 

and Big Spring, and additional posts at 

Pulltite and Powder Mill. As of 2011, there 

were 16.5 full-time equivalency employees

(excluding fire) in this division.

Law Enforcement and Resource

Protection Group. The protection staff is 

responsible for visitor and employee safety, 

resource protection, education regarding 

resource protection, emergency response, 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

220

park and facility patrols, security, emergency 

medical services, search and rescue, 

structural firefighting, law enforcement, fire 

management, and fee collection and 

management.

The public safety and resource protection 

rangers are responsible for the enforcement 

of applicable laws and regulations within the 

National Riverways’ boundaries, as well as 

patrol the roads and the 134 miles of river

within the park unit. They also provide

search-and-rescue operations and emergency 

medical services Riverways-wide. Protection 

rangers work closely with the Missouri 

Department of Conservation, Missouri Water 

Patrol, Missouri State Highway Patrol, and 

the sheriff’s departments of surrounding 

counties to coordinate law enforcement 

activities.

Fire Management Group. The fire 

management staff is based out of a facility at 

Big Spring. Its three wildland fire crews serve 

the National Riverways as well as other 

nearby national park units. The mission of 

this group is three-fold: suppress wildland 

fire, manage fuel loads within national park 

units in the region, and study the effects of 

fire on NPS land.

Fee Management Group. This group is 

responsible for collecting campground fees 

parkwide, as well as fees associated with cave 

tours at Round Spring Cave.

Interpretation and Education Division

The interpretation staff provides education 

services for diverse audiences, interpretation 

of park themes and stories, staffing for the 

visitor center and contact facilities, and 

information and orientation for visitors 

through personal (guided) and nonpersonal 

services (for example, web site, publications, 

exhibits, waysides, and Volunteer-in-theParks program). This division is also 

responsible for managing the library. The 

main base of operations for interpretive staff 

is the visitor and administrative center 

building in Van Buren. Full-time interpretive 

staff are stationed at the contact stations at 

Alley Spring, Round Spring, and Big Spring 

throughout the year. These staff members are 

assisted in the summer months by seasonal 

interpretive park rangers and park guides, 

who are also stationed at Big Spring, Akers, 

and Pulltite contact stations. As of 2011, there 

were 10 full-time equivalency employees in 

this division.

Resource Management Division

The natural resource management staff is 

responsible for natural resource inventory 

and monitoring of more than 70,000 acres of 

aquatic and terrestrial habitat, conducting 

research, protecting threatened and 

endangered species, restoring disturbed sites, 

managing invasive nonnative species, 

monitoring water quality, producing 

technical reports and data sets to support 

park objectives, assisting the National 

Riverways with environmental compliance 

responsibilities, operating the geographic 

information system, and assisting with 

wildland fire management.

The cultural resource management staff 

manages archeological sites, historic 

structures, cultural landscapes, ethnographic 

resources, a certified curatorial facility, and a 

museum collection. Responsibilities include 

oversight of 249 historic structures, over 400

known prehistoric and historic archeological 

sites, and approximately 50 potential cultural 

landscapes.

This division is operated out of the visitor

and administrative center in Van Buren. As of 

2011, there were 7.7 full-time equivalency

employees in the Resource Management 

division.
Park Operations

221

Administration Division

As of 2011, there were 10 full-time 

equivalency employees in the administration 

division, including five full-time equivalency 

personnel in the superintendent’s office and 

five full-time equivalency personnel in

commercial services.

Administration. This division is responsible 

for the National Riverways’ budget, fiscal, 

purchasing, and property management 

activities, as well as commercial services 

management. Administration also has 

responsibility for human resources, 

information technology, communications, 

and housing. The main base of operations for 

Administration staff is the visitor and 

administrative center building in Van Buren.

Superintendent’s Office. In addition to the 

superintendent, this office includes the 

deputy superintendent, superintendent’s 

secretary, and commercial services specialist 

and assistant. Indirectly it manages the five 

division chiefs and the environmental

protection specialist. In addition to 

responsibilities for leadership and 

coordination, the superintendent’s office is 

responsible for public and external affairs, 

planning and compliance, and safety.

Commercial Services. The commercial 

services section manages 23 concession 

contracts, as well as commercial use 

authorizations and special use permits, all of 

which provide services to visitors. These 

services, which are primarily related to river 

recreation, include canoe and tube rentals 

and shuttle service. Commercial services also 

include lodging, dining, merchandise, 

firewood, and camping supplies. 

Management team staff are located 

throughout the National Riverways with 

major centers of activity at Van Buren 

(headquarters), Round Spring (Upper 

Current District), Alley Spring (Jacks Fork 

District), and Big Spring (Lower Current 

District).

Maintenance and Engineering Division

The maintenance and engineering staff is 

responsible for operation and maintenance of 

park facilities and equipment, including 

structures and grounds, utilities, roads and 

parking areas, trails and trailheads, 

campgrounds, picnic areas, signs, wastewater 

treatment facilities, vehicles, and heavy 

equipment. The division operates out of 

facilities located at Big Spring, Round Spring, 

Alley Spring, and Shawnee Shop (near 

Eminence).

Each of the maintenance districts operates 

from a facility within the respective district

(Upper Current District at Round Spring; 

Jacks Fork District at Alley Spring; and Lower 

Current District at Big Spring). There are 

additional smaller “satellite” maintenance 

facilities at Powder Mill and Akers.

The National Riverways’ size presents the 

maintenance division with constant logistical 

challenges. To go from the Cedargrove 

campground in the park unit’s northeast 

corner to the Upper Current district 

maintenance facility at Round Spring 

requires nearly 45 minutes of travel each way, 

much of it over gravel roads. In addition to 

the difficulties presented by maintaining dayto-day custodial demands in a park unit with 

many remote facilities, the maintenance 

division faces challenges relating to the 

upkeep of aging wastewater treatment 

infrastructure; the constant grading and regraveling of roads; and maintaining historic 

properties, landscapes, and cemeteries. As of 

2011, there were 28 full-time equivalency

employees in this division.

PARK FACILITIES AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Infrastructure at the Riverways includes a 

diverse set of facilities or assets, as shown in 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

222

table 25. In addition to meeting the 

operational needs for supporting the 

National Riverways’ mission, park facilities 

are designed to provide river-based 

recreational opportunities; an array of 

camping, horseback riding, and hiking 

opportunities; and access to sites of natural 

and historic significance to visitors.

TABLE 25. RIVERWAYS

FACILITY-RELATED ASSETS

Asset type Number

Roads 226

Parking 116

Road bridges 9

Road tunnels 0

Trails 41

Trail bridges 10

Picnic areas 7

Campgrounds 7

Backcountry campgrounds 21

Other grounds 53

Buildings (excluding housing 

and concessions)

200

Housing structures 16

Water systems 20

Wastewater systems 23

Radio sheds/shacks 5

Dams 6

Amphitheaters 4

Concession areas 25

Total 789

Because of increased operational 

requirements and reduced funding with 

associated lapsed (unfilled) staff positions, 

the National Park Service has deferred the 

preventive maintenance and even some 

routine maintenance of some facilities. 

Deferred maintenance is work that was not 

done primarily due to budget constraints, and

can lead to the need for more costly repairs.

The National Park Service monitors deferred 

maintenance in park units using a facility 

management tracking system. It is striving to 

reduce the deferred maintenance backlog 

throughout the national park system by 

prioritizing projects and funding them 

through various sources, including the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.

Public Facilities

Structures. National Riverways staff is 

responsible for maintaining 241 buildings. 

Examples include ranger and visitor contact 

stations, maintenance shops, employee 

residences, and historic Ozark structures.

Seasonal visitor contact facilities are located 

at Big Spring, Alley, Round Spring, Akers, and 

Pulltite. The Riverways has no year-round 

visitor center, unlike many other national 

park units. However, it participates in a yearround visitor contact station at Headquarters 

in Van Buren and a multiagency information 

facility in Salem, Missouri.

Nonriver-based facilities are centered on the 

most significant natural and cultural 

resources in the National Riverways. These 

include the Civilian Conservation Corps

lodge, cabins, and museum at Big Spring; the 

historic mill, schoolhouse, and store at Alley 

Spring; and cave tours at Round Spring 

cavern.

Roads. There is no primary vehicle travel 

corridor through the Riverways. Instead, 

numerous state, county, and NPS roads 

provide visitor access to National Riverways

areas. In addition, NPS service roads are used 

only for park operations. Most of the roads in 

the Riverways are gravel and are maintained.

Some Riverways’ roads that no longer access 

specific features or facilities have been closed 

in accordance with the Riverways’ 1991 roads 

and trails study. Through the years, some 

traces have been created by illegal uses, and 

numerous illegal and unmaintained roads and

traces have been closed.
Park Operations

223

Facilities along the roads include parking 

areas, pull-offs, wayside exhibits, scenic 

overlooks, restrooms, and trailheads. 

Interpretive pamphlets are available for 

visitors at some locations.

Trails. The Riverways has 49 miles of hiking 

trails that range in length from less than a 

mile to over 13 miles. Hiking opportunities 

exist at Alley Spring, Big Spring, Powder Mill, 

Pulltite, and Devil’s Well. A segment of the 

Ozark Trail crosses the Riverways at Powder 

Mill.

There are 23 miles of designated horse trails 

and seven designated stream crossings. There 

are also numerous miles of undesignated 

horse trails, stream crossings, and access 

points used by horse riders. Both horse and 

hiking trails vary in terms of terrain and 

habitat.

Camping. There are six developed 

campgrounds located throughout the 

Riverways, containing 450 campsites. In 

addition, there are 21 primitive and 

backcountry designated locations with 93 

campsites.

River Access Points. Within the National 

Riverways, there are approximately 90

designated and undesignated river access 

points. Many of these also include camping, 

picnicking, and hiking opportunities.

Picnic Areas. There are seven primary picnic 

areas in the Riverways, and an additional 

seven day use areas that include picnic 

facilities.

Historic Sites and Areas. Nonriver-based 

facilities are found at the most significant 

natural and cultural resources in the National 

Riverways. These include the Civilian 

Conservation Corps-built lodge, cabins, and 

museum at Big Spring, and the historic mill, 

schoolhouse, and store at Alley Spring.

Operational Facilities

Offices, Storage, and Maintenance. The 

National Riverways’ headquarters, which 

contain the main administrative offices, are in 

the Watercress building in Van Buren. The 

National Park Service leases this structure.

Each of the maintenance districts, which 

include Upper Current, Jacks Fork, and 

Lower Current, operates from a maintenance 

facility within its respective district. A large 

equipment repair facility, the Shawnee Shop,

is within the Jacks Fork District 

approximately 13 minutes east of the city of 

Eminence. There are additional, smaller,

“satellite” maintenance facilities at Powder 

Mill and Akers.

Park Housing. Employee housing is 

provided at Big Spring, Partney, Round 

Spring, Alley Spring, and Powder Mill. There 

are 22 employee housing units in the 

National Riverways.

Water and Wastewater Facilities. The 

National Park Service operates and maintains 

multiple water and wastewater treatment 

facilities at Akers Ferry, Round Spring, 

Pulltite, Alley Spring, Two Rivers, Powder 

Mill, Big Spring, Gooseneck, and several 

other locations.

VOLUNTEERS AND PARTNERS

Volunteers are key contributors to NPS 

operations. In 2011, the Riverways had 214 

volunteers who collectively contributed more 

than 16,000 hours in all areas of park 

operations. This level of effort is equivalent 

to eight full-time positions.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways has few 

formal partnerships. The friends groups that 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

224

have been formed at many other NPS units to 

facilitate fundraising, event organization, and 

staff support have proved to be valuable 

assets, and the potential for forming a friends 

group for the Riverways has been discussed.
225

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

DESCRIPTION OF SOCIOECONOMIC 

STUDY AREA

Ozark National Scenic Riverways lies within 

Carter, Shannon, Dent, and Texas counties in 

southeast Missouri. The study area is largely 

rural. The distances to larger communities 

from the Van Buren headquarters, with 2010 

populations, are as follows:

 Poplar Bluff (17,000 residents)—45 

miles to the east

 Cape Girardeau (96,000 residents)—

about 125 miles to the northeast

 Springfield metropolitan area 

(440,000 residents)—about 150 miles

to the west

 St. Louis metropolitan area (2.8 

million residents)—about 150 miles to 

the north

The socioeconomic environment focuses on 

Carter and Shannon counties since the 

communities in these counties are likely to be 

most affected by general management plan

alternatives. Socioeconomic data from these 

counties are compared to Missouri and 

United States data, where relevant. The 

communities of Eminence and Van Buren, in 

Shannon and Carter counties, respectively, 

are gateway communities to the Riverways

and are, therefore, focus communities within 

the study area.

Land Use

The National Riverways is situated on the 

Ozark Plateau in southern Missouri. The land 

is characterized predominantly by hilly forest 

areas that are generally difficult to farm (NPS 

2000). Land cover types within the Riverways

include forest land, open fields, and glades. 

Riparian habitats are also a major component 

of the National Riverways (NPS 2006 Natural 

Features). Karst features are numerous and 

varied throughout the National Riverways

and include more than 402 documented

caves, many sinkholes, and losing streams 

(Morgan 2007).

Accurate data on current land uses within in 

the study area and Missouri are not readily 

available. Therefore, land cover data 

obtained from the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture were used as a proxy for types of 

land uses within the two areas. These land 

cover figures are summarized in table 26. The 

land cover data show that the study area is 

rural and natural with a small percentage of 

developed land cover types. A smaller 

percentage of the land is in agricultural 

production than the state as a whole. This is 

likely due to the hilly terrain and high 

percentage of forested land cover in the area.

The primary land cover in the study area is 

deciduous forest (78%), followed by pasture 

and hay (11%), and evergreen forest (5%). In 

comparison, the state has a smaller 

proportion of deciduous forest (37%) and 

evergreen forest (1%) and a greater portion 

of pasture/hay (32%).

Land Ownership

Shannon County is 1,004 square miles. Carter 

County is approximately half this size at 509 

square miles (Shannon County, Missouri

GenWeb 2011; Ozark Foothills Region 

2011a). In 2010, federal land accounted for 

22.5% of land in the study area, with 18.5%

and 30% federal ownership in Shannon and 

Carter counties, respectively. Federal lands 

include the Ozark National Scenic Riverways

and the Mark Twain National Forest. In 

comparison, federally owned lands account 

for approximately 4.6% of land in Missouri 

(DOI 2011). (Note: This information was 

obtained from the Federal Government’s 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes Database. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

226

TABLE 26. 2007 LAND COVER/USE IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI AND STUDY AREA

Land cover type State of Missouri land cover Study area land cover 

Deciduous forest 37.20% 78.15%

Agriculture – pasture/hay 32.02% 10.61%

Agriculture – soybeans 10.28% 0.01%

Agriculture – corn 6.18% 0.01%

Developed – open space 5.00% 3.31%

Developed – non-open space 2.31% 0.16%

Evergreen forest 1.04% 5.04%

Other 1 5.41% 2.71%

SOURCE: USDA 2009. 1 Some of the land cover types in "other" include open water, mixed forest, barren land, winter wheat, alfalfa, woody wetlands, 

and oats.

Some federal lands in the state of Missouri 

and the study area may be exempt from this 

database for various reasons and are not 

included in this analysis.)

Approximately 21% of land in Shannon 

County is state-owned and the remaining 

60% is private land (Crider 2011). In Carter 

County, state lands account for 

approximately 19% and the remaining 51% 

are privately owned lands (Meyer 2011).

Major Communities

Carter and Shannon counties are relatively 

rural in nature with approximately 12 and 8

people per square mile, respectively.

Communities in the area include the 

following:

 The town of Eminence is 5 miles west 

of Shawnee Creek, 7 miles west of 

Two Rivers, and 4 miles east of Alley 

Spring. Eminence is the county seat 

for Shannon County.

 Van Buren is the county seat for 

Carter County. U.S. Highway 60 

passes through the Town of Van 

Buren between the Upper and Lower 

Current Rivers. 

 The towns of Birch Tree and Winona, 

in Shannon County and Salem in Dent 

County are near the National

Riverways. 

 The town of Ellington is east of the 

National Riverways just outside the 

study area in Reynolds County. 

 The town of Mountain View is near 

the National Riverways, southwest of 

the park unit, just outside the study 

area in Howell County.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Historic and Current Population

In 1970, the populations of Carter and 

Shannon counties were 3,902 and 7,216, 

respectively. At that time, the combined 

populations of Carter and Shannon counties 

represented a little more than 0.2% of the 

state’s total population. Between 1970 and 

1980, Carter County experienced a 40% 

increase in population, while Shannon 

County experienced a 10% increase. 

Missouri’s population growth during this 

period was 5%.

The population remained relatively stable in 

Carter and Shannon counties between 1980 

and 1990; Carter County grew by 1% and the 

population of Shannon County declined by 

4%. The state’s population grew by 4% 

between 1980 and 1990.

From 1990 to 2000, both the state and 

Shannon County had a population growth of 

9% followed closely by Carter County at 8%.
Socioeconomic Environment

227

Between 2000 and 2010, the population of 

Carter County grew by 5.4%, and that of 

Shannon County grew by 1.3%. During this 

period, the state of Missouri’s population 

increased by 6.9%. Populations in 2010 were

6,297 and 8,442 in Carter and Shannon 

counties, respectively.

The largest town in Shannon County, 

Eminence, had a population of 548 in 2000 

and a population of 600 in 2010 (U.S. Census 

2000; U.S. Census 2010a), an increase of 9.4% 

during this period. The Town of Van Buren 

had a population of 845 residents in 2000 and 

819 in 2010 (U.S. Census 2000; U.S. Census 

2010a), a decline of 3.0%. Figure 16 depicts 

the populations of Carter and Shannon 

counties over time.

FIGURE 16. POPULATION TRENDS FOR CARTER AND SHANNON COUNTIES

Future Population Projections

Population projections for the state and 

counties are provided in five-year increments 

between 2000 and 2030. The study area’s 

population is projected to grow by 7.2% 

between the years 2010 and 2030, while 

Missouri is expected to grow at a slightly 

larger rate of 12.8% over the same period. 

These rates are relatively low compared to 

other states and the nation (State of Missouri 

2008). Table 27 summarizes population 

estimates.

The United States as a whole is projected to 

grow in population by approximately 10% 

per decade. The study area is projected to 

experience a 4.6% population growth 

between 2010 and 2020 and 2.5% growth 

between 2020 and 2030.

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004200620082010

Population

Year

Shannon 

County, MO

Carter 

County, MO

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis 2011a
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

228

TABLE 27. PROJECTED POPULATIONS IN THE 

STATE OF MISSOURI AND STUDY AREA: 2020

AND 2030

Year 2020 2030

Study area projected 

population 15,150 15,530

Study area population 

growth rate by decade 4.6% 2.5%

Missouri projected 

population 6,389,850 6,746,762

Missouri population 

growth rate by decade 6.9% 5.6%

Racial and Ethnic Composition

Approximately 95% of residents in the study 

area identified themselves as non-Hispanic

white. Minority groups represent 

approximately 5% of the population. In 

comparison, non-Hispanic white populations 

account for 81% and 64% of the Missouri

and national populations, respectively.

Minority populations in the town of 

Eminence are similar to those of the study 

area, with approximately 5% of the 

population identified as minority. Table 28 

summarizes the racial and ethnic 

composition of the United States, Missouri, 

the study area, and the town of Eminence.

TABLE 28. 2010 RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE VARIOUS GEOGRAPHIES

Category United States Missouri Study area Town of 

Eminence

Town of 

Van Buren

Non-Hispanic white 63.75% 81.00% 95.24% 94.83% 95.73%

Black or African 

American 12.61% 11.58% 0.16% 0.00% 0.00%

American Indian and 

Alaska Native 0.95% 0.46% 1.00% 1.83% 0.85%

Asian 4.75% 1.64% 0.16% 0.17% 0.00%

Native Hawaiian and 

other Pacific Islander 0.17% 0.10% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00%

Some other race 6.19% 1.34% 0.42% 0.00% 1.10%

Two or more races 2.92% 1.34% 1.99% 2.83% 2.08%

Hispanic or Latino 16.35% 3.55% 1.65% 0.83% 2.93%

Total 308,745,538 5,988,927 14,706 600 819

Minority 1 36.25% 19.00% 4.76% 5.17% 4.27%

SOURCE: U.S. Census 2010a. 1 The minority population includes all those individuals who identify themselves as being of a race other than nonHispanic white.
Socioeconomic Environment

229

TABLE 29. AGE CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE UNITED STATES, MISSOURI, STUDY AREA, AND 

EMINENCE

Age segment United States Missouri Study area Town of 

Eminence 

Under 18 years 24.6% 24.2% 24.4% 17.7%

18–39 years 30.2% 29.3% 24.9% 35.0%

40–64 years 32.6% 33.0% 35.2% 31.8%

65 years and over 12.6% 13.5% 15.5% 15.5%

SOURCE: U.S. Census 2009a

Age Characteristics

As shown in table 29, approximately 24.4% of 

residents in the study area are under the age 

of 18 and approximately 15.5% of residents 

are aged 65 and over. The study area has a 

higher percentage of residents over 40 

compared to residents in the state or nation.

The percentage of residents under the age of 

18 is approximately the same in the study 

area as it is in Missouri and the United States. 

However, approximately 17.7% of the total 

population of Eminence is under 18 years of 

age, which is nearly 7% lower than the 

United States, Missouri, or the study area; 

Eminence has a higher proportion of 

residents aged 18 to 39. Table 29 summarizes 

age characteristics.

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

This section provides an overview of the 

economic conditions of the study area, 

including personal income, average earnings, 

employment by industry, unemployment, and 

poverty rates. The study area characteristics 

are compared to those of Missouri and the 

nation. Additionally, a description of the 

economic contribution of the Riverways to 

the local economy is provided. Information 

on the town of Eminence is included where 

available.

Personal Income

Per capita income is the total personal 

income divided by the number of people in a 

geographic area. Figure 17 graphs the real per 

capita personal income for the United States, 

Missouri, and the study area counties from 

2000 through 2010. Per capita personal 

income was adjusted for inflation, termed 

“real income,” and presented in 2010 dollars.

When comparing income changes over time, 

it is important to adjust for inflation to 

identify the true increase or decrease in 

income, controlling for inflationary price 

increases.

As shown in the figure, real per capita 

personal income was considerably less in the 

study area than in the state or nation. On 

average, per capita income was $10,000 to 

$14,000 less in the study area than in the state.

Per capita personal income was, on average, 

approximately $3,800 higher in Carter 

County than it was in Shannon County 

during this period. In 2010, per capita 

personal income was $26,696 and $21,015 in 

Carter and Shannon counties, respectively.

Real per capita income increased by 6.5% in 

the United States between 2001 and 2010. In 

comparison, real per capita personal income 

increased in Missouri by 6.7%, in Shannon 

County by 4.8%, and in Carter County by 

18.9% during this period. When real income 

is increasing, it is an indication that the 

economy is expanding and standard of living 

is improving.

Personal income includes three income

categories: labor earnings, investment 

income, and transfer payments. These 

categories of personal income can provide 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

230

information about the income sources and 

wealth in a region.

Real personal income increased in the study 

area by approximately 10% between 2001 

and 2008. In 2008, government transfer 

payments accounted for 37.7% of total 

personal income, increasing by 

approximately 6.3% from 2000. In 2008, 

investment income represented 11.2% of 

personal income, decreasing 4.5% between 

2000 and 2008. Labor earnings remained 

relatively stable in the study area during this 

period; in 2008, labor income accounted for 

approximately 51% of total personal income 

the study area. In comparison, labor income 

in Missouri accounts for 66% of personal 

income, a higher proportion than occurs in 

the study area. Transfer payments account 

for 17.6% of personal income in Missouri, 

while investment income account for 16.5% 

(BEA 2011b). In general, the state has higher 

proportions of labor and investment income, 

and lower proportions of transfer payments 

when compared to the two-county study 

area. Residents in the study area are more 

reliant on government transfer payments or 

disbursements as income sources than 

residents in the state as a whole.

Employment Trends

Between 2001 and 2010, total employment 

increased in Carter County by approximately 

12%, decreased by 16% in Shannon County, 

and increased by 1% in the state of Missouri. 

Employment numbers for these three areas 

are provided in see table 30.

Employment by Industry

Employment and earnings by industry in the 

study area in 2008 are shown in table 31. The 

manufacturing industry, which includes 

wood and lumber processing industries, 

represented the largest employing industry in 

the study area with 17% of employment. The 

“other services” industry sector has the 

second highest percentage of employment 

(12.5%); employment in grant-making, 

giving, and social advocacy organizations 

accounts for a considerable portion of 

employment in the “other services” industry 

sector. Government employs 12.1%, 

followed by the retail trade industry with 

11.7%. Travel and tourism industry sectors 

generally include: retail trade; 

accommodations and food services; and arts, 

entertainment, and recreation. In total, these 

industries provided 17.9% of employment in 

the study area in 2008, which makes this 

collective industry a major employer in the 

area.

Average Earnings by Industry

Table 32 summarizes the average earnings by 

industry in the study area. Average earnings 

are estimated by dividing the total labor 

earnings in a given area by the number of jobs 

in the area; the number of jobs includes both 

full-time and part-time jobs.

TABLE 30. CARTER COUNTY, SHANNON COUNTY, AND STATE OF MISSOURI EMPLOYMENT

Area 2001 2004 2006 2008 2010

Percent

change 

2001–2010

Carter 

County

2,236 2,430 2,469 2,502 2,497 11.67%

Shannon 

County

3,536 3,489 3,374 3,419 2,968 -16.06%

Missouri 3,453,629 3,472,891 3,579,117 3,672,794 3,489,759 1.05%

SOURCE: BEA 2011c.
Socioeconomic Environment

231

TABLE 31. 2008 EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS BY INDUSTRY IN THE STUDY AREA

Industry Percent of total 

earnings Total earnings Percent of total employment

Total 

employment

Farming 0.6% $739,663 9.2% 489

Forestry, fishing, 

and related services 8.9% $11,476,029 7.7% 406

Mining 0.7% $839,872 0.3% 17

Utilities 0.1% $103,726 0.0% 2

Construction 4.0% $5,157,657 3.2% 167

Manufacturing 19.1% $24,611,223 16.8% 887

Transportation and 

warehousing 5.1% $6,582,469 3.1% 164

Information 0.6% $804,061 0.4% 20

Finance, insurance, 

real estate, rental 

and leasing

3.0% $3,910,685 2.3% 121

Professional, 

scientific, and 

technical services

1.0% $1,228,870 0.9% 49

Administrative and 

waste management 

services

0.4% $577,126 0.6% 34

Education (includes 

state and local 

government, 

education)

0.2% $271,776 6.2% 330

Health care 4.5% $5,797,804 5.2% 273

Arts, entertainment, 

and recreation 0.3% $358,404 1.0% 55

Accommodations 

and food services 2.4% $3,031,952 5.2% 275

Other services 10.4% $13,382,110 12.5% 661

Government (does 

not include state 

and local 

government 

education)

27.6% $35,555,520 12.1% 640

Wholesale trade 2.0% $2,508,299 1.6% 85

Retail trade 9.1% $11,669,852 11.7% 619

Total 100.0% $128,607,095 100.0% 5,293

SOURCE: Michigan IMPLAN Group 2008. A bridge table was used to convert IMPLAN sectors to Bureau of Economic 

 Analysis sectors. Data include part-time and full-time jobs. 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

232

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2012b.

All values were adjusted to 2008 dollars using the Midwest consumer price index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011.

FIGURE 17. 2001 TO 2010 REAL, PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME

TABLE 32. 2008 AVERAGE EARNINGS BY INDUSTRY IN THE STUDY AREA

Industry Average annual earnings

Farming $1,511

Forestry, fishing, and related services $28,235

Mining $50,780

Utilities $58,007

Construction $30,861

Manufacturing $27,742

Transportation and warehousing $40,093

Information $40,919

Finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing $32,430

Professional, scientific, and technical services $25,071

Administrative and waste management services $17,197

Education (includes state and local government education) $40,318

Health care $21,262

Arts, entertainment, and recreation $6,459

Accommodations and food services $11,035

Other services $20,240

Government (does not include state and local education) $35,237

Wholesale trade $29,552

Retail trade $18,851

Average earnings for all industries $24,299

SOURCE: Michigan IMPLAN Group 2008. A bridge table was used to convert IMPLAN sectors to Bureau of Economic 

 Analysis sectors. Data include part-time and full-time jobs. 

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

United States

Missouri

Carter County

Shannon County
Socioeconomic Environment

233

Annual average earnings per job for all 

industries in the study area are approximately 

$24,000. Industries with the highest average 

earnings are utilities and mining. 

Transportation, information, and 

government sectors also have higher average 

earnings than other industries or sectors in 

the area. The lowest average earnings are in

the farming, and arts, entertainment, and 

recreation sectors.

Unemployment

Unemployment rates in the study area and 

Missouri have followed the same general 

trend as the United States between the years 

2000 and 2011; however unemployment rates 

in the study area are higher than those of the 

nation and the state. In 2011, Shannon and 

Carter counties had unemployment rates of 

9.3% and 12.9%, respectively, while Missouri 

and the nation had unemployment rates of 

8.6% and 9.8%, respectively (BLS 2012). The 

increase in unemployment is consistent with 

the economic recession experienced across 

the nation during this period. Figure 18

depicts unemployment rates between 2000 

and 2011 for these areas.

Poverty Rates and Median

Household Income

Within the study area, approximately 21% of 

the population lives below the poverty line, 

which is much higher than the poverty rate in 

the United States and Missouri. Similarly, 

median household incomes in Carter and 

Shannon counties are lower than in the state 

and the nation. Carter County’s median 

household income is just over half that of the 

United States. Shannon County has a slightly 

higher median household income than Carter 

County, although it is considerably less than 

that of the state and the nation (U.S. Census 

2010c). Poverty rates and median household 

income are summarized in table 33.

TABLE 33. 2009 POVERTY RATES IN THE UNITED STATES, STATE OF MISSOURI,

CARTER COUNTY, SHANNON COUNTY, AND EMINENCE, MISSOURI

Population 

Population living 

below poverty 

line

Percent

population living 

below the 

poverty line

Median 

household 

income

United States 296,141,149 40,917,513 13.80% $51,914

Missouri 5,744,590 802,596 14% $46,262

Carter County 6,125 1,203 19.60% $28,408

Shannon County 8,394 1,910 22.80% $30,766

Eminence, Missouri 469 219 46.70% $14,571

Van Buren, 

Missouri 596 129 21.60% $28,424

SOURCE: U.S. Census 2010b and c. Median household income is in 2010 dollars.

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF 

VISITATION TO THE LOCAL

ECONOMY

The local economy for Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways and most other NPS units are 

defined as a 50-mile radius around the park

unit. Economic multipliers are based on 

groupings of counties to approximate a 50-

mile radius of the park unit (Stynes 2011).

Visitation to Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways contributes to the local economy 

in several ways. It provides jobs to park 

employees, including seasonal, temporary, 

and permanent full-time or part-time 

positions. In 2009, the Riverways employed 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

234

103 people. These workers spent their 

income in the local economy, which supports 

an additional 26 jobs (Stynes 2011).

Gross regional product is the market value of 

all final goods and services produced within a 

region over a period of time. The 2009 park 

payroll spending contributed to the gross 

regional product by an estimated $8.4 million 

(Stynes 2011).

The National Riverways also supports the 

local economy if local vendors are used, 

through contracted construction services, or 

purchases of supplies and materials. These 

figures are not assessed within this section.

The Riverways attracts a large number of 

visitors, mostly from within Missouri and 

Illinois (Morgan 2007). These visitors make 

purchases from local businesses, such as 

restaurants, hotels, and retail outlets, during 

their visits in communities surrounding the 

National Riverways, which contributes to the 

local economy. In 2009, there were 

approximately 1,308,718 local and nonlocal

visitors to the Riverways. Total visitor 

spending was estimated to be approximately 

$55,445,000 (Stynes 2011).

Overwhelmingly, most visitors spending 

(88.5%) is associated with nonlocal visitors 

($49,046,000), which supports local jobs and 

income. Nonlocal visitor spending in 2009 

supported an estimated 696 part-time and 

full-time jobs in communities surrounding 

the National Riverways (Stynes 2011). The 

total labor income generated by this spending 

was over $15.9 million and the gross regional 

product was $27.9 million.

Total employment in the study area in 2008 

was 5,293 jobs (see table 31). Employment 

associated with the National Riverways is 

estimated to be 129 (from park and 

nongovernmental employment), and 696 

(from visitor spending), for a total of 825 jobs 

(Stynes 2011). This represents almost 16% of 

total employment in the two-county study 

area. In addition to government, these jobs 

are likely to be primarily in the recreation, 

accommodations, food service, arts, 

entertainment, and retail sales industries. A 

significant percentage of these jobs are 

related to the concessioners that directly

support visitation to the Riverways. There are 

currently 23 concession contracts with the 

Riverways and some of these operations hire 

up to 80 full-time and part-time, seasonal 

positions to support their operations.

FISCAL CONDITIONS

Missouri’s sales tax is levied on the purchase 

price of tangible personal property or taxable 

services sold at retail prices. The use tax is 

imposed on the storage, use, or consumption 

of tangible personal property. The state sales 

and use tax is approximately 4.2%, and its 

revenues are distributed into four funds to 

finance portions of state government: general 

revenue (3.0%), conservation (0.125%), 

education (1.0%), and parks/soils (0.10%) 

(State of Missouri 2011).

Cities and counties may impose local sales 

and use taxes, which are paid to the state and 

then disbursed to the local governments. 

Retail trade purchases would be subject to 

these sales taxes. Food is taxed at a lower rate 

of 1.2%. The state also collects taxes and fees 

on motor vehicle sales, motor fuel purchases, 

and motor vehicles. A portion of the receipts 

are returned to county and city governments. 

As summarized in table 34, sales tax revenues 

are important to the local governments 

within the study area. Sales tax disbursements 

from the state account for 88% of the state 

tax disbursements to Eminence and Van 

Buren. Sales tax revenue paid from the state 

to local governments has remained relatively 

stable for Carter County between 2005 and 

2009. Sales tax revenue decreased in Shannon 

County by 8% between 2008 and 2009 (see

figure19).
Socioeconomic Environment

235

TABLE 34. TAXES DISPERSED FROM THE STATE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, 2009

Entity Taxes dispersed from the 

state to local governments

Sales and use taxes 

dispersed to local 

governments

Percent sales and use tax 

receipts

Carter County $860,283 $423,057 49%

Shannon County $1,015,962 $447,323 44%

Eminence $174,919 $154,353 88%

Van Buren $261,524 $229,812 88%

SOURCE: State of Missouri 2011 

FIGURE 18. 2000 TO 2011 UNEMPLOYMENT RATES IN CARTER COUNTY,

SHANNON COUNTY, STATE OF MISSOURI, AND UNITED STATES

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Shannon County

Carter County

State of Missouri

United States

Source: BLS 2012
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

236

FIGURE 19. SALES TAX DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE STATE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

FROM 2005 TO 2009

HOUSING

This section provides housing characteristics 

for the United States, Missouri, study area, 

and town of Eminence. Median housing 

values in Shannon and Carter counties are 

almost half those in the state and 40% to 42% 

of the value of median housing values in the 

nation. Eminence has a higher median 

housing value than the counties in the study 

area at $92,100, but this value is still 

approximately $42,000 less than the state’s 

median housing value.

Both Carter and Shannon counties have 

nearly three times the percentage of homes 

that lie within a value range of below $10,000 

to $49,999 compared to the state. 

Approximately a third of homes in Shannon 

County are in this range. A similar percentage 

of homes are valued between $50,000 and 

$99,999 in both Shannon and Carter 

counties, so that about two-thirds of the 

study area’s housing stock is valued at less 

than $100,000. Table 35 summarizes housing 

values.

TABLE 35. 2009 HOUSING VALUE RANGES AND MEDIAN HOUSING VALUE FOR UNITED STATES, MISSOURI,

CARTER COUNTY, SHANNON COUNTY, AND EMINENCE

Housing value United 

States Missouri Carter County

Shannon 

County

Town of 

Eminence

Below $10,000–$49,999 8.3% 11.2% 27.9% 33.5% 23.5%

$50,000–$99,999 15.5% 22.6% 35.8% 34.3% 34.0%

$100,000–$199,999 29.7% 40.6% 24.8% 21.2% 27.6%

$200,000–$399,999 27.5% 20.3% 9.0% 8.7% 14.2%

$400,000–$749,999 13.9% 4.0% 2.5% 0.7% 0.7%

$750,000 or more 5.1% 1.3% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0%

Median value $185,400 $134,500 $78,800 $73,000 $92,100

SOURCE: U.S. Census 2009b and U.S. Census 2009c. All values are in year 2009 dollars.

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

Carter County

Shannon County

Eminence

Van Buren
Socioeconomic Environment

237

In 2009, approximately 5,768 housing units 

were located in the study area. About 41% of 

these residences are in Carter County and 

59% are in Shannon County. Of the occupied 

housing in Carter County, approximately 

76% is owner-occupied, while 78% of the 

occupied housing stock in Shannon County is 

owner-occupied.

Approximately 24% of the housing units in 

Carter County were vacant in 2009, while the 

town of Eminence had a housing vacancy rate 

of 14%. Sixteen % of Shannon County 

housing units were vacant (U.S. Census 

2009d and 2009e). Table 36 summarizes these 

housing figures.

While population growth in the study area is 

expected to be relatively low over the coming 

years, there is some indication that 

individuals are purchasing second homes and 

spending part of their time in the study area 

or retiring and living permanently in the 

study area (Bailiff 2011). This trend may be 

due to recent improvements in U.S. Highway 

60, relatively inexpensive housing, and the 

proximity to the Riverways, which offer 

important recreational or other outdoor 

opportunities important to these individuals.

TABLE 36. HOUSING STOCK: UNITED STATES, STATE OF MISSOURI,

CARTER COUNTY, SHANNON COUNTY, AND EMINENCE, MISSOURI

United 

States Missouri Carter County

Shannon 

County

Town of 

Eminence

Total housing stock 112,611,029 2,322,238 2,395 3,373 912

Percent of occupied housing 

that is owner-occupied 66.9% 70.3% 76.1% 77.7% 76.2%

Percent of housing units that 

are vacant 11.8% 12.3% 24.3% 16.5% 14.0%

SOURCE: U.S. Census 2009dand 2009e

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AND LOCAL 

TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS

The major local transportation corridor 

through the study area is U.S. Highway 60, 

which runs east-west and is the only federal 

highway that traverses the study area. This 

highway runs through the Town of Van 

Buren and provides access to the Lower 

Current River for residents in the study area. 

In July of 2010, the Missouri Department of 

Transportation finished the process of 

upgrading U.S. Highway 60 to four lanes 

along a 59-mile segment between Willow 

Springs and Van Buren. These improvements 

have increased access to the study area and 

the National Riverways.

Eminence is connected to U.S. Highway 60 

by Missouri Highway 19, which runs north 

from U.S. Highway 60 in Winona, Missouri 

and crosses Missouri Highway 106 in 

downtown Eminence. The following 

highways connect Eminence to destinations 

of interest:

 Missouri Highway 106 runs east-west 

and connects with Ellington in 

neighboring Reynolds County to the 

northeast. This corridor provides 

access to the southern portion of the 

Upper Current River. 

 Missouri Highway 19 continues north 

and provides access to the northern 

portion of the Upper Current River. 

 Missouri Highway 106 runs west and 

provides access to the area of Jacks 

Fork. 

Missouri Highway 17 south of the junction 

with Missouri Highway 106 provides access 
CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

238

to the western-most portions of Jacks Fork 

(Ozark Foothills Region 2011c).

Due to the large size of Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways and the number and 

location of roads and access points available, 

travelling from point to point in the park unit

can be difficult and time consuming. Driving

from the northern terminus of the park unit

to the southern terminus can take four hours 

or more. Roads that connect various points in 

the National Riverways are in a state of 

disrepair and many of the river access points 

can only be reached by extended travel along 

dirt or gravel roads (NPS 2000).

LAW ENFORCEMENT

The study area is served by the two sheriff’s 

departments. The Carter County Sheriff’s 

Department is located in Van Buren and the 

Shannon County Sheriff’s Department is 

located in Eminence. Additionally, Shannon 

County has four police departments serving 

the needs of various cities and towns within 

the county. These are the Eminence, Birch 

Tree, Summersville, and Winona police 

departments (Missouri Victims Assistance 

Network 2011a). Carter County has two 

police departments: the Van Buren and 

Ellsinore police departments (Missouri 

Victims Assistance Network 2011b).

The Shannon County Sherriff’s Department 

is currently staffed by three deputies and one 

sheriff. Five civilian employees work on the 

department’s staff. The department has four 

patrol trucks and one car. On average, the 

department receives between 60 and 75 calls 

per day (Voyles 2011).

If Shannon County dispatch receives a call 

from within the Riverways, the county sends

the call to park rangers. Most calls from 

within the park unit come during the 

summer. Shannon County Sheriff’s 

Department has provided mutual aid in the 

past for prisoner transport or has provided 

assistance, depending on the situation and 

when requested by the Riverways (Terril 

2011).

The Carter County Sherriff’s Department has 

three full-time deputies and one sheriff with 

an additional reserve deputy on staff. On 

average, the sheriff’s department receives 50 

or more calls per day. This department does 

not receive many calls relating to Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways because NPS 

officers handle these calls (Swigert 2011).

The Missouri Water Patrol Division (a 

division of the Missouri State Highway 

Patrol) patrols the waters by boat along the 

Current River and Jacks Fork within the 

Riverways. This division is responsible for 

state and federal water and land up to 600 

feet from the bank in the state of Missouri. 

Water patrol officers regularly rely on backup 

from park rangers within the Riverways and 

provide backup for rangers when requested. 

The Riverways has approximately six fulltime officers with a number of boats, allterrain vehicles, trucks, and amphibious 

vehicles available for use. Officers patrol on

foot and using these craft and vehicles within 

the park unit. Officers are added to this force 

when they are needed. The Missouri Water 

Patrol Division receives many more calls 

regarding the riverways in summer than in 

winter. The number of calls increases on 

weekends when the population in the area 

can triple with visitation (Searcy 2011).

The Town of Van Buren Police Department 

has a three full-time officers and one reserve 

officer. The police department filed 

approximately 200 reports in 2010. The Van 

Buren Police Department generally responds 

to calls within Van Buren and within a 5-mile 

radius of the city (Clanton 2011).

The Eminence police department responds 

to calls outside the town of Eminence and 

mutually assists other law enforcement 

agencies.
5 ENVIRONMENTAL

 CONSEQUENCES

241

INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW

The National Environmental Policy Act

requires that environmental documents 

discuss the environmental impacts of a 

proposed federal action, feasible alternatives 

to that action, and any adverse environmental 

effects that cannot be avoided if a proposed 

action is implemented. In this case, the 

proposed federal action would be the 

adoption of the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement. This chapter analyzes the 

environmental impacts of implementing the 

four alternatives on natural resources, 

cultural resources, visitor use and experience, 

soundscapes, the socioeconomic 

environment, and park operations. The 

analysis is the basis for comparing the 

beneficial and adverse effects of 

implementing the alternatives.

Because of the general, conceptual nature of 

the actions described in the alternatives, the 

impacts of these actions are analyzed in 

general, qualitative terms. Thus, this 

environmental impact statement should be 

considered a programmatic analysis. If, and 

when site-specific developments or other 

actions are undertaken to implement parts of 

this Ozark National Scenic Riverways General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

appropriate, detailed environmental and 

cultural documentation would be prepared in 

compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 and National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966. For the purposes of 

this analysis, it is assumed that all of the 

specific actions proposed in the alternatives 

would occur over the life of the plan.

This chapter begins with a description of the 

methods and assumptions used for analyzing 

impacts, followed by methods for 

determining cumulative impacts. Impact

analysis discussions are then organized by 

impact topic. All of the impact topics are 

assessed for each alternative. The existing 

conditions for all of the impact topics were 

identified in “Chapter 4: Affected 

Environment.”

The analysis of the no-action alternative (the 

continuation of current management) 

identifies the future conditions in the 

National Riverways if no major changes to 

facilities or NPS management occurred. The 

three action alternatives are then compared 

to the no-action alternative to identify the 

incremental changes in conditions that would 

occur because of changes in park facilities, 

uses, and management.

Each alternative discussion also describes 

cumulative impacts; these are identified when 

this project is considered in conjunction with 

other actions occurring within the Riverways

or region. The discussion of cumulative 

impacts is followed by a conclusion 

statement. The impacts of each alternative are 

briefly summarized in table 14 at the end of 

the “Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative.”
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

242

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

The planning team based the impact analyses 

in this chapter on professional judgment, 

research of existing studies and literature, 

opinions from experts within the National 

Park Service and other agencies, and the 

study of previous projects that had similar 

effects. When assessing the potential impacts 

on the resources and values within the 

Riverways boundary, several impact 

parameters were analyzed for each 

alternative. In this chapter, the potential 

impacts of the no-action alternative, and 

alternatives A, B, and C are described by four 

criteria: (1) type; (2) intensity; (3) duration, 

and (4) context. Explanations and definitions 

of these criteria are as follows:

 Type of impact is either beneficial or 

adverse. Beneficial and adverse 

impacts on resources and values are 

assessed by comparing the anticipated 

changes that would result from 

implementing each action alternative 

to the results of the continuing 

current management direction (noaction). Once it is determined if an 

impact is beneficial or adverse, the 

other impact measurement criteria of 

intensity, duration, and context can

be assessed.

 Intensity refers to the degree, level, or 

strength of the impact on the 

respective resource or value. Impact 

intensities for beneficial and adverse 

effects are quantified as negligible, 

minor, moderate, and major. Because 

the definitions of intensity vary by 

resource topic, separate intensity 

definitions are provided for each 

impact topic (in the individual 

sections of this chapter).

 Duration refers to the length of time 

the impact affects the resource or 

value. In this analysis, impact 

durations are as follows, unless 

otherwise noted in the impact topic 

section:

– Short term: Impacts would last 

less than three years.

– Long term: Impacts would persist 

for three or more years, or may be 

permanent. Although an impact 

may only occur for a short 

duration at one time, it is 

considered to be a long-term 

impact if it occurs regularly over a 

longer period.

 Context refers to the setting or 

geographic scope of the impact on the 

particular resource or value. In this 

analysis, impacts are measured 

relative to the following two context 

levels (unless otherwise noted in the 

impact topic section):

– Local: Impacts would be limited 

to a specific site or relatively small 

area within the Riverways’

boundaries.

– Regional: Impacts would occur 

over a large, widespread area 

within and/or beyond the 

Riverways’ boundaries, or in 

several areas along the riverways.

The effects of the management alternatives 

on impact topics of the Riverways are 

analyzed based on impacts resulting from the 

visitor use patterns, levels of development, 

and other management actions associated 

with each alternative. The impacts analyses of 

the action alternatives are determined by 

comparing against the effects of the no-action 

alternative. Understand the impacts of 

implementing any of the action alternatives 

must take into consideration the impacts that 

would occur from continuing current 

management in the no-action alternative.

Impacts were assessed assuming that 

mitigation measures would be implemented 

to minimize or avoid impacts. If the 

mitigation measures described in chapter 2 

were not applied, the potential for adverse 

resource impacts and the magnitude of those 

impacts would increase. Therefore, the 

mitigation measures would be incorporated 
Introduction

243

into the record of decision for the selected 

alternative.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations, which ensures that federal 

agencies meet their obligations under the 

National Environmental Policy Act, requires

assessment of cumulative impacts in the 

decision-making process for federal projects. 

Cumulative impacts are described in Council 

on Environmental Quality regulation 1508.7 

as follows:

Cumulative impacts result from the 

incremental impact of an action 

when added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, regardless of what agency 

(federal or nonfederal) or person

undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over 

a period of time.

Cumulative impacts are evaluated separately

for the no-action alternative and the three

action alternatives by adding the impacts 

from each alternative with the impacts from

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. To do this, it was necessary to 

identify other such projects or actions at the 

Riverways and in the surrounding “action 

area.” The extent of the “action area” was 

determined to be the counties adjacent to the 

entire 134 miles of river within the Riverways. 

The action area for assessing cumulative 

impacts is the same for all impact topics.

To determine which actions within this area 

may have cumulative impacts on Riverways’

resources and values, the National Park 

Service identified projects and programs that 

have occurred in the past, are currently being 

implemented, or would likely be 

implemented over the next 20 years, which is 

the typical life of a general management plan. 

Combined, these actions are referred to as 

the cumulative scenario. Conceptual plans

focusing on long-term goals and objectives, 

rather than on specific projects that have 

been funded and approved, have not been 

included in the cumulative scenario.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions that could contribute to 

cumulative impacts are summarized below. 

The evaluation of cumulative impacts, 

described under each impact topic, is 

qualitative in nature.

Recreation and Tourism Enhancements

Counties and municipalities adjacent to the 

Riverways have a variety of recreation and 

tourism initiatives to stimulate economic 

growth and improve the quality of life in the 

area. The following projects are among those 

that could have cumulative impacts on 

Riverways resources and visitor experiences.

The Missouri Department of Conservation

has an ongoing elk reintroduction program in 

the Peck Ranch Conservation Area in 

Shannon, Carter, and Reynolds counties. The 

National Park Service provided a letter of 

support to the Missouri Department of 

Conservation regarding the reintroduction of 

elk to the state. At the time of the printing of 

this document, public access to this refuge is 

limited to a driving loop through a portion of 

the refuge for viewing elk and other wildlife 

along fields, streams, and forested areas. The 

entire road system within the refuge will 

likely return to full, open public access in the 

future, as it existed prior to the elk 

reintroduction effort. It should also be noted 

that the elk are not fenced in and are free to 

roam freely. To date, they have been 

documented inside the National Riverways

boundary numerous times and have been 

crossed the Current River and made it to U.S. 

Highway 60.

The town of Van Buren plans to complete the 

Old Tram Road Trail, a 10.2-mile-long,

multiuse trail along the Current River in 

Carter County, Missouri, that would connect 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

244

Van Buren to the land and water resources of 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways. When 

completed, the trail would become part of the 

larger Ozark Trail.

Recreational use adjacent to the Riverways is 

expected to continue to increase, particularly 

as state and local highways between St. Louis 

and other metropolitan areas and the 

Riverways vicinity are improved and 

widened.

Overcrowding and conflicting river uses in 

adjacent areas can affect the quality of 

recreational experiences within the 

Riverways as well. For example, manure

associated with horseback riding and 

petroleum byproducts from gas-powered 

motorboats can affect river water quality, 

which in turn can affect recreational 

experiences in the Riverways. It should be 

noted that the “gaps” at Eminence and Van 

Buren are outside the National Park Service’s

jurisdiction; thus, increased pollution and

overcrowding in and near these areas may 

occur without National Park Service 

management control.

Adjacent Land Uses and

Land Development

Various types of land uses and development 

activities on surrounding lands within the 

Current and Jacks Fork river basins can have 

effects on park resources and values. These 

activities include

 residential and commercial 

development

 various types of mining

 agriculture

 recreational land uses

 forestry practices

 sewage treatment and disposal 

(municipal and individual/septic)

 garbage dumps, and salvage yards

 pipelines

 petroleum and other chemical storage 

sites

Because of the ecological connectivity of 

natural systems and because the karst system 

of the Ozark Highlands extends well beyond 

the boundary of the Riverways, adjacent land 

use practices can directly affect the 

Riverways.

None of the counties within the action area 

have zoning or construction permitting 

processes. New land development may occur, 

but would not be reported or tracked until 

completed (and then only for assessment and 

taxing purposes). Within the Riverways’

boundaries, most private property is 

restricted by scenic easements. This can 

ensure that scenic viewsheds remain intact; 

however, improperly managed scenic 

easements can result in negative effects on 

viewsheds along the river corridors over 

time.

Historic clearing of riparian forests that 

occurred prior to the National Riverways’ 

designation had a variety of effects on natural 

resources in the area, ranging from habitat 

fragmentation to river channel instability. 

Although large scale forest clearing activities 

no longer occur, the agricultural activities 

and other lands uses on these cleared lands 

throughout the Current and Jacks Fork 

basins could continue to have effects on park 

resources. Also, since 1998, there have been 

four permitted gravel removal operations in 

the Jacks Fork watershed. Additional, future 

gravel mining operations within the basins 

could occur.

The Viburnum Trend, the world’s largest 

lead-zinc mining district, extends into the 

Current River watershed. Exploration for 

mineral deposits has occurred on the 

southeastern edge of the river basin in the 

Mark Twain National Forest and may 

continue near the Riverways.

Air pollution from near and distant land use 

sources has deposited mercury into the 

streams and rivers of the National Riverways.
Introduction

245

The nonnative Asian clam is present in the 

riverways and may be increasing in 

abundance and range. This clam may 

outcompete native mussel species. Other 

nonnative species that could affect native 

species and the ecological integrity of the 

National Riverways include zebra mussels, 

Eurasian water milfoil, Didymosphenia,

purple loosestrife, and nonnative crayfish.

Lastly, unmanaged or undermanaged allterrain vehicles, four-wheel-drive vehicles, 

and motorboats on surrounding lands and 

waters can affect park resources and values.

Road Construction and Improvements

U.S. Highway 67 from St. Louis to Poplar 

Bluff has been expanded to a four-lane 

highway. This improvement is expected to 

increase tourist traffic near and into the 

Riverways.

Expansion of U.S. Highway 60 through Van 

Buren recently was completed. The Missouri 

Highway 19 bridge over Sinking Creek is

anticipated to be funded for construction in 

the Missouri Department of Transportation's 

next statewide transportation improvement 

5-year construction program and is 

scheduled for replacement in the near future.

Other Actions

A new repeater site has been installed within 

the National Riverways boundaries at 

Rhymer Ridge as part of an upgrade to the 

Riverways’ radio system. The previously 

undeveloped Rhymer Ridge site is on a ridge 

near a commercial power source and is 

surrounded by a 6-foot-high, chain-link 

security fence. The fence has a vehicle-width 

gate at the compound entrance. The surface 

within the compound and extending a few 

feet beyond the security fence has aggregate 

rock installed over a weed barrier mat.
246

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES AND SOILS

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

This impact topic includes the surface and 

subterranean geologic resources and soils 

along the riverways. The impact intensities 

for geologic resources and soils are as 

follows:

 Negligible: Impacts on geologic 

resources and soils would be barely 

detectable and would result in no 

measurable or perceptible changes to 

geologic resources.

 Minor: Impacts on geologic resources 

and soils would be slight but 

detectable and would result in small 

but measurable changes to geologic 

resources.

 Moderate: Impacts on geologic 

resources and soils would be readily 

apparent and easily measureable and 

would result in considerable changes 

to geologic resources.

 Major: Impacts on geologic resources 

and soils would be severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and would 

result in substantial changes to 

geologic resources (in scale, degree, 

and/or size).

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The no-action alternative would involve the 

continuation of current park management 

actions and practices. Generally, the 

degradation of soils and other geologic 

features of the National Riverways, including 

karst surfaces and subsurfaces, would 

continue to be managed on a site-by-site, 

case-by-case basis. National Riverways lands 

would not be zoned for different types and 

levels of development and recreational uses.

Areas of soil erosion and sedimentation 

would continue to occur as a result of the 

continued recreational and transportation 

land uses throughout the National Riverways, 

such as motorized vehicle and equestrian use, 

hiking, and camping. Although surface soil 

degradation would be relatively controlled 

and minimal in developed areas and along 

designated roads and trails, a notable amount 

of erosion and sedimentation could continue 

to result from the excessive use of 

undesignated roads and trails used by 

motorized vehicles, hikers, and equestrian 

users. These uses would displace vegetation 

cover and expose soils to weathering.

Similarly, the ongoing creation and use of 

undesignated trails and roads, as well as the 

expansion of high-use areas, could continue 

to compact soils and alter the natural makeup of the soil horizon, reducing the quality of 

the soils for sustaining plant growth and 

other natural processes.

The continued generation and use of 

undesignated roads and trails from dispersed 

recreational and transportation uses by park 

visitors could continue to degrade karst 

features throughout the National Riverways.

Expansion and use of high-use areas in the 

National Riverways could also continue to 

alter nearby karst landscape. Motorized 

vehicles and equestrian uses would likely 

continue to be the largest contributors to the 

degradation of geologic resources and soils.

In addition to direct impacts to these unique 

geologic resources, the ground surface 

alterations from undesignated trail use could 

alter surface hydrology, which could 

indirectly impact the karst hydrology (both 

water quality and water quantity effects).

Undesignated river access points, launches, 

crossings, and gravel bar camping would 

continue to disturb and destabilize 

riverbanks and riverbeds, resulting in bank 

and riverbed erosion and sedimentation.

With all stretches of the Jacks Fork and 

Current Rivers in the park unit allowing 

motorboat use, potential effects of riverbank 

erosion from boat wakes could continue.
Geologic Resources and Soils

247

Overall, the continued management of the 

National Riverways under the no-action 

alternative would result in a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

effect on geologic resources and soils.

Cumulative Impacts

Several past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects and actions in the 

vicinity of the National Riverways have had 

and would contribute to notable effects on 

the soils and geologic resources in the area. 

Throughout the springsheds and watersheds 

of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers, land 

use and development, flow/channel 

alterations, other recreational uses, and 

mineral development are the primary 

contributors to these past, present, and future 

effects.

Potential land use and land development 

effects include adverse impacts associated 

with earthwork and landscape alterations 

from agricultural and forestry practices, 

urban and suburban land development, 

garbage dumps, industrial sites, pipelines, and 

transportation infrastructure (including 

roads and bridges). These types of land 

alterations disturb or displace the native soils 

and geologic strata in the watersheds and 

springsheds, including possible disturbances 

to the karst geologic system adjacent to the 

National Riverways. Many of these land uses 

can also lead to altered surface drainage 

patterns and increased runoff volumes in the 

tributary basins of the Riverways’ rivers, 

which typically result in soil erosion and 

sedimentation (often far downstream from 

the land disturbance site).

In particular, road development can have 

considerable effects in altering flow patterns 

and channelizing drainage. Past and present 

agricultural and logging practices have also 

caused notable changes to the soils and 

geologic resources of the area. The past 

clearance of native bottomland forests after 

European settlement and the transition to 

intensive agricultural land uses contribute to 

exposing large areas of native soils and 

geology to the effects of weathering and 

erosion. In addition to exposing native soils 

to erosion and migration, the land clearing 

and subsequent agricultural uses resulted in 

the deposition of large volumes of chert 

gravel in the rivers and tributaries of the area.

Mining and mineral development is another 

notable contributor to soils and geologic 

resource impacts. The drainage basins of the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers are home to a 

number of substantial mining projects. The 

past and current mining activities in the 

watersheds have disturbed or displaced areas

of native soils and karst geology. Future 

mining and mineral development would

likely continue this trend in the region.

Gravel mining operations can adversely affect 

the geology of adjacent tributaries by altering 

flow patterns, changing channel structure,

increasing stream gradient, relocating 

channels, and causing scouring and bank 

erosion. The removal of larger-sized gravel 

can also release finer sediment into the 

tributaries of the river system, which not only 

alters the geology of the stream and river 

channels, but also has notable adverse effects 

on aquatic habitat quality. Since 1998, there 

have been four permitted gravel removal 

operations in the Jacks Fork watershed.

In addition to gravel mining, the Current 

River watershed is home to a portion of the 

world’s largest lead-zinc mining district, the 

Viburnum Trend. The exploration for similar 

mineral deposits has occurred on the 

southwestern edge of the river basin in the 

Mark Twain National Forest.

Recreational uses on other private and state 

lands (inside and outside the NPS boundary) 

contribute to the cumulative effects on soils 

and geologic resources. Equestrian and offroad motorized vehicle use outside NPSmanaged lands are just two examples. 

Unmanaged equestrian and vehicle use often 

lead to soil erosion and sedimentation, stir up 

riverbed material, and can alter underlying 

karst features.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

248

Collectively, these past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions and 

activities in the Jacks Fork and Current river 

basins would have long-term, moderate, 

adverse, localized to regional impacts on soils 

and geologic resources.

When the likely effects of the no-action 

alternative are added to the effects of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, there would be a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, regional, cumulative 

impact on soils and geologic resources. The 

no-action alternative would contribute an 

appreciable, long-term, adverse increment to 

the cumulative effect.

Conclusion

The no-action alternative would contribute 

to long-term, moderate, adverse, localized to 

regional impacts on geologic resources and 

soils. Impacts of this alternative, combined 

with the impacts of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in a long-term, moderate, adverse, 

regional, cumulative impact on soils and 

geologic resources. The no-action alternative 

would contribute an appreciable, long-term, 

adverse increment to the cumulative effect.

ALTERNATIVE A

Alternative A would place a stronger 

emphasis on managing natural resources in 

the National Riverways. The new approach 

would include managing for desired 

conditions using management zones, more 

use of applied biology and geographic 

information systems, program enhancements 

in aquatic resource monitoring and rare 

terrestrial plant/wildlife protection, karst 

system management, restoration of 

fragmented habitats, partnering on resource 

stewardship projects, and monitoring of 

boundary effects on resources. Collectively, 

this stronger emphasis on natural resource 

management would result in a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial, regional effect on 

geologic resources.

Land management zoning would be 

introduced to the park management strategy 

under this alternative, with the National 

Riverways having the following zoning:

26.8% primitive, 68.6% natural, 3.2% 

resource-based recreation, and 1.4% 

developed. Establishment of land 

management zones (with approximately 96% 

of the National Riverways being managed as 

primitive or natural) would substantially 

reduce the effects of recreational use and

park operations on geological resources and 

soils. Facility development, park operations, 

and recreational uses that negatively affect 

geological resources (erosion, sedimentation, 

and compaction) would be better contained 

and mitigated. This would result in a longterm, moderate, beneficial, regional effect on 

soils and geologic resources.

River management zoning would be 

introduced to the park management strategy 

under this alternative, with the following 

zoning on the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers: 

51% nonmotorized river, 13% seasonal 

mixed-uses river, and 36% mixed-use river. 

Establishment of river management zones 

that provide for lengthy nonmotorized 

stretches and stretches with increased 

management of horsepower and seasonal use 

could help reduce and control wake 

disturbances on riverbanks and associated 

erosion and sedimentation along several 

stretches of the rivers. This could result in a 

long-term, minor, beneficial, regional effect 

on soils and geologic resources.

Under this alternative, approximately 20 

access points (dropoff and pickup) for 

nonmotorized watercraft users would be 

closed, restored, and relocated to better 

manage watercraft crowding on the rivers

that results from concessioner services. New 

access points for nonmotorized watercraft 

users would be located and built in a way that 

minimized natural resource impacts. The 

restoration of riverbank and riverbed areas 

where the existing nonmotorized watercraft
Geologic Resources and Soils

249

access points are closed and restored could 

have beneficial effects on soils and geologic 

features along the rivers. However, the 

development of new access points for these 

users would result in additional compaction, 

erosion, and sedimentation of riverbank soils 

and surrounding submerged and upland 

soils. These visitor management actions 

would have long-term, minor, localized 

effects that were both beneficial and adverse 

to soils and geologic resources. Due to the 

reduced number of access points for 

nonmotorized watercraft users and the 

sustainable design of the new access points, 

most of the effects would be beneficial.

Vehicular access and circulation in the 

National Riverways would be managed by 

zoning prescriptions and with an increase in 

law enforcement staff to monitor and enforce 

vehicle access compliance. This could reduce 

the creation and continuation of 

undesignated roads in the National 

Riverways and, thus, reduce negative effects 

on local soils and geology. In addition, the 

closure and restoration of approximately 50

miles of undesignated roads and traces in the 

National Riverways would minimize further 

soil compaction, erosion, and sedimentation 

and allow restoration to occur. The closure of 

undesignated vehicle accesses and crossings 

along the rivers would also reduce bank 

erosion and sedimentation. Collectively, 

these actions related to vehicle/access 

management would have a long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial, localized to regional 

effect on geology and soils.

Visitors utilizing motorized and nonmotorized watercraft could continue to camp

on gravel bars, as long as the location of that 

campsite is 0.5 mile away from any designated 

camping area and at least 50 feet away from 

any designated river access. Designated 

campsites or camping areas may be 

established on some gravel bars that are 

accessed by licensed vehicles in order to 

reduce crowding, improve safety, and 

enhance visitor experience. This would 

reduce riverbed disturbances, soil 

disturbances, and the potential for erosion 

and sedimentation in all gravel bar areas.

These management actions would result in a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial, localized 

effect on soils and geologic resources.

Mountain biking may become a new, allowed 

trail use under this alternative (only on 

designated trails that are yet to be 

determined). The potential for soil 

compaction, erosion, and sedimentation 

along the designated trails would increase 

notably from conditions that would develop, 

including rutting and braiding. This could 

result in a long-term, minor, adverse, 

localized effect on soils and geologic 

resources.

This alternative would include improvements 

to the Riverways’ equestrian management. 

These changes would include a betterdesigned horse trail system that would 

minimize geology and soil damage by 

removing trails from sensitive areas, better 

managing equestrian access to the rivers and 

shorelines, and providing higher-quality, 

sustainable trails. The proposed equestrian 

trail system of this alternative would result in 

nearly 50 miles of designated equestrian 

trails, including approximately 23 miles of 

existing and approximately 25 miles of newly 

designated trails. Much of the newly 

designated trail mileage would follow 

alignments of existing undesignated trails and 

no additional stream crossings would be 

designated. Thus, most new designated 

equestrian trails would not be expected to 

directly increase soil disturbance or 

compaction beyond what exists under the 

no-action alternative. However, there is a 

potential for indirect adverse effects if some 

equestrians use new designated trails as 

avenues to create other undesignated trails. 

This could increase demands on park 

enforcement staff to control undesignated 

trail creation in new “opened up” areas, and 

could result in soil disturbance and 

compaction from new off-trail use. Overall, 

this new equestrian management would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial, and 

localized to regional effect on soils and 

geology.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

250

This alternative would include the closure 

and restoration of approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated equestrian trails, as well as 

several undesignated river crossings and 

undesignated river access points in the 

National Riverways. These resource 

restoration areas would prevent further 

degradation of local soils and geology, both 

along the riverbanks and in upland areas. 

Reductions in soil compaction, soil erosion, 

and sedimentation would be expected. This 

action would result in a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial, localized to regional effect on soils 

and geology.

This alternative would include the 

establishment of an equestrian permitting 

system that would help manage horse use 

levels and allow park staff to monitor 

resource impacts against established

standards. This new permitting program and 

resource monitoring approach would help 

protect against soil and geology degradation 

from horse use, which would result in a longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial, localized 

to regional effect on soils and geology.

Additional trails that are accessible to people 

with disabilities would occur under this 

alternative. These trail developments would 

cause compaction of native soils and 

possibility lead to isolated areas of erosion 

and sedimentation, resulting in a long-term, 

minor, adverse, localized effect on soils and 

geology.

The proposed designation of 3,424 acres of 

wilderness at Big Spring under alternative A 

would have a long-term, minor, beneficial, 

localized effect on geologic resources and 

soils. Approximately 10 acres in the 

wilderness study area would be excluded 

from the proposed designation as a small 

developed area and its narrow access 

corridor, sometimes called a cherry stem. The 

structures, roads, and utilities (and associated 

uses and management) in these excluded 

areas would remain. Although the lands of 

the proposed designation would be managed 

in a way that is compliant with the 

Wilderness Act (as well as being managed 

under the primitive zone of this plan), land 

management would not be notably different 

from the no-action alternative. However, the 

primitive zoning and wilderness designation 

would further limit the potential for future 

facility development and/or types of use 

relative to what is allowed under the noaction alternative. In addition, with the 

proposed wilderness designation, motorized 

vehicle use of the access road to the fire 

tower would be prohibited. This change of 

allowed use would reduce disturbances to 

surface soils and minimize erosion and 

sedimentation along the road corridor.

However, since very little motorized use is 

currently occurring in this area (i.e., under 

no-action alternative), the reduction in 

motorized use would be negligible.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

impacts on geologic resources and soils. 

When the beneficial and adverse effects of 

alternative A are added to the effects of these 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, there would be a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional,

cumulative impact on soils and geologic 

resources. Alternative A would contribute an 

appreciable, long-term, beneficial increment 

to the cumulative effect.

Conclusion

Alternative A would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, beneficial 

impacts, and long-term, minor, localized,

adverse impacts on geologic resources and 

soils. Impacts of this alternative, combined 

with the impacts of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in a long-term, moderate, adverse, 
Geologic Resources and Soils

251

localized to regional, cumulative impact on 

soils and geologic resources. Alternative A 

would contribute an appreciable, long-term, 

beneficial increment to the cumulative effect.

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED)

The NPS preferred alternative would place a 

stronger emphasis on managing natural 

resources relative to the no-action 

alternative. The new approach would include 

managing for desired conditions of 

management zones, more use of applied 

biology and geographic information system, 

program enhancements in aquatic resource 

monitoring, spring monitoring, restoration of 

fragmented habitats, information sharing, 

partnering on resource stewardship projects, 

and monitoring of boundary effects on 

resources. Collectively, this emphasis on 

natural resource management would result in 

a long-term, moderate, beneficial, regional 

effect on soils and geologic resources.

Land management zoning would be 

introduced to the park management strategy 

under this alternative, with the following land 

zoning: 16.4% primitive, 72.0% natural, 8.8% 

resource-based recreation, and 2.8% 

developed. Establishment of land 

management zones (with approximately 88% 

of the National Riverways being managed as 

primitive or natural) would help minimize 

recreation use and park operations effects on 

geological resources and soils. Facility 

development, park operations, and 

recreation uses that negatively affected

geological resources (erosion, sedimentation, 

and compaction) would be better contained. 

Management of these impacts could focus on 

specific concentrated zones of use. This 

would result in a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial, regional effect on soils and 

geologic resources.

The new development associated with 

alternative B would increase the footprint of 

the developed area of the National Riverways

from the current 1.4% to 2.8%. This would 

increase disturbances and displacement of 

geologic resources and soils. A portion of this 

increased area of development would 

provide two new developed campgrounds 

(along the upper Current River near Akers 

and the upper Jacks Fork near Blue Spring)

and a 25-site horse camping area along the 

Jacks Fork. Although some of the proposed 

campground developments would occur in 

existing disturbed areas (for example, day use

areas), the expansion would likely increase 

the disturbance zone to surrounding soils and 

increase the potential for soil compaction, 

erosion, and sedimentation. This increase in 

developed areas of the National Riverways

would result in short- and long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized effects on soils 

and geologic resources in and near the 

proposed developed zones of the park unit.

River management zoning would be 

introduced to the park management strategy 

under this alternative, with the following 

zoning on the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers: 

48% seasonal mixed-use river and 52% 

mixed-use river. Establishment of river 

management zones that provide for stretches 

with increased management of horsepower 

and seasonal use would help reduce and 

control wake disturbances on riverbanks and 

associated erosion and sedimentation along 

several stretches of the rivers during the peak 

season in the upper reaches of the Current 

River and the Jacks Fork when motorboats 

are restricted. Overall, the river management 

zoning would result in a long-term, negligible 

to minor, beneficial, regional effect on soils 

and geologic resources.

Concession dropoff and pickup locations for 

river users using nonmotorized watercraft 

could be redistributed to reduce peak-season 

crowding effects or to protect river resources 

if changes in river flow conditions impact 

existing locations. At the relocation sites, this 

would result in additional compaction, 

erosion, and sedimentation of riverbank soils 

and surrounding submerged and upland 

soils. However, this action would also result 

in beneficial effects from the restoration of 

riverbank areas where the existing 

nonmotorized watercraft access points were
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

252

closed and restored. These visitor

management actions would have long-term, 

minor, localized effects that were both 

beneficial and adverse to soils and geologic 

resources.

Vehicular access and circulation in the 

National Riverways would be managed by 

zoning prescriptions and with an increase in 

law enforcement staff to monitor and enforce 

vehicle access compliance. This could reduce 

the creation and continuation of 

undesignated roads in the National 

Riverways and, thus, reduce negative effects 

on local soils and geology. In addition, the 

closure and restoration of approximately 45

miles of undesignated roads and traces in the 

park unit would minimize further soil 

compaction, erosion, and sedimentation and 

allow restoration to occur. The closure of 

undesignated vehicle accesses and crossings 

along the rivers would also reduce bank 

erosion and sedimentation. Collectively, 

these actions related to vehicle/access 

management would have a long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial, localized to regional 

effect on geology and soils.

This alternative could reduce the number of 

gravel bars that are accessible by motorized 

terrestrial vehicles. Camping would be 

allowed only at designated gravel bars and 

away from the river. This could reduce 

riverbed disturbances, soil disturbances, and 

the potential for erosion and sedimentation 

in many gravel bar areas. These management 

actions could result in a long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial, localized effect on soils 

and geologic resources.

Mountain biking may become a new, allowed 

trail use under this alternative (only on

designated trails that are yet to be 

determined). The potential for soil 

compaction, erosion, and sedimentation 

along the designated trails would increase 

notably from conditions that would develop, 

including rutting and braiding. This could 

result in a long-term, minor, adverse, 

localized effect on soils and geologic 

resources.

This alternative would include improvements 

to the National Riverways’ equestrian 

management. These changes would include a 

better-designed horse trail system that would 

minimize geology and soil damage by 

removing trails from sensitive areas, better 

managing equestrian access to the rivers and 

shorelines, and providing higher-quality, 

sustainable trails. The proposed equestrian 

trail system of this alternative would result in 

nearly 50 to 70 miles of designated equestrian 

trails, including approximately 23 miles of 

existing and approximately 25 to 45 miles of 

newly designated trails. Much of the newly 

designated trail mileage would follow 

alignments of existing undesignated trails. 

Thus, most new designated equestrian trails 

would not be expected to directly increase 

soil disturbance or compaction beyond what 

exists under the no-action alternative. 

However, there is a potential for indirect 

adverse effects if some equestrians use the 

new designated trails as avenues to create 

other undesignated trails in new areas. This 

would increase demands on park 

enforcement staff to control undesignated 

trail creation in new “opened up” areas, and 

could result in soil disturbance and 

compaction from new off-trail use. Overall, 

this new equestrian management would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial, and 

localized to regional effect on soils and 

geology.

The proposed equestrian management could 

result in some new river crossing points along 

newly designated trail alignments. These new 

crossings could alter and compact riverbank 

soils and lead to erosion if they are located in 

previously undisturbed areas. In addition, 

horse camping may be allowed in designated 

sites under this alternative. These actions

could result in a long-term, minor, adverse, 

localized effect on soils and geologic 

resources.

This alternative would include the closure 

and restoration of approximately 45 to 65

miles of undesignated equestrian trails, as 

well as several undesignated river crossings 

and undesignated river access points in the 
Geologic Resources and Soils

253

National Riverways. These resource 

restoration areas would prevent further 

degradation of local soils and geology, both 

along the riverbanks and in upland areas. 

Reductions in soil compaction, soil erosion,

and sedimentation would be expected. This 

action would result in a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial, localized to regional effect on soils 

and geology.

The establishment of a 25-campsite horse 

campground would introduce new ground 

disturbances, soil compaction, and the 

potential for erosion and sedimentation at 

the new campground site and in areas 

radiating from the horse camp (from an 

accompanying increase in equestrian activity 

in this area). This action would result in a 

long-term, minor, adverse, localized effect on 

soils and geologic resources.

This alternative could include the 

establishment of an equestrian permitting 

system that would help manage horse use 

levels and allow park staff to monitor 

resource impacts against established

standards. This new permitting program and 

resource monitoring approach would help 

protect against soil and geology degradation 

from horse use, which would result in a longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial, localized 

to regional effect on soils and geology.

The planned increased access to discovery 

sites in the National Riverways could 

generate the need for additional trail 

development in some areas. Additional trails 

that are accessible to people with disabilities 

would also occur under this alternative.

These trail developments would cause 

compaction of native soils and possibility 

lead to isolated areas of erosion and 

sedimentation, resulting in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse, localized effect 

on soils and geology.

The proposed designation of approximately 

3,430 acres of wilderness at Big Spring under 

alternative B would have a long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial, localized effect on 

geologic resources and soils. Approximately 4 

acres in the wilderness study area (existing 

utility corridor) would be proposed as 

potential wilderness addition, pending 

eventual decommissioning of the utility line. 

Although the lands of the proposed 

designation would be managed in a way that 

is compliant with the Wilderness Act (as well 

as being managed under the primitive zone of 

this plan), land management would not be 

notably different than what would occur 

under the no-action alternative. However, 

the primitive zone and wilderness 

designation would further limit the potential 

for future facility development and/or types 

of use relative to what is allowed under 

current management. In addition, with the 

proposed wilderness designation, the NPS 

training range would be removed and 

restored to a natural condition. Also, 

motorized vehicle use of the access road to 

the fire tower, NPS training range, and barn 

would be prohibited. These roads would be 

evaluated to determine if they should be 

rehabilitated to a natural condition or 

restored to Civilian Conservation Corps-era 

condition. These restoration efforts and 

changes in allowed use would reduce 

disturbances to surface soils and minimize 

erosion and sedimentation along the road 

corridor.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

impacts on geologic resources and soils.

When the beneficial and adverse effects of 

alternative B are added to the effects of these 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, there would be a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional,

cumulative impact on soils and geologic 

resources. Alternative B would contribute a 

small, long-term, beneficial increment to the

cumulative effect.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

254

Conclusion

Alternative B would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, beneficial 

impacts, and short- to long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized, adverse impacts on 

geologic resources and soils. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional,

cumulative impact on soils and geologic 

resources. Alternative B would contribute a 

small, long-term, beneficial increment to the

cumulative effect.

ALTERNATIVE C

Alternative C would place a stronger 

emphasis on monitoring water quality, 

aquatic ecology, and terrestrial ecology to 

ensure the protection of these natural 

resources because of the notably higher levels 

of visitor use associated with this alternative. 

This management approach would also 

include an increase in habitat restoration 

efforts and partnering on resource 

stewardship projects. Collectively, these 

management actions would result in a longterm, minor, beneficial, regional effect on 

soils and geologic resources.

Land management zoning would be 

introduced to the park management strategy 

under this alternative, with the following land 

zoning: 6.5% primitive, 28.2% natural, 59.6% 

resource-based recreation, and 5.7% 

developed. Establishment of land 

management zones (with approximately 34% 

of the National Riverways being managed as 

primitive or natural) would help minimize 

negative effects from recreational use, facility 

development, and park operations on 

geological resources and soils in areas zoned 

for protection. However, with roughly 6% of 

the National Riverways being zoned as 

developed and 60% as resource-based 

recreation, many large areas that are 

currently undisturbed would be exposed to 

increased development and visitor uses. As a 

result, considerable disturbances and 

displacement of geological resources would 

occur under this alternative, resulting in 

increased erosion, sedimentation, soil 

compaction, and loss of topsoil. Thus, 

although the application of zoning would 

help contain adverse effects on resources, the 

degradation of resources from the large 

amount of developed and recreation zoning 

in alternative C would result in a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, regional effect on soils 

and geologic resources.

This alternative would increase the 

developed area of the park unit from the 

current 1.4% to 5.7%. A portion of this 

increased area of development would 

provide two new developed campgrounds 

(along the upper Current River near Akers 

and the upper Jacks Fork near Blue Spring) 

and a 25-site horse camping area along the 

Jacks Fork. Although some of the proposed 

campground developments would occur in 

existing disturbed areas (for example, day use

areas), the expansion would likely result in an 

increase in the disturbance zone to 

surrounding soils and an increase in the 

potential for additional soil compaction, 

erosion, and sedimentation. This would 

result in short- and long-term, moderate, 

adverse, localized effects on soils and 

geologic resources.

River management zoning would be 

introduced to the park management strategy 

under this alternative, with following zoning 

on the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers: 21% 

nonmotorized river, 20% seasonal mixed-use 

river, and 59% mixed-use river. Establishment of river management zones that provide 

for nonmotorized stretches and stretches 

with increased management of horsepower 

and seasonal use would help reduce and 

control wake disturbances on riverbanks and 

associated erosion and sedimentation on 

several stretches of the rivers. This would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial, and 

localized to regional effect on soils and 

geologic resources.
Geologic Resources and Soils

255

Under this alternative, approximately 20 

access points (dropoff and pickup) for 

nonmotorized watercraft users would be 

closed, restored, and relocated to better 

manage watercraft crowding on the rivers

that results from concessioner services. At 

the relocation sites, this would result in 

additional compaction, erosion, and 

sedimentation of riverbank soils and 

surrounding submerged and upland soils. 

However, this action would also result in 

beneficial effects from the restoration of 

riverbank areas where the existing 

nonmotorized watercraft access points were

closed and restored. These visitor

management actions would have long-term, 

minor, localized effects that were both 

beneficial and adverse to soils and geologic 

resources.

Vehicular access and circulation in the 

National Riverways would be managed by 

zoning prescriptions and with an increase in 

law enforcement staff to monitor and enforce 

vehicle access compliance. This could reduce 

the creation and continuation of 

undesignated roads in the National 

Riverways and, thus, reduce negative effects 

on soils and geology. In addition, the closure 

and restoration of approximately 40 miles of 

undesignated roads and traces in the park 

unit would minimize further soil compaction, 

erosion, and sedimentation and allow 

restoration to occur. The closure of 

undesignated vehicle accesses and crossings 

along the rivers would also reduce bank 

erosion and sedimentation. Collectively, 

these actions related to vehicle/access 

management would have a long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial, localized to regional 

effect on geology and soils.

Although vehicular access to gravel bars 

would remain unchanged (same as no-action 

alternative), this alternative would limit 

gravel bar camping to designated gravel bars 

and away from the river. This would help 

minimize some riverbed disturbances, soil 

disturbances, and the potential for erosion 

and sedimentation in gravel bar areas. These 

management actions would result in a longterm, minor, beneficial, localized effect on 

soils and geologic resources.

Mountain biking may become a new, allowed 

trail use under this alternative (only on

designated trails that are yet to be 

determined). The potential for soil 

compaction, erosion, and sedimentation 

along the designated trails would increase 

notably from conditions that would develop, 

including rutting and braiding. This could 

result in a long-term, minor, adverse, 

localized effect on soils and geologic 

resources.

This alternative would include improvements 

to the National Riverways’ equestrian 

management. These changes would include a 

better-designed horse trail system that would 

minimize geology and soil damage by 

removing trails from sensitive areas, better 

managing equestrian access to the rivers and 

shorelines, and providing higher-quality, 

sustainable trails. The proposed equestrian 

trail system of this alternative would result in 

nearly 70 miles of designated equestrian 

trails, including approximately 23 miles of 

existing and approximately 45 miles of newly 

designated trails. Much of the newly 

designated trail mileage would follow 

alignments of existing undesignated trails.

Thus, most new designated equestrian trails 

would not be expected to directly increase 

soil disturbance s or compaction beyond 

what exists under the no-action alternative. 

However, there is a potential for indirect 

adverse effects if some equestrians use the 

new designated trails as avenues to create 

other undesignated trails in new areas. This 

would increase demands on park 

enforcement staff to control undesignated 

trail creation in new “opened up” areas, and 

could result in soil disturbance and 

compaction from new off-trail use. Overall, 

this new equestrian management would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial, and 

localized to regional effect on soils and 

geology.

The proposed equestrian management could 

result in some new river crossing points along 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

256

newly designated trail alignments. These new 

crossings could alter and compact riverbank 

soils if they are located in previously 

undisturbed areas. This could result in a 

long-term, minor, adverse, localized effect on 

soils and geologic resources.

This alternative would include the closure 

and restoration of approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated equestrian trails, as well as 

several undesignated river crossings and 

undesignated river access points in the 

National Riverways. These resource 

restoration areas would prevent further 

degradation of local soils and geology, both 

along the riverbanks and in upland areas. 

Reductions in soil compaction, soil erosion, 

and sedimentation would be expected. This 

action would result in a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial, localized to regional effect on soils 

and geology.

The establishment of a 25-campsite horse 

campground along the Jacks Fork would 

introduce new ground disturbances, soil 

compaction, and the potential for erosion 

and sedimentation at the new campground 

site and in areas radiating from the horse 

camp (from an accompanying increase in 

equestrian activity in this area). This action 

would result in a long-term, minor, adverse, 

localized effect on soils and geologic 

resources.

Additional trails that are accessible to people 

with disabilities would occur under this 

alternative. These trail developments would 

cause compaction of native soils and possibly 

lead to isolated areas of erosion and 

sedimentation, resulting in a long-term, 

minor, adverse, localized effect on soils and 

geology.

The proposed designation of 1,779 acres of 

wilderness at Big Spring under alternative C 

would have a negligible effect on geologic 

resources and soils. Although the lands of this 

area would be managed in a way that is 

compliant with the Wilderness Act (as well as 

being managed under the primitive zone of 

this plan), land management would not be 

notably different than what would occur 

under the no-action alternative. However, 

the primitive zone and wilderness 

designation would further limit the potential 

for future facility development and/or types 

of use relative to what is allowed under 

current management.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

impacts on geologic resources and soils.

When the beneficial and adverse effects of 

alternative C are added to the effects of these 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, there would be a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, regional, cumulative 

impact on soils and geologic resources. 

Alternative C would contribute a small to 

appreciable, long-term, adverse increment to 

the cumulative effect.

Conclusion

Alternative C would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, beneficial 

impacts, and short- to long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, adverse 

impacts on geologic resources and soils.

Impacts of this alternative, combined with 

the impacts of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in a 

long-term, moderate, adverse, regional,

cumulative impact on soils and geologic 

resources. Alternative C would contribute a 

small to appreciable, long-term, adverse 

increment to the cumulative effect.
257

WATER RESOURCES

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

This impact topic includes water quality and 

water quantity effects on surface water and 

groundwater, including effects to rivers, 

streams, wetlands, and ponds. The impact 

intensities for water resources are as follows:

 Negligible: Impacts on the surface 

and subsurface flow regime, related 

water resource features, and water 

quality would be either barely 

detectable or the effects would be 

considered slight and isolated. Any 

measureable changes would be well 

within the natural range of variability. 

These changes would not have any 

measurable effect on the overall 

hydrological system of the area.

 Minor: Impacts on the surface and 

subsurface flow regime, related water 

resource features, and water quality 

would be measureable, but isolated 

and minimal. Natural processes, 

functions, and integrity would be 

affected, but would be within the 

natural range of variability. These 

changes would not have any 

measurable effect on the overall 

hydrological system of the area.

 Moderate: Impacts on the surface 

and subsurface flow regime, related 

water resource features, and water 

quality would be readily apparent and 

measurable. Natural processes, 

functions, and integrity would be 

affected and would be outside the 

natural range of variability. These 

changes could have detectable effects 

on the overall hydrological system of 

the project area.

 Major: Impacts on the surface and 

subsurface flow regime, related water 

resource features, and water quality 

would be multiple and readily 

measurable. Changes to some natural 

processes, functions, and integrity 

would be drastic, well outside the 

natural range of variability, and would 

have considerable consequences on 

natural resources along the riverways. 

These changes would have substantial 

effects on the overall hydrological 

system of the project area.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The no-action alternative would involve the 

continuation of existing river management 

and land management actions and practices 

of Riverways lands and the Jacks Fork and 

Current Rivers. The continuation of the 

various recreational uses of the park unit 

would continue to have adverse effects on the 

National Riverways’ water resources.

All segments of both rivers in the park unit

would continue to be open to at least some 

level of motorboat use, with various stretches 

continuing to be managed for particular 

motor horsepower limits. This continued 

degree and geographic extent of allowed 

motorboat use along the Current and Jacks 

Fork Rivers would maintain the current level 

of threat of introducing petroleum product 

pollutants into the rivers throughout the park

unit. The potential for water quality 

degradation in the National Riverways’ rivers 

from boat-based petroleum pollutants could 

remain at current levels or increase if 

motorboat use increases on the rivers in the 

park unit.

The no-action alternative would involve the 

continuation of current park land 

management approaches and would not 

include land management zoning. Generally, 

the degradation of water resources in the 

National Riverways from land-based 

recreation would continue to be managed on 

a site-by-site, case-by-case basis.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

258

Equestrian uses in the National Riverways

would continue to adversely affect surface 

water resources throughout the park unit, 

including rivers, streams, wetlands, and

seeps. Along the Jacks Fork and Current 

Rivers, the seven designated horse crossings, 

24 undesignated horse crossings, and 38 

undesignated horse access points to the rivers 

would continue to disturb riverbeds and 

riverbanks, stir up sediment in the rivers, and 

introduce horse manure into the riverways.

This equestrian activity along and in the 

rivers would continue to degrade water 

quality by increasing turbidity and increasing 

nutrient loading and bacteria in the rivers.

Equestrian uses away from the rivers would 

also continue to have adverse effects on 

water resources. The 23 miles of designated 

equestrian trails and nearly 90 miles of 

undesignated equestrian trails would 

continue to introduce nutrient loading and 

bacteria into adjacent water features and 

groundwater. In addition, the undesignated 

trails would continue to be sources of soil 

erosion and sedimentation that could 

degrade the quality of adjacent water 

resources such as wetlands, groundwater 

recharge zones, sinks, and losing streams. For 

example, over 22 miles of the undesignated 

equestrian trails are on steep slopes and have 

serious erosion/sedimentation problems, 

resulting in adverse impacts to nearby water 

resources.

Land-based motorized vehicle use on the 

many roads and traces in the National 

Riverways by NPS staff and park visitors 

would continue to have adverse effects on 

water resources under the no-action 

alternative. The water quality of surface water 

and groundwater could be affected (if near a 

sinkhole, losing stream, or discrete recharge 

area) by the deposition of petroleum product 

pollutants onto the park landscape. Adjacent 

water bodies could continue to be degraded 

by erosion and sedimentation. Soil 

compaction and soil rutting along the roads 

and traces would continue to have effects on 

local hydrologic patterns and subsurface 

water flows. The circuitous nature and length 

of designated roads and undesignated roads 

in the National Riverways would contribute 

to the dispersal and extent of these 

continuing effects from motorized land 

vehicles.

Motorized land-based vehicles would 

continue to access and/or cross the rivers in 

multiple designated and undesignated 

locations under the no-action alternative. 

These vehicles would have adverse effects on 

the water quality of the rivers by depositing 

petroleum product pollutants directly into 

the river when the vehicles are partially 

submerged. In addition, turbidity in river 

water would continue to result from 

motorized vehicles stirring up riverbed 

sediment when accessing or crossing the 

rivers.

Public recreation in and along the rivers and 

septic systems on lands within the NPS 

boundary could also continue to adversely 

affect water quality. Human waste that results 

from recreational activity along the river 

would continue to contribute bacteria 

directly to the surface water system. Leachate 

from ineffective septic systems on lands 

within the NPS boundary could also

contribute nutrient loading into 

groundwater, which may reach surface water 

through seeps and springs in the karst 

landscape.

NPS staff would continue to work with state, 

counties, municipalities, and landowners to 

study, improve, and maintain water quality in 

the Jacks Fork and Current river watersheds.

In addition, staff would aim to remove 

undesignated river accesses and crossings in 

accordance with guidance from the National 

Riverways’ 1991 roads and trails study.

Overall, management of the park unit under 

the no-action alternative would continue to 

result in a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, regional effect on water resources.
Water Resources 

259

Cumulative Impacts

Several past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects and actions in the 

vicinity of the National Riverways have had 

and would have notable effects on the water 

resources in the area. These actions and 

activities include flow and channel alterations 

by other private and public entities, land use 

and development, wastewater discharges, 

other recreational uses, and mineral 

development. Most of these other actions can 

affect surface water resources, groundwater 

resources, or both. In other words, given the 

karst geology of the area, surface water 

contamination can quickly become 

groundwater contamination, and vice versa. 

In a karst system, there is not sufficient time 

for effective filtration and absorption of 

pollutants, bacteria, and viruses from surface 

water as it travels through the groundwater 

system.

Flow and channel alterations by other private 

and public entities in the Jacks Fork and 

Current Rivers and their tributaries can 

change hydraulics in the waterways, resulting 

in riverbed scouring, bank instability, and 

sedimentation upstream and downstream of 

the alteration feature. These features include 

bridge abutments, culverts, river access 

points, and artificial bank hardening.

Wastewater discharges from human uses 

throughout the watersheds and springsheds 

can potentially have considerable effect on 

water quality in the region. For example, 

point source influxes of wastewater 

discharges from t municipal wastewater 

treatment facilities have been documented

along the lower Jacks Fork River. Nonpoint 

pollution sources of wastewater enter the 

system from the ineffective septic leachfield 

discharges in the basins. This source of 

nutrient loading into the hydrologic system 

can have notable effects on downstream 

water quality because of the large number of 

residences in the watershed that are served 

by individual septic disposal systems and the 

porous nature of the karst geology.

Recreational uses on other private and state 

lands (inside and outside NPS boundary) 

contribute to the cumulative effects on water 

resources. For example, unmanaged 

equestrian use can contribute nutrients and 

bacteria from horse manure to rivers. 

Equestrian use can also erode soils along 

trails and stir up riverbeds, resulting in 

sedimentation and turbidity in surface 

waters. Motorboats and off-road motorized 

vehicles can contribute petroleum 

byproducts and other chemicals (on land and 

in water) to the water resources of the basins. 

Off-road vehicles can also contribute to trail 

erosion and sedimentation into water bodies, 

and can degrade groundwater recharge areas.

Land use and land development in the 

watersheds and springsheds of the National 

Riverways’ rivers can have substantial effects 

on water resources. Agricultural land use 

contributes nutrient loading from livestock 

manure, pollutants from herbicide and 

pesticide migration, increased sedimentation 

from surface erosion on deforested lands, 

and increased runoff rates and volumes from 

exposed land without native groundcover.

Urban and suburban land uses alter drainage 

patterns, increase runoff rates and volumes, 

and contribute nutrients and pollutants from 

lawn fertilizer and herbicide treatments.

Garbage dumps can contribute polluted 

leachate into the karst geology and 

groundwater. Industrial sites, including 

petroleum and other chemical storage sites,

can yield polluted runoff into the basin.

Transportation infrastructure substantially 

alters surface flow patterns and often results 

in channelized flows through ditches and 

other conveyances. The channelization of 

flows from roadway development often 

results in downstream erosion and 

sedimentations.

Mining and mineral development is another 

contributor to water resource impacts in the 

area. Gravel mining operations have the 

potential to adversely affect the adjacent 

tributaries by altering flow patterns, changing 

channel structure, increasing stream gradient, 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

260

relocating channels, and causing scouring 

and bank erosion. The removal of coarse 

gravel can release finer sediments into the 

tributaries of the river system, which not only 

alter the geology and hydrology of the stream 

and river channels, but also have adverse 

effects on aquatic habitat quality. Given its 

small size and light weight, the released fine 

sediment migrates down to the Current and 

Jacks Fork Rivers. Since 1998, there have 

been four permitted gravel removal 

operations in the Jacks Fork watershed.

The Current River watershed is part of the 

world’s largest lead-zinc mining district, the 

Viburnum Trend. The exploration for similar 

mineral deposits has occurred on the 

southeastern edge of the river basin in the 

Mark Twain National Forest. Large-scale 

mineral development operations can 

introduce substantial alterations to the local 

hydrology.

Collectively, these past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions and 

activities in the Jacks Fork and Current river 

basins would have long-term, moderate, 

adverse, localized to regional impacts on 

water resources.

When the likely effects of the no-action 

alternative are added to the effects of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, there would be a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, regional, cumulative 

impact on water resources. The no-action 

alternative would contribute an appreciable, 

long-term, adverse increment to the

cumulative effect.

Conclusion

The no-action alternative would have longterm, minor to moderate, adverse, regional 

impacts on water resources. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, regional, cumulative 

impact on water resources. The no-action 

alternative would contribute an appreciable, 

long-term, adverse increment to the

cumulative effect.

ALTERNATIVE A

Alternative A would place a stronger 

emphasis on managing natural resources in 

the National Riverways. The approach would 

include managing for desired conditions of 

management zones, more use of applied 

biology and geographic information systems, 

program enhancements in aquatic resource 

monitoring and rare terrestrial plant/wildlife 

protection, karst system management, 

restoration of fragmented habitats, 

partnering on resource stewardship projects,

and monitoring of boundary effects on 

resources. Collectively, this stronger 

emphasis on natural resource management 

would result in a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial, regional effect on water resources.

Percentages of the park unit in each land 

management zone would include 26.8% 

primitive, 68.6% natural, 3.2% resourcebased recreation, and 1.4% developed. 

Establishment of land management zones 

(with 95% of the National Riverways being 

managed as primitive or natural) would help 

minimize negative effects from recreational 

use, facility development, and park 

operations on rivers, wetlands, streams,

seeps, floodplains, and groundwater 

recharge/discharge areas across the 

landscape. The most notable adverse effects 

on water resources from human activities 

would primarily be limited to the 1.4% of the 

Riverways land that is zoned developed and 

resource-based recreation. Land 

management zoning would result in a longterm, moderate, beneficial, regional effect on 

water resources in the park unit.

River management zoning would also be 

introduced to the park management strategy. 

Zoning of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers, 

based on river miles, would be 51% 

nonmotorized river, 13% seasonal mixed-use 

river, and 36% mixed-use river. The entire 
Water Resources 

261

stretch of the Jacks Fork in the National 

Riverways would be limited to nonmotorized 

use at all times.

Establishment of river management zones 

that provide for year-round nonmotorized

stretches and stretches with increased 

management of horsepower and seasonal 

motorized use would help reduce the threat 

of water quality degradation from petroleumbased pollutants from motorboats in these 

areas and in downstream waters. A potential 

reduction in petroleum-based pollutants 

could also result from seasonal restrictions to 

motorboats between Two Rivers and Round 

Spring on the Current River. These 

management zones would collectively result 

in a long-term, moderate, beneficial, regional 

effect on water resources.

Vehicular access and circulation in the 

National Riverways would be managed by 

zoning prescriptions and with an increase in 

law enforcement staff to monitor and enforce 

vehicle access compliance. This could reduce 

the creation and continuation of 

undesignated roads in the National 

Riverways and, thus, reduce direct negative 

effects on water resources such as streams, 

wetlands, seeps, and groundwater recharge 

areas, as well as indirect effects on water 

quality in the area.

The closure and restoration of approximately 

50 miles of undesignated roads and traces in 

the National Riverways would eliminate or 

reduce existing disturbances to water 

resources. The closure of undesignated 

vehicle accesses and crossings along the 

rivers would reduce negative water quality 

effects on the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. 

Riverbed disturbances and associated 

turbidity in the rivers would likely decrease. 

In addition, the release of petroleum-based 

pollutants from land vehicles would be 

reduced due to improved management of 

vehicle river crossings. Collectively, these 

actions related to road/trace restoration 

would have a long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial, localized to regional effect on 

water resources.

This alternative would eliminate motorized 

terrestrial vehicle access to all gravel bars in 

the park unit except at launch areas. Camping 

would be allowed only at designated gravel 

bars away from the river. This would 

substantially reduce riverbed disturbances, 

erosion/sedimentation, and turbidity at most 

gravel bar areas. These management actions 

would result in a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial, localized effect on water 

resources.

This alternative would include improvements 

to the National Riverways’ equestrian 

management. These changes would include a 

better-designed horse trail system that would 

minimize water resource degradation by 

removing trails from sensitive areas (e.g., 

wetlands, streambanks, floodplain lands, 

seeps, groundwater recharge zones), better 

managing equestrian access to the rivers and 

shorelines, and providing higher-quality, 

sustainable trails. The proposed equestrian 

trail system of this alternative would result in 

nearly 50 miles of designated equestrian 

trails, including approximately 23 miles of 

existing and approximately 25 miles of newly 

designated trails. Much of the newly 

designated trail mileage would follow 

alignments of existing undesignated trails and 

no additional stream crossings would be 

designated. Thus, most new designated 

equestrian trails would not be expected to 

directly increase water resource impacts 

beyond what exists under the no-action 

alternative. However, there is a potential for 

indirect adverse effects if some equestrians 

use new designated trails as avenues to create 

other undesignated trails. This could increase 

demands on park enforcement staff to 

control undesignated trail creation in new 

“opened up” areas, and could result in 

additional adverse effects on water resources 

and quality from new off-trail use. Overall, 

the new equestrian management would result 

in a long-term, minor, beneficial, localized to 

regional effect on water resources.

This alternative would include the closure 

and restoration of a minimum of 

approximately 65 miles of undesignated 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

262

equestrian trails, as well as several

undesignated river crossings and 

undesignated river access points in the 

National Riverways. These trail restoration 

efforts would allow currently disturbed water 

resources to recover and minimize further 

degradation of other water resources. 

Benefits would result along the riverbanks 

and in upland areas, particularly in areas 

where existing undesignated equestrian trails 

run through or along springs and seeps, 

wetlands, floodplains, groundwater recharge 

zones, sinkholes, and losing streams. In 

addition, better management of horse access

and crossing points along the rivers would 

result in reduced levels of manure and horsegenerated sediment and turbidity in the 

rivers. The closure and restoration of 

undesignated equestrian trails and river 

crossing or access points in the National 

Riverways would result in a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial, localized to regional 

effect on water resources.

This alternative would include the 

establishment of an equestrian permitting 

system that would help manage horse-use 

levels and allow park staff to monitor 

resource impacts against established

standards. This new permitting program and 

resource monitoring approach would help 

protect against water resource degradation 

from horse use, which would result in a longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial, localized 

to regional effect on water resources in the 

National Riverways.

The proposed designation of 3,424 acres of 

wilderness at Big Spring under alternative A 

would have a long-term, minor, beneficial, 

localized effect on water resources in the 

Riverways. Approximately 10 acres in the 

wilderness study area would be excluded 

from the proposed designation as a small 

developed area and its narrow access 

corridor, sometimes called a cherry stem. The 

structures, roads, and utilities (and associated 

uses and management) in these excluded 

areas would remain. Although the lands and 

waters of the proposed designation would be 

managed in a way that is compliant with the 

Wilderness Act (as well as being managed 

under the primitive zone of this plan), water 

resource management would not be notably 

different than what would occur under the 

no-action alternative. However, the primitive 

zone and wilderness designation would 

further limit the potential for future facility 

development and/or types of use relative to 

what is allowed under current management. 

In addition, with the proposed wilderness 

designation, motorized vehicle use of the 

access road to the fire tower would be 

prohibited. This change of allowed use would 

reduce disturbances to surface soils and 

minimize sedimentation and associated 

effects on water resources in the area.

However, since very little motorized use is 

currently occurring in this area (i.e., under 

no-action alternative), the reduction in 

motorized use would be negligible.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

impacts on water resources.

When the effects of alternative A are added to 

the effects of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, there would be a 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse, 

localized to regional, cumulative impact on 

water resources. Alternative A would 

contribute an appreciable, long-term, 

beneficial increment to the cumulative effect.

Conclusion

Alternative A would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, beneficial 

impacts on water resources. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse, localized to 
Water Resources 

263

regional, cumulative impact on water 

resources. Alternative A would contribute an 

appreciable, long-term, beneficial increment 

to the cumulative effect.

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED)

The NPS preferred alternative would place a 

stronger emphasis on managing natural 

resources relative to the no-action 

alternative. The new approach would include 

managing for desired conditions of 

management zones, more use of applied 

biology and geographic information systems, 

program enhancements in aquatic resource 

monitoring, spring monitoring, restoration of 

fragmented habitats, information sharing, 

partnering on resource stewardship projects, 

and monitoring of boundary effects on 

resources. Collectively, this emphasis on 

natural resource management would result in 

a long-term, moderate, beneficial, regional 

effect on water resources. Such a 

management strategy would help foster a 

landscape that was better able to adapt to

climate change impacts in the future.

Land management zoning would be 

introduced to the park management strategy 

under this alternative, with the following 

zoning: 16.4% primitive, 72.0% natural, 8.8% 

resource-based recreation, and 2.8% 

developed. Establishment of land 

management zones (with roughly 88% of the 

park unit managed as primitive or natural) 

would help minimize negative effects from 

recreation use and park operations of water

features such as wetlands, sinkholes, and 

seeps. Facility development, park operations, 

and recreational use that negatively affect 

water resources would be better contained. 

Management of these impacts could focus on 

specific concentrated zones of use. This 

would result in a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial, regional effect on water resources 

in the National Riverways.

Increasing the developed area footprint in the 

National Riverways from roughly 1.4% of the 

park unit in the no-action alternative to 2.8% 

of the park unit in alternative B would 

increase the potential for water resource 

degradation (e.g., to wetlands, streambanks, 

floodplain lands, seeps, groundwater 

recharge zones). A portion of this increased 

area of development would provide for two 

new developed campgrounds (along the 

upper Current River near Akers and the 

upper Jacks Fork near Blue Spring). Although 

some of the proposed campground 

developments would occur in existing 

disturbed areas (for example, day use areas), 

the expansion would alter the local 

hydrology in vicinity of the developments, 

increase imperviousness of soils, and increase 

the potential for water quality degradation in 

some areas. This would result in short- and 

long-term, moderate, adverse, localized 

effects on water resources in and near the 

proposed developed zones of the National 

Riverways.

The Current and Jacks Fork Rivers would 

have the following zoning based on river 

mileage: 48% seasonal mixed-use river and 

52% mixed-use river. Establishment of river 

management zones that provide for stretches 

with increased management of horsepower 

and only seasonal motorized use (non-peak 

season), could help reduce the threat of 

water quality degradation from petroleumbased pollutants resulting from motorboats 

in these areas during the peak season. These 

management zones would collectively result 

in a long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial, 

regional effect on water resources.

Vehicular access and circulation in the 

National Riverways would be managed by 

zoning prescriptions with an increase in law 

enforcement staff to monitor and enforce 

vehicle access compliance. This could reduce 

the creation and continuation of 

undesignated roads in the park unit and, thus,

reduce direct negative effects on water 

resources such as wetlands, streams, 

floodplains, seeps, and groundwater recharge 

areas, as well as indirect effects on water 

quality.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

264

The closure and restoration of approximately

45 miles of undesignated roads and traces in 

the National Riverways would eliminate or 

reduce existing disturbances to water 

resources. The closure of undesignated 

vehicle accesses and crossings along the 

rivers would also reduce negative water 

quality effects on the Current and Jacks Fork 

Rivers. Riverbed disturbances and associated 

turbidity in the rivers would decrease. In 

addition, the release of petroleum-based 

pollutants from land vehicles would be 

reduced due to improved management of 

vehicle river crossings. Collectively, these 

actions related to road and trace restoration 

would have a long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial, localized to regional effect on 

water resources.

Visitors utilizing motorized and nonmotorized watercraft could continue to camp 

on gravel bars, as long as the location of that 

campsite is 0.5 mile away from any designated 

camping area and at least 50 feet away from 

any designated river access. Designated 

campsites or camping areas may be 

established on some gravel bars that are 

accessed by licensed vehicles in order to 

reduce crowding, improve safety, and 

enhance visitor experience. This could

reduce riverbed disturbances, erosion, 

sedimentation, and turbidity in many gravel 

bar areas. These management actions could

result in a long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial, localized effect on water 

resources.

This alternative would include improvements 

to the National Riverways’ equestrian 

management. These changes would include a 

better-designed horse trail system that would 

minimize water resource degradation by 

removing trails from sensitive areas (e.g., 

wetlands, streambanks, floodplain lands, 

seeps, groundwater recharge zones), better 

managing equestrian access to the rivers and 

shorelines, and providing higher-quality, 

sustainable trails. The proposed equestrian 

trail system of this alternative would result in 

nearly 50 to 70 miles of designated equestrian 

trails, including approximately 23 miles of 

existing and approximately 25 to 45 miles of 

newly designated trails. Much of the newly 

designated trail mileage would follow 

alignments of existing undesignated trails. 

Thus, most new designated equestrian trails 

would not be expected to directly increase 

water resource impacts beyond what exists 

under the no-action alternative. However, 

there is a potential for indirect adverse effects 

if some equestrians use new designated trails 

as avenues to create other undesignated 

trails. This could increase demands on park 

enforcement staff to control undesignated 

trail creation in new “opened up” areas, and 

could result in additional adverse effects on 

water resources and quality from new offtrail use. Overall, this new equestrian 

management would result in a long-term, 

minor, beneficial, localized to regional effect 

on water resources.

The proposed equestrian management could 

result in some new river crossing points. 

These new crossings would introduce 

erosion and sedimentation potential to 

riverbanks and riverbeds in previously 

undisturbed areas and increase nutrient 

loading in the rivers from manure. River 

turbidity would also likely increase in these 

areas. This could result in a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized effect on water 

resources.

This alternative would include the closure 

and restoration of approximately 45 to 65

miles of undesignated equestrian trails, as 

well as several undesignated river crossings 

and undesignated river access points in the 

National Riverways. These trail restoration 

efforts would allow currently disturbed water 

resources to recover and minimize further 

degradation of other water resources. 

Benefits would result along the riverbanks 

and in upland areas, particularly in areas 

where existing undesignated equestrian trails 

run through or along springs and seeps, 

wetlands, floodplains, groundwater recharge 

zones, sinkholes, and losing streams. In 

addition, better management of horse access

or crossing points along the rivers would 

result in reduced levels of manure (and 
Water Resources 

265

associated nutrient loading) and horsegenerated sediment and turbidity in the

rivers. These improved equestrian 

management actions would result in a longterm, moderate, beneficial, localized to 

regional effect on water resources.

The establishment of a 25-campsite horse 

campground would introduce new 

disturbances to surface hydrology and water 

quality at the new campground site itself and 

in areas radiating from the horse camp (from 

an accompanying increase in equestrian 

activity in this area). Degradation of local 

water features such as wetlands and surface 

drainages and nutrient loading into surface 

water from manure could be expected. This 

action would result in a long-term, moderate, 

adverse, localized effect on water resources.

This alternative could establish an equestrian 

permitting system that would help manage 

horse use levels and allow park staff to 

monitor resource impacts against established

standards. This new permitting program and 

resource monitoring approach would help 

protect against water resource degradation 

from horse use, which would result in a longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial, localized 

to regional effect on water resources in the 

National Riverways.

The proposed designation of approximately 

3,430 acres of wilderness at Big Spring under

alternative B would have a long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial, localized effect on 

water resources. Approximately 4 acres in the 

wilderness study area (existing utility 

corridor) would be proposed as potential 

wilderness addition, pending eventual 

decommissioning of the utility line. Although 

the lands and water resources of the 

proposed designation would be managed in a 

way that is compliant with the Wilderness Act 

(as well as being managed under the primitive 

zone of this plan), the land management

would not be notably different than what 

would occur under the no-action alternative. 

However, the primitive zone and wilderness 

designation would further limit the potential 

for future facility development and/or types 

of use relative to what is allowed under 

current management. In addition, with the 

proposed wilderness designation, the NPS 

training range would be removed and 

restored to a natural condition. Also, 

motorized vehicle use of the access road to 

the fire tower, NPS training range, and barn 

would be prohibited. These roads would be 

evaluated to determine if they should be 

rehabilitated to a natural condition or 

restored to Civilian Conservation Corps-era 

condition. These restoration efforts and 

changes in allowed use would reduce 

disturbances to surface water quality, natural 

drainage patterns, and other water resources.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

impacts on water resources.

When the effects of alternative B are added to 

the effects of these past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, there 

would be a long-term, moderate, adverse, 

localized to regional, cumulative impact on 

water resources. Alternative B would 

contribute a small, long-term, beneficial 

increment to the cumulative effect.

Conclusion

Alternative B would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, beneficial 

impacts, and short- to long-term, moderate, 

localized, adverse impacts on water 

resources. Impacts of this alternative, 

combined with the impacts of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

would result in a long-term, moderate, 

adverse, localized to regional, cumulative 

impact on water resources. Alternative B 

would contribute a small, long-term, 

beneficial increment to the cumulative effect.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

266

ALTERNATIVE C

Alternative C would place a stronger 

emphasis on monitoring water quality, 

aquatic ecology, and terrestrial ecology to 

ensure the protection of these natural 

resources from the higher levels of visitor use 

associated with this alternative. This 

management approach would also include an 

increase in habitat restoration efforts and

partnering on resource stewardship projects. 

Collectively, these management actions 

would result in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial, regional effect on water resources.

The National Riverways would have the 

following land management zoning: 6.5% 

primitive, 28.2% natural, 59.6% resourcebased recreation, and 5.7% developed.

Establishment of land management zones 

(with over 34% of the park unit being 

managed as primitive or natural) would help 

minimize negative effects from recreational

use, facility development, and park 

operations on water resources in areas zoned 

for protection. However, with roughly 6% of 

the National Riverways being zoned as 

developed and 60% as resource-based 

Recreation, water resources in many areas 

that are currently undisturbed would be 

exposed to increased development and 

visitor uses. As a result, considerable 

deterioration of wetlands, floodplains, 

groundwater recharge/discharge areas, and 

water quality could be expected under this 

alternative. Although the application of 

zoning would help contain adverse effects on 

resources in some areas, the degradation of 

resources from the large amount of 

developed and recreation zoning in 

alternative C would offset the benefits of land 

use zoning on water resources. This would 

result in a short- and long-term, moderate, 

adverse, regional effect on water resources in 

the National Riverways.

The Current and Jacks Fork Rivers would 

have the following zoning, based on river 

mileage: 21% nonmotorized river, 20% 

seasonal mixed-use river and 59% mixed-use 

river. Establishment of river management 

zones that provide for year-round 

nonmotorized stretches and stretches with 

increased management of horsepower and 

seasonal motorized use would help reduce 

the threat of water quality degradation from 

petroleum-based pollutants from motorboats 

in these areas and in downstream waters. The 

most notable changes would occur on the 

Current River upstream of Akers, where no 

motorized would be allowed under this 

alternative. A potential reduction in 

petroleum-based pollutants could result from 

seasonal restrictions to motorboats between 

Round Spring and Akers on the Current 

River, and between Bay Creek and Rymers on 

the Jacks Fork. These management zones 

would result in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial, regional effect on water resources.

Vehicular access and circulation in the 

National Riverways would be managed by 

zoning prescriptions and with an increase in 

law enforcement staff to monitor and enforce 

vehicle access compliance. This could reduce 

the creation and continuation of 

undesignated roads in the park unit and, thus,

reduce direct negative effects on water 

resources such as wetlands, floodplains, 

streams, seeps, and groundwater recharge 

areas, as well as indirect effects on water 

quality in the area.

The closure and restoration of approximately 

40 miles of undesignated roads and traces in 

the park unit would eliminate or reduce 

existing disturbances to water resources (e.g., 

to wetlands, streambanks, floodplain lands, 

seeps, groundwater recharge zones). The 

closure of undesignated vehicle accesses and 

crossings along the rivers would also reduce 

negative water quality effects on the Current 

and Jacks Fork Rivers. Riverbed disturbances 

and associated turbidity in the rivers would 

likely decrease. In addition, the release of 

petroleum-based pollutants from land 

vehicles would be reduced due to improved 

management of vehicle river crossings. 

Collectively, these actions related to 

vehicle/access management would have a 

long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, 
Water Resources 

267

localized to regional effect on water 

resources.

Although vehicular access would remain 

unchanged (same as no-action alternative), 

this alternative would limit gravel bar 

camping to designated gravel bars away from 

the river. This would help minimize some 

riverbed disturbances, erosion, 

sedimentation, water quality degradation,

and turbidity in many gravel bar areas. These 

management actions would result in a longterm, minor, beneficial, localized effect on 

water resources.

This alternative would include improvements 

to the National Riverways’ equestrian 

management. These changes would include a 

better-designed horse trail system that would 

minimize water resource degradation by 

removing trails from sensitive areas (e.g., 

wetlands, streambanks, floodplain lands, 

seeps, groundwater recharge zones), better 

managing equestrian access to the rivers and 

shorelines, and providing higher-quality, 

sustainable trails. The proposed equestrian 

trail system of this alternative would result in 

nearly 70 miles of designated equestrian 

trails, including approximately 23 miles of 

existing and approximately 45 miles of newly 

designated trails). Much of the newly 

designated trail mileage would follow 

alignments of existing, undesignated trails.

Thus, most new designated equestrian trails 

would not be expected to directly increase 

water resource impacts beyond what exists 

under the no-action alternative. However, 

there is a potential for indirect adverse effects 

if some equestrians use new designated trails 

as avenues to create other undesignated 

trails. This could increase demands on park 

enforcement staff to control undesignated 

trail creation in new “opened up” areas, and 

could result in additional adverse effects on 

water resources and quality from new offtrail use. Overall, this new equestrian 

management would result in a long-term, 

minor, beneficial, and localized to regional 

effect on water resources.

The proposed equestrian management could 

result in new river crossing points. These new 

crossings would introduce erosion and 

sedimentation potential to riverbanks and 

riverbeds in previously undisturbed areas and 

increase nutrient loading in the rivers from 

manure. River turbidity would also likely 

increase in these areas. This could result in a 

long-term, moderate, adverse, localized effect 

on water resources.

This alternative would include the closure 

and restoration of approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated equestrian trails, as well as 

several undesignated river crossings and 

undesignated river access points in the 

National Riverways. These trail restoration 

efforts would allow currently disturbed water 

resources to recover and minimize further 

degradation of other water resources. 

Benefits would result along the riverbanks 

and in upland areas, particularly in areas 

where existing undesignated equestrian trails 

run through or along springs and seeps, 

wetlands, floodplains, groundwater recharge 

zones, sinkholes, and losing streams. In 

addition, better management of horse access

and crossing points long the rivers would 

result in reduced levels of manure (and 

associated nutrient loading) and horsegenerated sediment and turbidity in the 

rivers. These improved equestrian 

management actions would result in a longterm, moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional effect on water resources.

The establishment of a 25-campsite horse 

campground along the Jacks Fork would 

introduce new disturbances to surface 

hydrology and water quality at the new 

campground site itself and in areas radiating 

from the horse camp (from an accompanying 

increase in equestrian activity in this area). 

Degradation of local water features such as 

wetlands and surface drainages and nutrient 

loading into surface water from manure 

could be expected. This action would result 

in a long-term, moderate, adverse, localized 

effect on water resources.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

268

The proposed designation of 1,779 acres of 

wilderness at Big Spring under alternative C 

would have a negligible effect on water 

resources. Although the land and water 

resources of this area would be managed in a 

way that is compliant with the Wilderness Act 

(as well as being managed under the primitive 

zone of this plan), land management would 

not be notably different than what would 

occur under the no-action alternative. 

However, the primitive zone and wilderness 

designation would further limit the potential 

for future facility development and/or types 

of use relative to what is allowed under 

current management.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

impacts on water resources.

When the effects of alternative C are added 

to the effects of these past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, there 

would be a long-term, moderate, adverse, 

localized to regional, cumulative impact on 

water resources. Alternative C would 

contribute a small, long-term, beneficial 

increment to the cumulative effect.

Conclusion

Alternative C would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, beneficial 

impacts, and short- to long-term, moderate, 

localized to regional, adverse impacts on 

water resources. Impacts of this alternative, 

combined with the impacts of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

would result in a long-term, moderate, 

adverse, localized to regional, cumulative 

impact on water resources. Alternative C 

would contribute a small, long-term, 

beneficial increment to the cumulative effect.
269

VEGETATION

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

This impact topic includes native plant 

communities and individual native plant 

species that exist along the riverways. The 

impact intensities for vegetation are as 

follows:

 Negligible: Impacts on native plant 

communities and species would be 

either barely detectable or the effects 

would be considered slight and 

isolated. Any effects would be well 

within natural fluctuations. 

 Minor: Impacts on native plant 

communities and species would be 

detectable, but the change would be 

slight and would be within the natural 

range of variability. This could include 

changes in the abundance and 

distribution of individual plant species 

in limited areas, but would not

include changes that would affect the 

viability of vegetation communities. 

Changes to local ecological processes 

would be minimal.

 Moderate: Impacts on native plant 

communities and species would be 

clearly detectable and would be 

outside the natural range of 

variability. This could include changes 

in the abundance, distribution, or 

composition of vegetation 

communities, but would not include 

changes that would affect the viability 

of plant populations throughout the 

Riverways. Changes to local 

ecological processes would be of 

limited extent.

 Major: Impacts on native plant 

communities and species would be 

substantial, highly noticeable, and 

could result in widespread change.

These changes would be outside the 

natural range of variability. This could 

include changes in the abundance, 

distribution, or composition of 

vegetation communities or plant 

populations to the extent that the 

population might not recover. Key 

ecological processes would be altered, 

and landscape-level changes would be 

expected.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The no-action alternative would involve the 

continuation of current park management 

actions and practices. Threats to vegetation 

communities in the National Riverways

would continue to be managed on a site-bysite, case-by-case basis. Park unit lands would 

not be zoned and managed for different types 

and levels of development and recreational 

uses. Efforts to minimize the degradation and 

fragmentation of native vegetation 

communities would continue, such as 

invasive plant control efforts and the 

restoration of disturbed sites.

Under the no-action alternative, recreational 

and transportation land uses throughout the 

National Riverways, such as equestrian use, 

motorized vehicles, hiking, and camping, 

would continue to displace, alter, fragment, 

and degrade native upland and riparian 

vegetation communities. Most of the adverse 

effects from these uses would continue to 

occur along undesignated roads and trails, 

undesignated river access points, and around 

the perimeter of designated high-use areas 

where trampling occurs too intensely or too 

frequently for the native plants to survive. 

The 90 miles of undesignated equestrian 

trails are an example of how recreation uses 

can displace and fragment vegetation 

communities in the National Riverways. 

Several undesignated river accesses, 

launches, and crossings (for horses, 

motorized vehicles, and nonmotorized 

watercraft) would continue to disturb 

riparian vegetation along the rivers. In 

addition to direct impacts to vegetation from 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

270

park uses, the disturbances would increase 

the potential of invasive plant infestation, 

which could further degrade the condition of 

plant communities in the National Riverways. 

Motorized vehicles and horses also have the 

potential to spread invasive plants 

throughout the park unit by transporting 

weed seeds via manure or vehicle tires.

The continued management of the National 

Riverways under the no-action alternative 

would result in a long-term, moderate, 

adverse, regional effect on vegetation in the 

park unit.

Cumulative Impacts

Several past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects and actions in the 

vicinity of the National Riverways have had 

and would have notable effects on vegetation 

in the area. These actions and activities 

include land use and development, 

recreational uses on lands not managed by 

the National Park Service, nonnative and 

invasive species, and mining.

Several types of land use and land 

development in the watersheds and 

springsheds of the National Riverways’ rivers 

have had and could continue to have 

substantial effects on native vegetation. Most 

notably, the historic logging and land clearing 

for agricultural land uses during and after 

European settlement fragmented and 

displaced large areas of native plant 

communities (particularly forests). In 

addition to direct displacement of plant 

communities, these land alternations 

fragmented the functionality of several plant 

communities and introduced disturbance 

zones that are prone to nonnative, invasive 

plant infestation.

Agricultural land uses contribute nutrients 

from livestock manure, herbicide pollution, 

and surface erosion and sedimentation to the 

local and regional ecological system, which 

can have both direct and indirect adverse 

effects on vegetation. For example, high 

levels of nutrients from agricultural runoff 

can lead to eutrophic conditions in local 

water bodies, which can lead to algal blooms 

and low dissolved oxygen in the water. This 

effect can directly change the composition 

and health of aquatic plant communities.

Urban and suburban land development in the 

area has contributed to the displacement and 

fragmentation of native plant communities in 

the region. In addition to direct displacement 

and fragmentation of plant communities, 

land development introduced widespread 

land disturbances that are prone to 

nonnative, invasive plant infestation. Growth 

and expansion of towns and villages (and the 

associated impacts) can be expected to 

continue in the future. Similarly, the roads in

the basins have fragmented plant 

communities and introduced disturbance 

corridors for weed infestation.

Wastewater discharges from municipal 

wastewater treatment plant outfalls and the 

many septic leachfield discharges in the 

Current and Jacks Fork basins can potentially 

contribute nutrients to the local water bodies. 

This nutrient loading can lead to algal blooms 

and lowered dissolved oxygen conditions in 

water bodies throughout the basins 

(eutrophic conditions), which can alter 

aquatic plant communities.

Mining and mineral development in the 

basins is another contributor to vegetation 

impacts in the area. Both small- and largescale mining operations directly displace 

and/or fragment upland plant communities 

and open up large areas of ground 

disturbance that is prone to weed infestation.

Recreational uses on other private and state 

lands inside and outside the NPS boundary 

also contribute to the cumulative effects on 

vegetation. Off-road motorized vehicles and 

equestrian use are some examples of landbased recreational use that result in ground 

disturbances that can lead to nonnative, 

invasive plant proliferation and 

fragmentation of plant communities. 
Vegetation

271

Spreading of weed seeds via horse manure is 

also a common effect.

As a result of a variety of the previously 

identified human activities and human-based 

disturbances to the native plant communities 

in the area (including direct displacement of 

native plants), several nonnative and invasive 

plant species have moved in and proliferated 

in the river basins. Many of these nonnative 

plant species out compete the native species, 

resulting in reduced or stressed populations 

of native plants and lower diversity of plants.

The above-mentioned ground disturbances 

have contributed and would continue to 

contribute to the spread of invasive plants.

Some examples of invasive plants that 

threaten native plant communities include 

Eurasian water milfoil, purple loosestrife, and 

Sericea lespedeza. Also, nonnative wildlife can 

have adverse effects by stressing native plant 

populations. For example, the gypsy moth 

causes substantial defoliation of native trees 

and shrubs in the regions’ woodlands.

Collectively, these past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions and 

activities in Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

would have long-term, moderate, adverse, 

localized to regional impacts on vegetation.

When the effects of the no-action alternative 

are added to the effects of these past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

there would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse, localized to regional, cumulative 

impact on vegetation. The no-action 

alternative would contribute an appreciable, 

long-term, adverse increment to the

cumulative effect.

Conclusion

The no-action alternative would have longterm, moderate, adverse, regional impact on 

vegetation. Impacts of this alternative, 

combined with the impacts of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

would result in a long-term, moderate, 

adverse, localized to regional, cumulative 

impact on vegetation. The no-action 

alternative would contribute an appreciable, 

long-term, adverse increment to the

cumulative effect.

ALTERNATIVE A

Alternative A would place a stronger 

emphasis on managing natural resources in 

the National Riverways. The approach would 

include managing for desired conditions of 

management zones, more use of applied 

biology and geographic information systems, 

program enhancements in aquatic resource 

monitoring and rare terrestrial plant/wildlife 

protection, karst system management, 

restoration of fragmented habitats, 

partnering on resource stewardship projects, 

and monitoring of boundary effects on 

resources. This stronger emphasis on natural 

resource management would result in a longterm, moderate, beneficial, regional effect on 

upland, riparian, and gravel bar vegetation 

communities in the National Riverways.

The following zoning would be applied to 

Riverways lands: 26.8% primitive, 68.6% 

natural, 3.2% resource-based recreation, and 

1.4% developed. Establishment of land 

management zones (with roughly 96% of the 

park unit being managed as primitive or 

natural) would substantially reduce negative 

effects from recreational use, facility 

development, and park operations on upland 

and riparian vegetation communities. The 

most notable adverse effects of zoning would 

occur in the 4.6% of the park unit lands in the 

developed and resource-based recreation

zones. Zoning would result in a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial, regional effect on 

vegetation in the National Riverways.

Under this alternative, approximately 20 

floater access points (dropoff and pickup) for 

nonmotorized watercraft users would be 

closed, restored, and relocated to better 

distribute nonmotorized watercraft use of the 

rivers. Some new access points would be 

located and built in a way that minimizes 

natural resource impacts. The restoration of 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

272

riverbank areas where the existing 

nonmotorized watercraft access points are 

closed and restored could have beneficial 

effects on riparian vegetation communities

and gravel bar vegetation communities.

However, the new site would result in the 

displacement and disturbance of riparian 

vegetation in some areas. These visitor

management actions would have long-term, 

minor, localized effects that are both 

beneficial and adverse to vegetation.

Vehicular access and circulation in the 

National Riverways would be managed by 

zoning prescriptions and with an increase in 

law enforcement staff to monitor and enforce 

vehicle access compliance. This could reduce 

the creation and continuation of 

undesignated roads in the park unit and, thus,

reduce negative effects on upland and 

riparian vegetation communities. In addition, 

the closure of approximately 50 miles of 

undesignated roads and traces would allow 

the restoration of native vegetation in 

previously disturbed areas and reduce the 

potential for invasive plant infestations along 

disturbance corridors. These actions related 

to vehicle/access management would have a 

long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, 

localized to regional effect on vegetation.

Mountain biking may become a new, allowed 

trail use under this alternative (only on

designated trails that are yet to be 

determined). The potential for increased 

upland and riparian vegetation disturbances 

along trails would likely increase from trail 

braiding and rutting. If the trail surface 

degradation or trail width go unmanaged, the 

potential for the spread of nonnative, invasive 

plants would also increase. This potential 

new allowed use could result in a long-term, 

minor, adverse, localized effect on vegetation.

This alternative would include improvements 

to the National Riverways’ equestrian 

management. These changes would include a 

better-designed horse trail system that would 

minimize degradation of upland, riparian, 

and gravel bar vegetation communities by 

removing trails from sensitive areas, better 

managing equestrian access to the rivers and 

shorelines, and providing higher-quality, 

sustainable trails. The proposed equestrian 

trail system of this alternative would result in 

nearly 50 miles of designated equestrian 

trails, including approximately 23 miles of 

existing and approximately 25 miles of newly 

designated trails. Much of the newly 

designated trail mileage would follow 

alignments of existing undesignated trails and 

no additional stream crossings would be 

designated. Thus, most new designated 

equestrian trails would not be expected to 

directly increase impacts to vegetation 

communities beyond what exists under the 

no-action alternative. However, there is a 

potential for indirect adverse effects if some 

equestrians use new designated trails as 

avenues to create other undesignated trails. 

This could increase demands on park 

enforcement staff to control undesignated 

trail creation in new “opened up” areas, and 

could result in additional adverse effects on 

vegetation from new off-trail use (e.g., 

vegetation trampling, introduction of 

nonnative vegetation via manure). Overall, 

this new equestrian management would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial, 

localized to regional effect on vegetation.

This alternative would include the closure 

and restoration of approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated equestrian trails, as well as 

several undesignated equestrian river 

crossings and undesignated river access 

points in the National Riverways. These 

equestrian trail restoration efforts would 

allow currently disturbed upland, riparian, 

and gravel bar vegetation communities to 

recover and minimize further degradation of 

other vegetation. This would also likely result 

in a reduction in the potential for invasive 

weed infestation in the National Riverways. 

Benefits to vegetation would occur along the 

riverbanks and in upland areas. Collectively, 

the closure and restoration of undesignated 

equestrian trails in the park unit would result 

in a long-term, moderate, beneficial, localized 

to regional effect on vegetation.
Vegetation

273

This alternative would include the 

establishment of an equestrian permitting 

system that would help manage horse use 

levels and allow park staff to monitor 

resource impacts against established

standards. This new permitting program and 

resource monitoring approach would help 

protect against vegetation community 

disturbances from horse use, which would 

result in a long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial, localized to regional effect on 

vegetation.

Additional trails that are accessible to people 

with disabilities would occur under this 

alternative. These trail developments could 

displace and fragment local upland and 

riparian plant communities and introduce 

new sources for invasive plants to move into 

previously undisturbed areas. This would 

result in a long-term, minor, adverse, 

localized effect on vegetation.

The proposed designation of approximately 

3,430 acres of wilderness at Big Spring under 

alternative B would have a long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial, localized effect on 

vegetation. Approximately 4 acres in the 

wilderness study area (existing utility 

corridor) would be proposed as potential 

wilderness addition, pending eventual 

decommissioning of the utility line. Although 

the lands of the proposed designation would 

be managed in a way that is compliant with 

the Wilderness Act (as well as being managed 

under the primitive zone of this plan), the 

land management would not be notably 

different than what would occur under the 

no-action alternative. However, the primitive 

zone and wilderness designation would 

further limit the potential for future facility 

development and/or types of use relative to 

what is allowed under current management. 

In addition, with the proposed wilderness 

designation, the NPS training range would be 

removed and restored to a natural condition. 

Also, motorized vehicle use of the access road 

to the fire tower, NPS training range, and 

barn would be prohibited. These roads 

would be evaluated to determine if they 

should be rehabilitated to a natural condition 

or restored to Civilian Conservation Corpsera condition. These restoration efforts and 

changes in allowed use would reduce 

ongoing disturbances to local plant 

communities and allow native plants to 

repopulate the previously disturbed areas.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

impacts on vegetation.

When the likely effects of alternative A are 

added to the effects of these past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

there would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional,

cumulative impact on vegetation. Alternative 

A would contribute an appreciable, longterm, beneficial increment to the cumulative 

effect.

Conclusion

Alternative A would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, beneficial 

impacts, and long-term, minor, localized, 

adverse impacts on vegetation. Impacts of 

this alternative, combined with the impacts of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse, localized to 

regional, cumulative impact on vegetation. 

Alternative A would contribute an 

appreciable, long-term, beneficial increment 

to the cumulative effect.

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED)

The NPS preferred alternative would place a 

stronger emphasis on managing natural 

resources relative to the no-action 

alternative. The new approach would include 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

274

managing for desired conditions of 

management zones, more use of applied 

biology and geographic information systems, 

program enhancements in aquatic resource 

monitoring, spring monitoring, restoration of 

fragmented habitats, information sharing, 

partnering on resource stewardship projects, 

and monitoring of boundary effects on 

resources. Collectively, this emphasis on 

natural resource management would result in 

a long-term, moderate, beneficial, regional 

effect on upland, riparian, and gravel bar 

vegetation communities in the National 

Riverways. Such a management strategy 

would help foster a landscape that was better 

able to adapt to climate change impacts in the 

future.

The following zoning would be applied to 

Riverways lands: 16.4% primitive, 72.0%

natural, 8.8% resource-based recreation, and

2.8% developed. Establishment of land 

management zones (with over 88% of the 

park unit being managed as primitive or 

natural) would help minimize negative effects

on upland and riparian vegetation 

communities from recreation use and park 

operations, such as vegetation trampling, 

community fragmentation, and invasive plant 

introduction. Generally, facility 

development, park operations, and 

recreational use that negatively affect 

vegetation communities would be better 

contained. Management of these impacts 

could focus on specific, concentrated zones 

of use. The use land management zoning 

would result in a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial, regional effect on vegetation 

communities in the National Riverways.

Alternative B would increase the developed 

footprint in the park unit from roughly 1.4% 

in the no-action alternative to 2.8% of the 

park unit. This would increase disturbances 

and displacement of upland and riparian 

vegetation communities. A portion of this 

increased area of development would 

provide for two new developed campgrounds 

(along the upper Current River near Akers 

and the upper Jacks Fork near Blue Spring)

and a 25-site horse camping area. Although 

some of the proposed campground 

developments would occur in existing

disturbed areas (for example, day use areas), 

the expansion would likely result in a loss of 

surrounding vegetation (from direct 

displacement by development and from 

subsequent trampling by associated uses) and 

an increase in the potential for the spread of 

invasive plants. This increase in developed 

areas of the National Riverways would result 

in short- and long-term, moderate, adverse, 

localized effects on vegetation communities 

in and near the proposed developed zones of 

the park unit. 

Under this alternative, concession dropoff 

and pickup locations for river users using 

nonmotorized watercraft could be 

redistributed to reduce peak-season 

crowding effects or to protect river resources 

if changes in river flow conditions impact 

existing locations. This would result in 

additional displacement and disturbance of 

riparian and gravel bar vegetation at the new 

relocation sites. However, these actions 

would also result in beneficial effects from 

the restoration of riparian and gravel bar

vegetation in other areas where the existing 

access points are closed and restored. These 

visitor management actions would have longterm, minor, localized effects that are both 

beneficial and adverse to vegetation.

Vehicular access and circulation in the 

National Riverways would be managed by 

zoning prescriptions and with an increase in 

law enforcement staff to monitor and enforce 

vehicle access compliance. This could reduce 

the creation and continuation of 

undesignated roads in the park unit and, thus,

reduce negative effects on upland and 

riparian vegetation communities. In addition, 

the closure of approximately 45 miles of 

undesignated roads and traces in the 

National Riverways would allow the 

restoration of native vegetation in previously 

disturbed areas and reduce the potential for 

invasive plant infestations along these 

disturbance corridors. Collectively, these 

actions related to vehicle and access 

management would have a long-term, minor 
Vegetation

275

to moderate, beneficial, localized to regional 

effect on vegetation.

Some of the discovery sites that would be 

promoted through this alternative would 

necessitate the re-opening of old access roads 

to allow public access to the sites. The 

anticipated vehicle use of the re-opened 

roads would end the upland and riparian 

vegetation restoration along these old access 

road corridors and increase the potential for 

nonnative, invasive plants to spread. This 

action would result in a long-term, minor, 

adverse, localized effect on vegetation.

Mountain biking may become a new, allowed

trail use under this alternative (only on

designated trails that are yet to be 

determined). The potential for increased 

vegetation disturbances along existing trails 

would likely increase from trail braiding and

rutting. If the trail surface degradation or trail 

width go unmanaged, the potential for the 

spread of nonnative, invasive plants would 

also increase. This potential new allowed use 

could result in a long-term, minor, adverse, 

localized effect on vegetation.

This alternative would include improvements 

to the National Riverways’ management of 

equestrian use. These changes would be 

determined as part of a roads and trails 

management plan. As part of this plan, the 

National Park Service would clearly identify 

authorized trails and corresponding trail 

uses, options for redesigning or improving 

trails to reduce trail user impacts, and suitable 

locations for improved trail signage to more 

clearly delineate authorized trails and orient 

trail users. Implementation of strategies 

outlined in this plan would minimize 

degradation of upland, riparian, and gravel 

bar vegetation communities by removing 

trails from sensitive areas, better managing 

equestrian access to the rivers and shorelines, 

and providing higher-quality, sustainable 

trails. The proposed equestrian trail system of 

this alternative would result in nearly 50 to 70

miles of designated equestrian trails, 

including approximately 23 miles of existing 

and approximately 25 to 45 miles of newly 

designated trails. Much of the newly 

designated trail mileage would follow 

alignments of existing undesignated trails.

Thus, most new designated equestrian trails 

would not be expected to directly increase 

impacts to vegetation communities beyond 

what exists under the no-action alternative. 

However, there is a potential for indirect 

adverse effects if some equestrians use new 

designated trails as avenues to create other 

undesignated trails. This could increase 

demands on park enforcement staff to 

control undesignated trail creation in new 

“opened up” areas, and could result in 

additional adverse effects on vegetation from 

new off-trail use (e.g., vegetation trampling 

and introduction of nonnative vegetation via 

manure). Overall, this new equestrian 

management would result in a long-term, 

minor, beneficial, and localized to regional 

effect on vegetation.

The proposed equestrian management could 

result in some new river crossing points or 

accesses. These new crossings and accesses 

would disturb or displace riparian and gravel 

bar vegetation and would also introduce a 

source of nonnative, invasive plants (via 

horse manure). In addition an approximate 

25-campsite horse campground may be 

established. These actions could result in a 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse, 

localized effect on vegetation.

This alternative would include the closure 

and restoration of approximately 45 to 65

miles of undesignated equestrian trails, as 

well as several undesignated equestrian river 

crossings and undesignated river access 

points in the National Riverways. These 

equestrian trail restoration efforts would 

allow currently disturbed upland and riparian 

vegetation communities to recover and 

minimize further degradation of other 

vegetation. This would result in a reduction 

in the potential for invasive weed infestation 

in the park unit. Benefits to vegetation would 

occur along the riverbanks and in upland 

areas. Collectively, these improved equestrian 

management actions would result in a long-
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

276

term, moderate, beneficial, localized to 

regional effect on vegetation communities.

This alternative could include the 

establishment of an equestrian permitting 

system that would help manage horse use 

levels and allow park staff to monitor 

resource impacts against established

standards. This new permitting program and 

resource monitoring approach would help 

protect against vegetation community 

disturbances from horse use, which would 

result in a long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial, localized to regional effect on 

vegetation.

The planned increased in access to discovery 

sites in the parks could generate the need for 

additional trail development in some areas. 

Additional trails that are accessible to people 

with disabilities would also occur under this 

alternative. These trail developments could 

result in the displacement and fragmentation 

of local upland and riparian plant 

communities and could introduce new 

opportunities for invasive plants to move into 

previously undisturbed areas. This action 

would result in a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, localized effect on 

vegetation communities in the National 

Riverways.

The proposed designation of approximately 

3,430 acres of wilderness at Big Spring under 

alternative B would have a long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial, localized effect on 

vegetation. Approximately 4 acres in the 

wilderness study area (existing utility 

corridor) would be proposed as potential 

wilderness addition, pending eventual 

decommissioning of the utility line. Although 

the lands of the proposed designation would 

be managed in a way that is compliant with 

the Wilderness Act (as well as being managed 

under the primitive zone of this plan), the 

land management would not be notably 

different than what would occur under the 

no-action alternative. However, the primitive 

zone and wilderness designation would 

further limit the potential for future facility 

development and/or types of use relative to 

what is allowed under current management. 

In addition, with the proposed wilderness 

designation, the shooting range would be 

removed and restored to a natural condition. 

Also, motorized vehicle use of the access road 

to the fire tower, shooting range, and barn 

would be prohibited. These roads would be 

evaluated to determine if they should be 

rehabilitated to a natural condition or 

restored to Civilian Conservation Corps-era 

condition. These restoration efforts and 

changes in allowed use would reduce 

ongoing disturbances to local plant 

communities and allow native plants to 

repopulate the previously disturbed areas.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

impacts on vegetation.

When the likely effects of alternative B are 

added to the effects of these past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

there would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse, localized to regional, cumulative 

impact on vegetation. Alternative B would 

contribute a small to appreciable, long-term, 

beneficial increment to the cumulative effect.

Conclusion

Alternative B would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, beneficial 

impacts, and short- to long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized, adverse impacts on 

vegetation. Impacts of this alternative, 

combined with the impacts of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

would result in a long-term, moderate, 

adverse, localized to regional, cumulative 

impact on vegetation. Alternative B would 

contribute a small to appreciable, long-term, 

beneficial increment to the cumulative effect.
Vegetation

277

ALTERNATIVE C

Alternative C would place a stronger 

emphasis on monitoring water quality, 

aquatic ecology, and terrestrial ecology to 

ensure the protection of these natural 

resources from the higher levels of visitor use 

associated with this alternative. This 

management approach would also include an 

increase in habitat restoration efforts and 

partnering on resource stewardship projects. 

Collectively, these management actions 

would result in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial, regional effect on upland, riparian, 

and gravel bar vegetation communities in the 

National Riverways.

The following zoning would be applied to 

Riverways lands: 6.5% primitive, 28.2%

natural, 59.6% resource-based recreation, 

and5.7% developed. Establishment of land 

management zones (with approximately 34% 

of the park unit being managed as primitive 

or natural) would help minimize negative 

effects on upland and riparian vegetation 

communities from recreational use, facility 

development, and park operations on 

vegetation communities in areas zoned for 

protection. However, with roughly 6% of the 

park unit zoned as developed and 60% as 

resource-based recreation, many large areas 

of natural areas that are currently 

undisturbed would be exposed to increased 

development and visitor uses. As a result, 

considerable disturbance and displacement, 

such as trampling, of plant communities 

would occur under this alternative. 

Reductions in plant species diversity, smaller 

populations of sensitive plant species, 

fragmented plant communities, and increases 

in invasive plants could be expected under 

this alternative. Thus, although the 

application of zoning would help contain 

adverse effects on resources, the impacts to 

vegetation from the large amount of 

developed and recreation zoning in 

alternative C would offset the benefits of land 

use zoning. Overall, the zoning of this 

amount of developed and recreation land 

would result in a long-term, moderate,

adverse, regional effect on vegetation in the 

National Riverways.

Under this alternative, approximately 20 

access points (dropoff and pickup) for 

nonmotorized watercraft users would be 

closed, restored, and relocated to better 

distribute nonmotorized watercraft use on 

the rivers. This would result in additional 

displacement and disturbance of riparian and 

gravel bar vegetation in some areas (at the 

new, relocation sites). However, these actions 

would also result in beneficial effects from 

the restoration of riparian and gravel bar

vegetation in areas where the existing access 

points are closed and restored. These visitor

management actions would have long-term, 

minor, localized effects that are both 

beneficial and adverse to vegetation.

Vehicular access and circulation in the 

National Riverways would be managed by 

zoning prescriptions and with an increase in 

law enforcement staff to monitor and enforce 

vehicle access compliance. This could reduce 

the creation and continuation of 

undesignated roads in the park unit and, thus,

reduce negative effects on upland and 

riparian vegetation communities. In addition, 

the closure of approximately 43 miles of 

undesignated roads and traces in the park 

unit would allow the restoration of native 

vegetation in previously disturbed areas and 

reduce the potential for invasive plant 

infestations along these disturbance 

corridors. Collectively, these actions related 

to vehicle/access management would have a 

long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, 

localized to regional effect on vegetation.

This alternative would include an increase in 

the area of Riverways land developed with 

park facilities from 1.4% in the no-action 

alternative to the proposed 5.7% 

development zone. A portion of this 

increased area of development would 

provide for two new developed campgrounds 

(along the upper Current River near Akers 

and the upper Jacks Fork near Blue Spring) 

and a 25-site horse camping area along the 

Jacks Fork. Although some of the proposed 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

278

campground developments would occur in 

existing disturbed areas (for example, day use

areas), the expansion would likely result in an 

area increase of the disturbance zone to 

surrounding upland and riparian vegetation 

communities and an increase in the potential 

for additional vegetation trampling and 

import of nonnative, invasive plants. This 

would result in a long-term, moderate, 

adverse, localized effect on surrounding 

vegetation.

Mountain biking may become a new, allowed 

trail use under this alternative (only a 

designated trails that are yet to be 

determined). The potential for increased 

vegetation disturbances along existing trails 

would likely increase from trail braiding and

rutting. If the trail surface degradation or trail 

width are unmanaged, the potential for the 

spread of nonnative, invasive plants would 

also increase. This potential new allowed use 

could result in a long-term, minor, adverse, 

localized effect on vegetation.

This alternative would include improvements 

to the National Riverways’ equestrian 

management. These changes would include 

designing a better horse trail system that 

would minimize degradation of upland, 

riparian, and gravel bar vegetation 

communities by removing trails from 

sensitive areas, better managing equestrian 

access to the rivers and shorelines, and

providing higher-quality, sustainable trails. 

The proposed equestrian trail system of this 

alternative would result in nearly 70 miles of 

designated equestrian trails, including

approximately 23 miles of existing and 

approximately 45 miles of newly designated

trails. Much of the newly designated trail 

mileage would follow alignments of existing 

undesignated trails. Thus, most new 

designated equestrian trails would not be 

expected to directly increase impacts to 

vegetation communities beyond what exists 

under the no-action alternative. However, 

there is a potential for indirect adverse effects 

if some equestrians use new designated trails 

as avenues to create other undesignated 

trails. This could increase demands on park 

enforcement staff to control undesignated 

trail creation in new “opened up” areas, and 

could result in additional adverse effects on 

vegetation from new off-trail use (e.g., 

vegetation trampling and introduction of 

nonnative vegetation via manure). Overall, 

this new equestrian management would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial, and 

localized to regional effect on vegetation.

The proposed equestrian management could 

result in some new river crossing points. 

These new crossings would disturb or 

displace riparian and gravel bar vegetation

and would also introduce a source of 

nonnative, invasive plants via horse manure. 

This could result in a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, localized effect on 

vegetation.

This alternative would include the closure 

and restoration of approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated equestrian trails, as well as 

several undesignated equestrian river 

crossings and undesignated river access 

points in the National Riverways. These 

equestrian trail restoration efforts would 

allow currently disturbed upland and riparian 

vegetation communities to recover and 

minimize further degradation of other 

vegetation. This would also likely result in a 

reduction in the potential for invasive weed 

infestation in the National Riverways. 

Benefits to vegetation would occur along the 

riverbanks and in upland areas. Collectively, 

these improved equestrian management 

actions would result in a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial, and localized to 

regional effect on vegetation.

Additional trails that are accessible to people 

with disabilities would occur under this 

alternative. These trail developments could 

result in the displacement and fragmentation 

of local upland and riparian plant 

communities and introduce new 

opportunities for invasive plants to move into 

previously undisturbed areas. This would 

result in a long-term, minor, adverse, 

localized effect on vegetation communities in 

the National Riverways.
Vegetation

279

The proposed designation of 1,779 acres of 

wilderness at Big Spring under alternative C 

would have a negligible effect on vegetation.

Although the land in this area would be 

managed in a way that is compliant with the 

Wilderness Act (as well as being managed 

under the primitive zone of this plan), the 

management would not be notably different 

than what would occur under the no-action 

alternative. However, the primitive zone and 

wilderness designation would further limit 

the potential for future facility development 

and/or types of use relative to what is allowed 

under current management.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

impacts on vegetation.

When the likely effects of alternative C are 

added to the effects of these past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

there would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse, localized to regional, cumulative 

impact on vegetation. Alternative C would 

contribute a small, long-term, adverse 

increment to the cumulative effect.

Conclusion

Alternative C would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, beneficial 

impacts, and short- to long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, adverse 

impacts on vegetation. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional,

cumulative impact on vegetation. Alternative 

C would contribute a small, long-term, 

adverse increment to the cumulative effect.
280

FISH AND WILDLIFE

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

This impact topic focuses on fish and wildlife 

resources in the Riverways, including

federally and state threatened, endangered, 

and candidate species that might occur in or 

near the Riverways. Since the aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats used by federally and 

state-listed species are also used by many 

other fish and wildlife species, these topics

have been combined in one analysis section 

of this chapter.

Impact Threshold Definitions for

General Fish and Wildlife Habitat

This impact topic includes the native fish and 

wildlife species that inhabit the lands and 

waters of the Riverways, including birds, fish, 

mammals, crustaceans, mollusks, insects, 

reptiles, and amphibians. The impacts may 

relate to the effects on the wildlife individuals 

or to the effects on the habitat that sustains 

them. The impact intensities for fish and 

wildlife are as follows:

 Negligible: Impacts on native species, 

their habitats, or the natural processes 

sustaining them would be either 

barely detectable or the effects would 

be considered slight and isolated. Any 

effects would be well within natural 

fluctuations. 

 Minor: Impacts on native species, 

their habitats, or the natural processes 

sustaining them would be detectable, 

but they would not be expected to be 

outside the natural range of 

variability. Population numbers, 

genetic variability, and other 

demographic factors for species might 

have small changes, but they would 

remain stable and viable. Occasional 

responses to disturbance by some 

individuals could be expected. 

Sufficient habitat would remain 

functional to maintain viability of 

native species. 

 Moderate: Impacts on native species, 

their habitats, or the natural processes 

sustaining them would be detectable, 

and they could be outside the natural 

range of variability. Population 

numbers, genetic variability, and 

other demographic factors for species 

might change, but would be expected 

to rebound to preimpact numbers and 

to remain stable and viable over time. 

Frequent responses to disturbance by 

some individuals could be expected. 

Sufficient habitat would remain 

functional to maintain viability of 

native species and changes to the 

regional populations of some species 

would be minimal.

 Major: Impacts on native species, 

their habitats, or the natural processes 

sustaining them would be detectable, 

and they would be expected to be 

outside the natural range of 

variability. Population numbers, 

genetic variability, and other 

demographic factors for species might 

experience substantial changes. 

Frequent responses to disturbance by 

many individuals would be expected.

Loss of habitat might affect the 

viability of at least some native species 

and changes to the regional 

populations of some species would be 

apparent.

Impact Threshold Definitions of State and 

Federal Threatened and Endangered 

Species

Federally and state-listed threatened and 

endangered species are addressed together in 

this section because many of these species (1) 

have dual federal and state special status, (2) 

occur together in the same habitats, or (3) 

would be impacted similarly under each 
Fish and Wildlife

281

alternative. Plants and animals that have 

federal and state “species of concern” status 

are not included as part of this environmental 

impact analysis. However, these species are 

protected under all of the management 

alternatives and general NPS policy.

The following impact threshold definitions 

are used to describe the severity and 

magnitude of changes to federally and statelisted species under each of alternative. 

Separate threshold definitions are provided 

for both adverse and beneficial impacts to 

provide additional details about the 

susceptibility and response of at-risk species 

to alternative management actions.

Negligible

 Adverse: There would be no 

observable or measurable impacts on 

federally and state-listed species, their 

habitats (including critical habitat 

designated under the Endangered 

Species Act), or the natural processes 

sustaining them in the proposed 

project area. 

 Beneficial: There would be no 

observable or measurable impacts on 

federally listed species, their habitats, 

or the natural processes sustaining 

them in a Riverways site. 

Minor

 Adverse: Impacts would not affect 

critical periods of life-cycle processes 

(for example, reproduction) or their 

habitat. Individuals may temporarily 

avoid areas. Essential features of 

critical habitat would not be 

impacted. 

 Beneficial: Impacts would result in 

slight increases to viability of the 

species in the Riverways as specieslimiting factors (for example, habitat 

loss, competition, and mortality) are 

kept in check. Nonessential features 

of critical habitat in a Riverways site 

would be slightly improved. 

Moderate

 Adverse: Individuals may be 

impacted by disturbances that 

interfere with critical life-cycle 

processes or their habitat; however 

the level of impact would not result in 

a physical injury, mortality, or 

extirpation from the park unit. Some 

essential features of designated critical 

habitat would be reduced; however, 

the integrity of the habitat would be 

maintained. 

 Beneficial: Impacts would result in 

slight increases to viability of the 

species in the Riverways as specieslimiting factors (for example, habitat 

loss, competition, and mortality) are 

reduced. Some essential features of 

critical habitat would be improved. 

Major

 Adverse: Individuals may suffer 

physical injury or mortality or 

populations may be extirpated from 

the National Riverways. Essential 

features of designated critical habitat 

would be reduced, affecting the 

integrity of the designated unit. 

 Beneficial: Impacts would result in 

highly noticeable improvements to 

species viability, population structure, 

and species population levels in the 

National Riverways, as specieslimiting factors (such as habitat loss, 

competition, and mortality) are 

eliminated. All essential features of 

critical habitat would be improved. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

282

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The no-action alternative would involve the 

continuation of existing river management 

and land management actions and practices 

of Riverways lands and the Jacks Fork and 

Current Rivers. As a result of these continued 

management and uses, the various 

recreational uses of the National Riverways

would continue to have adverse effects on the 

park unit’s fish and wildlife habitat. The 

management of fish and wildlife habitat, and 

the mitigation of disturbances to habitat, 

would continue to be addressed on a site-bysite, case-by-case basis. Riverways lands 

would not be zoned for different types and 

levels of development and recreational uses.

All segments of both rivers in the park unit 

would continue to be open to at least some 

level of motorboat use (with various stretches 

continuing to be managed for motor 

horsepower limits). This continued degree 

and geographic extent of allowed boat use 

along the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers 

would continue to disturb fish and aquatic 

habitat and other wildlife that rely on riparian 

areas for nesting and foraging (e.g., physical 

disturbance, noise disturbances, etc.).

The potential threat of water quality 

degradation in the park unit’s rivers from 

motorboat-based petroleum pollutants could 

be expected to remain at current levels or 

increase if motorboat use increased on the 

rivers in the National Riverways. Water 

quality degradation from petroleum-based 

pollution could have adverse effects on 

aquatic habitat.

In addition to the continuing adverse effect 

of motorboat use, the human presence and 

noise associated with people using

nonmotorized watercraft on the Jacks Fork 

and Current Rivers would continue to 

disturb riparian habitat. Wildlife species 

would continue to alter their natural 

behaviors of nesting and foraging in riparian 

habitat, particularly during high-use periods 

of the year.

Land-based recreational uses and 

transportation modes, such as equestrian use, 

hiking, camping, and motorized vehicle use,

would continue to have adverse effects on 

fish and wildlife habitat in the National 

Riverways. These effects would continue to 

degrade riparian habitat at river access and 

crossing points; wetland habitats away from 

the rivers; and meadow, shrub, and forest 

habitats in upland areas. The effects of these 

uses would result from human activity along 

designated and undesignated trails, roads, 

and traces. The noises and disturbances 

associated with land-based recreation and 

transportation uses would continue to alter 

wildlife behavior such as nesting and foraging 

and limit the available effective habitat for 

some species.

When land-based recreational uses occur offtrail, they would continue to trample and 

displace vegetation communities, which 

would diminish habitat value for wildlife 

species. Once native vegetation displaced, 

these recreation use areas are prone to 

nonnative plant infestations, which would 

further degrade habitat value. In addition, 

since the alignment and routing of 

undesignated trails typically does not take 

habitat quality into consideration, the 

development and use of undesignated roads 

and trails would continue to fragment larger 

areas of quality habitat. This adverse effect 

would result in smaller, less effective 

“islands” of high-quality habitat in the 

National Riverways.

The continued use of designated and 

undesignated river access and crossing points 

by horses and motorized vehicles would 

continue to disturb aquatic habitat and alter 

aquatic chemistry by stirring up riverbeds, 

increasing river turbidity, and increasing 

nutrient and pollutant loading (such as from

manure and petroleum-based chemicals) in 

the rivers.

The management efforts to limit and control 

populations of nonnative wildlife in the park

unit would continue. However, given the 

extent of the threat of these species, the 
Fish and Wildlife

283

adverse effects on native fish and wildlife 

would likely continue.

Overall, the continued management of the 

National Riverways under the no-action 

alternative would continue to result in a longterm, moderate, adverse, and localized to 

regional effect on fish and wildlife habitat.

Federally and State-listed Species

The aforementioned fish and wildlife habitat 

impacts from implementing the no-action 

alternative would also impact the federally

and state-listed threatened and endangered 

species of the National Riverways. The 

adverse impacts could primarily result from a 

continuation of existing recreational uses in 

the park unit and the management of habitat 

issues on a site-by-site, case-by-case basis. 

See the above section on fish and wildlife 

habitat impacts for a brief explanation of 

these effects. The beneficial impacts of the 

no-action alternative would result from 

continued species monitoring and public 

education and interpretation efforts that help 

promote an understanding of threatened and 

endangered species in the Riverways.

To pursue compliance with section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, the National Park 

Service must disclose the anticipated 

potential impacts from the proposed 

alternatives on federally listed species that are 

protected under the act. The potential 

impacts from the no-action alternative to 

federally listed species are summarized 

below. 

Ozark Hellbender. The park management 

strategies and visitor uses under the noaction alternative could continue to have 

potential adverse and beneficial impacts on 

the Ozark hellbender. However, at the time 

of printing of this document, an Ozark 

hellbender action plan was not yet developed 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Furthermore, existing data regarding the 

effects of Riverways management on 

hellbender habitat was limited. Thus, the 

following analysis on the Ozark hellbender is 

based on potential impacts from park unit

uses and management. The noted potential 

impacts are derived from past and ongoing

interagency hellbender research in the basin 

and region.

The potential adverse impacts could be longterm, minor to moderate, adverse, and 

localized to regional. These potential adverse 

impacts under the no-action alternative could 

relate to river recreation uses and 

disturbances in aquatic habitat for the 

hellbender that result from both permitted 

and unpermitted activities in the Riverways. 

The most notable river and riverbed 

disturbances to aquatic habitat for the 

hellbender under the no-action alternative 

include boating (including canoeing, floating, 

and motorboating), equestrian use in the 

river and along the shoreline (including 

sandbars), and motor vehicle use in and along 

the rivers. If these uses occur in or near 

hellbender habitat, the uses allowed under 

the no-action alternative could potentially 

disturb foraging and breeding habitats for the 

hellbender. Interagency and academic 

research in Missouri indicates that riverbed 

disturbances from boating and canoeing near 

den sites may negatively impact hellbender 

breeding and that river rock removal (to 

protect canoes) can displace potential 

breeding habitat (USFS 2003).

Research also indicates that degradation of 

water quality can have considerable negative 

impacts on hellbender habitat given the 

hellbender’s dependence on clean, clear, and 

cool river water (USFS 2003; USFWS 2011).

Continued equestrian and motor vehicle 

access in the rivers and along the shorelines

and sandbars, as allowed under the no-action 

alternative can contribute to increases in

turbidity in adjacent and downstream waters.

These uses can also introduce pollutants to 

the river water. Most notably, bacterial 

pollutants from equestrian fecal matter have 

the potential to degrade water quality in the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. Petroleumbased pollutants from motor vehicles and 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

284

motorboats can also contribute to diminished 

water quality. Given these continued 

potential threats to water quality in the 

Riverways and the documented correlation 

between water quality and hellbender habitat 

needs, uses allowed under the no-action 

alternative have potential adverse impacts on 

the Ozark hellbender.

The fact that boating, equestrian, and motor 

vehicle uses of the Riverways are heaviest

during spring and summer months 

compounds the potential for the abovementioned impacts, since these heavy use 

periods occur during important hellbender 

foraging life stages.

The beneficial impacts of the no-action 

alternative would result from active natural 

resource management actions. For example, 

the Riverways’ continued hellbender 

monitoring and research efforts could yield a

better understanding of the species and the 

possible causes for its population decline. In 

addition, resource managers at the National 

Riverways would continue to be active in 

interagency efforts aimed at hellbender 

protection. The Riverways’ education and 

interpretation program would also continue 

to make the visiting public aware of the 

hellbender and its status, which could 

advance the importance of species 

sustainability. Riverways’ enforcement staff 

would continue to strive for preventing the 

removal or manipulation of hellbenders or 

their habitat.

Overall, the no-action alternative could 

potentially have long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, and localized to regional 

impacts on the Ozark hellbender. 

Indiana Bat, Gray Bat, and Northern LongEared Bat. The park management strategies 

and visitor uses under the no-action 

alternative could continue to have potential 

adverse and beneficial impacts on the Indiana 

bat, gray bat, and northern long-eared bat. 

The potential adverse impacts could be longterm, minor, adverse, and localized to 

regional. These potential adverse impacts 

would relate to the continuation of guided 

tours at Round Spring cave, which are 

offered from May 1 to Labor Day (prior to 

swarming or hibernation season). This could 

continue to introduce human disturbances 

(e.g., noise and human presence) to the cave 

that potentially could negatively affect habitat 

and behavior of these three bat species.

The potential for white-nose syndrome 

would also be a threat at Round Spring cave 

and other caves in the National Riverways. 

For an indeterminate amount of time, all 

other caves would continue to be closed to 

visitor use due to the threat of white-nose 

syndrome. Guided cave tours at Round 

Spring would continue to be provided unless 

resource impacts were identified. The other 

caves may eventually be reopened when the 

National Park Service determines that the 

threat to bats and other cave resources is 

diminished. However, it should be noted that 

the park staff may not be able to effectively 

enforce the closures of all caves in the 

National Riverways.

Although white-nose syndrome may be 

inadvertently transmitted into caves by 

humans carrying the fungus on their clothing 

and gear, the transmittal through a bat 

population is primarily from bat to bat. The 

likelihood that bats in Round Spring cave

having white-nose syndrome is no more 

likely than any other cave in the park unit. In 

fact, Round Spring cave may be more 

protected since park staff pre-screens each 

visitor and their clothing prior to allowing 

them to go on a tour of Round Spring cave.

The existing river management and land 

management practices and the allowed 

recreational uses could potentially have

adverse impacts on bat hibernacula and 

foraging. Equestrian use, hiking, camping, 

motorized vehicles, motorboats, and other 

active National Riverways uses near bat 

foraging habitat and hibernacula could alter 

bat behavior and/or displace effective habitat 

areas. The effects of these uses would result 

from human activity along both designated 
Fish and Wildlife

285

and undesignated trails, roads, and traces. 

Since the alignment and routing of 

undesignated trails typically does not take bat 

habitat quality into consideration, the 

development and continued use of 

undesignated roads and trails could continue 

to fragment larger areas of quality habitat.

The beneficial impacts of the no-action 

alternative would result from active natural 

resource management actions. For example, 

the Riverways’ continued bat monitoring 

efforts could yield a better understanding of 

the species and habitat. The Riverways’ 

education and interpretation program would 

also continue to make the visiting public 

aware of these bat species and their 

sensitivities.

Overall, the no-action alternative could 

potentially have long-term, minor, adverse, 

and localized to regional effects on the 

Indiana bat, gray bat, and northern longeared bat. 

Cumulative Impacts

Several past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects and actions in the 

vicinity of the National Riverways have had 

and would have notable effects on fish and 

wildlife and their habitat in the area. These 

actions, activities, and processes include land 

use and development, wastewater discharges, 

recreational uses on lands not managed by 

the National Park Service, nonnative and 

invasive species, and mining.

Other land uses and land development in the 

watersheds and springsheds of the park unit’s 

rivers affect fish and wildlife habitat. Historic 

logging and land clearing for agricultural land 

uses fragmented and displaced large areas of 

riparian and upland habitats. Increased 

surface runoff from the cleared landscape has 

resulted in bank erosion and accelerated 

channel movement, which degrade riparian 

and aquatic habitat. Erosion of cleared and 

farmed lands has resulted in large amounts of 

sediment and chert gravel deposition into the 

rivers and tributaries. These chert deposits in 

the river bottoms from past land uses are still 

migrating downstream, continuing to 

degrade downstream aquatic riffle and pool 

habitat in the riverways. As a result of these 

changes to the riparian vegetation and 

aquatic conditions, the disturbed areas have 

substantially lower biological diversity and 

productivity compared to undisturbed 

bottomland forests.

The ongoing agricultural land uses can also 

contribute nutrients from livestock manure, 

herbicide and pesticide pollution, and surface 

erosion and sedimentation to the local and 

regional ecological system, which can have 

both direct and indirect adverse effects on 

fish and wildlife. For example, high levels of 

nutrients from agricultural runoff can lead to 

eutrophic conditions in local water bodies, 

which can produce algal blooms and low 

dissolved oxygen in the water. This adversely 

alters habitat conditions for several aquatic 

species.

Urban and suburban land development in the 

area has fragmented wildlife habitats, both 

locally and regionally. Since many of the 

existing town and village developments occur 

along riverways, wetland and riparian 

habitats have experienced particularly high 

levels of fragmentation from urban 

development throughout the region. Growth 

and expansion of these towns and villages 

(and the associated impacts) can be expected 

to continue in the future. The region’s road 

system has also fragmented habitat 

throughout the region, resulting in an 

increase in “edge” habitats and a decrease in 

core, intact habitats. Roadways have altered 

surface hydrology in ways that affect wetland 

habitats (in quantity and quality of surface 

water delivered). Most of these effects from 

lands uses and development would continue 

in the region, with some expanding in 

geographic coverage.

Wastewater discharges from municipal 

wastewater treatment plant outfalls and the 

many septic leachfield in the Current and 

Jacks Fork basins have the potential to 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

286

contribute nutrients to the local and regional 

hydrology. This nutrient loading can 

contribute to eutrophic conditions in water 

bodies throughout the basins, which 

degrades aquatic habitat.

Recreational uses on other private and state 

lands (inside and outside the NPS boundary) 

can contribute to the cumulative effects on 

fish and wildlife habitat. Off-road motorized 

vehicles, equestrian use, hunting, and hiking 

are some examples of land-based recreational 

use that bring human disturbances and noises 

into intact upland, wetland, and riparian 

habitats. These uses can fragment habitat (in 

high/regular use areas) and are capable of 

locally displacing habitat by trampling 

vegetation and destabilizing riverbanks. The 

human presence and noise disturbances 

associated with these uses can also alter the 

behavior of many native wildlife species, 

including their foraging, breeding, and 

movement behaviors. In some cases, breeding 

success rates can be adversely affected by 

human presence associated with these land 

recreation uses. However, hunting can also 

benefit wildlife populations by providing

control in the absence of native predatory 

species. 

River-based recreation, such as floating, jet 

boating, and motorboating, can have adverse 

effects on aquatic habitat and riparian 

habitat. For example, human noises and 

motor noises from these uses can potentially 

disturb the behavior of many bird species that 

rely on riparian habitat for nesting or 

foraging. In addition, pollutants, turbidity, 

and nutrient-loading from motorboats and 

equestrian use in the rivers can degrade 

aquatic habitat conditions for many fish and 

macroinvertebrate species.

As a result of human alterations to the native 

ecology of the Riverways, several nonnative 

and invasive plant and animal species have 

moved into the area over the years. Many of 

these nonnative species are capable of 

outcompeting and displacing native species, 

resulting in degraded habitat (native plants 

displaced), decreases in fish and wildlife 

diversity, and a destabilization of the 

ecological system. For example, the Asian 

clam is present in the National Riverways and 

may be increasing in abundance and range. 

Because of its similar life history to native 

mussels, this nonnative clam may outcompete native mussel species. The stocking 

of rivers and streams with hatchery game fish 

could also increase competition with native 

fish populations. Other species that displace 

native wildlife species and/or degrade habitat 

quality include Eurasian water milfoil, Sericea 

lespedeza, and gypsy moths.

Mining and mineral development is another 

contributor to cumulative fish and wildlife 

impacts in the area. In addition to direct 

displacement and fragmentation of upland 

habitat from mine development, these mining 

activities can have considerable effects on 

aquatic habitat. The gravel mining operations 

adversely affect the adjacent tributaries by 

altering flow patterns, changing channel 

structure, relocating channels, and causing 

scouring and bank erosion, which all can 

degrade aquatic and riparian habitat along 

tributaries to the Current and Jacks Fork 

Rivers. The removal of coarse gravel can 

release finer sediments into the tributaries of 

the river system, which can quickly degrade 

aquatic habitat quality and biodiversity by 

covering the riverbeds with sediment. Given 

its small size and light weight, the released 

sediment can migrate down to the Current 

and Jacks Fork Rivers.

Collectively, these past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions and 

activities in the Jacks Fork and Current river 

basins have long-term, moderate, adverse, 

localized to regional impacts on fish and 

wildlife.

When the effects of the no-action alternative 

are added to the effects of these past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions,

there would be a long-term, moderate, 

adverse, localized to regional, cumulative 

impact on fish and wildlife. The no-action 

alternative would contribute an appreciable, 
Fish and Wildlife

287

long-term, adverse increment to the

cumulative effect.

Conclusion

The no-action alternative would have longterm, moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

impact on fish and wildlife habitat. Impacts of 

this alternative, combined with the impacts of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional,

cumulative impact on fish and wildlife. The 

no-action alternative would contribute an 

appreciable, long-term, adverse increment to 

the cumulative effect.

ALTERNATIVE A

Alternative A would place a stronger 

emphasis on managing natural resources in 

the National Riverways when compared to 

the no-action alternative. The approach 

would include managing for desired 

conditions of management zones, more use 

of applied biology and geographic 

information systems, program enhancements 

in aquatic resource monitoring and rare 

terrestrial plant/wildlife protection, karst 

system management, restoration of 

fragmented habitats, partnering on resource 

stewardship projects, and monitoring of 

boundary effects on resources. Collectively,

and relative to the no-action alternative, this 

stronger emphasis on natural resource 

management would result in a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial, regional effect on fish 

and wildlife habitat.

The following zoning would be applied to 

park unit lands: 26.8% primitive, 68.6% 

natural, 3.2% resource-based recreation, and 

1.4% developed. Establishment of land 

management zones (with roughly 96% of the 

park unit managed as primitive or natural) 

would substantially reduce negative effects 

from recreation use, facility development, 

and park operations on wildlife behavior and 

wildlife habitat. Habitat disturbances from 

these activities would primarily be limited to 

the 4.6% of the National Riverways lands that 

are zoned developed and resource-based 

recreation. This would result in a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial, regional effect on 

wildlife habitat.

The Current and Jacks Fork Rivers would 

have the following zoning based on river 

mileage: 51% nonmotorized river, 13% 

seasonal mixed-use river, and 36% mixed-use 

river. Establishment of river management 

zones that provide for year-round 

nonmotorized stretches and stretches with 

increased management of horsepower and 

seasonal motorized use) would help reduce 

motorboat disturbances to aquatic habitat, 

such as displaced aquatic vegetation, fish 

spawning impacts, and petroleum-based 

water pollution. It also would reduce 

motorboat noise disturbance to riparian 

habitat and wildlife behavior, such as bird 

nesting and bird communication. The most 

notable changes would occur on the Jacks 

Fork and on the Current River upstream of 

Round Spring, where no motorized used 

would be allowed. Reductions in 

disturbances to fish and wildlife habitat along 

the rivers would also result from seasonal 

restrictions to motorboats between Two 

Rivers and Round Spring on the Current 

River. These river management zones would 

collectively result in a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial, regional effect on fish and wildlife 

habitat.

Under this alternative, approximately 20 

access points (dropoff and pickup) for 

nonmotorized watercraft users would be 

closed, restored, and relocated to better 

distribute watercraft use on the rivers. Some 

new access points would be located and built 

in a way that minimizes natural resource 

impacts. The restoration of about 20 

riverbank and riverbed areas would have 

beneficial effects on aquatic habitat and 

riparian habitat. This would help minimize 

human disturbances on riparian habitat, such 

as high volumes of nonmotorized watercraft

traffic and high levels and persistence human 

noise. However, the development of new 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

288

access points would introduce human 

disturbances to currently undisturbed habitat 

areas along the rivers. These visitor

management actions would have long-term, 

minor, localized effects that are both 

beneficial and adverse to fish and wildlife 

habitat.

Vehicular access and circulation in the 

National Riverways would be managed by 

zoning prescriptions and with an increase in 

law enforcement staff to monitor and enforce 

vehicle access compliance. This could reduce 

the creation and continuation of 

undesignated roads in the park unit and, thus,

reduce negative effects on wildlife habitat, 

such as habitat fragmentation and direct 

disturbances to wildlife behavior. In addition, 

the closure of approximately 50 miles of 

undesignated roads and traces in the park

unit would help eliminate existing 

disturbances to wildlife habitat. The closure 

of undesignated vehicle accesses and 

crossings along the rivers would reduce 

degradation of riparian habitat (for example, 

by noise and vegetation trampling) and 

aquatic habitat (for example, from turbidity

and riverbed disturbances). Collectively,

these actions related to vehicle and access 

management would have a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial, regional effect on 

wildlife habitat.

This alternative would eliminate motorized 

terrestrial vehicle access to all gravel bars in 

the National Riverways and would allow 

camping only at designated gravel bars away 

from the river. This would substantially 

reduce impacts to riparian and aquatic 

habitat in many gravel bar areas, including 

riverbed disturbances to aquatic habitat. 

These management actions would result in a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial, localized 

effect on fish and wildlife habitat.

About 15 miles of the approximately 50

restored miles of undesignated roads and 

traces would occur in the proposed primitive 

zones and relate to backcountry hiking. 

Although this elimination of motor vehicle 

access to these backcountry areas would 

benefit wildlife habitat, some of these of 

benefits would be offset by hiking trail 

development or use. This alternative would 

replace road and trace alignments in 

primitive areas with hiking trails. The 

pedestrian activity along these trail corridors 

would introduce human disturbances to 

wildlife and possibly lead to localized 

fragmentation of habitat (depending on 

frequency and volume of hiking use). 

Generally, wildlife tend to have more adverse 

reactions to pedestrians than to motor 

vehicles. This trail development action could 

result in a long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse, localized effect on wildlife habitat.

Mountain biking may become a new, allowed 

trail use under this alternative (only on

designated trails that are yet to be 

determined). The potential for increased trail 

use and human activity along designated 

trails would increase, which would likely 

increase the frequency, degree, and duration 

of human disturbances, such as noise, on 

surrounding habitat values. This potential 

new allowed use could result in a long-term, 

minor, adverse, regional effect on wildlife 

habitat.

This alternative would include improvements 

to the National Riverways’ equestrian 

management. These changes would include 

discouraging the creation of social trails, 

designing a better horse trail system that 

would minimize wildlife habitat degradation 

by removing trails from sensitive areas, better 

managing equestrian access to the rivers and 

shorelines, and providing higher-quality, 

sustainable trails. The equestrian trail system 

would include nearly 50 miles of designated 

equestrian trails, including approximately 23 

miles of existing and approximately 25 miles 

of newly designated trails. Much of the newly 

designated trail mileage would follow 

alignments of existing undesignated trails and 

no additional stream crossings would be 

designated. Thus, most new designated 

equestrian trails would not be expected to 

directly increase impacts to wildlife habitat or 

wildlife behavior beyond what exists under 

the no-action alternative. However, there is a 
Fish and Wildlife

289

potential for indirect adverse effects if some 

equestrians use new designated trails as 

avenues to create other undesignated trails. 

This could increase demands on park 

enforcement staff to control undesignated 

trail creation in new “opened up” areas, and 

could result in additional wildlife habitat 

fragmentation from new off-trail use. Overall, 

this new equestrian management would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial, and 

localized to regional effect on wildlife habitat.

This alternative would include the closure 

and restoration of approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated equestrian trails, as well as 

several undesignated equestrian river 

crossings and undesignated river access 

points in the National Riverways. These trail 

restoration efforts would reduce levels of 

habitat fragmentation in the park unit from 

dispersed human use and minimize sensitive 

riparian and wetland habitat disturbances. In 

addition, better management of horse access

and crossing points along the rivers would 

result in reduced levels of nutrient loading 

and horse-generated sediment in the rivers, 

which would improve aquatic habitat 

conditions in the rivers. These improved 

equestrian management actions would result 

in a long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, 

regional effect on fish and wildlife habitat.

This alternative would establish an equestrian 

permitting system that would help manage 

horse use levels and allow park staff to 

monitor resource impacts against established

standards. This new permitting program and 

resource monitoring approach would help 

protect against habitat degradation from 

horse use, which would result in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial, localized to 

regional effect on wildlife habitat.

Additional trails that are accessible to people 

with disabilities would occur under this 

alternative. These trail developments could 

result in the localized fragmentation of 

wildlife habitat and introduced 

noise/presence disturbances from human 

activity, resulting in a long-term, minor, 

adverse, localized effect on wildlife habitat.

The proposed designation of 3,424 acres of 

wilderness at Big Spring under alternative A 

would have a long-term, minor, beneficial, 

localized effect on wildlife habitat.

Approximately 10 acres in the wilderness 

study area would be excluded from the 

proposed designation as a small developed 

area and its narrow access corridor, 

sometimes called a cherry stem. The 

structures, roads, and utilities (and associated 

uses and management) in these excluded 

areas would remain. Although the lands and 

wildlife resources of the proposed 

designation would be managed in a way that 

is compliant with the Wilderness Act (as well 

as being managed under the primitive zone of 

this plan), land management would not be 

notably different than what would occur 

under the no-action alternative. However, 

the primitive zone and wilderness 

designation would further limit the potential 

for future facility development and/or types 

of use relative to what is allowed under 

current management. In addition, with the 

proposed wilderness designation, motorized 

vehicle use of the access road to the fire 

tower would be prohibited. This change of 

allowed use would reduce noise and 

vehicular disturbances to wildlife habitat 

along the road corridor.

Federally and State-listed Species

The aforementioned fish and wildlife habitat 

effects from actions in alternative A would 

also result in both adverse and beneficial 

impacts to federally and state-listed 

threatened and endangered species of the 

National Riverways.

The adverse impacts of alternative A on listed 

species could result from the continuation of 

various current uses and effects noted under 

the no-action alternatives, as well as some 

new impacts. For more information on 

continued uses and impacts, also see the 

impact analysis of federally and state-listed 

species under the no-action alternative. The 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

290

new adverse impacts would primarily result 

from replacement of road and trace 

alignments in primitive areas with hiking 

trails, potential mountain biking use on 

designated trails, and some new access points

for nonmotorized watercraft.

The beneficial impacts would primarily result 

from a stronger emphasis on managing 

natural resources in the National Riverways, 

land management zoning (with 96% of the 

park unit being managed as primitive or 

natural), river management zones (with yearround nonmotorized stretches and 

seasonality and horsepower limits on other 

stretches), improved vehicular access 

management, closure and restoration of 

undesignated roads, improvements to the 

National Riverways’ equestrian management, 

closure and restoration of undesignated 

equestrian trails and crossings, and the 

establishment of an equestrian permitting 

system.

To pursue compliance with section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, the National Park 

Service must disclose the anticipated 

potential impacts from the proposed 

alternatives on federally listed species.

Ozark Hellbender. At the time of printing of 

this document, existing data regarding the 

existing effects of Riverways management on 

hellbender habitat was limited. Thus, the 

following analysis on the Ozark hellbender is 

based on potential effects from Riverways

uses and management. The noted potential 

effects are derived from past and ongoing 

interagency hellbender research in the basin 

and region (as cited in the analysis of the noaction alternative).

Adverse impacts to the hellbender could 

result from the continuation of various 

current uses and activities in the Riverways, 

as described under the no-action alternative. 

Most notably, contributions to water quality

degradation from various ongoing recreation 

activities (e.g., equestrian use, motor vehicle 

use, boating, etc.) and park development 

could have negative impacts on hellbenders 

and their habitat. Likewise, potential adverse 

impacts could also relate to direct 

disturbances to aquatic habitat from 

permitted and unpermitted recreational

activities in the rivers, and on sandbars and 

shorelines (e.g., motorboating, floating, 

equestrian crossings, etc.). See the impact 

analysis under the no-action alternative for a 

more detailed explanation. The potential new

adverse impacts from alternative A, relative to 

the no-action alternative, could be long-term, 

minor, and localized. They would result from 

the development of new river access points 

for floaters and equestrians. These points 

would degrade the aquatic habitat in the 

vicinity of the access area and would allow 

for ongoing water quality degradation in 

previously undisturbed areas, such as from 

turbidity and horse manure in the area from 

equestrian and human access.

However, relative to the no-action 

alternative, alternative A could have 

beneficial impacts on the Ozark hellbender 

that would be short- to long-term, minor to 

moderate, and localized to regional. The 

potential beneficial impacts would relate to a 

stronger emphasis on managing natural 

resources in the National Riverways, river 

management zones that include year-round 

nonmotorized stretches and seasonal use 

restrictions on other stretches, improved 

vehicular access management, improved 

equestrian management, closure and 

restoration of undesignated equestrian river 

crossings, and the establishment of an 

equestrian permitting system. These actions 

would reduce the amount of direct 

disturbances to aquatic habitat for hellbender 

foraging and breeding. They also could 

reduce water quality degradation relative to 

the no-action alternative, which could help 

meet a critical need of the hellbender.

In addition, under alternative A, the National 

Park Service would continue consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to 

develop and implement a conservation plan 

for the Ozark hellbender. This would
Fish and Wildlife

291

enhance the beneficial impacts of proactive 

resource management on the hellbender.

Overall, alternative A would likely provide 

for an improvement in Ozark hellbender 

habitat relative to the no-action alternative as 

a result of a variety of resource management 

strategies noted in the fish and wildlife 

habitat analysis above. 

Indiana Bat, Gray Bat, and Northern LongEared Bat. Relative to the no-action 

alternative, the park management strategies 

under alternative A would primarily have 

beneficial impacts on the Indiana bat, gray 

bat, and northern long-eared bat. The 

beneficial impacts would be long-term, minor 

to moderate, localized to regional, and would 

result from a stronger emphasis on managing 

natural resources in the National Riverways, 

land management zones (with 96% of the 

park unit managed as primitive or natural), 

river management zones (with year-round 

nonmotorized stretches and stretches with 

seasonal restrictions), improved vehicular 

access management, closure and restoration 

of undesignated roads, improvements to the 

National Riverways’ equestrian management, 

closure and restoration of undesignated 

equestrian trails and crossings, the 

establishment of an equestrian permitting 

system, and enhanced protection of karst 

caves. These actions would help reduce 

disturbances to natural vegetation, riparian 

areas, and caves and, thus, would improve 

foraging habitat and hibernacula for the 

Indiana bat, gray bat, and northern longeared bat. For example, some undesignated 

equestrian trails currently exist near cave 

entrances. As these undesignated trails were 

closed and restored under this alternative, 

the negative impacts to bat activity should 

decrease. Likewise, the primitive and natural 

zones under this alternative would help 

ensure that human activities in these zones 

are more consistent with bat habitat 

protection.

In addition, under alternative A, the National 

Park Service would continue consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to 

develop and implement a conservation plan 

for the gray bat, Indiana bat, and northern 

long-eared bat. This would enhance the 

beneficial impacts of proactive resource 

management on both bat species.

However, the potential threat of white-nose 

syndrome would remain for these bat species, 

as described in the impact analysis of the 

Indiana bat, gray bat, and northern longeared bat under the no-action alternative. 

Cave management under alternative A would 

be the same as the no-action alternative. This 

management would include the continuation 

of the public tours of Round Spring cave, 

unless resource impacts are identified, also as 

described under the no-action alternative.

Overall, alternative A would likely provide 

for an improvement in bat habitat relative to 

the no-action alternative as a result of a 

variety of resource management strategies 

noted in the fish and wildlife habitat analysis 

above.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

impacts on fish and wildlife.

When the likely beneficial and adverse effects 

of alternative A actions are added to the 

effects of these past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, there would be a 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse, 

localized to regional, cumulative impact on 

fish and wildlife. Alternative A would 

contribute an appreciable, long-term, 

beneficial increment to the cumulative effect.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

292

Conclusion

Alternative A would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, beneficial 

impacts, and long-term, minor to moderate, 

localized to regional, adverse impacts on fish 

and wildlife habitat. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse, localized to 

regional, cumulative impact on fish and 

wildlife. Alternative A would contribute an 

appreciable, long-term, beneficial increment 

to the cumulative effect.

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED)

The NPS preferred alternative would place a 

stronger emphasis on managing natural 

resources in the National Riverways when 

compared to the no-action alternative. The 

new approach would include managing for 

desired conditions of management zones, 

more use of applied biology and geographic 

information systems, program enhancements 

in aquatic resource monitoring, spring 

monitoring, restoration of fragmented 

habitats, information sharing, partnering on 

resource stewardship projects, partnering 

with communities to minimize the effects of 

waste water systems on water quality, and

monitoring of boundary effects on resources. 

Collectively, and relative to the no-action 

alternative, this emphasis on natural resource 

management would result in a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial, regional effect on fish 

and wildlife habitat. Such a management 

strategy would help foster a landscape that 

was better able to adapt to climate change 

impacts in the future.

The following zoning would be applied to 

park unit lands: 16.4% primitive, 72.0%

natural, 8.8% resource-based recreation, and 

2.8% developed. Establishment of land 

management zones (with roughly 88% of the 

park unit being managed as primitive or 

natural) would substantially reduce negative 

effects from recreation use, facility 

development, and park operations on wildlife 

behavior and wildlife habitat. The most 

notable habitat disturbances from these 

activities would occur in the 11.6% of the 

Riverways lands that are zoned developed 

and resource-based recreation. Management 

of these impacts could focus on specific,

concentrated zones of use. The use of land 

management zoning would result in a longterm, moderate, beneficial, regional effect on 

wildlife habitat.

The developed area in the National 

Riverways (in the developed zone) would be

2.8% compared to 1.4% in the no-action 

alternative. The increased area would 

increase disturbances to wildlife habitat in 

areas near the developments. A portion of 

this increased area of development would 

provide for two new developed campgrounds 

(along the upper Current River near Akers 

and the upper Jacks Fork near Blue Spring)

and a 25-site horse camping area. Although 

some of the proposed campground 

developments would occur in existing 

disturbed areas (for example, day use areas), 

the development expansion would displace 

and/or fragment adjacent habitat areas and 

would introduce larger volumes of visitor 

activity in and around these areas. The 

increase in visitor use associated with these 

sites in the developed zone would introduce 

higher amounts, durations, and frequencies

of habitat disturbances, such as human noises

and presence. This increase in developed 

areas of the National Riverways would result 

in short- and long-term, moderate, adverse, 

localized effects on wildlife habitat and 

behavior in and near the proposed developed 

zones.

The Current and Jacks Fork Rivers would 

have the following zoning based on river 

mileage: 48% seasonal mixed-use river and 

52% mixed-use river. Establishment of river 

management zones that provide for stretches 

with increased management of horsepower 

and only seasonal motorized use could help 

reduce motorboat disturbances to aquatic 

habitat, particularly during the peak season 

(such as displaced aquatic vegetation, fish 
Fish and Wildlife

293

spawning impacts, and petroleum-based 

water pollution). Motorboat noise 

disturbance to riparian habitat and wildlife 

behavior (such as bird nesting and bird 

communication) would also be reduced in 

the areas with restricted motorboat use 

during the peak season. Reductions in 

disturbances to fish and wildlife habitat

during the peak season from seasonal 

restrictions to motorboat use would occur 

upstream from Round Spring on the Current 

River, and upstream of West Eminence on 

the Jacks Fork. These river management 

zones would collectively result in a longterm, minor, beneficial, regional effect on fish 

and wildlife.

Under this alternative, concession dropoff 

and pickup locations for river users using 

nonmotorized watercraft could be 

redistributed to reduce peak-season 

crowding effects or to protect river resources 

if changes in river flow conditions impact 

existing locations. The closure and 

restoration of several access points would

benefit riparian and aquatic habitat values in 

these areas by reducing human disturbances 

on riparian habitat, such as high volumes of 

nonmotorized watercraft traffic and high 

levels and persistence human noise. 

However, the development of new access 

points would introduce human disturbances 

to currently undisturbed habitat areas. These 

visitor management actions would have longterm, minor, localized effects that are both 

beneficial and adverse to fish and wildlife 

habitat.

Vehicular access and circulation in the 

National Riverways would be managed by 

zoning prescriptions and with an increase in 

law enforcement staff to monitor and enforce 

vehicle access compliance. This could reduce 

the creation and continuation of 

undesignated roads in the park unit and, thus,

reduce negative effects on wildlife habitat, 

such as habitat fragmentation and direct 

disturbances to wildlife behavior. In addition, 

the closure of approximately 45 miles of 

undesignated roads and traces in the park 

unit would help eliminate existing 

disturbances to wildlife habitat throughout 

the National Riverways. The closure of 

undesignated vehicle accesses and crossings 

along the rivers would also reduce 

degradation of riparian habitat (for example, 

noise and vegetation trampling) and aquatic 

habitat (for example, turbidity and riverbed 

disturbances). Collectively, these actions 

related to vehicle and access management 

would have a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial, regional effect on wildlife habitat.

Visitors utilizing motorized and nonmotorized watercraft could continue to camp 

on gravel bars, as long as the location of that 

campsite is 0.5 mile away from any designated 

camping area and at least 50 feet away from 

any designated river access. Designated 

campsites or camping areas may be 

established on some gravel bars that are 

accessed by licensed vehicles in order to 

reduce crowding, improve safety, and 

enhance visitor experience. This could

reduce riparian and aquatic habitat 

disturbances in many gravel bar areas. These 

management actions could result in a longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial, localized 

effect on fish and wildlife.

About 10 miles of the approximately 45

restored miles of undesignated roads and 

traces would occur in the proposed primitive 

zones and would relate to backcountry 

hiking. Although this elimination of motor 

vehicle access to these backcountry areas 

would benefit wildlife habitat, some of these 

of benefits would be offset by hiking trail 

development. This alternative would replace 

these road and trace alignments in primitive 

areas with hiking trails. The pedestrian 

activity along these trail corridors would 

introduce human disturbances to wildlife and 

possibly lead to localized fragmentation of 

habitat (depending on frequency and volume 

of hiking use). Generally, wildlife tend to 

have more adverse reactions to pedestrians 

than to motor vehicles. This trail 

development action could result in a longterm, minor to moderate, adverse, localized 

effect on wildlife habitat.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

294

The establishment of a 25-campsite horse 

campground (and the associated 

concentration of equestrian activity in the

area) would increase the likelihood for water 

quality degradation in nearby water features 

from horse manure, including the Jacks Fork. 

This could alter aquatic habitat conditions 

for native species that are dependent on high 

water quality, and could result in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse, localized effect 

on fish and wildlife habitat.

Some of the discovery sites that would be 

promoted through this alternative would 

reopen old access roads to allow public 

access to the sites. Vehicle use of the 

reopened roads could reintroduce human 

disturbances, such as noise, and associated 

fragmentation to habitat areas. This action 

would result in a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, localized effect on wildlife 

habitat.

Mountain biking may become a new, allowed 

trail use under this alternative (only on

designated trails that are yet to be 

determined). The potential for increased trail 

use and human activity along designated 

trails would increase. Increases in trail use 

would likely increase the frequency, degree, 

and duration of human disturbances, such as 

noise, on surrounding habitat values. This 

potential new allowed use could result in a 

long-term, minor, adverse, regional effect on 

wildlife habitat.

This alternative would include improvements 

to the National Riverways’ equestrian 

management. These changes would include 

designing a better horse trail system that 

would minimize wildlife habitat degradation 

by removing trails from sensitive areas, better 

managing equestrian access to the rivers and 

shorelines, and providing higher-quality, 

sustainable trails. The proposed equestrian 

trail system of this alternative would result in 

nearly 50 to 70 miles of designated equestrian 

trails, including approximately 23 miles of 

existing and approximately 25 to 45 miles of 

newly designated trails). Much of the newly 

designated trail mileage would follow 

alignments of existing undesignated trails. 

Thus, most new designated equestrian trails 

would not be expected to directly increase 

impacts to wildlife habitat or wildlife 

behavior beyond what exists under the noaction alternative. However, there is a 

potential for indirect adverse effects if some 

equestrians use new designated trails as 

avenues to create other undesignated trails. 

This could increase demands on park 

enforcement staff to control undesignated 

trail creation in new “opened up” areas, and 

could result in additional wildlife habitat 

fragmentation from new off-trail use. Overall, 

this new equestrian management would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial, 

regional effect on wildlife habitat.

This alternative would include the closure 

and restoration of approximately 45 to 65

miles of undesignated equestrian trails, as 

well as several undesignated equestrian river 

crossings and undesignated river access 

points in the National Riverways. These trail 

restoration efforts would reduce levels of 

habitat fragmentation in the park unit from 

dispersed human use and minimize sensitive 

riparian and wetland habitat disturbances. In 

addition, better management of horse access

and crossing points along the rivers would 

result in reduced levels of nutrient loading 

and horse-generated sediment in the rivers, 

which would likely improve aquatic habitat 

conditions. These improved equestrian 

management actions would result in a longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial, regional 

effect on fish and wildlife habitat.

This alternative could include the 

establishment of an equestrian permitting 

system that would help manage horse use 

levels and allow park staff to monitor 

resource impacts against established

standards. This new permitting program and 

resource monitoring approach would help 

protect against habitat degradation from 

horse use, which would result in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial, localized to 

regional effect on fish and wildlife habitat.
Fish and Wildlife

295

The planned increased access to discovery 

sites in the parks could generate the need for 

additional trail development in some areas. 

Additional trails that are accessible to people 

with disabilities would also occur under this 

alternative. These trail developments could 

result in the localized fragmentation of 

wildlife habitat and introduced 

noise/presence disturbances from human 

activity on the trails. This action would result 

in a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse, 

localized effect on wildlife habitat.

Alternative B would also include the 

development and implementation of a 

fisheries management plan to assess the 

effects of nonnative game fish stocking and 

the timing / locations of fishing activities on 

native aquatic species. Information and 

management actions that stem from this plan 

would likely result in improved conditions 

for native aquatic plants and animals, a longterm minor to moderate, beneficial, and 

localized to regional effect on fish and 

wildlife habitat.

The proposed designation of approximately 

3,430 acres of wilderness at Big Spring under 

alternative B would have a long-term, minor

to moderate, beneficial, localized effect on 

wildlife habitat. Approximately 4 acres in the 

wilderness study area (existing utility 

corridor) would be proposed as potential 

wilderness addition, pending eventual 

decommissioning of the utility line. Although 

the lands and habitat of the proposed 

designation would be managed in a way that 

is compliant with the Wilderness Act (as well 

as being managed under the primitive zone of 

this plan), the land management would not be 

notably different than what would occur 

under the no-action alternative. However, 

the primitive zone and wilderness 

designation would further limit the potential 

for future facility development and/or types 

of use relative to what is allowed under 

current management.

With the proposed wilderness designation, 

the NPS training range would be removed 

and restored to a natural condition. Also, 

motorized vehicle use of the access road to 

the fire tower, NPS training range, and barn 

would be prohibited. These roads would be 

evaluated to determine if they should be 

rehabilitated to a natural condition or 

restored to Civilian Conservation Corps-era 

condition. These restoration efforts and 

changes in allowed use would reduce 

disturbances to wildlife and fragmentation of 

wildlife habitat, allowing for the restoration 

of an intact, large habitat area in the Big 

Spring area.

Federally and State-listed Species

The aforementioned fish and wildlife habitat 

effects from actions in alternative B would

also result in both adverse and beneficial 

impacts to federally and state-listed 

threatened and endangered species of the 

National Riverways. 

The adverse impacts of alternative B on listed 

species could result from the continuation of 

various current uses and effects noted under 

the no-action alternatives, as well as some 

new impacts. For more information on 

continued uses and impacts, also see the 

impact analysis of federally and state-listed 

species under the no-action alternative.

The new adverse impacts would primarily 

result from replacement of road or trace 

alignments in primitive areas with hiking 

trails, potentially allowing mountain biking as 

a new trail use, and installing new access

points for nonmotorized watercraft users.

The beneficial impacts would primarily result 

from the stronger emphasis on managing 

natural resources in the National Riverways, 

land management zones (with 88% of the 

park unit being managed as primitive or 

natural), river management zones (with

seasonal motorized restrictions and

horsepower limits), improved vehicular 

access management, closure and restoration 

of undesignated roads, improvements to the 

National Riverways’ equestrian management, 

closure and restoration of undesignated 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

296

equestrian trails and crossings, the 

establishment of an equestrian permitting 

system, and the development and 

implementation of a fisheries management 

plan.

To pursue compliance with section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, the National Park 

Service must disclose the anticipated 

potential impacts from the proposed 

alternatives on federally listed species. The 

specific impacts from alternative B on 

federally listed species are described below.

Ozark Hellbender. At the time of printing of 

this document, existing data regarding the 

existing effects of Riverways management on 

hellbender habitat was limited. Thus, the 

following analysis on the Ozark hellbender is 

based on potential effects from National 

Riverways uses and management. The noted 

potential effects are derived from past and 

ongoing interagency hellbender research in 

the basin and region (as cited in the analysis

of the no-action alternative).

Adverse impacts to the hellbender could 

result from the continuation of various 

current uses and activities in the Riverways, 

as described under the no-action alternative. 

Most notably, contributions to water quality 

degradation from various ongoing recreation 

activities (e.g., equestrian use, motor vehicle 

use, boating, etc.) and park development 

could have negative impacts on hellbenders 

and their habitat. Likewise, potential adverse 

impacts could also relate to direct 

disturbances to aquatic habitat from 

permitted and unpermitted recreational 

activities in the rivers, and on sandbars and 

shorelines (e.g., motorboating, floating, 

equestrian crossings, etc.). See the impact 

analysis under the no-action alternative for a 

more detailed explanation.

The potential new adverse impacts from 

alternative B could be long-term, minor, 

adverse, and localized (relative to the noaction alternative), resulting from the 

development of some new river access points 

for floaters and equestrians. These points 

would degrade the aquatic habitat in the 

vicinity of the access and would allow for 

ongoing water quality degradation in the area 

from equestrian and human access.

However, relative to the no-action 

alternative, the park management strategies 

under alternative B could potentially have 

beneficial impacts to the Ozark hellbender. 

These beneficial impacts would be short- and 

long-term, minor to moderate, and localized 

to regional. The effects would relate to a 

stronger emphasis on managing natural 

resources in the National Riverways, river 

management zones (with seasonal motorboat 

use restrictions in some areas and 

horsepower limits), improved vehicular 

access management, improvements to the 

National Riverways’ equestrian management, 

closure and restoration of undesignated 

equestrian trails and crossings, the 

establishment of an equestrian permitting 

system, and improved management of 

nonnative fish and fishing via a fisheries 

management plan. All of these actions of 

alternative B should help reduce the amount 

of direct disturbances to aquatic habitat for 

hellbender foraging and breeding. These 

actions could also help reduce water quality 

degradation relative to the no-action 

alternative, which could help meet a critical 

need of the hellbender.

Under alternative B, the National Park 

Service would also work with surrounding 

communities to minimize the negative effects 

of waste water systems on water quality in the 

riverways, which could also indirectly benefit 

the hellbender.

The National Park Service would continue 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service under section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act to develop and implement a 

conservation plan for the Ozark hellbender. 

This would enhance the beneficial impacts of 

proactive resource management on the Ozark 

hellbender.
Fish and Wildlife

297

Overall, alternative B would likely provide for 

an improvement in Ozark hellbender habitat 

relative to the no-action alternative as a result 

of a variety of resource management 

strategies noted in the fish and wildlife 

habitat analysis above. 

Indiana Bat, Gray Bat, and Northern LongEared Bat. Relative to the no-action 

alternative, the park management strategies 

under alternative B would have both 

beneficial and adverse impacts to the Indiana 

bat, gray bat, and northern long-eared bat.

The beneficial impacts would be long-term, 

minor to moderate, and localized to regional, 

primarily resulting from a stronger emphasis 

on managing natural resources in the 

National Riverways, land management zones 

(with 88% of the park unit being managed as 

primitive or natural), river management 

zones (with year-round nonmotorized 

stretches and stretches with seasonal 

restrictions), improved vehicular access 

management, closure and restoration of 

undesignated roads, improvements to the 

National Riverways’ equestrian management, 

closure and restoration of undesignated 

equestrian trails and crossings, the 

establishment of an equestrian permitting 

system, and enhanced protection of karst 

caves. These actions would help reduce 

disturbances to natural vegetation, riparian 

areas, and caves and, thus, would improve 

foraging habitat and hibernacula for the 

Indiana bat, gray bat, and northern longeared bat. For example, some undesignated 

equestrian trails currently exist near cave 

entrances. As these undesignated trails were 

closed and restored under this alternative, 

the negative effects on bat activity should 

decrease. Likewise, the primitive and natural 

zones under this alternative would help 

ensure that human activities were more 

consistent with bat habitat protection.

In addition, under alternative B, the National 

Park Service would continue consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to 

develop and implement a conservation plan 

for the gray bat, Indiana bat, and northern 

long-eared bat. This would enhance the

beneficial impacts of proactive resource 

management on all three bat species.

However, the potential threat of white-nose 

syndrome would remain for these bat species, 

as described in the impact analysis of the

Indiana bat, gray bat, and northern longeared bat under the no-action alternative. 

Cave management under alternative B would 

be the same as the no-action alternative. 

Guided cave tours at Round Spring would 

continue to be provided unless resource 

impacts were identified.

Overall, alternative B would likely provide for 

an improvement in bat habitat relative to the 

no-action alternative as a result of a variety of 

resource management strategies noted in the 

fish and wildlife habitat analysis above.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

impacts on fish and wildlife.

When the beneficial and adverse effects of 

alternative B actions are added to the effects 

of these past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, there would be a 

long-term, moderate, adverse, localized to 

regional, cumulative impact on fish and 

wildlife. Alternative B would contribute a 

small, long-term, beneficial increment to the

cumulative effect.

Conclusion

Alternative B would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, beneficial 

impacts, and short- to long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, adverse 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

298

impacts on fish and wildlife habitat. Impacts 

of this alternative, combined with the impacts 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term,

moderate, adverse, localized to regional,

cumulative impact on fish and wildlife. 

Alternative B would contribute a small, longterm, beneficial increment to the cumulative 

effect.

For alternative B, the determination of effect 

on federal threatened and endangered 

species protected under the Endangered 

Species Act would be may affect / not likely to 

adversely affect.

ALTERNATIVE C

When compared to the no-action alternative, 

alternative C would place a stronger 

emphasis on monitoring water quality, 

aquatic ecology, and terrestrial ecology to 

ensure the protection of these natural 

resources in response to the higher levels of 

visitor use associated with this alternative. 

This management approach would also 

increase habitat restoration efforts and 

partnering on resource stewardship projects. 

Collectively, and relative to the no-action 

alternative, these management actions would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial, 

regional effect on fish and wildlife habitat.

The following zoning would be applied to 

Riverways lands: 6.5% primitive, 28.2% 

natural, 59.6% resource-based recreation, 

and 5.7% developed. Establishment of land 

management zones (with approximately 34% 

of the park unit being managed as primitive 

or natural) would help minimize negative 

effects from recreational use, facility 

development, and park operations on wildlife 

behavior and wildlife habitat in areas zoned 

for protection. However, with roughly 6% of 

the park unit zoned as developed and 60% as 

resource-based recreation, many large areas 

of undisturbed and unfragmented habitat 

would be exposed to increased development 

and visitor uses. As a result, the quality, 

connectivity, and size of wildlife habitat in 

the National Riverways could be reduced 

under this alternative. Although the 

application of zoning would help contain 

adverse effects on resources, the degradation 

of resources from the large amount of 

developed and recreation zoning in 

alternative C would offset the benefits of land 

use zoning on wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

The proposed management zoning would 

result in a short- and long-term, moderate, 

adverse, regional effect on fish and wildlife 

habitat.

The Current and Jacks Fork Rivers would 

have the following zoning based on river 

mileage: 21% nonmotorized river, 20% 

seasonal mixed-use river, and 59% mixed-use 

river. Establishment of river management 

zones that provide for year-round 

nonmotorized stretches and stretches with 

seasonal restrictions would help reduce 

motorboat disturbances to aquatic habitat 

(such as displaced aquatic vegetation, fish 

spawning impacts, and petroleum-based 

water pollution) and motorboat noise 

disturbance to riparian habitat and wildlife 

behavior (such as bird nesting and bird 

communication). The most notable changes 

would occur on the Current River upstream 

of Akers, where no motorized boating would 

be allowed under this alternative. Reductions 

in disturbances to fish and wildlife habitat 

along the rivers would also result from 

seasonal restrictions to motorboats between 

Round Spring and Akers on the Current 

River, and between Bay Creek and Rymers on 

the Jacks Fork. These management zones 

would collectively result in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial, regional effect 

on fish and wildlife habitat.

Under this alternative, approximately 20 

access points (dropoff and pickup) for 

nonmotorized watercraft users would be 

closed, restored, and relocated to better 

distribute watercraft use on the rivers. The 

closure and restoration of access points 

would benefit riparian and aquatic habitat 

values by minimizing human disturbances on 

riparian habitat (for example, high volumes 

of nonmotorized watercraft traffic and high 
Fish and Wildlife

299

levels and persistence human noise) at these 

sites. However, the development of new 

access points would introduce human 

disturbances to currently undisturbed habitat 

areas along the rivers. These visitor

management actions would have long-term, 

minor, localized effects that are both 

beneficial and adverse to fish and wildlife 

habitat.

Vehicular access and circulation in the 

National Riverways would be managed by 

zoning prescriptions and with an increase in 

law enforcement staff to monitor and enforce 

vehicle access compliance. This could reduce 

the creation and continuation of 

undesignated roads in the National 

Riverways and, thus, reduce negative effects 

on wildlife habitat, such as habitat 

fragmentation and direct disturbances to 

wildlife behavior. In addition, the closure of 

approximately 40 miles of undesignated 

roads and traces in the park unit would help 

eliminate existing disturbances to wildlife 

habitat. The closure of undesignated vehicle 

accesses and crossings along the rivers would 

also reduce degradation of riparian habitat 

(such as by noise and vegetation trampling) 

and aquatic habitat (such as from turbidity, 

riverbed disturbances). Collectively, these 

actions related to vehicle and access 

management would have a long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial, localized to regional 

effect on wildlife habitat.

Although vehicular access on designated sites 

would remain unchanged (same as no-action 

alternative), this alternative would limit 

gravel bar camping to designated gravel bars 

away from the river. This would reduce 

disturbances to riparian and aquatic habitat 

in many gravel bar areas. These management 

actions would result in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial, localized effect on fish and 

wildlife.

About 5 miles of the approximately 40

restored miles of undesignated roads and 

traces would occur in the proposed primitive 

zones and relate to backcountry hiking. 

Although this elimination of motor vehicle 

access to these backcountry areas would 

benefit wildlife habitat, some of these of 

benefits would be offset by hiking trail 

development. This alternative would replace 

these road and trace alignments in primitive 

areas with hiking trails. The pedestrian 

activity along these trail corridors would 

introduce human disturbances to wildlife and 

possibly lead to localized fragmentation of 

habitat (depending on frequency and volume 

of hiking use). Generally, wildlife tend to be 

more averse to pedestrians than to motor 

vehicles. This trail development action could 

result in a long-term, minor, adverse, 

localized effect on wildlife habitat.

This alternative would include an increase in 

the area of Riverways land developed with 

park facilities from the 1% in the no-action 

alternative to the proposed 6% development 

zone). A portion of this increased area of 

development would provide for two new 

developed campgrounds (along the upper 

Current River near Akers and the upper Jacks 

Fork near Blue Spring) and a 25-site horse 

camping area along the Jacks Fork. Although 

some of the proposed campground 

developments would occur in existing 

disturbed areas (for example, day use areas), 

the expansion would likely result in an area 

increase of the disturbance zone to 

surrounding wildlife habitat and an increase 

in the volume and duration of human activity 

in these areas. This increase in human activity 

and development would result in a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized effect on 

surrounding wildlife habitat.

The establishment of a 25-campsite horse 

campground along the Jacks Fork (and the 

associated concentration of equestrian 

activity in this area) would also increase the 

likelihood for water quality degradation in 

nearby water features from horse manure, 

including the Jacks Fork. This could alter 

aquatic habitat conditions for native species 

that are dependent on high water quality, and 

could result in a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse, localized effect on fish 

and wildlife habitat.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

300

Mountain biking may become a new, allowed 

trail use under this alternative (only on

designated trails that are yet to be 

determined). The potential for increased trail 

use and human activity along designated 

trails would increase, which would increase 

the frequency, degree, and duration of 

human disturbances, such as noise, on 

surrounding habitat values. This potential 

new allowed use could result in a long-term, 

minor, adverse, regional effect on wildlife 

habitat.

This alternative would include improvements 

to the National Riverways’ equestrian 

management. These changes would include 

designing a better horse trail system that 

would minimize wildlife habitat degradation 

by removing trails from sensitive areas, better 

managing equestrian access to the rivers and 

shorelines, and providing higher-quality, 

sustainable trails. The proposed equestrian 

trail system of this alternative would result in 

nearly 70 miles of designated equestrian 

trails, including approximately 23 miles of 

existing and up to approximately 45 miles of 

newly designated trails. Much of the newly 

designated trail mileage would follow 

alignments of existing undesignated trails.

Thus, most new designated equestrian trails 

would not be expected to directly increase 

impacts to wildlife habitat or wildlife 

behavior beyond what exists under the noaction alternative. However, there is a 

potential for indirect adverse effects if some 

equestrians use new designated trails as 

avenues to create other undesignated trails. 

This could increase demands on park 

enforcement staff to control undesignated 

trail creation in new “opened up” areas, and 

could result in additional wildlife habitat 

fragmentation from new off-trail use. Overall, 

this new equestrian management would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial, and 

localized to regional effect on wildlife habitat.

The proposed equestrian management could 

result in some new river crossing points. 

These new crossings could introduce human 

activity to previously undisturbed riparian 

habitat and cause disturbances to riverbeds 

and aquatic habitat from turbidity and 

nutrient loading. This could result in a longterm, minor to moderate, adverse, localized 

effect on fish and wildlife habitat.

This alternative would include the closure 

and restoration of approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated equestrian trails, as well as 

several undesignated river crossings and 

undesignated river access points in the 

National Riverways. These trail restoration 

efforts would reduce levels of habitat 

fragmentation in the park unit from dispersed 

human use and minimize sensitive riparian 

and wetland habitat disturbances. In

addition, better management of horse access

and crossing points along the rivers would 

result in reduced levels of nutrient loading 

and horse-generated sediment in the rivers, 

which would improve aquatic habitat 

conditions in the rivers. Collectively, these 

improved equestrian management actions 

would result in a long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial, regional effect on fish 

and wildlife habitat.

An additional mile of trails that were 

accessible to people with disabilities would 

occur under this alternative. These trail 

developments could result in the localized 

fragmentation of wildlife habitat and 

introduced noise/presence disturbances from 

human activity on the trails. This action 

would result in a long-term, minor, adverse, 

localized effect on wildlife habitat.

The proposed designation of 1,779 acres of 

wilderness at Big Spring under alternative C 

would have a long-term, minor, beneficial, 

localized effect on wildlife habitat. Although 

the land and wildlife resources of this area 

would be managed in a way that is compliant 

with the Wilderness Act (as well as being 

managed under the primitive zone of this 

plan), land management would not be 

notably different than what would occur 

under the no-action alternative. However, 

the primitive zone and wilderness 

designation would further limit the potential 

for future facility development and/or types 
Fish and Wildlife

301

of use relative to what is allowed under 

current management.

Federally and State-listed Species

The aforementioned fish and wildlife habitat 

effects from actions in alternative C would 

also result in both adverse and beneficial 

impacts to the federally and state-listed 

threatened and endangered species of the 

National Riverways.

The adverse impacts of alternative C on listed 

species could result from the continuation of 

various current uses and effects noted under 

the no-action alternatives as well as some 

new impacts. For more information on 

continued uses and impacts, also see the 

impact analysis of federally and state-listed 

species under the no-action alternative. The

new adverse impacts would primarily result 

from the following; recreational 

use/development associated with the 

proposed land management zones that could 

further fragment undisturbed habitat areas in 

the National Riverways (roughly 6% of the 

park unit zoned as developed and 60% as 

resource-based recreation), the replacement 

of road and trace alignments in primitive 

areas with hiking trails, the potential to allow 

mountain biking as a new trail use, and the 

establishment of new access points for 

nonmotorized watercraft users.

However, in comparison to the no-action 

alternative, the beneficial impacts would 

primarily result from new river management 

zones (with year-round nonmotorized 

stretches with seasonal restrictions), 

improved vehicular access management, 

closure and restoration of undesignated 

roads, improvements to the National 

Riverways’ equestrian management, and 

closure and restoration of undesignated 

equestrian trails and crossings.

To pursue compliance with section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, the National Park 

Service must disclose the anticipated impacts 

from the proposed alternatives on federally 

listed species that are protected under the act.

Ozark Hellbender. At the time of printing of 

this document, existing data regarding the 

existing effects of Riverways management on 

hellbender habitat was limited. Thus, the 

following analysis on the Ozark hellbender is 

based on potential effects from park uses and 

management. The noted potential effects are 

derived from past and ongoing interagency 

hellbender research in the basin and region 

(as cited in the analysis of the no-action 

alternative).

Adverse impacts to the hellbender could 

result from the continuation of various 

current uses and activities in the Riverways, 

as described under the no-action alternative. 

Most notably, contributions to water quality 

degradation from various ongoing recreation 

activities (e.g., equestrian use, motor vehicle 

use, boating, etc.) and park development 

could have negative impacts on hellbenders 

and their habitat. Likewise, potential adverse 

impacts could also relate to direct 

disturbances to aquatic habitat from 

permitted and unpermitted recreational 

activities in the rivers, and on sandbars and 

shorelines (e.g., motorboating, floating, 

equestrian crossings, etc.). See the impact 

analysis under the no-action alternative for a 

more detailed explanation.

The potential new adverse impacts from 

alternative C relative to the no-action 

alternative could be long-term, minor, 

adverse, and localized, and would result from 

the development of new river access points 

for floaters and equestrians. These points 

would degrade the aquatic habitat in the 

vicinity of the access and would allow for 

ongoing water quality degradation from 

turbidity and nutrient loading from horse 

manure.

The potential beneficial effects relative to the 

no-action alternative could be short- to longterm, minor, and localized to regional. The 

effects would primarily relate to new river 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

302

management zones (with year-round 

nonmotorized stretches and stretches with 

seasonal restrictions), improved vehicular 

access management, improvements to the 

National Riverways’ equestrian management, 

and closure and restoration of undesignated 

equestrian trails and crossings. All of these 

actions of alternative C should help reduce 

the amount of direct disturbances to aquatic 

habitat for hellbender foraging and breeding. 

These actions could also help reduce water 

quality degradation relative to the no-action 

alternative, which could help meet a critical 

need of the hellbender.

In addition, under alternative C, the National 

Park Service would continue consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to 

develop and implement a conservation plan 

for the Ozark hellbender. This would 

enhance the beneficial impacts of proactive 

resource management on the Ozark 

hellbender.

Overall, alternative C would likely provide 

for an improvement in Ozark hellbender 

habitat relative to the no-action alternative as 

a result of a variety of resource management 

strategies noted in the fish and wildlife 

habitat analysis above. 

Indiana Bat, Gray Bat, and Northern LongEared Bat. Relative to the no-action 

alternative, the park management strategies 

under alternative C would have both 

beneficial and potential adverse impacts to 

the Indiana bat, gray bat, and northern longeared bat.

The adverse impacts of alternative C would 

be long-term, minor, and localized to 

regional. Recreational use and development 

associated with the proposed land 

management zones could further fragment 

undisturbed foraging habitat and disturb 

hibernacula (with roughly 6% of the park 

unit being zoned as developed and 60% as 

resource-based recreation). The replacement 

of road and trace alignments in primitive 

areas with hiking trails, potentially allowing 

mountain biking, and developing new access 

points for nonmotorized watercraft users 

could also negatively affect habitat for the 

Indiana bat, gray bat, and northern longeared bat.

In addition, under alternative C, the potential 

threat of white-nose syndrome would remain 

for these bat species, as described in the 

impact analysis of the Indiana bat, gray bat, 

and northern long-eared bat under the noaction alternative. Cave management under 

alternative C would be the same as the noaction alternative. Guided cave tours at 

Round Spring would continue to be provided 

unless resource impacts were identified.

The beneficial impacts would be long-term, 

minor, and localized to regional. They 

primarily would result from a stronger 

emphasis on managing natural resources in 

the National Riverways, land management 

zones (with over 34% of the park unit being 

managed as primitive or natural), river 

management zones (with year-round 

nonmotorized stretches and stretches with 

seasonal restrictions), improved vehicular 

access management, closure and restoration 

of undesignated roads, improvements to the 

National Riverways’ equestrian management, 

and closure and restoration of undesignated 

equestrian trails and crossings. In some areas, 

these actions would help reduce disturbances 

to natural vegetation, riparian areas, and 

caves and, thus, could improve foraging 

habitat and hibernacula for the Indiana bat, 

gray bat, and northern long-eared bat. For 

example, some undesignated equestrian trails 

currently exist near cave entrances. As these 

undesignated trails were closed and restored 

under this alternative, the negative effects on 

bat activity should decrease.

In addition, under alternative C, the National 

Park Service would continue consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to 

develop and implement a conservation plan 

for the gray bat, Indiana bat, and northern 

long-eared bat. This would enhance the 
Fish and Wildlife

303

beneficial impacts of proactive resource 

management on all three bat species.

Overall, alternative C would likely provide 

for an improvement in bat habitat relative to 

the no-action alternative as a result of a 

variety of resource management strategies 

noted in the fish and wildlife habitat analysis 

above.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional 

impacts on fish and wildlife.

When the beneficial and adverse effects of 

alternative C actions are added to the effects 

of these past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, there would be a 

long-term, moderate, adverse, localized to 

regional, cumulative impact on fish and 

wildlife. Alternative C would contribute a 

small, long-term, adverse increment to the

cumulative effect.

Conclusion

Alternative C would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, beneficial 

impacts, and short- to long-term, minor to 

moderate, localized to regional, adverse 

impacts on fish and wildlife habitat. Impacts

of this alternative, combined with the impacts 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term, 

moderate, adverse, localized to regional,

cumulative impact on fish and wildlife. 

Alternative C would contribute a small, longterm, adverse increment to the cumulative 

effect.
304

NATURAL SOUNDSCAPES

INTRODUCTION

Natural sounds are inherent components of 

“the scenery and the natural and historic 

objects and the wild life” protected by the 

NPS Organic Act. They are vital to the visitor 

experience of many parks and provide 

valuable indicators of the health of 

ecosystems. 

Intrusive sounds are of concern because they 

can impede ecological function and diminish 

the National Park Service’s ability to 

accomplish its resource protection mission. 

Intrusive sounds are also a matter of concern 

to park visitors. 

The following analysis of impacts examines 

the components of each alternative and their 

potential effects on the acoustic environment 

of the Riverways.

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 

Impacts on soundscapes were evaluated by 

comparing projected changes resulting from 

the action alternatives (A, B, and C) to those 

of the no-action alternative. The impact 

intensities for natural soundscape are as 

follows:

 Negligible: Noise is generally not 

detectable; when noise is detectable it 

is only for very brief periods of time.

Noises louder than natural ambient 

sounds would be extremely rare. 

 Minor: Noise is detectable for a small 

fraction of the time. Noises louder 

than natural ambient sounds would 

rarely occur. 

 Moderate: Noise is detectable for a 

substantial fraction of the time at low 

levels, or is present at high levels for 

short durations. Noise in a specific 

area would periodically be louder 

than natural ambient sounds in the 

same area 

 Major: Noise appreciably masks 

other sounds for a substantial fraction 

of the time, or regularly exceeds high 

levels. Noise in a specific area would 

frequently be louder than natural 

ambient sounds in the same area. 

 Duration

– Short term: Impacts would last 

less than five years.

– Long term: Impacts would persist 

for five or more years, or may be 

permanent.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Many of the components of the no-action 

alternative would result in adverse impacts to 

the natural soundscape. These impacts would 

include degradation of the acoustic 

environment and resulting effects on visitors 

and wildlife. 

Noise levels in parks can have a variety of 

effects on visitors. The primary effect on 

visitors is a reduction in opportunities to hear 

the sounds of nature and enjoy the peaceful 

and quiet conditions that many visitors seek 

in national parks. Research also shows that 

inappropriate sounds can diminish visitors’ 

appreciation of scenic beauty in park settings 

(Mace et al. 2003). Numerous studies indicate 

that hearing natural sounds is a very 

important reason for visiting national parks 

(Haas and Wakefield 1998). 

Depending on the location, duration, sound 

level, and other characteristics of the noise 

source, many elements of the no-action 

alternative would adversely impact visitors by 

interfering with opportunities to hear the 

sounds of nature. At some locations and 

times, exposure to noise generated by the noaction alternative could contribute to other 

adverse impacts, including sleep disturbance 
Natural Soundscapes

305

and irritability. Other long-term effects of 

chronic exposure to noise include 

hypertension and an increased risk of heart 

attack and stroke (Pilcher and Turina 2006).

Scientific research also illustrates that noise 

can result in impacts to wildlife (Barber et al., 

2010). For example, noise can lead to 

weakened avian pair preferences (Swaddle 

and Page 2007), reduced pairing success 

(Habib et al. 2007), and a reduction in bird 

densities (Bayne et al. 2008).

Under current management, acoustic 

analyses indicate that one of the most 

commonly heard noise sources at the 

acoustic monitoring sites was vehicle traffic. 

Vehicles were audible 49.1% of the time at 

Sinking Creek, 44% of the time at Rymers, 

and 23% of the time at Raft Yard. High levels 

of vehicle traffic at these monitoring sites 

occurred because they were near roads. 

Other areas of the National Riverways farther 

from roadways would experience less vehicle 

noise. Aircraft were audible 9% of the time at 

Sinking Creek, 22% of the time at Rymers, 

and 8.6% of the time at Raft Yard. Watercraft 

were audible 5% of the time at Sinking Creek 

and 29% of the time at Raft Yard. Motorized 

boats were not audible at Rymers.

Under the no-action alternative, especially 

during weekdays and other low-use periods, 

wildlife would continue to experience 

periods of quiet and visitors would have 

opportunities to enjoy the natural sounds.

However, the following elements of the noaction alternative would have adverse 

impacts on the soundscapes and would result 

in negative effects on visitors and wildlife:

 Crowding and higher volumes of 

motorized and nonmotorized 

watercraft would result in much more 

social interaction and higher noise 

levels, particularly during peak-season 

weekends. 

 The National Riverways would 

continue to require concessioners to 

limit nonmotorized watercraft rentals 

to adhere to the 1989 river 

management plan guidance for 

managing visitor numbers on the 

river. However, current methods of 

nonmotorized watercraft rental and 

distribution of these users (dropoff 

and pickup locations) are not 

achieving desired visitor use 

concentrations during peak visitation, 

and crowding and related conflicts 

occur increasing anthropogenic 

sound levels.

 The National Riverways would 

continue to manage nonmotorized 

watercraft levels through concessions 

management. In recent years, 

increasing numbers of visitors are 

utilizing nonmotorized watercraft on

the riverways bringing their own 

watercraft. The National Riverways

does not regulate private watercraft 

levels, and as a result managing 

nonmotorized watercraft use only 

through concessions operations is 

becoming less effective. 

 Motorboat horsepower limitations 

would not apply outside the National 

Riverways boundary within the

Eminence and Van Buren gaps.

 The National Riverways would 

continue to allow use of motorized 

boats with up to 60/40 hp motors in 

several locations.

 The National Riverways waterways 

would continue to be available for 

night fishing and gigging activities 

consistent with applicable restrictions 

as set forth by the park unit or state. 

The use of motorized boats and 

generators to power lights would 

continue to affect nighttime acoustic 

environments when ambient 

conditions are often lower and 

wildlife are more sensitive to 

disruptions.

 In some locations throughout the 

National Riverways, loud sounds 

from passing boat motors would 

continue to exceed current NPS 

regulations for maximum noise level 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

306

for an operating water vessel (36 CFR

3.15(a)(1)).

As a result, high levels of nonmotorized 

watercraft use and frequent passing of boats 

would continue to effect local wildlife and 

mask important natural sounds. Noise levels 

and the amount of time that noise is audible 

in the National Riverways would likely 

increase over the life of the plan. Impacts 

from anthropogenic (human-caused) sounds 

are also likely to increase due to additional 

development and recreational use within and 

adjacent to the Riverways. Overall, the noaction alternative would result in moderate,

long term, adverse impacts to soundscapes.

Cumulative Impacts

Several past, present, and foreseeable future 

actions are likely to affect the National 

Riverways’ acoustic environment.

Recreational use within and adjacent to the 

Riverways is expected to continue to 

increase, particularly as state and local 

highways between St. Louis and other 

metropolitan areas and the Riverways are 

improved. Completion of the Old Tram Road 

Trail, a 10.2-mile-long, multiuse trail along 

the Current River, would also lead to 

increased visitation. This increased use would

likely result in an increase in noise within the 

National Riverways.

Urban encroachment and large-scale 

industrial development may occur adjacent 

to the National Riverways and could result in 

minor to moderate increases in noise levels. 

U.S. Highway 67 from St. Louis to Poplar 

Bluff has been expanded to a four-lane 

highway, which is expected to increase 

tourist traffic near and in the Riverways. 

Other transportation projects that could 

affect National Riverways acoustics include 

expansion of U.S. Highway 60 through Van 

Buren and the proposed Missouri Highway

19 bridge over Sinking Creek. These projects 

could result in increased noise levels in areas 

of the National Riverways near the roadways.

These effects in addition to the moderate,

long-term, adverse impacts resulting from the 

no-action alternative would result in 

moderate, adverse, cumulative impacts.

Conclusion

The no-action alternative would continue to 

provide visitors and wildlife with some 

opportunities to experience the sounds of 

nature with minimal human noise intrusions. 

However, the amount of human-caused noise 

is likely to increase over time. Visitation,

development within and near the National 

Riverways, and current management of the 

Riverways have resulted in adverse impacts to 

the acoustic environment and associated 

effects on visitors and wildlife. Continuation 

of these trends under the no-action 

alternative would result in moderate, longterm, adverse impacts. These effects,

combined with past, current, and future 

actions, would result in moderate long-term,

adverse, cumulative impacts.
Natural Soundscapes

307

ALTERNATIVE A

Many of the actions included in alternative A 

would reduce human-cause noise levels and 

result in a beneficial effect on the acoustic 

environment of the Riverways. Visitors 

would experience increased opportunities to 

experience sounds of nature and enjoy the 

soundscape of the Riverways. Wildlife would 

be exposed to less anthropogenic noise and 

there would be less interference with their 

acoustic signals, with important ecological 

consequences such as inter- and intra-species 

communication and predator/prey 

interactions. Components of alternative A 

that would have beneficial impacts on the 

acoustic environment include the following:

 Park management would emphasize 

greater opportunities for traditional, 

nonmechanized forms of recreation 

and visitor experiences that are 

quieter, less crowded, and slower 

paced. 

 The National Riverways would close 

approximately 45 miles of 

undesignated NPS roads, traces, 

crossings, and access points and 

restore the areas to natural 

conditions.

 Park zoning would be applied to 

include large areas in primitive and 

natural zones and in nonmotorized 

river sections. More than a quarter of 

the park unit would be zoned 

primitive, roughly 69% would be 

zoned natural, about 50% of the river

miles would be designated 

nonmotorized river year-round.

 Park management would substantially 

enhance visitor opportunities to 

experience the sights and sounds of 

nature and learn about early river 

recreational activities when the 

National Riverways was being 

established

 The National Riverways would

redistribute concession dropoff and 

pickup locations for nonmotorized 

watercraft users to reduce peakseason crowding between motorized 

and nonmotorized watercraft users. 

This would require an estimated 

closure and restoration of about 20 

access points. Some new access may 

be needed, but the total number of 

designated access points would go 

down.

 Specific river areas would be set aside 

for low-density nonmotorized 

watercraft use at peak times to 

provide an opportunity for solitude 

on the river. Opportunities to 

experience solitude are currently 

limited during peak weekends.

 Locations where motorized boats 

could operate would be reduced, 

thereby enhancing opportunities to 

hear natural sounds. The river 

sections where motorized boats 

would and would not be allowed to 

operate would be different from the 

no-action alternative:

– Upper Current River: No 

motorized boats would be 

allowed year-round from 

northern park unit boundary to 

Round Spring; no motors during 

peak summer season from Round 

Spring to Two Rivers; and 25-

horsepower limit in this area 

during off-peak season.

– Lower Current River: National 

Riverways would pursue a rule 

change to reduce allowable 

horsepower from unlimited to 40

hp from Two Rivers to southern 

boundary.

– Jacks Fork: No motorized boats 

would be allowed year-round.

 Approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated horse trails would be 

closed and restored to natural 

conditions.

 The National Riverways would 

eliminate vehicular access to all park

unit gravel bars.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

308

 The National Park Service would 

continue to provide backcountry and 

primitive campsites in designated 

areas in the National Riverways. Some 

campsites would be reduced based on 

desired future conditions for the 

management zone. Only primitive 

campsites would be allowed in the 

primitive zone. Vehicular access to 

primitive campsites would be 

removed in primitive zones.

 The NPS training range in the Big 

Spring tract would be closed and

rehabilitated, and this function would 

be relocated to another NPS training 

range in the National Riverways 

within an appropriate zoning 

prescription. 

Several of the actions in alternative A would 

have minor to moderate, adverse impacts on 

the acoustic environment of the Riverways

including continuation of fishing and gigging 

activities. Although noise from motors would 

be reduced as a result of limitations on 

motorized boating, noise from generator use 

during night fishing for gigging would 

continue to adversely affect the night 

acoustic environment.

Alternative A also includes construction of 

three multioperational facilities. The facilities 

would improve park sustainability, efficiency, 

and support and provide additional space for 

field staff. However, this action would result 

in short-term construction noise.

Overall, alternative A would result in 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts to 

the acoustic environment of the Riverways.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in moderate, longterm, adverse impacts on the acoustic 

environment.

These effects, in addition to the moderate,

long-term, beneficial impacts resulting from 

alternative A, would result in minor 

cumulative impacts.

Conclusion

Alternative A includes several actions that 

would improve the acoustic environment and 

provide visitors and wildlife with increased 

opportunities to experience the sounds of 

nature with fewer human noise intrusions. 

Under alternative A, park management would 

emphasize greater opportunities for 

traditional, nonmechanized forms of 

recreation and visitor experiences that are 

quieter, less crowded, and slower paced. 

Locations where motorized boats could 

operate would be reduced and the size of 

motors would be limited. These and other 

actions would improve the acoustic 

environment, protect wildlife, and provide 

visitors with a quieter experience. 

Implementation of alternative A would result 

in moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts to 

the acoustic environment of the Riverways.

These effects combined with past, current, 

and future actions would result in minor 

cumulative impacts.

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED)

Under the preferred alternative, park 

management would provide a high level of 

protection of natural and cultural resources, 

while expanding ways for visitors to 

experience and learn about these resources in 

interesting and enjoyable ways. This 

alternative includes several actions that 

would result in reduced noise levels and 

increased opportunities to experience the 

natural sounds of the Riverways. Visitor 

experience would be enhanced and 

disruptions to wildlife from noise would be 

diminished. As a result, the preferred 

alternative would result in beneficial impacts 
Natural Soundscapes

309

to the acoustical environment. Specific 

components of alternative B that would have 

beneficial impacts on the acoustic 

environment include the following:

 The National Riverways would close 

approximately 45 miles of 

undesignated NPS roads, traces, 

crossings, and access points and 

restore the areas to natural 

conditions.

 A river access study would be 

conducted to fully document 

locations of undesignated vehicular 

access points at rivers and develop 

restoration strategies. 

 Park management would substantially 

enhance visitor opportunities to 

experience the sights and sounds of 

nature and learn about early river 

recreational activities when the 

National Riverways was being 

established.

 The National Riverways could 

redistribute concession dropoff and 

pickup locations for nonmotorized 

watercraft users to reduce peakseason crowding effects among 

motorized and nonmotorized 

watercraft. This would require the 

closure and restoration of about 20 

designated access points and the 

careful design and opening of up to 20 

new designated access points. Total 

designated access points would stay 

the same or go down in number.

 Specific river areas would be set aside 

for low-density nonmotorized 

watercraft use at peak times to 

provide an opportunity for solitude 

on the river. Opportunities to 

experience solitude are currently 

limited during peak weekends.

 Locations where motorized boats 

could operate would be reduced 

during the peak season and 

opportunities to hear natural sounds 

would increase. 

– During the off-peak season

(which extends from September 

15 or the first day of gigging 

season for nongame fish in 

streams, through the end of 

trapping season, as established by

the Missouri Department of 

Conservation), motorboats 

equipped with engines rated 25 

hp or less at the powerhead 

would be permitted on the 

Current River between the 

northern boundary to Round 

Spring, and on the Jacks Fork 

River between the western 

boundary to west Eminence. 

Lower Current River: Maximum 

150 hp would be allowed yearround from Big Spring south to 

southern boundary, reduced from 

the existing unlimited 

horsepower regulation. 

 Approximately 45 to 65 miles of 

undesignated horse trails would be 

closed and restored to natural 

conditions.

 Designated campsites or camping 

areas may be established on some 

gravel bars that are accessed by 

licensed vehicles.

 The National Riverways would 

continue to provide backcountry and 

primitive campsites in designated 

areas in the park in unit. Some sites 

would be reduced based on desired 

future conditions for the management 

zone. Only primitive campsites would 

be allowed in the primitive and 

natural zone. Vehicular access to 

these primitive campsites would be 

removed. In some cases, roads or 

parking areas to primitive sites would 

stop slightly short of the campsite.

The NPS training range in the Big 

Spring tract would be closed and 

rehabilitated. This function would be 

relocated to another NPS training 

range in the National Riverways with

an appropriate zoning prescription. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

310

Several of the actions in the preferred 

alternative would have minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on the acoustic environment 

of the Riverways:

 Night fishing and gigging activities

would continue. Noise from 

generator use during night gigging or 

fishing would continue to adversely 

affect the nighttime acoustic 

environment during the off-peak 

season.

 The National Riverways would 

reopen old access roads to vehicles to 

some discovery sites. 

The preferred alternative includes several 

construction projects, including three 

multioperational facilities, expansion of the 

curatorial facility, and campground

development in the vicinity of Upper Current 

(Akers) and upper Jacks Fork (Blue Spring).

The facilities would improve park services, 

sustainability, efficiency, and support and 

provide additional space for field staff. 

However these actions would result in shortterm construction and vehicle noise and

possible long-term impacts from increased 

access and visitor use in these areas. 

Overall, the preferred alternative could result 

in minor, long-term, beneficial impacts to the 

acoustic environment of the Riverways.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in moderate, longterm, adverse impacts on the acoustic 

environment.

These effects, in addition to the minor, longterm, beneficial impacts resulting from the 

preferred alternative, could result in minor 

cumulative impacts.

Conclusion

The preferred alternative includes several 

actions that would improve the acoustic 

environment and provide visitors and wildlife 

with increased opportunities to experience 

the sounds of nature with fewer human noise 

intrusions. Locations where motorized boats 

could operate would be reduced and the size 

of motors would be limited. These and other 

actions would improve the acoustic 

environment, protect wildlife, and provide 

visitors with a quieter experience. This 

alternative also includes several actions that 

could have localized adverse impacts on the 

acoustic environment. Overall, 

implementation of the preferred alternative 

could result in minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts to the acoustic environment of the 

Riverways. These effects, combined with 

past, current, and future actions, could result 

in minor cumulative impacts.

ALTERNATIVE C 

Under alternative C, park management 

would provide a diversity of river 

recreational opportunities and experiences 

similar to what is provided in the no-action 

alternative. In addition, park management 

would offer more quality land-based 

recreational opportunities that can be 

supported by park resources while 

maintaining the highly scenic natural setting. 

This is reflected in the increased amount of 

acreage for the resource-based recreation 

zone and the developed zone. 

This alternative includes several actions that, 

compared to the no-action alternative, would 

result in reduced noise levels and increased 

opportunities to experience the natural 

sounds of the Riverways. These actions 

would enhance opportunities for visitor 

experience and diminish potential 

disruptions to wildlife. As a result, alternative 

C would result in beneficial impacts to the 

acoustical environment, although it would 

provide fewer beneficial impacts than 

alternatives A and B. Components of 
Natural Soundscapes

311

alternative C that would have beneficial 

impacts on the acoustic environment include

the following:

 The Riverways would close 

approximately 45 miles of 

undesignated NPS roads, traces, 

crossings, and access points and 

restore the areas to natural 

conditions. 

 The National Riverways would 

redistribute concession dropoff and 

pickup locations for nonmotorized 

watercraft users to reduce peakseason crowding effects among 

motorized and nonmotorized 

watercraft.

 Locations where motorized boats 

could operate would be reduced. 

Alternative C would designate 21% of 

the Riverways as nonmotorized. The 

river sections where motorized boats 

would and would not be allowed to 

operate would include the following:

– Upper Current River: No 

motorized boats would be 

allowed year-round from 

northern park unit boundary to 

Akers; no motors during the peak 

summer season from Akers to 

Round Spring and 25- hp limit 

during the off season; maximum 

40 hp would be allowed from 

Round Spring to Two Rivers.

– Lower Current River: Maximum 

40 hp would be allowed yearround from Two Rivers to the 

park unit boundary north of Van 

Buren; maximum 40 hp from 

south Van Buren gap to the 

southern park unit boundary. The 

National Riverways would pursue 

a rule change to reduce allowable 

horsepower from unlimited to 

60/40 hp motors from south Van 

Buren to the park unit boundary. 

– Jacks Fork: No motorized boats 

would be allowed year-round 

from the west boundary to 

Rymers; no motors during peak 

summer season from Rymers to 

Bay Creek with a 25-hp limit 

during the off season; maximum 

25 hp from Bay Creek to west 

Eminence to Two Rivers, 

Maximum of 40 hp from east 

Eminence to Two Rivers.

 Approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated horse trails would be 

closed and restored to natural 

conditions.

 Only primitive campsites would be 

allowed in the primitive zone. 

Vehicular access to these primitive 

campsites would be prohibited.

A 25-site horse camping area would be 

developed to allow for wider distribution of 

horse riders and less concentrated use.

Several of the actions in alternative C would 

have minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

the acoustic environment of the Riverways,

including continuation of night fishing and 

gigging activities. Although noise from 

motors would be reduced as a result of 

limitations on motorized boating, noise 

resulting from generator use during night 

gigging or fishing would continue to 

adversely affect the acoustic environment.

Alternative C provides for possibly one or 

two additional visitor contact locations and 

continuation of relatively high levels of social 

interaction among boaters on the river during 

peak season. This alternative also retains 

current vehicular access on designated sites 

to designated park unit gravel bars. These 

actions could maintain or increase the levels 

of noise.

Alternative C includes several construction 

projects, including three multioperational 

facilities, campground development in the 

vicinity of Upper Current [Akers] and upper 

Jacks Fork (Blue Spring), and four new 

housing duplex units to support additional 

seasonal or term staffing needs. The facilities 

would improve park services, sustainability, 

efficiency, and support and provide 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

312

additional space for field staff. However,

these actions would result in short-term 

construction and vehicle noise in addition to 

possible long-term impacts from increased 

access and visitor use in these areas. This 

alternative also includes the potential for 

additional campground facilities and higher 

concentrations of visitors in developed 

zones, and an additional camp store.

When compared to the no-action alternative, 

alternative C would result in minor, longterm, beneficial impacts to the acoustic 

environment of the Riverways.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in moderate, longterm, adverse impacts on the acoustic 

environment.

These effects, in addition to the minor longterm beneficial impacts resulting from the 

alternative C would result in minor 

cumulative impacts.

Conclusion

Under alternative C, park management 

would provide a diversity of river and land 

based recreational opportunities. This 

alternative includes several actions that 

would improve the acoustic environment and 

provide visitors and wildlife with increased 

opportunities to experience the sounds of 

nature with fewer human noise intrusions. 

For example, locations where motorized 

boats could operate would be reduced and 

the size of motors would be limited. The 

alternative would close and restore 43 miles 

of undesignated roads. These and other 

actions would improve the acoustic 

environment, protect wildlife, and provide 

visitors with a quieter experience. This 

alternative also includes actions that could 

have adverse impacts on the acoustic 

environment. These include several 

construction projects and increased 

development. Overall, implementation of the 

alternative C would result in minor, longterm, beneficial impacts to the acoustic 

environment of the Riverways. These effects,

combined with past, current, and future 

actions, would result in minor cumulative 

impacts.
313

CULTURAL RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION

This analysis of the environmental 

consequences of the no-action alternative 

and alternatives A, B, and C on cultural 

resources within Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways is based on the professional 

judgment of park staff, NPS planners, and 

other specialists in the field of cultural 

resources management. To provide a 

thorough analysis of cultural resources of the 

Riverways, this section has been organized by 

the following four impact topics, which 

correspond to the cultural resources topics 

described in chapter 4:

 archeological resources

 historic buildings, structures, and 

cultural landscapes

 ethnographic resources

 museum collections

SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT AND 

IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES 

In this environmental impact statement, 

impacts to cultural resources are described in 

terms of type, context, duration, and 

intensity, which is consistent with the 

regulations of the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) that implement the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These 

impact analyses are intended, however, to 

also comply with the requirements of section

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

In accordance with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800, 

Protection of Historic Properties), impacts to 

cultural resources were identified and 

evaluated by (1) determining the area of 

potential effects; (2) identifying cultural 

resources present in the area of potential 

effects that are either listed in or eligible to be 

listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places; (3) applying the criteria of adverse 

effect to affected national register-eligible or 

national register-listed cultural resources; 

and (4) considering ways to avoid, minimize 

or mitigate adverse effects.

Under the advisory council’s regulations, a 

determination of either adverse effect or no 

adverse effect must be made for affected 

national register-listed or -eligible cultural 

resources. An adverse effect occurs whenever 

an impact alters, directly or indirectly, any 

characteristic of a cultural resource that 

qualifies it for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places, such as 

diminishing the integrity (or the extent to 

which a resource retains its historic 

appearance) of its location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. Adverse effects also include 

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the 

alternatives that would occur later in time, be 

farther removed in distance or be cumulative 

(36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects). A determination of no adverse effect

means there is an effect, but the effect would 

not diminish the characteristics of the 

cultural resource that qualify it for inclusion 

in the national register.

Council on Environmental Quality

regulations and the National Park Service

Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis and Decisionmaking also call for a discussion of 

mitigation, as well as an analysis of how 

effective the mitigation would be in reducing 

the intensity of a potential impact, such as 

reducing the intensity of an impact from 

major to moderate or minor. Any resultant 

reduction in intensity of impact due to 

mitigation, however, is an estimate of the 

effectiveness of mitigation under the 

National Environmental Policy Act only. It 

does not suggest that the level of effect as 

defined by section 106 is similarly reduced. 

Cultural resources are nonrenewable 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

314

resources and adverse effects generally 

consume, diminish, or destroy the original 

historic materials or form, resulting in a loss 

in the integrity of the resource that can never 

be recovered. Therefore, although actions 

determined to have an adverse effect under 

section 106 may be mitigated, the effect 

remains adverse.

For alternatives A, B and C, a section 106 

summary is included following the impact 

analysis sections for archeological resources; 

historic buildings, structures, and cultural 

landscapes; and ethnographic resources. The 

section 106 summary is an assessment of the 

effect of the undertaking (implementation of 

the alternative), based on the criterion of 

effect and criteria of adverse effect found in 

the Advisory Council’s regulations.

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

Potential impacts to contributing elements or 

character-defining features of a resource are 

described in terms of type (beneficial or 

adverse), intensity, duration, and context 

(localized, parkwide or regional). From a 

National Environmental Policy Act 

standpoint, the following definitions and 

context apply to all of the cultural resources 

being analyzed:

 Type

– Beneficial: Beneficial impacts are 

those resulting from actions that 

preserve or protect significant 

cultural resources and do not 

diminish the attributes and 

qualities that contribute to their 

eligibility for listing in the 

National Register of Historic 

Places.

– Adverse: Adverse impacts are 

those resulting from actions that 

disturb or threaten the loss of 

character-defining attributes and 

qualities of significant cultural 

resources, potentially diminishing 

their eligibility for listing in the 

National Register of Historic 

Places. 

 Intensity

– The threshold definitions used to 

describe the intensity of impacts 

precede the analysis for each 

cultural resources topic. 

 Duration

– Short term: Changes would occur 

to cultural resources during 

project implementation. 

– Long term: Changes would occur 

after (and extend beyond) project 

completion.

 Context

– Local: Effects would occur to 

specific cultural resources (for 

example, archeological sites, 

historic structures and districts, 

or cultural landscape features) 

that exist within the boundaries 

of Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways.

– Parkwide or Regional: Effects on 

cultural resources would broadly 

extend throughout the National 

Riverways and possibly beyond 

the park unit boundaries.

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

The impacts on archeological resources are 

described in terms of the potential to 

diminish or protect the ability of 

archeological resources to yield information 

important in prehistory or history. The 

impact intensities for archeological resources 

are as follows:

 Negligible: Impact is at the lowest 

level of detection with no perceptible 

consequences. For purposes of 

section 106, the determination of 

effect would be no adverse effect.
Cultural Resources

315

 Minor: Impacts would be detectable 

and measurable but would not 

diminish the integrity of the resource. 

For purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect.

 Moderate: Impacts would result in 

loss of integrity that would 

consequently jeopardize a site’s 

national register eligibility. For 

purposes of section 106, 

determination of effect would be 

adverse effect.

 Major: Impacts would result in the 

loss of most or all of the site, to the 

extent that it would no longer be 

eligible for national register listing. 

For purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be 

adverse effect.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

No substantial changes in visitor use activities 

or proposed construction of new park 

facilities would occur under the no-action 

alternative. Consequently, there would be 

little potential for impacts to archeological 

resources as a result of ground-disturbing 

construction activities. NPS archeologists 

would continue to monitor the condition of 

known archeological sites and would 

undertake appropriate protection measures 

as necessary to reduce or avoid adverse 

impacts to sites from natural erosion (such as 

flooding and wave scouring affecting the 

riverbanks and terraces), visitor use (such as 

vehicle and boat access points along the 

rivers and horseback riding), the illegal 

removal of artifacts, and other factors. 

However, inadequate staffing presently limits 

the National Riverways’ effectiveness in 

implementing comprehensive site protection 

measures.

Although substantial information has been 

compiled from previous archeological 

investigations, additional sites would likely be 

recorded and added to the existing database 

as a result of future surveys and mitigation 

carried out in fulfillment of section 106 

compliance requirements. Archeological site 

information would continue to be entered in

the Archeological Site Management 

Information System maintained by the NPS 

Midwest Archeological Center in Lincoln, 

Nebraska. Additional testing may be 

conducted for selected sites to assist in 

determinations of site eligibility for listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places.

Continuation of archeological resource 

management actions under existing laws and 

policies would assist the documentation and 

protection of the National Riverways’ 

archeological resources, resulting in a longterm, beneficial impact. Potential disturbance 

of sites from erosion or other impacts 

associated with visitor use and other factors 

would have long-term or permanent, 

localized, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on archeological resources.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

actions have adversely impacted, or have the 

potential to impact, archeological resources 

at Ozark National Scenic Riverways. 

Proposed NPS projects that include 

improvement or expansion of campgrounds, 

improvements to the Chilton Creek boat

ramp and parking area, and new trail 

construction would entail ground-disturbing 

actions that have the potential to affect 

subsurface archeological resources. 

However, these and other Riverways

undertakings are assessed by NPS cultural 

resources staff to ensure that significant sites, 

if identified in project areas, are avoided by 

project redesign and/or are clearly identified 

for avoidance during construction. In the 

rare instances that sites could not be avoided, 

data recovery measures or other mitigation 

would be carried out in accordance with 

section 106 requirements to ensure the 

recovery of significant archeological 

information.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

316

Non-NPS actions outside the National 

Riverways, such as regional urban and 

industrial development, road construction, 

and mining operations also pose potential 

threats to archeological resources because of 

ground disturbance. The actions presented 

above would have long-term or permanent, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on 

archeological resources.

The impacts associated with the no-action 

alternative would have long-term or 

permanent, beneficial and negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts on the National 

Riverways’ archeological resources. Past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would result in long-term or permanent, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts. The 

adverse impacts of the other actions 

described above, in combination with the 

impacts of the no-action alternative, would 

cumulatively result in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on archeological resources. The 

impacts associated with the no-action 

alternative would represent a small 

component of the adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term or permanent, localized, 

beneficial and negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on archeological resources would 

occur from ongoing resource management, 

visitor use, and other factors. There would 

also be long-term or permanent, minor to 

moderate, adverse, cumulative impacts on 

archeological resources from implementation 

of the no-action alternative in conjunction 

with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable 

actions. 

ALTERNATIVE A

Under alternative A (in common with the noaction alternative) NPS archeologists would 

continue to monitor the condition of known 

archeological sites and would undertake 

appropriate protection measures as necessary 

to reduce or avoid adverse impacts to sites 

possibly occurring from natural erosion (such 

as flooding and wave scouring affecting the 

riverbanks and terraces), visitor use (such as

vehicle and boat access points along the 

rivers and horseback riding), the illegal 

removal of artifacts, and other factors. As 

funding permits, the National Riverways

would employ additional archeological staff 

or contracted services in increased efforts to 

document, protect, and monitor 

archeological resources. Implementation of 

the archeological resource management 

actions identified above would assist in the 

documentation and protection of the park

unit’s archeological resources, resulting in a 

long-term, beneficial impact. Potential 

disturbance of sites from erosion or other 

impacts associated with visitor use and other 

factors would have long-term or permanent, 

localized, negligible to minor, adverse

impacts on archeological resources.

New NPS facilities that would be constructed 

include three multiuse district facilities, four 

new housing units, and visitor parking and 

camping areas. The construction of 

designated visitor parking and camping areas 

away from the river shoreline would assist the 

protection of archeological resources along 

the river terraces from disturbance, erosion,

or other impacts associated with visitor use 

activities.

Additional hiking and horseback riding trails 

would be constructed. Disturbed areas would 

be closed and restored to natural conditions, 

including approximately 50 miles of NPS 

roads and traces, approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated horse trails, and all 

undesignated river access points and 

crossings. All proposed actions with the 

potential to affect archeological resources 

because of ground disturbance would be 

assessed and the project areas would be 

surveyed to ensure archeological resources, if 

present within the areas of potential effects, 

are avoided to the greatest extent possible. 

Any adverse effects would be negligible to 

minor and permanent.
Cultural Resources

317

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on archeological resources.

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative A would have long-term or 

permanent, beneficial and negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on the National Riverways’ 

archeological resources. Past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable actions would result 

in long-term or permanent, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts. The adverse 

impacts of other actions, in combination with 

the impacts of alternative A, would 

cumulatively result in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on archeological resources. The 

impacts associated with alternative A would 

represent a small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term or permanent, localized, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

archeological resources would occur from 

visitor use, potential construction 

disturbance of presently unidentified sites, 

and other factors. Locating facility 

development away from the river shoreline 

and terraces and other protection measures 

would benefit the preservation of 

archeological resources. Cumulatively, there 

would be long-term or permanent, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts on archeological 

resources from implementation of alternative 

A in conjunction with past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions.

Section 106 Summary

After applying the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effect (36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes 

that implementing alternative A would result 

in no adverse effect on archeological 

resources.

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED)

Under alternative B (in common with the noaction alternative) NPS archeologists would 

continue to monitor the condition of known 

archeological sites and would undertake 

appropriate protection measures as necessary 

to reduce or avoid site impacts possibly 

occurring from natural erosion (such as

flooding and wave scouring affecting the 

riverbanks and terraces), visitor use (such as 

vehicle and boat access points along the 

rivers and horseback riding), the illegal 

removal of artifacts, and other factors. 

Potential disturbance of sites from erosion or 

other impacts associated with visitor use and 

other factors would have long-term or 

permanent, localized, negligible to minor,

adverse impacts on archeological resources.

As funding permits, the National Riverways

would employ additional archeological staff 

or contracted services in increased efforts to 

document, protect, and monitor 

archeological resources. Implementation of 

the archeological resource management 

actions identified above would assist the 

documentation and protection of the park

unit’s archeological resources, resulting in a 

long-term, beneficial impact.

New NPS construction would include three 

multiuse district facilities and visitor parking 

and camping areas. The construction of 

designated visitor parking and camping areas 

away from the river shoreline would assist in 

the protection of archeological resources 

along the river terraces from disturbance, 

erosion, or other impacts associated with 

visitor use activities.

Additional hiking and horseback riding trails 

would be constructed, and disturbed areas 

would be closed and restored to natural 

conditions. This would include 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

318

approximately 45 miles of NPS roads and 

traces, approximately 45 to 65 miles of 

undesignated horse trails, and all 

undesignated river access points and 

crossings.

All proposed actions with the potential to 

affect archeological resources because of 

ground disturbance would be assessed and 

project areas would be surveyed to ensure 

archeological resources, if present within the 

areas of potential effects, are avoided to the 

greatest extent possible. Any adverse effects 

would be negligible to minor and permanent.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on archeological resources.

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative B would have long-term or 

permanent, beneficial and negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on the National Riverways’ 

archeological resources. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions would result 

in long-term or permanent, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts. These impacts, in 

combination with the impacts of alternative 

B, would cumulatively result in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on archeological resources. The 

impacts associated with alternative B would 

represent a small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term or permanent, localized, 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

archeological resources would occur from 

ongoing visitor use, potential construction 

disturbance of presently unidentified sites, 

and other factors. Locating facility 

development away from the river shoreline 

and terraces and other protection measures 

would benefit the preservation of 

archeological resources. There would be 

long-term or permanent, minor to moderate,

adverse cumulative impacts on archeological 

resources from implementation of alternative 

B in conjunction with past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions.

Section 106 Summary

After applying the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effect (36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes 

that implementing alternative B would result 

in no adverse effect on archeological 

resources.

ALTERNATIVE C

Alternative C proposes a substantial increase 

in the amount of park unit lands under 

resource-based recreation zoning (59.6%)

and in the developed zone (5.7%). Although 

this could potentially place archeological 

resources in these areas at increased risk of 

disturbance by inadvertent visitor use and 

park operations, NPS archeologists would 

continue to monitor the condition of known 

archeological sites, and would undertake 

appropriate protection measures as necessary 

to reduce or avoid site impacts possibly 

occurring from natural erosion (such as

flooding and wave scouring affecting the 

riverbanks and terraces), visitor use (such as 

vehicle and boat access points along the 

rivers and horseback riding), the illegal 

removal of artifacts, and other factors.

As funding permits, the National Riverways

would employ additional archeological staff 

or contracted services in increased efforts to 

document, protect, and monitor 

archeological resources. Implementation of 

the archeological resource management 

actions identified above would assist the 

documentation and protection of the 
Cultural Resources

319

National Riverways’ archeological resources, 

resulting in a long-term, beneficial impact. 

Potential disturbance of sites from erosion or 

other impacts associated with visitor use and 

other factors would have long-term or 

permanent, localized, negligible to minor,

adverse impacts on archeological resources.

New NPS construction would include three 

multiuse district facilities, four housing units, 

and visitor parking and camping areas. The 

construction of designated visitor parking 

and camping areas away from the river 

shoreline would assist the protection of 

archeological resources along the river 

terraces from disturbance, erosion or other 

impacts associated with visitor use activities.

Additional hiking and horseback riding trails 

would be constructed, and disturbed areas 

would be closed and restored to natural 

conditions. Closed facilities would include 

approximately 40 miles of NPS roads and 

traces, approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated horse trails, and all 

undesignated river access points and 

crossings.

All proposed actions with the potential to

affect archeological resources because of 

ground disturbance would be assessed and 

project areas would be surveyed to ensure 

archeological resources, if present within the 

areas of potential effects, are avoided to the 

greatest extent possible. Any adverse effects 

would be negligible to minor and permanent.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on archeological resources.

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative C would have long-term or 

permanent, beneficial and negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on the National Riverways’ 

archeological resources. Past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable actions would result 

in long-term or permanent, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts. The adverse 

impacts of the other actions, in combination 

with the impacts of alternative C, would 

cumulatively result in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on archeological resources. The 

impacts associated with alternative C would 

represent a small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term or permanent, localized, 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

archeological resources would occur from 

ongoing visitor use, potential construction 

disturbance of presently unidentified sites, 

and other factors. Locating facility 

development away from the river shoreline 

and terraces and other protection measures 

would benefit the preservation of 

archeological resources. There would also be 

long-term or permanent, minor to moderate,

adverse cumulative impacts on archeological 

resources from implementation of alternative 

C in conjunction with past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions.

Section 106 Summary

After applying the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effect (36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes 

that implementing alternative C would result 

in no adverse effect on archeological 

resources.

HISTORIC BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES,

AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES:

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

Impacts on these cultural resources were 

assessed by analyzing the potential to 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

320

diminish or protect their historical/

architectural integrity or character-defining 

features. The impact intensities for historic 

buildings, structures, and cultural landscapes

are as follows:

 Negligible: Impacts would be at the 

lowest levels of detection with no 

perceptible consequences. For 

purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect.

 Minor: Impacts would affect 

character defining features, elements,

or landscape patterns but would not 

diminish the integrity of the resource. 

For purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect.

 Moderate: Impacts would alter 

character defining features, elements,

or landscape patterns, diminishing the 

integrity of the resource to the extent 

that its national register eligibility 

could be jeopardized. For purposes of 

section 106, the determination of 

effect would be adverse effect.

 Major: Impacts would alter 

character-defining features, elements 

or landscape patterns, diminishing the 

integrity of the resource to the extent 

that it would no longer be eligible to 

be listed on the national register. For 

purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be 

adverse effect.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, NPS staff 

would, as needed, stabilize, preserve, and 

possibly restore/rehabilitate selected historic 

buildings, structures, and contributing 

cultural landscape features. The National 

Park Service actively maintains the National 

Riverways’ historic buildings and structures 

on its List of Classified Structures and none 

are considered to be in a state of passive 

decay.

Preservation management actions often entail 

necessary repairs, minor alterations and/or 

replacement of deteriorated historic fabric 

and contributing landscape elements. The 

need for these actions is typically the result of 

natural weathering, wear and tear resulting 

from park and visitor use, and the adaptive 

use of selected historic buildings and 

structures for park operations and 

interpretation.

All preservation undertakings would be 

carried out in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties. With particular regard to 

the standards and guidelines for preservation, 

the existing form, features, and architectural 

detailing of historic buildings, structures, and 

landscape features would be retained. 

Stabilization measures would be carried out 

to structurally reinforce, weatherize, and 

correct unsafe conditions.

The National Riverways would continue to 

adaptively use the interiors of about a third of 

its historic structures and buildings primarily 

for maintenance operations, offices, 

workshops, and storage. Adaptive use of 

these properties would be carried out in 

accordance with the secretary’s standards

with particular attention to the standards and 

guidelines for rehabilitation. Under the 

rehabilitation treatment, historic building 

materials and character-defining features 

would be protected and maintained to the 

extent possible, although extensively 

deteriorated, damaged, or missing features 

would be replaced with traditional or 

substitute materials.

Implementation of these preservation 

undertakings would have long-term,

beneficial impacts on the National Riverways’ 

historic buildings and structures, helping 

ensure their continued contribution to park 

interpretation, research, and preservation of 

the area’s cultural heritage. However, longterm, negligible to minor, adverse impacts 

would also result from actions necessary to 

repair, replace, or potentially alter historic 
Cultural Resources

321

fabric and architectural features as part of 

preservation and rehabilitation treatments.

NPS staff would also continue to preserve, 

research, and document cultural landscapes 

that are often associated with the National 

Riverways’ historic structures and sites (for 

example, farmsteads, mills, and settlements). 

The National Riverways would preserve the 

historic patterns of farm fields and pastoral 

areas, family cemeteries, and other cultural 

landscape features that reflect the period of 

early Ozark farming and settlement.

Cultural landscape information would 

continue to be updated and included in the 

Riverways’ cultural landscape inventory

database. As needed, cultural landscape 

reports would be completed for selected 

properties with recommendations for 

appropriate treatment in accordance with the 

secretary’s standards (with guidelines for the 

treatment of cultural landscapes). These 

reports would document the significance of 

cultural landscape features and support

preservation management decision making. 

Implementation of these preservation and 

documentation measures would have longterm, localized, beneficial impacts on cultural 

landscapes.

Under the no-action alternative, the Big 

Spring Wilderness Study Area would not be 

proposed for wilderness designation and the 

historic Civilian Conservation Corpsconstructed fire tower, the site of Civilian 

Conservation Corps camp1710, and the barn 

near the Big Spring would be preserved and 

protected. Associated site features and 

cultural landscape elements such as access 

roads and the remnants of building 

foundations and stone walls would also be 

preserved. The National Riverways would 

continue to use the access roads and barn for 

administrative purposes. Preservation and 

potential rehabilitation treatments, carried 

out in accordance with the secretary’s 

standards, would have long-term, beneficial 

impacts on these historic structures and 

cultural landscape features.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions have affected, or have the potential to 

affect, historic buildings, structures, and 

cultural landscape features within the 

Riverways. For instance, proposed projects at 

Big Spring include the removal of nonhistoric 

material from the Civilian Conservation 

Corps commissary building, cyclic 

maintenance and repairs of selected Civilian 

Conservation Corps cabins, and exterior 

repair and rehabilitation of the Shockley 

Barn. These actions entail various levels of 

structural intervention to preserve the 

integrity of properties contributing to the 

significance of the historic district.

Long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts would result from actions necessary 

to repair, replace, or potentially alter historic 

fabric, architectural features and landscape 

elements. However, long-term beneficial 

impacts would result from these and other 

proposed undertakings carried out in 

accordance with the secretary’s standards

and other guidance documentation to ensure 

the long-term preservation of historic 

properties in a manner that protects 

contributing architectural and cultural 

landscape elements.

Non-NPS actions outside the National 

Riverways such as encroaching urban and 

industrial development, road construction, 

and mining operations pose potential threats 

to historic structures and cultural landscapes 

as properties are damaged or altered to the 

extent that their architectural/landscape 

importance and historic settings are 

diminished.

The actions presented above would have 

long-term, beneficial and minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on historic structures and 

cultural landscapes.

The impacts associated with implementation 

of the no-action alternative would have longterm beneficial and negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on the National Riverways’ 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

322

historic buildings, structures, and cultural 

landscapes. Past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable actions would result in longterm, beneficial, and minor to moderate 

adverse impacts. Consequently, the adverse 

impacts of the other actions described above, 

in combination with the impacts of the noaction alternative, would cumulatively result 

in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on historic buildings, structures, and 

cultural landscapes. The impacts associated 

with the no-action alternative would 

represent a small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term, localized, beneficial, and 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on 

historic buildings, structures, and cultural 

landscape features would occur from 

ongoing visitor use, routine park operations 

and interpretive activities, preservation 

undertakings, and other factors. There would 

also be long-term, beneficial, and minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts on 

historic buildings, structures, and cultural 

landscape features from implementation of 

the no-action alternative in conjunction with 

past, present, or reasonably foreseeable 

actions.

ALTERNATIVE A

Under this alternative, the National 

Riverways would increase the documentation 

and interpretation of Ozarks cultural history. 

As part of these activities, NPS staff would 

ensure that examples of historic structures 

from all significant periods in the National 

Riverways are protected, and that 

preservation treatments are carried out 

consistent with the secretary’s standards and 

management zone prescriptions. To fulfill 

this objective, selected historic buildings in 

the developed and resource-based recreation 

zones would be preserved and restored or 

rehabilitated as needed to accommodate park 

operations and visitor interpretive purposes. 

Historic structure reports and other guidance 

documents would be completed as necessary.

The National Riverways would, as feasible, 

preserve and stabilize more remote and lessfrequented historic buildings in the natural 

and primitive zones where protection of 

natural processes would be emphasized and 

more extensive restoration or rehabilitation 

treatment of historic structures may not be 

appropriate.

Implementation of these preservation 

undertakings would have long-term,

beneficial impacts on the National Riverways’ 

historic buildings and structures. However, 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts would also result from actions 

necessary to repair, replace, or potentially 

alter historic fabric and architectural features 

as part of preservation treatments.

Guided interpretive hikes would be 

conducted to selected historic sites, such as 

the Nichols Farm complex, Welch Cave 

Hospital, and the Civilian Conservation 

Corps buildings and camp at Big Spring.

Visitors would also be provided 

opportunities to hike to and discover more 

remote historic properties. The National 

Riverways would not promote visitor access 

to sensitive sites, and would increase 

monitoring and resource protection efforts of 

historic structures and sites selected for 

enhanced interpretation to ensure that they 

are sufficiently protected from damage by 

inadvertent visitor use or vandalism. Historic 

structures could suffer wear and tear from 

increased visitation, continued ranger patrols 

and emphasis on visitor education would 

discourage vandalism and inadvertent 

damage.

Monitoring conducted to assess the visitor 

use of selected or sensitive historic structures 

could result in limiting visitor numbers or 

constraining use as part of efforts to stabilize 

or enhance the structural integrity of 

properties. Such measures would be 

implemented in a fashion that would not 

unduly hinder visitor interpretation. 
Cultural Resources

323

Unstaffed or minimally staffed structures 

could be more susceptible to vandalism. Any 

adverse effects would be minor and long

term.

NPS staff would increase efforts to preserve, 

research, and document cultural landscapes 

that are often associated with the National 

Riverways’ historic structures and sites, such 

as farmsteads, mills, and settlements. The 

National Riverways would partner with 

preservation organizations and others to 

preserve the historic patterns of farm fields 

and pastoral areas, family cemeteries, and 

other cultural landscape features that reflect 

the early period of Ozark farming and 

settlement. Cultural landscape information 

would continue to be updated and included 

in the National Riverways’ cultural landscape 

inventory database. These measures would 

have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

cultural landscapes.

Rehabilitation or restoration of pastoral areas 

would be carried out in a manner consistent 

with cultural landscape management 

objectives and management zone 

prescriptions. As needed, cultural landscape 

reports would be completed for selected 

properties with recommendations for 

appropriate treatment in accordance with the 

secretary’s standards (with guidelines for the 

treatment of cultural landscapes).

Preservation of cultural landscapes and the 

completion of cultural landscape inventories 

and reports to support effective management 

and decision making would result in longterm, beneficial impacts to cultural 

landscapes.

Under this alternative, most of the Big Spring 

Wilderness Study Area would be 

recommended for wilderness designation. 

Ten acres that include the barn, NPS training 

range, and associated access road and utility 

corridor would be excluded from wilderness 

designation to allow continued 

administrative uses. Cultural resources in the 

study area would be managed in 

conformance with the primitive zone and 

natural zone prescriptions.

The historic Civilian Conservation Corpsconstructed fire tower, the site of Civilian 

Conservation Corps camp 1710, and the barn 

would be preserved and protected in 

accordance with all relevant laws and 

policies. Preservation treatment and 

management of the fire tower would also be 

consistent with the preservation of 

wilderness character and values. Associated 

site features and character-defining cultural 

landscape elements such as access roads, and 

the remnants of building foundations and 

stone walls would also be preserved. The 

access road to the fire tower would be 

maintained for nonmotorized use and 

possibly restored to approximate its Civilian 

Conservation Corps-era condition. The barn 

would serve park administrative needs.

Because preservation and potential

restoration/rehabilitation treatments would 

be carried out in accordance with the 

secretary’s standards and NPS policies for the 

management of cultural resources in 

wilderness areas, these actions would have 

long-term, beneficial impacts on historic 

structures and cultural landscape features.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

beneficial and minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on historic structures and cultural 

landscapes.

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative A would have long-term 

beneficial and negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on the National Riverways’ historic 

buildings, structures, and cultural landscapes. 

The adverse impacts of the other actions, in 

combination with the impacts of alternative 

A, would cumulatively result in long-term,

minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

historic buildings, structures, and cultural 

landscapes. The impacts associated with 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

324

alternative A would represent a small 

component of the adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term, localized, beneficial and 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

historic buildings, structures, and cultural 

landscape features would occur from 

ongoing visitor use, routine park operations 

and interpretive activities, preservation 

undertakings and other factors. There would 

also be long-term beneficial and minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impacts on 

historic buildings, structures and cultural 

landscape features from implementation of 

alternative A in conjunction with past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions.

Section 106 Summary

After applying the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effect (36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes 

that implementing alternative A would result 

in no adverse effect on historic buildings, 

structures and cultural landscapes.

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED)

Under alternative B, the National Riverways

would increase the documentation and 

interpretation of Ozarks cultural history. As 

part of these activities, NPS staff would 

ensure that examples of historic structures 

from all significant periods in the park unit

are protected and that preservation 

treatments are carried out consistent with the 

secretary’s standards and management zone 

prescriptions. To fulfill this objective, 

selected historic buildings in the developed 

and resource-based recreation zones would 

be preserved and restored or rehabilitated as 

needed to accommodate park operations and 

visitor interpretive purposes. Historic 

structure reports and other guidance 

documents would be completed as necessary.

The National Riverways would, as feasible, 

preserve and stabilize more remote and lessfrequented historic buildings in the natural 

and primitive zones where protection of 

natural processes would be emphasized and 

more extensive restoration/rehabilitation 

treatment of historic structures may not be 

appropriate. Implementation of these 

preservation undertakings would have longterm, beneficial impacts on the National 

Riverways’ historic buildings and structures. 

However, long-term, negligible to minor,

adverse impacts would also result from 

actions necessary to repair, replace, or 

potentially alter historic fabric and 

architectural features as part of preservation 

treatments.

Guided interpretive hikes would be 

conducted to selected historic sites, such as 

the Nichols Farm complex, Welch Cave 

Hospital, and the Civilian Conservation 

Corps buildings and camp at Big Spring.

Visitors would also be provided 

opportunities to hike to and discover more 

remote historic properties. Unstaffed or 

minimally staffed structures could be more 

susceptible to vandalism. The National 

Riverways would not promote visitor access 

to sensitive sites and would increase 

monitoring and resource protection efforts of 

historic structures and sites selected for 

enhanced interpretation to ensure that they 

are sufficiently protected from damage by 

inadvertent visitor use or vandalism. 

Although historic structures could suffer 

wear and tear from increased visitation, 

continued ranger patrols and emphasis on 

visitor education would discourage 

vandalism and inadvertent damage.

Monitoring conducted to assess the visitor 

use of selected or sensitive historic structures 

could result in limiting visitor numbers or 

constraining use as part of efforts to stabilize 

or enhance the structural integrity of these 

properties. Such measures would be 

implemented in a fashion that did not unduly 

hinder visitor interpretation. Any adverse 

effects would be minor and long term.
Cultural Resources

325

NPS staff would increase efforts to preserve, 

research, and document cultural landscapes 

that are often associated with the National 

Riverways’ historic structures and sites, such 

as farmsteads, mills, and settlements. The 

National Riverways would partner with 

preservation organizations and others to 

preserve the historic patterns of farm fields 

and pastoral areas, family cemeteries, and 

other cultural landscape features that reflect 

the early period of Ozark farming and 

settlement. Cultural landscape information 

would continue to be updated and included 

in the National Riverways’ cultural landscape 

inventory database. These measures would 

have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

cultural landscapes.

Rehabilitation or restoration of pastoral areas 

would be carried out in a manner consistent 

with cultural landscape management 

objectives and management zone 

prescriptions. As needed, cultural landscape 

reports would be completed for selected 

properties with recommendations for 

appropriate treatment in accordance with the 

secretary’s standards (with guidelines for the 

treatment of cultural landscapes).

Preservation of cultural landscapes and the 

completion of cultural landscape inventories 

and reports to support effective management 

and decision making would result in longterm, beneficial impacts to cultural 

landscapes.

Under this alternative, nearly all of the Big 

Spring Wilderness Study Area would be 

recommended for wilderness designation. 

Cultural resources in the study area would be 

managed in conformance with primitive zone 

prescriptions. The historic Civilian 

Conservation Corps-constructed fire tower, 

the site of Civilian Conservation Corps 

camp1710, and the barn would be preserved 

and protected in accordance with all relevant 

laws and policies. Associated site features and 

character-defining cultural landscape 

elements such as access roads and the 

remnants of building foundations and stone 

walls would also be preserved. Motorized 

vehicle use of the access roads would be 

prohibited and the roads would be evaluated 

for potential restoration to approximate 

Civilian Conservation Corps era conditions.

Preservation and potential restoration/

rehabilitation treatments would be carried 

out in accordance with the secretary’s 

standards and NPS policies for the 

management of cultural resources in 

wilderness areas. As a result, these actions 

would have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

historic structures and cultural landscape 

features.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

beneficial and minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on historic structures and cultural 

landscapes.

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative B would have long-term,

beneficial, and negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on the National Riverways’ historic 

buildings, structures and cultural landscapes. 

The impacts of the other actions, in 

combination with the impacts of alternative 

B, would cumulatively result in long-term,

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on 

historic buildings, structures, and cultural 

landscapes. The impacts associated with 

alternative B would represent a small 

component of the adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term, localized, beneficial, and 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on 

historic buildings, structures, and cultural 

landscape features would occur from 

ongoing visitor use, park operations,

interpretive activities, preservation 

undertakings, and other factors. There would 

also be long-term, beneficial, and minor to 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

326

moderate, adverse cumulative impacts on 

historic buildings, structures, and cultural 

landscape features from implementation of 

alternative B in conjunction with past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions.

Section 106 Summary

After applying the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effect (36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes 

that implementing alternative B would result 

in no adverse effect on historic buildings, 

structures and cultural landscapes.

ALTERNATIVE C

Under alternative C, the National Riverways

would increase the documentation and 

interpretation of Ozarks cultural history. As 

part of these activities, NPS staff would 

ensure that examples of historic structures 

from all significant periods in the National 

Riverways are protected, and that 

preservation treatments are carried out 

consistent with the secretary’s standards and 

management zone prescriptions. To fulfill 

this objective, selected historic buildings in 

the developed and resource-based recreation 

zones would be preserved and restored or 

rehabilitated as needed to accommodate park 

operations and visitor interpretive purposes. 

Historic structure reports and other guidance 

documents would be completed as necessary.

The National Riverways would, as feasible, 

preserve and stabilize more remote and lessfrequented historic buildings in the natural 

and primitive zones where protection of 

natural processes would be emphasized and 

more extensive restoration or rehabilitation 

treatment of historic structures may not be 

appropriate. Implementation of these 

preservation undertakings would have longterm, beneficial impacts on the National 

Riverways’ historic buildings and structures. 

However, long-term, negligible to minor,

adverse impacts would also result from 

actions necessary to repair, replace, or 

potentially alter historic fabric and 

architectural features as part of preservation 

treatments.

Guided interpretive hikes would be 

conducted to selected historic sites, such as 

the Nichols Farm complex, Welch Cave 

Hospital, and Civilian Conservation Corps

buildings and camp at Big Spring. Visitors 

would also be provided opportunities to hike 

to and discover more remote historic 

properties. Unstaffed or minimally staffed 

structures could be more susceptible to 

vandalism. The National Riverways would 

not promote visitor access to sensitive sites 

and would increase monitoring and resource 

protection efforts of historic structures and 

sites selected for enhanced interpretation to 

ensure that they are sufficiently protected 

from damage by inadvertent visitor use or 

vandalism. Although historic structures could 

suffer wear and tear from increased 

visitation, continued ranger patrols and 

emphasis on visitor education would 

discourage vandalism and inadvertent

damage.

Monitoring conducted to assess visitor use of 

selected or sensitive historic structures could 

result in limiting visitor numbers or 

constraining use as part of efforts to stabilize 

or enhance the structural integrity of these 

properties. Such measures would be 

implemented in a fashion that would not 

unduly hinder visitor interpretation. Any 

adverse effects would be minor and long

term.

NPS staff would increase efforts to preserve, 

research, and document cultural landscapes 

that are often associated with the National 

Riverways’ historic structures and sites, such 

as farmsteads, mills, and settlements. The 

National Riverways would partner with 

preservation organizations and others to 

preserve the historic patterns of farm fields 

and pastoral areas, family cemeteries, and 

other cultural landscape features that reflect 

the early period of Ozark farming and 

settlement. Cultural landscape information 
Cultural Resources

327

would continue to be updated and included 

in the National Riverways’ cultural landscape 

inventory database. These measures would 

have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

cultural landscapes.

Rehabilitation or restoration of pastoral areas 

would be carried out in a manner consistent 

with cultural landscape management 

objectives and management zone 

prescriptions. As needed, cultural landscape 

reports would be completed for selected 

properties with recommendations for 

appropriate treatment in accordance with the 

secretary’s standards (with guidelines for the 

treatment of cultural landscapes).

Preservation of cultural landscapes and the 

completion of cultural landscape inventories 

and reports to support effective management 

and decision making would result in longterm, beneficial impacts to cultural 

landscapes.

Under this alternative, approximately 52 % of 

the Big Spring Wilderness Study Area would 

be recommended for wilderness designation. 

The historic Civilian Conservation Corpsconstructed fire tower, the site of Civilian 

Conservation Corps camp 1710, and the barn 

would be outside the area proposed for 

wilderness designation. These properties 

would be preserved and protected in 

accordance with all relevant laws, policies, 

and the cultural resource management 

prescription for the natural zone. Associated 

site features and character-defining cultural 

landscape elements such as access roads and 

the remnants of building foundations and 

stone walls would also be preserved. 

Structures and access roads would be used 

for park administrative purposes. Because 

preservation and potential rehabilitation 

treatments would be carried out in 

accordance with the secretary’s standards

these actions would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on historic structures and 

cultural landscape features.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, 

beneficial, and minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on historic structures and cultural 

landscapes.

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative C would have long-term,

beneficial, and negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on the National Riverways’ historic 

buildings, structures, and cultural landscapes. 

The adverse impacts of the other actions, in 

combination with the impacts of alternative

C, would cumulatively result in long-term,

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on 

historic buildings, structures, and cultural 

landscapes. The impacts associated with 

alternative C would represent a small 

component of the adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term, localized, beneficial, negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts on historic buildings, 

structures, and cultural landscape features 

would occur from ongoing visitor use, park 

operations, interpretive activities, 

preservation undertakings, and other factors. 

There would be long-term, beneficial, and 

minor to moderate, adverse cumulative 

impacts on historic buildings, structures, and 

cultural landscape features from 

implementation of alternative C in 

conjunction with past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable actions.

Section 106 Summary

After applying the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effect (36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes 

that implementing alternative C would result 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

328

in no adverse effect on historic buildings, 

structures and cultural landscapes.

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES:

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

Impacts on ethnographic resources were 

analyzed by examining changes in the 

potential to diminish or protect the integrity 

of (and access to) resources and places having 

particular importance and value to 

traditionally associated peoples. The impact 

intensities for ethnographic resources are as 

follows:

 Negligible: Impacts would be at or 

below the lowest levels of detection or 

barely perceptible. Impacts would 

neither alter resource conditions, 

such as traditional access or site 

preservation, nor alter the 

relationship between the resource and 

the affiliated group’s body of practices 

and beliefs. For purposes of section

106, the determination of effect would 

be no adverse effect.

 Minor: Impacts would be slight but 

noticeable and would neither 

appreciably alter resource conditions, 

such as traditional access or site 

preservation, nor alter the 

relationship between the resource and 

the group’s body of beliefs and 

practices. For purposes of section 106, 

the determination of effect would be 

no adverse effect.

 Moderate: Impacts would be 

apparent and would alter resource 

conditions or interfere with 

traditional access, site preservation, or 

the relationship between the resource 

and the affiliated group’s beliefs and 

practices, even though the group’s 

practices and beliefs would survive. 

For purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be 

adverse effect.

 Major: Impacts would alter resource 

conditions. Proposed actions would 

block or greatly affect traditional 

access, site preservation, or the 

relationship between the resource and 

the group’s body of beliefs and 

practices to the extent that the 

survival of a group’s beliefs and/or 

practices would be jeopardized. For 

purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be 

adverse effect.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Many of the National Riverways’

archeological resources and historic sites are 

likely to retain ethnographic importance for 

associated tribal groups and others, such as 

descendants of early Scots/Irish settlers, with 

traditional cultural connections to park 

lands. Because no substantial changes in 

visitor use activities or proposed construction 

of new park facilities would occur under the 

no-action alternative, there would be little 

potential for impacts to ethnographic 

resources as a result of ground-disturbing 

construction activities.

NPS archeologists would continue to 

monitor the condition of known sites, and 

would undertake appropriate protection 

measures as necessary to reduce or avoid site 

impacts possibly occurring from erosion, 

visitor use (such as hiking or horseback 

riding), the illegal removal of artifacts, and 

other factors. However, inadequate staffing 

would continue to limit the National 

Riverways’ effectiveness in implementing 

comprehensive site protection measures.

Continuation of ethnographic resource 

management actions under existing laws and 

policies would enhance the documentation 

and protection of the National Riverways’ 

ethnographic resources, resulting in a longterm, beneficial impact. Potential disturbance 

of sites and resources from erosion or other 

impacts associated with visitor use and other 

factors would have long-term or permanent, 
Cultural Resources

329

localized, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources.

The National Riverways would continue to 

consult on a government-to-government 

basis with traditionally associated tribes that 

were listed in chapter 4. Information 

acquired from these consultations would 

assist the National Riverways in efforts to 

protect ethnographic resources and places of 

cultural importance, and ensure continued 

tribal access to these places and resources. As 

recommended in a cultural affiliation study 

(Zedeno and Basaldu 2003) the Riverways

would, as feasible, conduct ethnographic 

investigations to document the cultural use 

and importance of features such as plants, 

animals, and landforms for traditionally 

associated tribal groups. Information 

acquired from these investigations could be 

incorporated as appropriate into park 

interpretive and educational programs and 

would benefit efforts to protect ethnographic 

resources.

In accordance with NPS Management Policies

2006, the National Park Service would permit 

the consumptive use of park resources by 

tribal members, such as hunting, fishing and 

the gathering of certain plants and berries to 

the extent that these activities are compatible 

with park purposes, do not adversely affect 

park wildlife or the reproductive potential of 

plant species, or otherwise do not adversely 

affect park resources.

Also in accordance with NPS Management 

Policies 2006, the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (1996), and other laws and 

policies, the National Park Service would 

permit tribal access to National Riverways

areas for traditional religious, ceremonial, 

and other customary activities at places 

historically used for such purposes. In 

consultation with the tribes and consistent 

with tribal goals, the National Park Service 

would protect sacred sites and other 

ethnographic resources, should these be 

identified. The location and character of 

sites/resources would not be disclosed to the 

general public if disclosure would result in 

significant invasion of privacy, risk harm to 

historic resources, or impede traditional 

religious use and access by tribal members.

Implementation of the above management 

actions for protecting and retaining access to 

places and resources important to 

traditionally associated groups would have a 

long-term, localized, beneficial impact on 

ethnographic resources.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

actions have adversely impacted, or have the 

potential to impact, ethnographic resources 

at the Riverways. Proposed projects that 

include improvements or expansions of 

campgrounds, improvements to the Chilton 

Creek boat ramp and parking area, and new 

trail construction would entail grounddisturbing actions that have the potential to 

affect subsurface archeological/ethnographic 

resources. However, these and other 

National Riverways undertakings are 

assessed by NPS cultural resources staff to 

ensure that significant sites, if identified in 

project areas, are avoided by project redesign 

and/or are clearly identified for avoidance 

during construction. In the rare instances 

that sites could not be avoided, data recovery 

measures or other mitigation would be 

carried out in accordance with section 106 

requirements to ensure the recovery of 

significant archeological/ethnographic 

information.

Non-NPS actions outside the park unit such 

as regional urban and industrial 

development, road construction, and mining 

operations also pose potential threats to 

ethnographic resources because of ground 

disturbance.

The actions presented above would have 

long-term or permanent, minor to moderate,

adverse impacts on ethnographic resources.

The impacts associated with implementation 

of the no-action alternative would have long-
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

330

term or permanent, beneficial, and negligible 

to minor, adverse impacts on the National 

Riverways’ ethnographic resources. Past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would result in long-term or permanent, 

minor to moderate adverse impacts. The 

adverse impacts of the other actions 

described above, in combination with the 

impacts of the no-action alternative, would 

cumulatively result in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources. The 

impacts associated with the no-action 

alternative would represent a small 

component of the adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term or permanent, localized, 

beneficial, and negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources would 

occur from ongoing resource management, 

visitor use, and other factors. There would be 

long-term or permanent, minor to moderate,

adverse cumulative impacts on ethnographic 

resources from implementation of the noaction alternative in conjunction with past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions.

ALTERNATIVE A

NPS management of ethnographic resources 

would generally be conducted as outlined 

above for the no-action alternative. In 

addition, under this alternative the National 

Riverways would increase interpretive 

opportunities for visitors to gain greater 

understanding of the park unit’s traditional 

and culturally associated peoples (American 

Indian inhabitants and early Scots/Irish 

settlers) and their adaptations to the lands 

along the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers.

Further ethnographic overviews and 

assessments, oral histories, and other studies 

would be conducted as necessary to 

supplement available information and 

expand park interpretive programs. 

Continuation and expansion of ethnographic 

resource management actions and research 

efforts would have long-term, localized, 

beneficial impacts on ethnographic 

resources. The long-term protection of 

ethnographic resources would also benefit by 

increasing public awareness of the cultural 

importance of these resources through 

interpretive and educational programs.

Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor,

adverse impacts to ethnographic resources 

may also be expected to occur primarily from 

disturbances associated with inadvertent 

visitor use, park operations, or other factors.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources.

Implementation of alternative A would have 

long-term or permanent, beneficial, and 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts on the 

National Riverways’ ethnographic resources. 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

actions would result in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate adverse 

impacts. The adverse impacts of the other 

actions, combined with the impacts of 

alternative A, would cumulatively result in 

long-term or permanent, minor to moderate,

adverse impacts on ethnographic resources. 

The impacts associated with alternative A 

would represent a small component of the 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term or permanent, localized, 

beneficial, and negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources would 

occur from enhanced interpretation, ongoing 

visitor use, and other factors. There would 

also be long-term or permanent, minor to 
Cultural Resources

331

moderate adverse cumulative impacts on 

ethnographic resources from implementation 

of alternative A in conjunction with past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions.

Section 106 Summary

After applying the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effect (36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes 

that implementing alternative A would result 

in no adverse effect on ethnographic 

resources.

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED)

NPS management of ethnographic resources 

would generally be conducted as outlined 

above for the no-action alternative. In 

addition, the National Riverways would 

increase interpretive opportunities for 

visitors to gain greater understanding of the 

park unit’s traditional and culturally

associated peoples (American Indian 

inhabitants and early Scots/Irish settlers) and 

their adaptations to the lands along the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers.

Further ethnographic overviews and 

assessments, oral histories, and other studies 

would be conducted as necessary to 

supplement available information and 

expand park interpretive programs. 

Continuation and expansion of ethnographic 

resource management actions and research 

efforts would have long-term, localized, 

beneficial impacts on ethnographic 

resources. The long-term protection of 

ethnographic resources would also benefit by 

increasing public awareness of the cultural 

importance of these resources through 

interpretive and educational programs.

Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor,

adverse impacts to ethnographic resources 

may also be expected to occur primarily from 

disturbances associated with inadvertent 

visitor use, park operations, or other factors.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources.

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative B would have long-term or 

permanent, beneficial, and negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts on the National 

Riverways’ ethnographic resources. Past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would result in long-term or permanent, 

minor to moderate adverse impacts. The 

adverse impacts of other actions, in 

combination with the impacts of alternative 

B, would cumulatively result in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources. The 

impacts associated with alternative B would 

represent a small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term or permanent, localized, 

beneficial, and negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources would 

occur from ongoing visitor use, enhanced 

interpretation, and other factors. There 

would also be long-term or permanent, 

minor to moderate, adverse, cumulative 

impacts on ethnographic resources from 

implementation of alternative B in 

conjunction with past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable actions.

Section 106 Summary

After applying the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effect (36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes 

that implementing alternative B would result 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

332

in no adverse effect on ethnographic 

resources.

ALTERNATIVE C

NPS management of ethnographic resources 

would generally be conducted as outlined 

above for the no-action alternative. In 

addition, the National Riverways would 

increase interpretive opportunities for 

visitors to gain greater understanding of the 

park unit’s traditional and culturally

associated peoples (American Indian 

inhabitants and early Scots/Irish settlers) and 

their adaptations to the lands along the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers.

Further ethnographic overviews and 

assessments, oral histories, and other studies 

would be conducted as necessary to 

supplement available information and 

expand park interpretive programs. The 

National Riverways would conduct cultural 

demonstrations, workshops, and living 

history at selected historic sites and farms, 

such as Big Spring, Alley Spring, and Powder 

Mill to enhance understanding of Ozark 

folklife and customs.

Continuation and expansion of ethnographic 

resource management actions and research 

efforts would have long-term, localized, 

beneficial impacts on ethnographic 

resources. The long-term protection of 

ethnographic resources would also benefit by 

increasing public awareness of the cultural 

importance of these resources through 

interpretive and educational programs.

Long-term or permanent, negligible to minor,

adverse impacts to ethnographic resources 

may also be expected to occur, primarily 

from disturbances associated with 

inadvertent visitor use, park operations, or 

other factors.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources.

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative C would have long-term or 

permanent, beneficial, and negligible to 

minor, adverse impacts on the National 

Riverways’ ethnographic resources. Past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would result in long-term or permanent, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts. The 

adverse impacts of other actions, in 

combination with the impacts of alternative 

C, would cumulatively result in long-term or 

permanent, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources. The 

impacts associated with alternative C would 

represent a small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term or permanent, localized, 

beneficial, and negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts on ethnographic resources would 

occur from ongoing visitor use, enhanced 

interpretation, and other factors. There 

would also be long-term or permanent, 

minor to moderate, adverse, cumulative 

impacts on ethnographic resources from 

implementation of alternative C in 

conjunction with past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable actions.

Section 106 Summary

After applying the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse 

effect (36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of Adverse 

Effects), the National Park Service concludes 

that implementing alternative C would result 
Cultural Resources

333

in no adverse effect on ethnographic 

resources.

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS: METHODS 

AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING 

IMPACTS

The impacts on museum collections were 

assessed by examining how the collections 

would be protected, stored, and managed in 

accordance with applicable NPS curatorial 

policies. The impact intensities for museum 

collections are as follows:

 Negligible: Impact is at or below the 

lowest levels of detection with no 

perceptible consequences, either 

adverse or beneficial, to museum 

collections.

 Minor: Impacts would affect the 

integrity of few items in the museum 

collection but would not change the 

usefulness of the collection for future 

research and interpretation.

 Moderate: Impacts would affect the 

integrity of many items in the museum 

collection and diminish the usefulness 

of the collection for future research 

and interpretation.

 Major: Impacts would affect the 

integrity of most items in the museum 

collection and destroy the usefulness 

of the collection for future research 

and interpretation.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, 

archeological artifacts and associated reports

and records (which represent most of the 

National Riverways’ museum collections) 

would continue to be stored and managed at 

facilities of the NPS Midwest Archeological 

Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. The National 

Riverways’ onsite collection storage facility 

near Big Spring would continue to provide 

secure, climate-controlled storage of some 

archeological artifacts (typically pending 

long-term transfer to the Midwest 

Archeological Center), reports, documentary 

sources, historic objects, and biological 

specimens. Office and curatorial work space 

for the use of researchers and NPS staff 

would continue to be provided in the facility. 

Ongoing storage and curatorial management 

of the National Riverways’ museum 

collections in accordance with NPS policies 

and guidelines would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on museum collections.

Cumulative Impacts

Although the overall condition of the 

National Riverways’ museum collection is 

good, some items sustained minor damage 

and deterioration that occurred before 

construction of the National Riverways’ 

present collection storage facility in 1994. 

Prior to the new facility, collections were 

stored at locations and outbuildings 

throughout the Riverways under inadequate 

conditions and were susceptible to pest 

damage and deterioration resulting from a 

lack of environmental controls. These past 

conditions resulted in long-term, minor,

adverse impacts. 

The impacts associated with implementation 

of the no-action alternative would have longterm, beneficial impacts on the National 

Riverways’ museum collections. Past actions 

have resulted in long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts. The adverse impacts of the other 

actions described above, in combination with 

the impacts of the no-action alternative, 

would cumulatively result in long-term,

minor, adverse impacts on museum 

collections. The impacts associated with the 

no-action alternative would not appreciably 

contribute to the adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term, localized, beneficial impacts on 

museum collections would occur from 

ongoing curatorial management and storage 

at the NPS Midwest Archeological Center 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

334

and the National Riverways’ collection 

storage facility. There would be long-term,

minor, adverse cumulative impacts on 

museum collections from implementation of 

the no-action alternative in conjunction with 

other primarily past actions.

ALTERNATIVE A

NPS management of museum collections 

would be conducted as outlined above for the 

no-action alternative. The National 

Riverways would enhance its capability to 

provide proper curation of archival and other 

collection items. Ongoing storage and 

curatorial management of the National 

Riverways’ museum collections in 

accordance with NPS policies and guidelines 

would have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

museum collections.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, minor,

adverse impacts on the museum collection.

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative A would have long-term, 

beneficial impacts on the National Riverways’ 

museum collections. Past actions have 

resulted in long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts. The adverse impacts of the other 

actions, in combination with the impacts of 

alternative A, would cumulatively result in 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts on 

museum collections. The impacts associated 

with alternative A would not appreciably 

contribute to the adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term, localized, beneficial impacts on 

museum collections would occur from 

ongoing curatorial management and storage 

at the NPS Midwest Archeological Center 

and the National Riverways’ collection 

storage facility. There would be long-term,

minor, adverse cumulative impacts on 

museum collections from implementation of 

alternative A in conjunction with other 

primarily past actions.

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED)

Under this alternative, the National 

Riverways would proceed with 

recommendations from the NPS Midwest 

Region’s Museum Collection Storage Plan

(2006) that call for consolidating museum 

collections from several parks at selected 

multipark facilities. Towards this objective, 

the Riverways’ current collection storage 

facility would be expanded to accommodate 

collections from other smaller NPS regional 

parks that lack or have inadequate curatorial 

facilities. The National Riverways would also 

consider partnering with other agencies, such 

as the U.S. Forest Service for the Mark Twain 

National Forest, to jointly address curatorial 

storage and management needs.

Because the expanded collection storage 

facility would be constructed and operated to 

address all NPS curatorial requirements with 

regard to proper security, environmental 

control systems, accessibility for researchers, 

and adequate staffing, its construction and 

operation would have long-term, beneficial 

impacts on museum collections. The 

National Park Service would implement 

special handling procedures to ensure 

museum collections are not damaged or 

misplaced during transit or temporary 

storage prior to completion of the new 

facility.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 
Cultural Resources

335

this alternative, resulting in long-term, minor,

adverse impacts on the museum collection.

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative B would have long-term 

beneficial impacts on the National Riverways’ 

museum collections. Past actions have 

resulted in long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts. The adverse impacts of the other 

actions, in combination with the impacts of 

alternative B, would cumulatively result in 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts on 

museum collections. The impacts associated 

with alternative B would not appreciably 

contribute to the adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term, localized, beneficial impacts on 

museum collections would occur from 

construction and operation of an expanded, 

multipark collection storage facility within 

the National Riverways, and ongoing 

curatorial management and storage at the 

NPS Midwest Archeological Center. There 

would be long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impacts on museum collections 

from implementation of alternative B in

conjunction with past actions.

ALTERNATIVE C

NPS management of museum collections 

would be conducted as outlined above for the 

no-action alternative. The National 

Riverways would enhance its capability to 

provide proper curation of archival and other 

collection items. Ongoing storage and 

curatorial management of the National 

Riverways’ museum collections in 

accordance with NPS policies and guidelines 

would have long-term, beneficial impacts on 

museum collections. 

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, minor,

adverse impacts on the museum collection.

The impacts associated with implementation 

of alternative C would have long-term,

beneficial impacts on the National Riverways’ 

museum collections. Past actions have 

resulted in long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts. The adverse impacts of the other 

actions, in combination with the impacts of 

alternative C, would cumulatively result in 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts on 

museum collections. The impacts associated 

with alternative C would not appreciably 

contribute to the adverse cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Long-term, localized, beneficial impacts on 

museum collections would occur from 

ongoing curatorial management and storage 

at the NPS Midwest Archeological Center 

and the National Riverways’ collection 

storage facility. There would be long-term,

minor, adverse cumulative impacts on 

museum collections from implementation of 

alternative C in conjunction with past 

actions.
336

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE

INTRODUCTION

This section describes the effect of the noaction alternative and alternatives A, B, and C 

on visitor use and experience within Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. Analysis of these 

components is based on the professional 

judgment of park staff, NPS planners, and 

other specialists in the field of visitor use and 

experience.

To provide a thorough analysis of visitor use 

and experience of the Riverways, this section 

has been organized by the following four 

impact elements:

 ability to access the Riverways

 recreational opportunities and 

experiences

 opportunities to understand the 

significant stories of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways

 visitor safety

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

The analysis is primarily qualitative rather 

than quantitative due to the conceptual 

nature of the alternatives. Impacts on visitor 

use and experience were determined 

considering the best available information. 

Information on visitor use and opinions was 

taken from recent surveys of visitors 

conducted by the University of Missouri and 

Southern Illinois University (Morgan 2007;

Park 2011).

Visitor studies were conducted by Brown and 

Chilman in 1999 and 2002, and Chilman and 

Vogel in 2001that examined the use of the 

Riverways across several user groups. The 

work done by Chilman served as the template 

for the study conducted by Park (2011). By 

repeating the study design of Chilman, it is 

possible to analyze trends of use and visitor 

attitudes over time.

Another relevant study analyzed horse use 

patterns in and around the Riverways

(Chilman and Vogel 2001). The Riverways’ 

annual reporting of visitor use levels, 

including overnight stays, to the NPS’ Public 

Use Statistics Office, along with local and 

regional travel and tourism data, were also 

considered in the analysis. All of this 

background data was supplemented by 

information gathered during the planning 

process for this management plan, including 

opinions from Riverways visitors and 

neighbors and information from Riverways

staff.

The impact intensities for visitor use and 

experience are as follows:

 Negligible: Most visitors would be 

unaware of any changes associated 

with implementation of the 

alternative. 

 Minor: Changes in visitor 

opportunities and/or setting would be 

slight but detectable, would affect few 

visitors, and would not appreciably 

limit or enhance experiences 

identified as fundamental to the 

Riverways’ purpose and significance.

 Moderate: Changes in visitor 

opportunities and/or setting would be 

noticeable, would affect many visitors, 

and would result in some changes to 

experiences identified as fundamental 

to the Riverways’ purpose and 

significance. 

 Major: Changes in visitor 

opportunities and/or setting would be 

highly apparent, would affect most 

visitors, and would result in several 

changes to experiences identified as 

fundamental to the Riverways’ 

purpose and significance.
Visitor Use and Experience

337

 Duration

– Short term: Impact would be 

temporary, lasting less than a

year, such as the impacts 

associated with construction.

– Long term: Impact would last 

more than a year and could be 

permanent in nature. An impact 

may occur only one time, but if it 

repeatedly occurs over a longer 

period to time, the impact may 

have a long-term impact.

Impact elements for analysis include:

 Ability to Access the National 

Riverways (including universal 

access). Due to the remote nature and 

cost in reaching this region, access to 

the Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

is an important issue for visitors. 

During scoping for this plan, many 

visitors noted the need for improved 

access to the riverways, observing that 

put-ins are crowded at times and

more boat landings are needed to 

access certain areas. Other visitors 

were concerned that increased 

opportunities for access would reduce 

the quality of visitor experiences by 

leading to increased crowding. These 

same visitors felt there should be

fewer access points to the riverways in 

order to achieve the objectives of the 

enabling legislation for the park unit. 

Accessibility of facilities and programs 

is another issue that could affect 

visitor use. Any changes in the ability 

to access and use the riverways would 

be of concern to visitors, the public, 

and Riverways managers. 

 Recreational Opportunities and 

Experiences. Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways provides a wide range of 

recreational opportunities and 

experiences. During scoping and 

recent visitor surveys, most 

respondents acknowledged their 

enjoyment of the Riverways’ 

recreational opportunities and 

suggested the amount of 

opportunities should be maintained 

close to current levels. Because the 

alternatives would result in changes in 

these opportunities, such as adding, 

removing, or improving facilities like 

trails or river access points, this 

impact topic would be of concern to 

visitors, the public, and Riverways

managers. Two types of recreational 

opportunities are identified and 

analyzed as impact topics. They 

include the following:

– river-based recreational 

opportunities and experiences

– land-based recreational 

opportunities and experiences

 Opportunities to Understand the 

Significant Stories of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways has many 

stories about the cultural and natural 

resources within the Riverways, 

covering a wide range of topics. Many 

visitors seek out and enjoy 

opportunities to hear these stories 

and learn about the local history. NPS 

staff provides a number of 

interpretive facilities and programs 

for visitors. Alternatives in this plan 

could affect visitor understanding and 

appreciation of these resources, 

including interpretive and educational 

opportunities. Any changes in 

interpretive and educational 

opportunities would be of concern to 

visitors, the public, and Riverways

managers.

 Visitor Safety. Because the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways presents 

many potential hazards and risks to 

visitors and employees, safety is an 

important concern. Access to sections 

of the Riverways and response to 

accidents are critical elements to 

visitor safety on the riverways and are

important considerations when 

evaluating the impacts of each of the 

proposed alternative. Another 

important consideration to visitor 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

338

safety is the proposed horsepower 

limits on portions of the riverways.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Ability to Access the Riverways

The riverways have numerous access points 

both on the Jacks Fork and Current Rivers. 

An important aspect of access is the presence 

of boat launches and landings. In this 

alternative, existing launches and landings

would be maintained and would continue to 

serve most of the visitors to the Riverways’ at 

most desired visitor locations. In addition, 

the current concessioner services would 

continue to provide an alternative means of 

access to the Riverways.

During scoping for this plan and as feedback 

during visitor use studies, visitors noted the 

need for improved access to certain parts of 

the riverways. For example, members of the 

public said launches and landings are not 

deep enough, put-ins are crowded at times, 

and more boat launches and landings are 

needed to adequately access certain areas. 

Under this alternative, the desire for 

improved access would not be addressed and 

crowding at access points would continue to

negatively affect visitors in a few locations.

The Riverways would continue to maintain 

existing facilities that are accessible to visitors 

with disabilities. This includes the visitor 

contact facilities at the Riverways

headquarters; several seasonal visitor contact 

facilities throughout the Riverways; and an 

offsite, multiagency information facility. No 

change would be made in the type or number 

of facilities and programs that support the 

needs of visitors with disabilities.

Recreational Opportunities

and Experiences

River-based Recreation Opportunities and 

Experiences. In this alternative, visitors 

would continue to access high-quality river 

recreation opportunities, including boating, 

swimming, camping along the riverways, 

fishing, sightseeing, accessing historic sites, 

and participating in interpretive programs. It 

is likely the most popular activities on the 

rivers would continue to be tube floating, day 

hikes, and camping.

During scoping and visitor surveys, most 

respondents acknowledged their enjoyment 

of the Riverways’ recreational opportunities 

and suggested the amount of opportunities 

be maintained close to current levels. The noaction alternative would continue to promote 

existing opportunities for river-based 

recreation.

The Riverways provides visitors 

opportunities for solitude, quiet, connections

with nature, and first-hand discovery of the 

Riverways history. The continuation of these 

types of visitor opportunities are highly 

valued by the public. Under this alternative,

protection of natural resources and natural 

settings, access opportunities via rustic trail 

systems, and primitive camping opportunities 

would continue.

The no-action alternative would continue to 

allow boats to use 60/40 hp motors on certain 

portions of the Current and Jacks Fork 

Rivers. The continuation of this management

approach is in violation with existing federal

regulations. The no-action alternative is 

characterized this way to provide a baseline 

for comparison in evaluating the changes and 

impacts of the other alternatives. Under this 

alternative, the Riverways would continue to 

use horsepower limits on motorboats and 

maximum numbers for canoes set forth in the 

1989 river use management plan.

Some of the current impacts to opportunities 

for recreation are related to crowding and 

congestion at high-use boat launches and 

landings, as well as crowding and conflicts on 

popular stretches of the rivers, these issues 

would most likely continue under the noaction alternative. In addition, increasing use 

levels and noise associated with motorized 

use on the rivers may also continue to
Visitor Use and Experience

339

adversely affect natural soundscapes and 

views of the Riverways for visitors who desire 

opportunities to experience natural settings 

and solitude. For more information on how 

natural soundscapes may affect visitor 

experience at the riverways, please see the 

“Natural Soundscape” sections in chapters 4 

and 5.

Despite issues of crowding and congestion, 

horsepower limits on river sections would 

remain at their current level. Also, the 

proliferation of gravel bar campsite activity 

and continued allowance of vehicle access on 

gravel bars might continue to cause noise 

impacts and increase the perception of 

crowding for visitors floating the rivers. All of 

these impacts would continue under this 

alternative and may increase over time if use 

levels and types of use change. This 

alternative would not take measures to 

mitigate these impacts on visitors’

recreational experiences.

Land-based Recreational Opportunities 

and Experiences. Under the no-action 

alternative, visitors would continue to access 

high-quality land-based recreational 

opportunities, including hiking, boat 

launching, sightseeing, visiting historic sites, 

horseback riding, guided cave tours at Round 

Spring, and participating in interpretive 

programs. During scoping and recent visitor 

surveys, most respondents acknowledged 

their enjoyment of the Riverways’ 

recreational opportunities and suggested the 

amount of opportunities should be 

maintained close to current levels. This 

alternative would continue to provide these 

existing land-based recreational 

opportunities.

The Big Spring tracts would continue to be 

maintained in their primitive, natural state, 

limiting visitor opportunities for a wilderness 

experience. Mountain biking is currently not 

allowed and this status would not change 

under this alternative.

Under this alternative, six developed fee 

campgrounds at Big Spring, Powder Mill, 

Two Rivers, Alley Spring, Round Spring, and 

Pulltite would continue to provide a total of 

450 sites. Backcountry and primitive

campsites would continue to be provided in 

designated areas throughout the Riverways. 

Vehicular access to gravel bars for day use 

and overnight camping would continue to be 

allowed. This includes those with existing 

designated sites. Camping on gravel bars 

would continue to be allowed for visitors

accessing gravel bars by motorized and 

nonmotorized watercraft, as long as the 

location of the campsite is 0.5 mile away from 

any designated campground and at least 50 

feet away from any designated river access.

Opportunities to Understand

the Significant Stories

There is one year-round visitor contact 

facility associated with the Riverways where 

NPS staff members provide education and 

orientation programs and services. There are 

also several seasonal visitor contact facilities 

where visitors can learn about rules, 

regulations, and opportunities at the 

Riverways. Although not run by the National 

Park Service, there is a multiagency

information facility in Salem, Missouri, in 

which the Riverways staff participates. The 

operation of these visitor contact facilities

would continue under the no-action

alternative.

There are concerns related to these facilities 

that would continue in this alternative. The 

visitor contact facility associated with 

headquarters in the town of Van Buren has 

limited, inflexible space for exhibits and 

direct interaction between visitors and NPS 

staff/volunteers. This building is located in 

the town of Van Buren, but not along major

transportation routes through town, so it has 

limited visibility to out-of-town visitors. Also, 

the current location is not adjacent to 

concession operators, so few visitors using 

concessions are aware of or ever access the 

visitor contact facility.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

340

Other visitor contact facilities dispersed 

throughout the Riverways offer limited 

opportunities for visitors to fully understand 

the diverse interpretative themes and the 

significance of the natural and historic 

resources within the Riverways. These visitor 

contact issues create some challenges for 

visitors being able to understand the 

significant stories of the Riverways and 

would not be addressed in this alternative.

Additional education and orientation is 

provided to visitors via nonpersonal services 

such as trailhead bulletin boards, wayside 

exhibits, trail signs, and Riverways brochures. 

These services are considered satisfactory 

and would continue to be available.

Many of the Riverways’ significant cultural 

sites and resources have visitor access and 

interpretation that is highly valued and 

sought after by the public, such as the Alley 

Spring Mill. However, many cultural sites at 

the Riverways have limited or no visitor 

access or associated interpretive programs 

and materials. The public has expressed an 

interest in increased access to educational

opportunities related to these resources. 

Further, the National Park Service believes

major aspects of the Riverways’ significant 

stories are not effectively communicated due 

to the lack of access to and interpretation of 

these sites. Under the no-action this portion 

of the visitor experience would remain 

unchanged and these visitor concerns would 

not be addressed.

Visitor Safety

Information available to visitors regarding 

how to safely navigate the riverways and 

interact with wildlife would continue to be 

available at visitor contact facilities, on-line, 

and through roving contacts with NPS staff. 

These services would continue at their

current levels.

Under current staffing and facility 

conditions, potentially hazardous factors, 

including limited staff contact with visitors at 

congested river access points, and limited 

ability of Riverways staff to provide adequate 

emergency response in crowded river 

sections, have led to safety concerns.

Under this alternative, no additional contact 

locations would be provided. Staffing levels

under this alternative would remain at the

Operation of the National Park Service

currently authorized level of 95 full-time 

equivalent positions, and visitor safety would 

like remain the same.

Cumulative Impacts

Due to the noncontiguous nature of the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways boundaries 

and the towns of Eminence and Van Buren 

being situated between Riverways segments, 

there is potential that development or actions 

in or around these towns could impact visitor 

experiences. Located roughly half way 

between Saint Louis, Missouri, to the north 

and Little Rock, Arkansas, to the south, 

changes in regional growth, regional 

development, and the potential for increased 

visitation are possible effects that could 

impact visitor experiences on the riverways.

Changes in recreation trends, such as the

observed increase in tubing as a river-based 

recreation activity, may result in social 

conflicts among visitors. For example, if 

tubing use continues to grow, areas 

congested with tubers may frustrate 

motorboat users. At this time, uncertainty 

prevents accurate descriptions of the 

associated impacts that may exist with 

alterations in recreation trends.

The overall effects of this alternative would 

not account for a gradual increase in use over 

time with no new implementation strategies 

to address growing demands on visitor use 

and experiences.
Visitor Use and Experience

341

Conclusion

The no-action alternative would have longterm, localized, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts on visitor use and experiences at 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways. River and 

land-based recreational opportunities would 

continue in their current form and would not 

take into account new recreational 

opportunities or experiences. River access, 

visitor contact facilities, and interpretive 

opportunities would not be improved, 

remaining at their current levels of service. 

Continued high volumes of use and 

congestion at popular river access points and

along sections of the riverways would not be 

addressed, leading to crowding and conflicts 

between users. Impacts of this alternative, 

combined with the impacts of past, present, 

and foreseeable future actions, would result 

in long-term, regional, minor, adverse 

impacts on visitor use and experiences 

throughout the entire Riverways.

ALTERNATIVE A

Ability to Access the Riverways

Alternative A focuses on providing more 

opportunities for visitors to experience 

traditional, nonmechanized, river-oriented 

recreation and education programs unique to 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways. This 

would be achieved through the enforcement 

of revised horsepower limits on river sections 

in order to promote nonmotorized use in

particular zoned areas of the Riverways. 

Alternative A would also close some access 

areas and possibly create new ones to better 

distribute use and improve access to the river 

across the entire Riverways. All undesignated 

roads, traces, and crossings would be 

restored to natural conditions.

Over the past 30 years, river use dynamics 

have changed from the majority of people 

using canoes to the current dominant activity 

now being tubing. Tubing is generally a 

highly social activity. Tubers typically travel 

in medium to large groups and frequently 

connect their tubes in order to travel at the 

same speed. This use may sometimes conflict 

with those visitors seeking solitude and a 

connection with nature. During public 

scoping, some visitors explained they no 

longer frequent the Riverways due to the

increasing amount of tube use, which can 

sometimes result in high levels of crowding 

and noise. Roughly 22% of all visitors 

surveyed in a 2006, reported the amount of 

recreation use they encountered detracted 

from the quality of their experience at the 

Riverways (Morgan 2007). Of all 

nonmotorized watercraft users surveyed in 

2010, nearly 40% commented they would 

have preferred to encounter fewer visitors on 

the river (Park 2011).

Under alternative A, sections of the riverways 

would be set aside for low density 

nonmotorized watercraft use during peak 

times to provide an opportunity for solitude 

on the riverways that is not currently 

available during weekends and holidays 

during the summer months. Concession

contracts and operating plans may be 

modified to better distribute and manage the 

numbers of nonmotorized watercraft use. 

These modifications would alter patterns of 

use along the riverways to reduce congestion 

and conflicts. In addition, some designated 

access points would be closed, others 

restored, and new access points may be 

constructed to better distribute river users 

along the riverways. Overall, the total number 

of designated access points within the 

boundaries of the Riverways would decrease 

when compared to the no-action alternative.

Changes to the schedule of dropoffs by 

concessioners and to access point locations 

would more effectively distribute the number 

of nonmotorized watercraft in certain river 

sections, reducing volumes of use at any one 

time. During scoping for this plan and recent 

visitor surveys, the public expressed concerns 

about high volumes of use and conflicts 

between user groups during peak times. The 

public also voiced the need for reduced 

crowding at access points. Redistribution of 

use to less-congested parts of the riverways
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

342

would likely lead to long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impacts to visitors from reductions 

in crowding and conflict among user groups.

However, many visitors enjoy the social 

nature of the Riverways and have strong 

connections to certain locations, so these 

management actions may also have longterm, minor, adverse effects on repeat 

visitors’ ability to use favorite sites along the 

riverways.

Alternative A would add additional accessible 

trails. The existing number of accessible 

facilities and program opportunities for 

visitors with disabilities on the rivers would 

remain the same. Therefore, the addition of 

accessible trails would have long term, minor, 

beneficial impact for visitors with disabilities.

Recreational Opportunities

and Experiences

River-based Recreational Opportunities 

and Experiences. This alternative would 

focus on providing traditional, river-oriented 

recreation and education opportunities. 

Existing river recreational opportunities 

would continue to be available, but emphasis 

would be on providing more opportunities 

for traditional nonmechanized forms of 

recreation, such as canoeing, and on visitor 

connections to natural experiences. The 

desired conditions under this alternative 

would promote solitude-seeking, slowerpaced types of recreation experiences that

connect visitors with nature. Implementation 

of horsepower limits and education and 

interpretation programs focusing on 

nonmechanized forms of river recreation

would improve opportunities for visitors 

seeking these traditional, slower paced types 

of experiences. This alternative would 

eliminate all vehicular access to gravels bars 

along the riverways. Gravel bar camping 

would continue to be allowed for those 

accessing gravel bars by nonmotorized 

watercraft, as long as the location of the 

campsite is 0.5 mile away from any designated 

campground and at least 50 feet away from 

any designated river access.

For some visitors, the quality of their 

camping experience would be enhanced by 

not having noise and pollution from vehicles

on the gravel bars. This would also reduce 

safety concerns from vehicles driving where 

people are camping and recreating. The 

removal of motor vehicles would enhance the 

scenic and natural qualities of the Riverways

camping experience. These actions would

help reduce crowding, safety concerns, noise, 

and pollution and would result in long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts for visitors who 

prefer a quiet camping experience in more 

natural settings.

However, gravel bars are popular for many 

visitors, and the location of the campsites 

along the shoreline is considered highly 

desirable due to great views and close 

proximity to the rivers. For visitors who 

enjoy car camping and ease of access to the 

gravel bars, their experience would be 

adversely affected by the removal of auto 

access to these areas. Visitors who prefer to 

use their vehicles to access gravel bar 

camping may experience long-term, 

moderate adverse removal of auto access.

Opportunities to experience quiet and 

connection with nature would be enhanced 

by enforcement of revised horsepower 

regulations and nonmotorized river zones. 

Under alternative A, existing regulations 

prohibiting the use of motors rated higher 

than 40 hp by the manufacturer would be 

enforced on certain sections of the Current 

and Jacks Fork Rivers. No sections of the 

riverways would allow the use of 60/40 hp 

motors. Year-round nonmotorized areas 

would include the Jacks Fork River from the 

western boundary to Two Rivers. Yearround nonmotorized areas on the Current 

River would be established from the northern 

boundary to Round Spring, and during peak 

season the zone would extend to Two Rivers.

Although restricting horsepower use in 

certain areas may result in long-term, 

moderate, adverse impacts to motorboat 

users who prefer unrestricted access, many 

restricted areas would be sections of the river 
Visitor Use and Experience

343

often inaccessible to motorized watercraft 

due to low water levels.

However, for visitors who seek slower-paced 

types of recreation and solitude, the greater 

emphasis on nonmechanized use under 

alternative A would decrease motor noise and 

waves from motorboats, resulting in longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts. 

The majority of river users, regardless of their 

preferred recreational type, would 

experience long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts from reductions in crowding 

resulting from redistribution of river access 

under alternative A.

Land-based Recreational Opportunities 

and Experiences. Under alternative A, landbased opportunities would primarily occur in 

the primitive and natural zones. This zoning 

pattern would encourage high use of 

educational opportunities and interpretive 

activities in the existing developed areas, 

while promoting values of nature-based 

recreation and contemplation in primitive 

and natural zoned areas. This supports much 

of the desired conditions voiced by the public 

during scoping regarding recreational and 

interpretive opportunities. 

This alternative also includes specific 

strategies to improve the high-quality, landbased recreational opportunities, such as 

increasing hiking trail access in primitive and 

natural zones when compared to the noaction alternative. The proposed Big Spring 

wilderness designation would include 3,424

acres and would provide visitors with

increased opportunities for a wilderness 

experience. Increased access to primitive 

areas would provide more opportunities for 

visitors to enjoy the natural environment and 

natural areas of the Riverways under lowdensity use conditions, resulting in longterm, moderate, beneficial impacts to visitors 

who desire more natural recreational 

opportunities and experiences.

Horseback riding at the Riverways would 

continue to be a popular activity. The closure 

of undesignated horse trails would be 

accompanied by the addition of designated 

horse trail mileage. Approximately 25 miles of 

additional designated horse trails would be 

provided, but there would be no new stream 

crossings. Approximately 65 miles of 

undesignated horse trails would be closed 

and restored. The designated horse trail 

system would be designed to withstand 

anticipated use levels and to discourage the 

proliferation of social trails. Management 

efforts would aim to decrease impacts of 

horses on sensitive areas, including streams 

and riparian areas, and also reduce trail 

damage, erosion, manure pollution, and 

conflicts with other users. Horse camping 

would not be allowed. A permit system might

be implemented to achieve desired social and 

natural conditions for this recreational 

activity. These trails would be well marked to 

improve visitor wayfinding. 

These improvements would provide a safer 

and higher-quality rider experience, while 

also reducing impacts from horses on natural 

resources and other trail users.

Improvements to safety from better 

management of erosion and clearer trail 

delineation and signage would result in longterm, moderate, beneficial impacts for 

equestrian users. Reduction of trail 

degradation from horses and manure would 

improve trail experiences for other users, 

such as hikers, resulting in long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts for these types of users.

Under this alternative mountain biking may

become a permissible form of recreation on 

designated trails. The use of mountain bikes 

at the Riverways would provide an additional 

opportunity for visitors seeking this type of 

recreational experience, resulting in longterm, minor, beneficial impacts for visitors 

who desire to mountain bike at the 

Riverways.

Under alternative A, six developed fee 

campgrounds at Big Spring, Powder Mill, 

Two Rivers, Alley Spring, Round Spring, and 

Pulltite would continue to provide a total of 

450 sites. Backcountry campsites would 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

344

continue to be provided throughout the 

Riverways and would require a fee, and these

campsites would continue to provide some 

basic amenities such as restrooms, tables, fire 

rings, and/or lantern posts. Backcountry 

campsites would be removed from primitive 

zones. Primitive campsites would continue to 

be provided in primitive and natural zones 

and would not require a fee. Roads to 

primitive campsites in primitive zones would 

be removed. Primitive campsites would have 

no amenities. The diversity of camping

opportunities would continue to be popular 

overnight activities for visitors to the 

Riverways. 

Under alternative A, guided cave tours at 

Round Spring would continue, unless 

resource impacts were identified. These tours 

would provide opportunities for visitors to 

continue to experience and learn about the 

sights, sounds, and natural processes of the 

Riverways unique karst features, such as 

caves, resulting in long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts to visitors.

Opportunities to Understand

the Significant Stories

This alternative places emphasis on 

increasing visitor awareness and 

opportunities to connect with Ozark culture

and history. Under alternative A, additional 

historic structures and cultural sites would be 

restored and open to visitors as interpretive 

exhibits. Additional education and 

orientation materials, such as trailhead and 

boat launch kiosks, trail signs, and Riverways

brochures would be developed. The 

Riverways staff would assess the need for 

additional locations and types of information 

to support the desired conditions of 

increasing exposure of visitors to the unique 

history of the Riverways.

More interpretive staff would be added and 

programs created to provide visitors with a 

better understanding of traditional, 

subsistence ways of life in the Ozarks. These 

programs could include living history 

programs, guided three-day floats trips on the 

river, and johnboat trips in replica wooden 

craft. For example, an interpretive float trip 

may be developed to let visitors experience 

what river recreation was like in the past.

Additionally, cultural demonstrations and 

artist-in-residence programs may be 

implemented.

Providing opportunities to experience and 

learn about the cultural history in the 

Riverways is considered a fundamental value 

of the Riverways and was frequently 

identified as a need during public scoping for 

this plan. Increased access to educational 

opportunities from additional programs and 

services would help increase visitor 

opportunities for connections with and 

appreciation of Riverways’ resources. This 

would result in long-term, minor, beneficial 

impacts for many visitors of the Riverways.

Visitor Safety

Information available to visitors regarding 

how to safely navigate the riverways and 

interact with wildlife would continue to be 

available at visitor contact facilities, on-line, 

and through roving contacts with NPS staff. 

These services would continue at their 

current levels and would not be improved in 

this alternative.

Under alternative A, three multioperational 

facilities would be constructed, one for each 

management district, to consolidate field and 

maintenance staff closer to the districts they 

manage. Additional law enforcement rangers 

would also be added under this alternative in 

order to improve enforcement of visitor 

compliance with regulations. The 

consolidation and increase of staff under 

alternative A would help address concerns 

regarding visitor safety at congested river 

access points and improve response times to 

reduce visitor conflicts on the rivers.

Under this alternative, the dispersal of use 

across the Riverways and limits on motorized 

use in certain zones of the Riverways would 
Visitor Use and Experience

345

help mitigate some crowding and safety 

concerns. These actions, along with the 

consolidation of operational facilities and 

addition of law enforcement staff, would 

provide long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts for visitor safety in the Riverways.

Cumulative Impacts

Due to the noncontiguous nature of the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways boundaries 

and the towns of Eminence and Van Buren 

situated between Riverways segments, there 

is potential that development or actions in or 

around these towns could impact visitor 

experiences. Located roughly between Saint 

Louis, Missouri, to the north and Little Rock, 

Arkansas, to the south, changes in regional 

growth, regional development, and the 

potential for increased visitation are possible 

effects that could impact visitor experiences 

on the riverways.

Increased visitation and changes in recreation 

trends, such as the observed increase in 

tubing as a river-based recreation activity, 

might result in social conflicts among visitors. 

For example, if tubing use continues to grow, 

areas congested with tubers may frustrate 

motorboat users. If this were to occur, it 

might cause a slight increase in existing 

visitor use concerns such as crowding and 

conflicts at popular, high-use river access 

points. At this time, uncertainty prevents 

accurate descriptions of the associated 

impacts that might exist with alterations in 

recreation trends.

The effects of alternative A would account 

for a gradual increase in use over time and 

provide implementation strategies to address 

growing demands for more traditional, 

nonmotorized visitor uses and experiences 

on the riverways.

Conclusion

Alternative A would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial impacts for visitor uses

and experiences focused on traditional riveroriented recreation, providing a more 

natural, wilderness oriented visitor 

experience. More dispersed river use and 

access points, concessioner patterns, and 

gravel bar camping would improve riverbased recreational opportunities by more 

evenly distributing user density; increasing 

visitor safety; and reducing crowding, noise, 

and potential for conflicts between users. 

Improved designation of trails, additional 

trail and road access, along with increased 

land-based recreational opportunities, would 

also improve visitor experiences by 

increasing trail user safety. The enforcement 

of horsepower regulations and nonmotorized 

zones would have the greatest adverse 

impacts to visitors under this alternative. 

However, the improvements to visitor 

experience and safety, and the variety of new 

opportunities, would outweigh some of the 

negative impacts to visitors. 

This alternative would have long-term, 

moderate, adverse impacts as well as longterm, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts. 

Alternative A, combined with the impacts of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in long-term, 

regional, minor, beneficial impacts on 

visitors. Alternative A would contribute 

substantially to these effects.

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED)

Ability to Access the Riverways

Alternative B provides opportunities for 

more visitors to better understand the 

riverways of the past, including traditional 

river recreation activities similar to those that 

existed when the National Riverways was 

established. Major emphasis under 

alternative B would be placed on improving 

visitor appreciation of Riverways’ resources. 

Riverways management would provide

increased opportunities for traditional, 

nonmechanized forms of recreation and 

visitor experiences that are quieter, less 

crowded, and slower paced. To achieve this 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

346

type of visitor experience, all undesignated 

roads, traces, crossings, and access points 

would be closed and returned to more 

natural conditions.

Over the past 30 years, river use dynamics 

have changed from the majority of people 

using canoes to the current dominant activity 

now being tubing. Tubing is generally a 

highly social activity. Tubers typically travel 

in medium to large groups and frequently 

connect their tubes in order to travel at the 

same speed. This use may sometimes conflict 

with those visitors seeking solitude and a 

connection with nature. During public 

scoping, some visitors explained they no 

longer frequent the riverways due to the 

increasing amount of tube use, which can 

sometimes result in high levels of crowding 

and noise. Roughly 22% of visitors surveyed 

in a 2006, reported the amount of recreation 

use they encountered detracted from the 

quality of their experience at the Riverways

(Morgan 2007). Of all nonmotorized 

watercraft users surveyed in 2010, nearly 40% 

commented they would have preferred to 

encounter fewer visitors on the river (Park 

2011).

Under alternative B, sections of the riverways 

would be set aside for low-density 

nonmotorized watercraft use during peak 

times to provide an opportunity for solitude 

on the riverways that is not currently 

available during weekends and holidays 

during the summer months. In order to 

remain consistent with existing and future 

plans, concession contracts and operating 

plans may be modified to better distribute 

and manage the numbers of nonmotorized 

watercraft. These modifications would alter 

patterns of use along the riverways to reduce 

congestion and conflicts. In addition, 

concession dropoff and pickup locations for 

river users using nonmotorized watercraft 

could be redistributed to reduce peak-season 

crowding effects or to protect river resources 

if changes in river flow conditions impact 

existing locations. Overall, under alternative 

B, the total number of designated access 

points within the boundaries of the 

Riverways would decrease or remain 

constant when compared to the no-action 

alternative.

Changes to the schedule of nonmotorized 

watercraft dropoffs by concessioners and to 

access point locations would more effectively 

distribute the number of these watercraft in 

certain river sections, reducing the volumes 

of use at any one time. During scoping for 

this plan and recent visitor surveys, the public 

expressed concerns about the high volumes 

of use and conflicts between user groups 

during peak times. The public also voiced the 

need for reduced crowding at river access 

points. Redistribution of use to lesscongested parts of the riverways would likely 

lead to long-term, moderate, beneficial

impacts to visitors from reductions in 

crowding and conflict among user groups.

However, many visitors enjoy the social 

nature of the Riverways and have strong 

connections to certain locations, so these 

management actions may also have longterm, minor, adverse effects on repeat 

visitors’ ability to use favorite sites along the 

riverways.

This alternative would add additional 

accessible trails. The existing number of 

accessible facilities and program 

opportunities for visitors with disabilities on 

the rivers would remain the same. Therefore 

the addition of accessible trails would have 

long term, minor, beneficial impact for 

visitors with disabilities.

Recreational Opportunities

and Experiences

River-based Recreational Opportunities 

and Experiences. Alternative B would focus 

on providing more people with opportunities

to intimately experience conditions 

reminiscent of those that existed when the 

Riverways was established. This would 

include additional opportunities for visitors 

to experience the sights and sounds of nature 

and nonmotorized use of the riverways.

Horsepower limits on portions of the 
Visitor Use and Experience

347

riverways would promote nonmotorized use 

in certain zoned portions of the riverways

during peak summer season. Existing riverrelated recreation opportunities such as 

gigging, fishing, and wildlife watching would 

continue to be available and additional 

education and interpretation programs 

would be created.

In this alternative, gravel bar camping would 

continue to be allowed for those accessing 

gravel bars by motorized and nonmotorized 

watercraft, as long as the location of the 

campsite is 0.5 mile away from any designated 

campground and at least 50 feet away from 

any designated river access. For some gravel 

bars that are accessed by vehicles, alternative 

B proposes designated gravel bar camping 

areas and/or campsites. 

Some number of gravel bars would continue 

to be accessible to vehicles. The number of 

gravel bars accessible to vehicles and 

associated designated camping areas and/or 

campsites would be identified in a 

subsequent planning process.

For some visitors, the quality of their 

camping experience would be enhanced by 

not having noise and pollution from vehicles

on all gravel bars. This would also reduce 

safety concerns from vehicles driving where 

people are camping and recreating. The 

removal of motor vehicles on some gravel 

bars would enhance the scenic and natural 

qualities of the Riverways camping 

experience. Designated camping areas and/or 

campsites on some gravel bars that are 

accessed by vehicles would help minimize 

crowding and conflict amongst gravel bar 

campers. These actions would combine to 

help reduce crowding, safety concerns, noise, 

and pollution and would result in long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts for visitors who 

prefer a quiet camping experience in more 

natural settings.

Unauthorized motorized vehicle access may 

be closed to some gravel bars. The combined 

actions of campsite and/or camping area 

designation, along with possible removal of 

unauthorized motor vehicle access to certain 

gravel bars would result in long-term, 

moderate, adverse impacts to visitors who 

enjoy auto access to gravel bars and staying at 

particular sites. However, visitors who enjoy 

car camping and ease of access to the gravel 

bars would continue to benefit from the 

allowance of auto access to some gravel bars, 

resulting in long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts.

Opportunities for solitude and connection 

with nature would be enhanced by

enforcement of revised horsepower 

regulations and nonmotorized river zones 

during peak season. Peak season 

nonmotorized areas would include the Jacks 

Fork River from the western boundary to the 

Eminence gap and the Current River from 

the northern boundary to Round Spring. For 

visitors who prize nonmotorized stretches of 

river and opportunities for more natural 

sounds, these river zones would have long 

term, moderate, beneficial impacts. 

Under this alternative, motorboat users may 

feel limited by the enforcement of new 

nonmotorized zones during the peak season 

(between April 1 and September 14) and this 

may result in long term, moderate adverse 

impacts to motorboat users. However, these 

seasonal mixed-use river zones are often

inaccessible to motorized watercraft due to 

low water levels. Under alternative B, the 

National Park Service would pursue rulemaking to change the existing regulation to 

allow 60/40 hp motors on other portions of 

the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. The 

pursuit of rulemaking to allow 60/40 hp 

motors under this alternative would have a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to 

boaters who prize less restricted motor 

access. Further, since most of the motorboat 

use that occurs between Big Spring and the 

park’s southernmost boundary is less than 

150 hp, the allowance of 150 hp motors on 

this section of river would have long term, 

minor, beneficial impacts to boaters who 

prize less restricted motor access. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

348

Land-based Recreational Opportunities 

and Experiences. Comments received 

during the scoping process demonstrated the 

public values much about the Riverways, 

especially protection of scenery and water 

quality, interpretation of local history and 

heritage, and access to trails. In this 

alternative, land-based recreation such as 

hiking, horseback riding, camping, and 

hunting would primarily occur in the natural 

and primitive zones. This zoning pattern 

would promote concentration of high-use 

and educational opportunities in the existing 

developed areas, while promoting values of 

nature-based recreation and physical 

challenge, reduced motorized vehicle activity, 

and natural sights and sounds in the other 

land zones.

The amount of hiking trail access would 

increase when compared to the no-action 

alternative. The condition of hiking trails 

within the Riverways would also be improved 

under this alternative. Additional hiking trails 

may be added to provide access to certain 

discovery sites, such as remote homesteads or 

unique natural areas. In other places, existing 

old traces to these sites may be upgraded to 

allow visitors drive-in access to hiking trails 

and backcountry campsites. Under this 

alternative, 3,430 acres of the Big Spring area 

would be recommend for wilderness

designation and some intrusions would be 

removed, allowing for a more primitive 

visitor experience. Increased access to 

natural and primitive areas would provide 

more opportunities for visitors to enjoy the 

natural environment and natural areas of the 

Riverways under low-density use conditions, 

resulting in long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts to visitors who desire more natural 

recreational opportunities and experiences.

Horseback riding at the Riverways would 

continue to be a popular activity under 

alternative B. As part of the roads and trails 

management plan, the National Park Service 

would consider designating some of the 

existing, unauthorized trails by incorporating 

about 24 to 45 miles of these trails and 

associated stream crossings into the existing 

Riverways’ trail system. Approximately 45 to 

65 miles of unauthorized horse trails and 

associated stream crossings would be closed 

and restored to natural conditions. The 

designated horse trail system would be 

designed to withstand anticipated use levels 

and to discourage the proliferation of social 

trails. The roads and trails management plan 

would clearly identify authorized trails and 

corresponding trail uses, locations for trail 

reroutes and improvements, and suitable 

locations for improved trail signage to more 

clearly delineate authorized trails and orient 

trail users. In the interim, until a roads and 

trails management plan was completed, 

unauthorized trails that pose the greatest 

threat to park resources would be closed on a 

case-by-case basis. Management efforts 

would aim to decrease impacts of horses on 

sensitive areas, including streams and 

riparian areas, and also reduce trail damage, 

erosion, manure pollution, and conflicts with 

other users. A permit system might be 

implemented to achieve desired social and 

natural conditions for this recreational 

activity. An approximate 25-campsite horse 

campground may be established. 

These improvements would provide a safer 

and higher-quality rider experience, while 

also reducing impacts from horses on natural 

resources and other trail users. The addition 

of horse camping opportunities under this 

alternative would increase the availability and 

options to users for this popular recreation 

activity. Further these opportunities would 

be in designated areas sited to minimize 

resource impacts and conflicts with other 

user groups. In the future, as sites are 

considered for horse camping additional 

compliance would be needed to assess site 

specific impacts. Improvements to safety 

from better management of erosion and 

clearer trail delineation and signage along 

with designated horse camping would result 

in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts 

for equestrian users. Reduction of trail 

degradation from horses and manure would 

improve trail experiences for other users, 

such as hikers, resulting in long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts for these types of users. 
Visitor Use and Experience

349

Under this alternative mountain biking may

become a permissible form of recreation on 

designated trails. The use of mountain bikes 

at the Riverways would provide an additional 

opportunity for visitors seeking this type of 

recreational experience, resulting in longterm, minor, beneficial impacts for visitors 

who desire to mountain bike at the 

Riverways.

Under this alternative, two additional 

developed campgrounds would be provided: 

Upper Current River (Akers) and Upper 

Jacks Fork (Blue Spring). This greatly 

increases the supply of overnight developed 

camping opportunities, which is a highly 

sought after opportunity for visitors to the 

Riverways. The addition of two developed 

campgrounds would result in a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact for visitors.

Backcountry campsites would continue to be 

provided in designated areas throughout the 

Riverways and may require a fee. These

campsites would continue to provide some 

basic amenities such as restrooms, tables, fire 

rings, and/or lantern posts. Backcountry 

campsites would be removed from primitive 

zones. Backcountry camping opportunities 

would continue roughly the same as the no 

action alternative. However, visitors who 

enjoy backcountry camping in primitive 

zones may experience long term, negligible, 

adverse impacts from the removal of 

backcountry campsites from primitive zones.

Primitive campsites would continue to be 

provided in primitive and natural zones and 

would not require a fee. In some cases roads

or parking areas to primitive campsites would 

be closed slightly short of the campsite. 

Designated primitive campsites would not be 

closed. The road would be rehabilitated into 

a short hiking trail from the parking area to 

the campsite. This would allow visitors to 

enjoy a more primitive camping experience in 

a few areas, while protecting resources and 

concealing vehicles from view from the river.

Primitive campsites would continue to have 

no amenities. Rehabilitation of portions of 

roads to some primitive campsites would 

provide long term, minor, beneficial impacts 

for visitors seeking a more natural camping 

setting. For visitors who enjoy the ease of 

drive-in access currently provided to all 

primitive campsites, this change of access 

may cause long term, minor, adverse impacts.

Under alternative B, guided cave tours at 

Round Spring may continue to be provided, 

unless resource impacts are identified. These 

tours provide opportunities for visitors to 

continue to experience and learn about the 

sights, sounds, and natural processes of the 

Riverways unique karst features, such as 

caves, resulting in long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts to visitors. This alternative 

would also promote the cultural history of 

the Riverways and interpretive programs 

highlighting traditional Ozark values. This 

alternative supports much of the desired 

conditions heard from the public during 

scoping for this plan.

Opportunities to Understand

the Significant Stories

This alternative aims to enhance Ozark 

heritage educational opportunities. A small 

learning center with educational and 

interpretive programs and exhibits would be 

developed to better orient and inform visitors

about Riverways’ resources. This facility 

would adaptively reuse Powder Mill and may 

include classrooms and might provide some 

limited quarters for visiting experts. At the 

Powder Mill facility, the Riverways staff 

would develop and lead programs to provide 

more structured onsite cultural and natural 

education and interpretive programs for all 

visitors, but especially for school-aged 

children. Converting the Powder Mill area 

would increase visitor opportunities for highquality interpretation programs and would 

improve the visitor experience at this 

location. 

Under alternative B, additional historic 

structures and cultural sites would be 

restored and open to visitors as interpretive 

exhibits. An oral history program would be 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

350

restarted. Self-guided interpretive 

opportunities would be created to provide 

visitors with a sense of being the first to 

discover remote, hard-to-find places, such as 

an old cabin or a secluded spring. Additional 

education and orientation materials, such as 

kiosks, trails signs, and brochures might be 

created to support self-guided tours. Guided 

opportunities would include ranger-led tours 

of special features, such as old settlements, 

springs, and river environments.

Development of these types of programs

would help reach visitors who are looking for 

different or additional activities to the 

traditional float trip. Resource management 

staff would develop opportunities for visitors 

and volunteers to engage in hands-on 

resource management projects.

Providing the opportunity to experience and 

learn about both the natural and cultural 

history of the Ozarks is considered a 

fundamental value of the Riverways and was 

proven highly desired by the public during 

scoping for this plan. The addition of a wide 

breadth of interpretive programs and 

materials would increase educational access 

about Riverways’ resources to multiple types 

of learners and ability levels. The 

development of a learning center, additional 

educational programs, and tours would help 

increase opportunities for visitor connections 

with and understanding of resources 

throughout different areas of the Riverways.

These additional learning opportunities 

might help increase visitor appreciation of 

Riverways’ resources. Combined, the actions 

mentioned above would result in long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts to visitors of 

various ages, and learning abilities.

Visitor Safety

Information on how to safely navigate the 

riverways and interact with wildlife would 

continue to be available at visitor contact 

facilities, on-line, and through roving 

contacts with NPS staff. These services would 

continue at their current levels and would not 

be improved in this alternative.

Under alternative B, one multioperational 

facility would be constructed, one for each 

management district, to consolidate field and 

maintenance staff closer to the districts they 

manage. Additional law enforcement rangers 

would also be added under this alternative in 

order to improve enforcement of visitor 

compliance with regulations. The 

consolidation of an increase in staff under 

alternative B would help address concerns 

regarding visitor safety at congested river 

access points and improve response times to 

reduce visitor conflicts on the rivers.

In this alternative, one additional visitor 

contact location might be provided as part of 

the learning center at Powder Mill. Addition 

of this contact facility would increase 

opportunities for visitors to interact with 

Riverways’ staff and obtain safety 

information relevant to the Powder Mill area 

and to the visitor’s desired type of 

recreational activity.

Under alternative B, the dispersal of use 

across the Riverways and limits on motorized 

use in certain zones of the Riverways would 

help mitigate some crowding and safety 

concerns. These actions, along with the 

consolidation of operational facilities and 

addition of law enforcement staff, would 

provide long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts for visitor safety in the Riverways.

Cumulative Impacts

Due to the noncontiguous nature of the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways boundaries 

and the towns of Eminence and Van Buren 

situated between Riverways segments, there 

is potential that development or actions in or 

around these towns could impact visitor 

experiences. Located roughly between Saint 

Louis, Missouri, to the north and Little Rock, 

Arkansas, to the south, changes in regional 

growth, regional development, and the 

potential for increased visitation are possible 

effects that could impact visitor experiences 

on the riverways.
Visitor Use and Experience

351

Increased visitation and changes in recreation 

trends, such as the observed increase in 

tubing as a river-based recreation activity, 

might result in social conflicts among visitors. 

For example, if tubing use continues to grow, 

areas congested with tubers may frustrate 

motorboat users. If this were to occur, it may 

cause a slight increase in existing visitor use 

concerns such as crowding and conflicts at 

popular, high-use river access points. At this 

time, uncertainty prevents accurate 

descriptions of the associated impacts that 

might exist with alterations in recreation 

trends.

The effects of alternative B would account for 

a gradual increase in use over time and would 

provide implementation strategies to address 

growing demands for visitor uses and 

experiences on the riverways.

Conclusion

Alternative B would have long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial impacts for river users 

seeking experiences in more natural settings 

with a lower density of other Riverways

users, and for visitors seeking more 

opportunities to learn about and connect 

with natural and cultural resources of Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. More dispersed 

river access points, concessioner patterns,

and gravel bar camping would improve riverbased recreational opportunities by more 

evenly distributing user density; increasing 

visitor safety; and reducing crowding, noise, 

and potential for conflicts between users. 

Improved designation of trails, additional 

trail and road access, along with increased 

land-based recreational opportunities would 

also improve visitor experiences by 

increasing trail user safety, access to certain 

trail and camping areas, and from the 

addition of designated trails for new uses. 

The enforcement of horsepower regulations, 

nonmotorized zones would have the greatest 

adverse impacts to visitors under this 

alternative. However, the pursuit of 

rulemaking to allow 60/40 hp motors, along 

with other improvements to visitor 

experience and safety, and the variety of new 

opportunities, would outweigh most of the 

negative impacts to visitors. 

This alternative would have long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impacts as well as longterm, moderate, beneficial impacts. 

Alternative B, combined with the impacts of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in long-term, 

regional, moderate, beneficial impacts on 

visitors. The NPS preferred alternative would 

contribute substantially to these effects.

ALTERNATIVE C

Ability to Access the Riverways

In this alternative, the focus would be on 

providing more recreation opportunities and 

experiences while maintaining the highly 

scenic natural setting and cultural resources. 

The National Riverways would be managed 

to support higher levels and diverse types of 

recreational opportunities, with a focus on 

more intensive management to ensure that 

excessive impacts on resources or public 

safety would not occur. Visitors would 

experience higher levels of social interaction 

with other visitors, especially during the peak 

season. Additional facilities and trails would 

be developed to accommodate increased 

levels and different types of visitor use.

Under alternative C, existing boat launches 

and landings would be maintained and would 

continue to service the majority of visitors to 

the Riverways’ most desired visitor locations.

These existing public access points would be 

maintained and possibly improved and more 

public access points may be provided where 

appropriate and needed. All undesignated 

roads, traces, and crossings would be 

restored to natural conditions. This 

alternative would increase access to the 

riverways.

Although there would still be opportunities 

for visitors to pursue solitude at the 

Riverways, this alternative would provide for 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

352

relatively high levels of social interaction 

among motorized and nonmotorized users 

on the rivers, especially during peak season. 

The increase in recreational opportunities 

would provide for more social interactions 

and may lead to an increase in potential 

conflicts between visitors. The potential 

increase in visitor use levels, access, and the 

potential for larger group sizes in some 

locations may exacerbate some of the current 

impacts related to crowding and noise 

impacts at high-use locations, including boat 

launches and landings. There would be fewer 

opportunities for visitors to experience the 

natural setting or traditional solitude of the 

Riverways.

Over the past 30 years, river use dynamics 

have changed from the majority of people 

using canoes to the current dominant activity 

now being tubing. Tubing is generally a 

highly social activity. Tubers typically travel 

in medium to large groups and frequently 

connect their tubes in order to travel at the 

same speed. This use may sometimes conflict 

with those visitors seeking solitude and a 

connection with nature. During public 

scoping, some visitors explained they no 

longer frequent the riverways due to the 

increasing amount of tube use, which can 

sometimes result in high levels of crowding 

and noise. Roughly 22% of visitors surveyed 

in a 2006, reported the amount of recreation 

use they encountered detracted from the 

quality of their experience at the Riverways

(Morgan 2007). Of all nonmotorized 

watercraft users surveyed in 2010, nearly 40% 

commented they would have preferred to 

encounter fewer visitors on the river (Park 

2011).

To address these concerns, concession

contracts and operating plans may be 

modified to better distribute and manage the 

numbers of nonmotorized watercrafts. These 

modifications would alter patterns of use 

along the riverways to reduce congestion and 

conflicts. In addition, some designated access 

points would be closed, others restored, and 

new access points may be constructed to 

better distribute river users along the 

riverways. Overall, under alternative C, the 

total number of designated access points 

within the boundaries of the Riverways

would decrease or remain constant when 

compared to the no-action alternative.

Changes to the schedule of nonmotorized 

watercraft dropoffs by concessioners and to 

access point locations would more effectively 

distribute the number of these users in 

certain river sections, reducing the volumes 

of use at any one time. During scoping for 

this plan and recent visitor surveys, the public 

expressed concerns about the high volumes 

of use and conflicts between user groups 

during peak times. The public also voiced the 

need for reduced crowding at river access 

points. Redistribution of use to lesscongested parts of the riverways would likely 

lead to long-term, moderate, beneficial

impacts to visitors from reductions in 

crowding and conflict among user groups.

However, many visitors enjoy the social 

nature of the Riverways and have strong 

connections to certain locations, so these 

management actions may also have longterm, minor, adverse effects on repeat 

visitors’ ability to use favorite sites along the 

riverways.

This alternative would add additional 

accessible trails. The existing number of 

accessible facility and program opportunities 

for visitors with disabilities on the rivers

would remain the same. Therefore, the 

addition of accessible trails would have long 

term, minor, beneficial impact for visitors 

with disabilities.

Recreational Opportunities

and Experiences

River-based Recreation Opportunities and 

Experiences. The opportunity to have a

“river experience” is considered an important 

value of visitors and existing river 

recreational opportunities such as canoeing, 

fishing, and gigging would continue to be 

available. Most of the riverways would be 

zoned to protect resources while allowing for 
Visitor Use and Experience

353

exploration of additional river-related 

recreation opportunities. 

Under alternative C, gravel bar camping 

would continue to be allowed for those 

accessing gravel bars by motorized and 

nonmotorized watercraft, and by foot, as 

long as the location of the campsite is 0.5 mile 

away from any designated campground and 

at least 50 feet away from any designated 

river access. For some gravel bars that are 

accessed by vehicles, alternative C proposes 

designated gravel bar camping areas and/or 

campsites. 

Some number of gravel bars would continue 

to be accessible to vehicles. The number of 

gravel bars accessible to vehicles and 

associated designated camping areas and/or 

campsites would be identified in a 

subsequent planning process.

For some visitors, the quality of their 

camping experience would be enhanced by 

not having noise and pollution from vehicles

on all gravel bars. This would also reduce 

safety concerns from vehicles driving where 

people are camping and recreating. The 

removal of motor vehicles on some gravel 

bars would enhance the scenic and natural 

qualities of the Riverways camping 

experience. Designated camping areas and/or 

campsites on some gravel bars that are 

accessed by vehicles would help minimize 

crowding and conflict amongst gravel bar 

campers. These actions would combine to 

help reduce crowding, safety concerns, noise, 

and pollution and would result in long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts for visitors who 

prefer a quiet camping experience in more 

natural settings.

However, gravel bars are popular for many 

repeat visitors, and the location of the 

campsites along the shoreline is considered 

highly desirable due to great views and close 

proximity to the rivers. Proposed designated 

camping areas and/or campsites on some 

gravel bars that are accessed by vehicles 

would likely detract from visitors seeking 

these types of experiences on the gravel bars, 

especially for repeat visitors who enjoy 

staying at a particular site. Motorized vehicle 

access may be closed to some gravel bars. The 

combined actions of campsite and/or 

camping area designation, along with possible 

removal of motor vehicle access to certain 

gravel bars would result in long-term, 

moderate, adverse impacts to visitors who 

enjoy auto access to gravel bars and staying at 

particular sites. However, visitors who enjoy 

car camping and ease of access to the gravel 

bars would continue to benefit from the 

allowance of auto access to some gravel bars, 

resulting in long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts.

Horsepower limits on portions of the 

riverways would promote nonmotorized use 

in certain zoned areas of the riverways while 

allowing motorized recreation in other 

sections. Year-round nonmotorized areas on 

the Current River would run from the 

northern boundary to Akers, and from the 

northern boundary to round spring during 

peak season. Year-round nonmotorized 

zones on the Jacks Fork River would be from 

the western boundary to Rymers and from 

the western boundary to Bay Creek during 

peak season. Although restricting

horsepower use in certain areas may result in 

long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to 

motorboat users, many restricted areas would 

be sections of the river often inaccessible to 

motorized watercraft due to low water levels.

Under this alternative, motorboat users may 

feel limited by the enforcement of new 

nonmotorized zones, resulting in long-term, 

moderate, adverse impacts. However, under 

alternative C the National Park Service would 

pursue rule-making to change the existing 

regulation to allow 60/40 hp motors on 

certain portions of the Current and Jacks 

Fork Rivers. The pursuit of rulemaking to 

allow 60/40 hp motors under this alternative 

would have long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts to boaters who prize less restricted 

motor access.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

354

Land-based Recreational Opportunities 

and Experiences. Alternative C would 

provide resource-based recreation zones to 

promote land-based recreation. The focus of 

these management zones would be to 

encourage outstanding opportunities to enjoy 

natural resources while promoting 

convenient and easy access to developed, 

high-use, recreational, and interpretive areas.

During public scoping the public encouraged 

continued provision of diverse recreational 

opportunities.

Additional walking and hiking trails would be 

opened over time, at a lower level than those 

proposed under alternatives A and B. Under 

this alternative, 1,779 acres of the Big Spring

area would designated as wilderness, limiting 

opportunities for visitors to have a wilderness 

experience in the Riverways. This alternative 

would provide roughly half the natural and 

primitive areas as alternative A and B, but 

would still provide a small increase in these 

types of areas than currently available. A 

slight increase in access to natural and 

primitive areas would provide more

opportunities for visitors to enjoy the natural 

environment and areas of the Riverways

under low-density use conditions, resulting 

in long-term, minor, beneficial impacts to 

visitors who desire more natural recreational 

opportunities and experiences.

Horseback riding at the Riverways would 

continue to be a popular activity under 

alternative C. The closure of undesignated 

horse trails would be accompanied by the 

addition of designated horse trail mileage.

Approximately 45 miles of additional 

designated horse trails would be provided, 

including some new stream crossings. 

Approximately 65 miles of undesignated 

horse trails would be closed and restored. 

Under alternative C, a 25-campsite horse 

campground along the Jacks Fork may be 

established. A horse trail permit system might

be implemented to achieve desired social and 

natural conditions for this recreational 

activity.

The designated horse trail system would be

designed to withstand anticipated use levels 

and to discourage the proliferation of social 

trails. Management efforts would aim to 

decrease impacts of horses on sensitive areas, 

including streams and riparian areas, and also 

reduce trail damage, erosion, manure 

pollution, and conflicts with other users.

These trails would be well marked to improve 

visitor wayfinding. These improvements 

would provide a safer and higher-quality 

rider experience, while also reducing impacts 

from horses on natural resources and other 

trail users. Improvements to safety from 

better management of erosion and clearer 

trail delineation and signage, along with 

development of horse specific campsites,

would result in long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impacts for equestrian users. 

Reduction of trail degradation from horses 

and manure would improve trail experiences 

for other users, such as hikers, resulting in 

long-term, minor, beneficial impacts for these 

types of users.

Under this alternative mountain biking may

become a permissible form of recreation on 

designated trails. The use of mountain bikes 

at the Riverways would provide an additional 

opportunity for visitors seeking this type of 

recreational experience, resulting in longterm, minor, beneficial impacts for visitors 

who desire to mountain bike at the 

Riverways.

Under this alternative, two additional 

developed campgrounds would be provided: 

Upper Current River (Akers) and Upper 

Jacks Fork (Blue Spring). This greatly 

increases the supply of overnight developed 

camping opportunities, which is a highly 

sought after opportunity for visitors to the 

Riverways. The addition of two developed 

campgrounds would result in a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact for visitors.

Backcountry campsites would continue to be 

provided in designated areas throughout the 

Riverways and would require a fee. The total 

number of backcountry campsites might be 

increased, but backcountry sites would be
Visitor Use and Experience

355

removed from primitive zones. Backcountry

campsites would continue to have some basic 

amenities such as restrooms, tables, fire rings, 

and/or lantern posts. Primitive campsites 

would continue to be provided in primitive 

and natural zones and would not require a 

fee. The total number of primitive campsites 

may be increased, but roads to primitive 

campsites within primitive zones would be 

removed. Primitive campsites would 

continue to offer no amenities. The diversity 

of camping opportunities would continue to 

be popular overnight activities for visitors to 

the Riverways.

Under alternative C, guided cave tours at 

Round Spring would continue, unless 

resource impacts were identified. These tours 

would provide opportunities for visitors to 

continue to experience and learn about the 

sights, sounds, and natural processes of the 

Riverways unique karst features, such as 

caves, resulting in long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts to visitors.

Opportunities to Understand

the Significant Stories

Alternative C would continue to protect and 

preserve archeological resources, historic 

structures, and cultural landscapes. 

Opportunities would be expanded for visitors 

to access and experience historic structures 

and cultural landscapes throughout the 

National Riverways. Some additional historic 

structures would be restored and made 

available to the public as interpretive exhibits.

To accommodate more visitors, some historic 

structures and sites might require more 

intensive management actions to protect 

resource integrity. Furthermore, visitor 

services would be expanded to a 12-month

visitor season at some locations along the 

National Riverways. More interpretive staff 

would be added to accommodate higher 

levels of visitor use. Efforts to track cultural 

resource conditions would be emphasized so 

that unacceptable conditions do not occur.

It is likely that the emphasis in this alternative 

on providing more recreation opportunities 

would create a future need for additional 

education and orientation via nonpersonal 

services such as bulletin boards and wayside 

exhibits, trail signs, and Riverways brochures. 

The Riverways staff would assess the need for 

additional locations and types of information 

to support the desired conditions of 

increasing recreation opportunities for 

visitors. 

During scoping for this plan, the public 

expressed an interest in having more access 

and educational opportunities related to

historic and cultural resources. However, 

there are many cultural sites at the Riverways

that have limited or no visitor access or 

associated interpretive programs and 

materials, and these conditions would not 

change under alternative C. The park believes

major aspects of significant stories of the 

Riverways are not effectively communicated 

due to the lack of access and interpretation of 

these sites. Under this alternative, these 

concerns would not be addressed at these 

sites, resulting in continuation of long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts to visitors.

Visitor Safety

Information on how to safely navigate the 

riverways and interact with wildlife would 

continue to be available at visitor contact 

facilities, on-line, and through roving 

contacts with NPS staff. These services would 

continue at their current levels and would not 

be improved in this alternative.

In this alternative, the sizes of current visitor 

contact locations at some sites might be 

expanded based on demand. One or two 

additional visitor contact locations may be 

provided.

Under alternative C, three multioperational 

facilities would be constructed, one for each 

management district, to consolidate field and 

maintenance staff closer to the districts they 

manage. Additional law enforcement rangers 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

356

would also be added under this alternative in 

order to improve enforcement of visitor 

compliance with regulations. The 

consolidation of an increase in staff under 

alternative C would help address concerns 

regarding visitor safety at congested river 

access points and improve response times to 

reduce visitor conflicts on the rivers. 

However, due to the emphasis on providing 

more recreational opportunities under 

alternative C, there is potential for larger 

increases in visitation and recreational use 

than the Riverways currently experience.

Increased visitation could lead to more 

conflicts among visitors and more accidents. 

Despite a proposed modest increase in law 

enforcement personnel, it might become

more difficult for Riverways staff to maintain 

a safe atmosphere for visitors on certain 

sections of the river. Under this alternative,

visitor safety would continue to be a concern.

Under this alternative, the dispersal of use 

across the Riverways, limits on motorized use 

in certain zones, the consolidation of 

operational facilities, and addition of law 

enforcement staff would help mitigate some

crowding and safety concerns. However, 

when combined with the potential increase in 

visitor use, these management actions would 

provide long-term, minor, beneficial impacts 

for visitor safety in the Riverways.

Cumulative Impacts

Due to the noncontiguous nature of the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways boundaries 

and the towns of Eminence and Van Buren 

situated between Riverways segments, there 

is potential that development or actions in or 

around these towns could impact visitor 

experiences. Located roughly between Saint 

Louis, Missouri, to the north and Little Rock, 

Arkansas, to the south, changes in regional 

growth, regional development, and the 

potential for increased visitation are possible 

effects that could impact visitor experiences 

on the riverways.

Increased visitation and changes in recreation 

trends, such as the observed increase in 

tubing as a river-based recreation activity, 

may result in social conflicts among visitors. 

For example, if tubing use continues to grow, 

areas congested with tubers might frustrate 

motorboat users. If this were to occur, it may 

cause a slight increase in existing visitor use 

concerns such as crowding and conflicts at 

popular, high-use river access points. At this 

time, uncertainty prevents accurate 

descriptions of the associated impacts that 

may exist with alterations in recreation 

trends.

The effects of alternative C would account 

for a gradual increase in use over time with 

new implementation strategies developed to 

address this growing use. 

Conclusion

Alternative C would have long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts for those river users 

seeking more social experiences and a 

diversity of recreational opportunities. 

Visitors who desire less crowded 

environments and quiet would experience 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts from the emphasis on providing 

more recreation opportunities and access to 

the riverways. Increased river- and landbased recreational opportunities would 

provide more visitor experiences while 

impacting other traditional forms of 

recreation. Under this alternative, visitor 

safety would continue to be an issue. The 

enforcement of horsepower regulations and 

implementation of nonmotorized zones 

would have the greatest adverse impacts to 

repeat motorboat users under this alternative.

However, the pursuit of rulemaking to allow 

60/40 hp motors, along with other 

improvements to visitor experience and the 

variety of new opportunities would outweigh 

most of the negative impacts to these visitors. 

This alternative would have long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impacts as well as longterm, minor, beneficial impacts. Alternative 
Visitor Use and Experience

357

C, combined with the impacts of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would result in long-term, regional, 

minor, beneficial impacts on visitors. 

Alternative C would contribute substantially 

to these effects.
358

PARK OPERATIONS

INTRODUCTION

Information about park operations was 

compiled from various sources, including the 

park staff, National Park Service planners, 

and other knowledgeable individuals. 

Information was gathered about the National 

Riverways’ management structure to analyze 

how the alternatives affect park operations. 

The management structure of the National 

Riverways is described by division in chapter 

4 and includes staffing and budget data.

The analysis focuses on how NPS operations 

would vary based on the different 

management alternatives in chapter 2. Given 

the conceptual nature of the alternatives, the 

analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative. 

Professional judgment was used to reach 

reasonable conclusions as to the type, 

intensity, and duration of potential impacts. 

The effects of the alternatives on park 

operations are based on the following:

 changes in operational structure, 

including the operations budget and 

staffing

 changes in infrastructure, including 

visitor facilities

 changes in maintenance needs

 changes in park services and 

availability

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

Effects are classified as either adverse of 

beneficial.

 Adverse impacts would reduce the 

National Riverways’ ability to meet its 

purpose, preserve resources, and 

provide a safe park experience for 

visitors.

 Beneficial impacts would enhance 

the National Riverways’ ability to 

meet its purpose, preserve resources,

and provide a safe park experience for 

visitors.

Impact intensity thresholds for NPS 

operations are defined as follows:

 Negligible: There would be no

appreciable effect on park operational 

efficiency. The change would not be 

noticeable to the public or most staff.

 Minor: There would be a small 

change in operational efficiency that 

would not have an appreciable effect 

on park operations. The change 

would be noticeable to some staff, but 

probably not to the public.

 Moderate: The effects on operational 

efficiency would cause a notable

change to park operations. The 

change would be noticeable to staff 

and possibly to the public.

 Major: The effects on operational 

efficiency would result in substantial 

changes that are markedly different 

from existing operations. The change 

would be obvious to staff and the 

public.

 Duration

– Short term: Impacts would last 

for no more than two seasons or 

during the life of construction 

projects lasting longer than two 

seasons, but would not have 

permanent effects.

– Long term: Impacts would persist 

for more than two seasons, or 

may be permanent.

Given that NPS park operations are integrally 

linked across the National Riverways, all 

actions that affect operations are considered 

to be Riverways-wide. Actions that are local 

or that impact operations at the district level 

would affect the budget, staffing, and facility 

and maintenance considerations across the 
Park Operations

359

National Riverways. Therefore, no additional 

specificity about context is included in this 

analysis.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, the National 

Riverways would continue to strive to 

provide the current range of appropriate and 

allowable visitor activities and services while 

protecting park scenic, natural, and cultural 

resource conditions and values. This 

alternative is anchored to the National 

Riverways’ current funding and staffing, and 

does not assume specific, new actions other 

than currently approved and funded plans 

and activities, and a change to motorboat 

zones. Should additional funding become 

available, some management elements may be 

enhanced or broadened.

Under the no-action alternative, the National 

Riverways would continue to operate one 

year-round visitor contact in the lobby of 

park headquarters in Van Buren, Missouri,

five seasonal visitor contact stations at Big 

Spring, Alley, Round Spring, Pulltite, and 

Akers, and one offsite multiagency

information facility in Salem, Missouri. Due 

to an ongoing staffing shortfall, the need to 

maintain a large and dispersed set of contact 

stations would represent a long-term, minor, 

adverse impact on park operations.

National Riverways staff would continue to 

manage and patrol existing NPS roads while 

facing the challenge of attempting to close 

roads, traces, and access points that are not 

part of the NPS designated system. Due to the 

geographical nature of the park unit, staff 

must spend considerable time in transit

around the National Riverways to get to 

where attention is required. This extensive 

transit time would continue to represent a 

long-term, moderate, adverse impact to park 

operations. Closure of informal roads and 

access points would create a short-term,

minor, adverse impact from the labor 

required to close them, but a long-term,

minor, beneficial impact to park operations 

from decreased visitor traffic that requires 

monitoring and a reduced need for resource 

rehabilitation.

All sections of both rivers would continue to 

be open to nonmotorized watercraft yearround and existing horsepower limitations 

for motorboats would remain in effect. The 

National Riverways waterways would 

continue to be available for fishing and 

gigging activities, consistent with applicable 

restrictions of the park or state. 

High volumes of motorized and 

nonmotorized watercraft would continue to 

result in noise, crowding, and possible visitor 

conflicts during high-visitation periods.

Exacerbating the problem is the combination 

of concession and private (individual)

nonmotorized watercraft use, which make it 

difficult to achieve desired visitor use 

concentrations during peak periods. Park 

staff would continue to maintain a presence 

along the river to resolve conflict among river 

users, monitor the impacts to river resources, 

and work with the state to maintain healthy 

native game fish populations, resulting in a 

long-term, moderate, adverse impact to park 

operations.

Park staff would continue to maintain the 

designated hiking trail system, which is 49

miles in length. Recreational horse riding 

would continue in accordance with existing 

rules. Most peak-season riding would 

continue to be associated with commercial 

trail-ride facilities located adjacent to the 

National Riverways, with high traffic 

volumes. The absence of a permitting system 

makes the management of horse-use levels 

difficult. The impact to park operations 

would be long-term, minor, and adverse, as 

park staff would have to continue monitoring 

and maintenance of the trail network and 

designated horse use areas to contend with 

heavy and growing use.

The National Riverways would continue to 

offer a variety of camping experiences.

Vehicular access to designated sites on gravel 

bars for both day use and overnight camping 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

360

would be continued. Developed campgrounds with recreational vehicle hookups 

and backcountry and primitive campsites in 

designated areas throughout the National 

Riverways would be maintained. Park staff 

would need to provide monitoring and 

maintenance at all of these campsites, as well 

as fee collection for developed and 

backcountry campgrounds. With the current

staffing level, these efforts would impose a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact to park 

operations.

The National Riverways would continue to 

provide a wide range of interpretive and 

educational programs, covering public 

awareness of available recreation 

opportunities, interpretation of the natural 

and cultural resources in the National 

Riverways, and visitor safety. The National 

Riverways would also continue to provide 

guided tours at Round Spring. With current 

staffing levels, these programs would have a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact on park 

operations.

Park staff would continue intensive, existing 

natural resource management operations.

Priorities include rare species and water 

quality monitoring, research facilitation, and 

technical assistance to the management and 

operations divisions of the National 

Riverways. Park staff would continue to 

perform the following activities:

 Conduct inventories of natural 

resources in the National Riverways.

 Monitor the condition of key 

resources.

 Plan and implement species and 

habitat restoration.

 Provide advice to park management 

and operations divisions on National 

Riverways projects.

 Coordinate with multiagency working 

groups.

 Conduct and facilitate research 

activities in the National Riverways to 

increase park knowledge of species, 

habitats, and processes.

 Maintain a natural resource library 

and resource related databases.

Day to day operations include the following:

 water quality degradation from 

recreational use

 resource impact and undesignated 

trail proliferation from horse riding 

and illegal off-road vehicles

 invasive plant and animal species

 visitor-related disturbances to wildlife

 activities that occur outside the park 

unit boundary that impact Riverways’

resources, including water quality

These extensive efforts represents a longterm, minor to moderate, adverse impact to 

park operations due to the large amount of 

labor required and shortage of available staff.

There are 249 structures that are on the List 

of Classified Structures. Some structures are 

now restored and serve as interpretive 

exhibits while others are being adaptively 

used for other park operations. The cultural 

affiliation plan implementation would

continue, increasing areas managed as 

meadows and agricultural sites. The National 

Riverways would continue to maintain its 

historic cemeteries, manage its certified 

curatorial facility for park resource 

collections only, and monitor more than 400 

archeological sites.

The impact to park operations from 

maintenance and management of these 

facilities would be long-term, moderate, and

adverse, due to current staffing levels in the 

maintenance and cultural resources divisions.

However, adaptive reuse has the potential to 

offer a long-term benefit due to improved 

efficiency of the park staff resulting from 

facility improvements, as well as averted 

deferred maintenance the structures would 

have otherwise required.
Park Operations

361

The National Riverways would continue to 

be responsible for maintenance of 241 

buildings within the park unit, including 

some housing units. Park maintenance 

operations would continue to be managed 

out of the current maintenance facilities, 

many of which are old and may not meet 

current health and safety requirements. Both 

the maintenance requirements of the 

buildings in the National Riverways, as well 

as the safety and efficiency costs that result 

from operating out of substandard 

maintenance facilities, would result in longterm, moderate, adverse impacts to park 

operations.

The National Riverways would continue to 

share office space at the current Van Buren 

headquarters with other federal and state 

agencies, and continue to share visitor 

contact space at Salem, Missouri. A 

cooperating association would continue to 

operate bookstores at park visitor contact 

facilities such as the Van Buren headquarters, 

Round Spring, and Alley Mill contact 

facilities.

The National Riverways currently has few 

formal partnerships, and unlike many 

national park units, does not have a friends 

group. The purpose of the group would be to 

support National Riverways projects by 

helping to raise funds and organize events.

The lack of support from a friends group 

represents a long-term, minor, adverse 

impact to park operations from both a 

funding and staffing perspective.

Under the no-action alternative, the Big 

Spring tract, approximately 3,434 acres in 

size, would not be proposed for wilderness 

designation. This area would, however, be 

managed for primitive qualities. 

Developments that diminish those qualities 

would be discontinued or not allowed.

Management related to the primitive 

designation would require staff time and,

thus, have a long-term, minor, adverse impact 

on park operations.

Cumulative Impacts

Management of the Riverways requires 

awareness of external as well as internal 

impacts to park resources, including park 

operations. The National Riverways must 

maintain awareness of activities outside the 

park unit that could have a major impact on 

water quality, such as improper waste 

disposal, agriculture, and industrial activities.

There are also mining operations that take 

place near park unit boundaries, which,

combined with historic logging in the area,

have caused considerable streambank 

erosion. These factors result in a long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impact on park 

operations due to increased remediation 

needs, as well as monitoring and outreach 

efforts outside the National Riverways.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions would require increasing 

amount of staff time and operational funding 

just for the National Riverways to remain at 

its current operational level. With existing 

staff, it would be difficult for the National 

Riverways to accomplish many of its current 

management objectives, including closure of 

unauthorized traces and access points, 

sufficient patrolling and monitoring of 

recreational activities, and maintenance of 

historic buildings, resulting in a long-term,

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on park 

operations.

Conclusion

When the likely effects of implementing the 

already-approved actions contained in the 

no-action alternative are added to the effects 

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, there would be a long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse cumulative impact on park 

operations. The actions contained in this 

alternative would contribute a long-term,

minor to moderate, adverse impact to this 

cumulative impact.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

362

ALTERNATIVE A

Under alternative A, park management would 

focus on providing improved resource 

protection and visitor experiences, including 

opportunities for traditional, nonmechanized 

forms of recreation and visitor experiences 

that are quieter, less crowded, and slower 

paced. The additional funding, staff, and 

facilities provided by alternative A would 

result in a long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impact to park operations by addressing a 

variety of needs that have not been addressed 

due to budget shortfalls and inadequate 

staffing.

Compared to the no-action alternative, 

alternative A would manage by new zoning 

prescriptions that place greater emphasis on 

natural resource protection and restoration. 

Fifty-three miles of undesignated NPS roads

and traces, and numerous access points,

would be closed and restored to natural 

conditions. A comprehensive study of river 

access points would be prepared to 

document locations of undesignated access 

points and develop restoration strategies. 

Additional law enforcement staff would be 

hired to enforce compliance. Closure of these 

undesignated access points and improved 

patrolling would have a long-term, moderate,

beneficial impact on park operations due to 

reduced resource impact and burden on law 

enforcement staff.

The general management plan would update 

guidance from the river use management plan 

related to visitor use management and 

examine how nonmotorized watercraft affect 

visitors use. Concession floating dropoff and 

pickup locations would be redistributed to 

reduce peak-season crowding and user 

conflicts. Approximately 20 access points 

would be closed and restored, and the total 

number of access points would decrease. 

The river sections where motorized boat use 

is allowed would decrease and a rule change 

would be implemented to lower the allowable 

motor horsepower distribution in the 

National Riverways. Horsepower limits on 

specific river stretches are shown in table 4 

(see chapter 2).

These changes would have a long-term,

moderate, beneficial impact from reduced 

resource impact due to new rules restricting 

motorized boat use and fewer user conflicts 

requiring park staff intervention.

The revised park unit zoning of alternative A 

would increase the amount of hiking trails. 

An additional mile of trails that were 

accessible to people with disabilities would 

be provided, and mountain biking may be 

allowed in the National Riverways on 

designated trails to be determined. 

A recreational horse use and trail 

management plan would be prepared. 

Approximately 65 miles of undesignated 

horse trails would be closed and restored to 

natural conditions. The design of the current 

approximately 23-mile-long, designated 

horse trail system would be improved. 

Creation of social trails, impact on streams 

and riparian areas, conflicts with other users, 

and trail damage and pollution would all be 

reduced. 

As part of the improvements to the day use 

trail system, approximately 25 miles of horse 

trail could be added, in coordination with 

other land owners who maintain existing 

trails outside the National Riverways. A horse 

permitting system may be established to 

manage horse use levels and achieve desired 

visitor experience and resource conditions. 

The combined effects of riders adhering to an 

improved designated trail network and 

creation of a permitting system would reduce 

resource impacts and the need for 

subsequent rehabilitation for a long-term,

minor, beneficial impact on park operations.

Alternative A would eliminate vehicular 

access to all park unit gravel bars and would 

allow gravel bar camping only in designated 

campsites on gravel bars. The new 

management zoning system would reduce 

some backcountry and primitive campsites 
Park Operations

363

based on desired future conditions. 

Backcountry campsites would continue to be 

provided in designated areas, and would be 

removed from primitive zones. Primitive 

campsites would continue to be provided in 

primitive and natural zones, with no 

vehicular access. The result would be a longterm, minor, beneficial impact on park 

operations from reduced resource impact 

and subsequent need for rehabilitation.

Substantially more interpretive and 

educational programs would be offered. 

Possible concepts include living history 

programs, and ranger-guided multiday float 

trips. The availability of these interpretive 

programs would provide a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact, as they improve the ability 

to ensure that visitors enjoy the National 

Riverways responsibly and safely, and reduce 

resource impact and visitor safety issues 

requiring additional staff attention.

The National Riverways would manage 

resources to ensure desired conditions are 

met for the management zones. This 

alternative would provide additional 

geographic information system management 

and applied biological expertise. This would

allow substantial improvement of current 

programs, particularly in the areas of aquatic 

resource monitoring, managing the karst 

system, monitoring and protecting rare 

terrestrial plant and wildlife habitat, and 

restoring damaged and fragmented habitats.

The National Riverways would increase 

monitoring of land uses and activities that 

occur outside the boundary that impact 

National Riverways resources, including 

water quality. The National Riverways would 

work with outside entities to improve these 

conditions.

The proposed staff increase would allow the 

National Riverways to implement this more 

aggressive monitoring regime, which offers a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact to park 

operations by providing early warning of 

resource-related problems. 

Cedargrove low-water bridge would be 

replaced with a high-water bridge. This effort 

would require natural resources staff 

assistance with planning and compliance. 

Funding sources for this effort have not yet 

been determined. The Cedargrove bridge 

replacement represents a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact from offset 

deferred maintenance and improved safety.

The National Riverways would restore and 

make additional historic structures available 

to the public for interpretation. Additional 

cultural resource staff would ensure the 

cultural affiliation plan adheres to 

management zones, enable restoration of five 

additional cemeteries, and monitor and apply 

protective measures to the more than 400 

archeological sites in the park unit. 

Restoration of historic structures presents a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact to park 

operations due to a reduction in deferred 

maintenance.

Three multioperational facilities would be 

constructed, one for each management 

district, to remove maintenance operations 

from existing Civilian Conservation Corps 

structures and consolidate maintenance and 

field staff operations. Approximately ten 

obsolete structures would be removed and 

the sites restored. Approximately four new 

housing duplex units would be built to 

support additional need for seasonal or term 

staff. Undesignated roads and trails would be 

closed and sites restored. Adding new 

buildings to the park asset inventory offers a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact from a 

reduction of deferred maintenance, and a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact from 

staff operating out of a modern building, 

improvements in energy efficiency, and a 

reduction in staff travel time.

There are potential concession opportunities 

under this alternative for overnight river 

activities, such as guided floats trips and 

guided (hike-in) backcountry trips in the 

natural and primitive zones. New 

concessions would require a feasibility study.

Impacts on park operations would be 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

364

negligible because the new concessions 

would be handled under the NPS’ wellestablished concessions program.

A priority for the National Riverways would 

be to develop a friends group. This goal 

potentially has a moderate, long-term,

beneficial impact on park operations by 

offering a means to increase revenue available 

for National Riverways needs and reducing 

the burden on park staff to provide 

interpretive programs and other visitor 

services.

Under this alternative, 3,424 out of 3,434 

acres within the Big Spring Wilderness Study 

Area would be recommended for wilderness 

designation. Ten acres would be excluded as 

a small developed area and its narrow access 

corridor, sometimes called a cherry stem,

from the proposed wilderness designation to 

allow for continued administrative use of the 

access roads, barn, NPS training range, and 

utility corridor. Most of the wilderness study 

area would be zoned primitive with the 

exception of the cherry-stemmed areas, 

which would be zoned natural. Designation 

would represent a negligible, adverse impact 

to park operations.

Cumulative Impacts

The general management goals and external 

management factors are the same as in the 

no-action alternative. The effect of these 

factors on park operations is long-term, 

moderate, and adverse. 

The significant increase in staffing and 

budget proposed by this alternative would

have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact 

on park operations by reducing resource 

impacts through limits placed on recreational 

activities and increasing the ability to monitor 

and rehabilitate park resources.

When the likely effects of implementing 

alternative A are added to the impacts from 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, there would be a long-term,

adverse, minor cumulative impact to park 

operations. Alternative A would contribute a 

beneficial increment to this cumulative 

impact and would enable the National 

Riverways to better respond to external 

adverse threats than would the no-action 

alternative.

Conclusion

Alternative A would have a long-term,

moderate, beneficial impact on park 

operations, by providing the National 

Riverways with the increase in staffing and 

operating budget necessary to address the 

many management challenges in the park unit 

while also providing significantly better 

protection of park resources.

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED)

Under the preferred alternative, park 

management would focus on providing 

improved resource protection and visitor 

experiences, but would place more emphasis 

on recreation and access to sites throughout 

the National Riverways. The additional 

funding, staff, and facilities provided by 

alternative B would result in a long-term,

minor, beneficial impact to park operations

by addressing a variety of needs that have not 

been addressed due to budget shortfalls and 

inadequate staffing.

The preferred alternative would manage by 

zoning prescriptions that emphasize a 

balance between recreation and resource 

protection. Approximately 45 miles of 

undesignated NPS roads, traces, and access 

would be closed and restored to natural 

conditions, although some old access roads 

would be reopened to allow vehicular access 

to discovery sites. A comprehensive study of 

river access points would document locations 

of undesignated access points and develop 

restoration strategies. Additional law 

enforcement staff would be hired to enforce 

compliance. Closure of these undesignated 

access points and improved patrolling would 
Park Operations

365

have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact 

on park operations due to reduced resource 

impact and burden on law enforcement staff.

The general management plan would update 

guidance from the river use management plan 

related to visitor use management and 

examine how nonmotorized watercraft affect 

visitors use. Concession dropoff and pickup 

locations for river users using nonmotorized 

watercraft could be redistributed to reduce 

peak-season crowding effects or to protect 

river resources if changes in river flow 

conditions impact existing locations. About 

20 designated access points would be closed 

and restored and a similar number of new 

access points opened, keeping the number of 

total designated access points either the same 

or smaller.

The river sections where motorized boat use 

is permitted would decrease, and a proposed 

rule change would lower the allowable motor 

horsepower distribution in the National 

Riverways to the levels shown in table 4 (see 

chapter 2).

These changes would have a long-term,

moderate, beneficial impact from reduced 

resource impact and fewer user conflicts 

requiring park staff intervention.

The revised National Riverways zoning of the 

preferred alternative would increase the 

amount of hiking trails. As needed, additional 

trails would be developed to allow access to 

some discovery sites and may link to the 

Ozark Trail. Additional miles of trails that are 

accessible to people with disabilities would 

be provided, and mountain biking may be 

allowed in the National Riverways on 

designated trails to be determined.

Alternative B may result in some changes to 

recreational trail use and opportunities. 

These changes would be determined as part 

of a roads and trails management plan. As 

part of this plan, the National Park Service 

would clearly identify authorized trails and 

corresponding trail uses, options for 

redesigning or improving trails to reduce trail 

user impacts, and suitable locations for 

improved trail signage to more clearly 

delineate authorized trails and orient trail 

users. 

Approximately 45 to 65 miles of 

undesignated horse trails would be closed 

and restored to natural conditions, and the 

design of the approximately 23-miles of 

currently designated horse trails would be 

improved. Creation of social trails, impacts 

on streams and riparian areas, conflicts with 

other users, and trail damage and pollution 

would all be reduced. 

As part of the improvements to the day use 

horse trail system, approximately 25 to 45 

miles of horse trail could be added, as well as 

some new stream crossings, in coordination 

with other land owners who maintain 

existing trails outside the National Riverways. 

A horse permitting system may be established 

to manage horse use levels and achieve 

desired visitor experience and resource 

conditions.

The combined effects of riders adhering to an 

improved designated trail network and 

creation of a permitting system would reduce 

resource impacts and the need for 

subsequent rehabilitation for a long-term,

minor, beneficial impact on park operations.

Visitors utilizing motorized and nonmotorized watercraft could continue to camp 

on gravel bars, as long as the location of that 

campsite was 0.5 mile away from any 

designated camping area and at least 50 feet 

away from any designated river access. 

Designated campsites or camping areas may 

be established on some gravel bars that are 

accessed by licensed vehicles in order to 

reduce crowding, improve safety, and 

enhance visitor experience. On these gravel 

bars, all camping would be limited to the 

designated camping areas. 

The new management zoning system would 

provide development zoning at some day use

areas for potential future campground 

development needs, and reduce some 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

366

backcountry and primitive campsites based 

on desired future conditions. Backcountry 

campsites would continue to be provided in 

designated areas, and would be removed 

from primitive zones. Primitive campsites 

would continue to be provided in primitive 

and natural zones, with no vehicular access. 

Two new campgrounds would be installed at 

current day use areas. This limited access to 

and construction of fixed campsites would 

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial impact 

from reduced resource impact and 

subsequent need for rehabilitation.

The National Riverways would manage 

resources to ensure desired conditions are 

met for the management zones. This 

alternative would provide additional 

geographic information system management 

and applied biological expertise. This would 

allow substantial improvement of current 

programs, particularly in the areas of aquatic 

resource monitoring, spring protection, and 

restoration of damaged and fragmented 

habitats. Information transfer projects would 

improve management capabilities and ensure 

delivery of accurate information to the 

public. 

The National Riverways would increase 

monitoring of land uses and activities that 

occur outside the boundary that impact 

National Riverways resources, including 

water quality. The National Riverways would 

work with outside entities to improve 

conditions. 

The proposed staff increase would allow the 

National Riverways to implement this more 

intense, new monitoring regime, which offers 

a long-term, minor, beneficial impact to park 

operations by providing early warning of 

resource-related problems.

Cedargrove low-water bridge would be 

replaced with a high-water bridge, requiring 

natural resources staff assistance with 

planning and compliance. Funding sources

for this effort have not yet been determined. 

The Cedargrove bridge replacement 

represents a long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impact from offset deferred maintenance and 

improved safety.

The bridge construction at Akers would 

require natural resource staff assistance with 

planning and compliance. Funding sources 

for this effort have not yet been determined. 

Emergency access to this section of Shannon 

County would be improved. Operations and 

maintenance, including dredging for the ferry 

currently at this location, may no longer be 

required. Driver safety would be improved 

through elimination of the need for a vehicle 

ford. The bridge at Akers represents a longterm, moderate, beneficial impact to park 

operations.

The National Riverways would restore and 

make additional historic structures available 

to the public for interpretation. Additional 

cultural resource staff would ensure the 

cultural affiliation plan adheres to 

management zones, enable restoration of five 

additional cemeteries, and monitor and apply 

protective measures to the more than 400 

archeological sites in the park unit. 

Restoration of historic structures presents a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact to park 

operations due to a reduction in deferred 

maintenance.

The National Riverways would expand the 

current curatorial facility to provide 

additional storage space for smaller national 

park units in the region, and facilitate 

information transfer projects to enhance 

cultural resource management capabilities 

and deliver accurate information to the 

public. The proposed expansion represents a 

long term, negligible, adverse impact from 

staff time required to provide curatorial 

support to other regional park units.

One multioperational facility would be 

constructed to remove maintenance 

operations from existing Civilian 

Conservation Corps structures and 

consolidate maintenance and field staff 

operations. Ten obsolete structures would be 

removed and the sites restored. Two 

sustainable sanitary systems would be 
Park Operations

367

installed Akers and Pulltite to improve park 

water quality. Adding new buildings to the 

park asset inventory offers a long-term,

minor, beneficial impact from a reduction of 

deferred maintenance, provision of a modern 

building, and improvements in energy 

efficiency. The new sanitary systems would

provide a long-term, minor beneficial impact 

from improved water quality.

There are potential concession opportunities 

under this alternative to provide overnight 

activities such as guided floats trips, and 

guided (hike-in) backcountry trips in the 

natural and primitive zones. New 

campground development could require an 

additional camp store. New concessions 

would have a negligible impact on park 

operations because they would be handled 

under the NPS’ well-established concessions 

program.

A priority for the National Riverways would 

be to develop a friends group. This goal has a 

potential moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impact on park operations by offering a 

means to increase revenue available for 

National Riverways needs and reducing the 

burden on park staff to provide interpretive 

programs and other visitor services. 

Under this alternative, 3,430 out of 3,434 

acres within the Big Spring Wilderness Study 

Area would be recommended for wilderness 

designation. The entire Big Spring Wilderness 

Study Area would be zoned primitive. The 

fire tower, incinerator, barn, and Civilian 

Conservation Corps era camp would be 

retained. The NPS training range would be 

removed and the area restored. Motorized 

vehicle use of the access roads to the fire 

tower, NPS training range, and barn would 

be prohibited, which would prevent staff 

from reaching the fire tower by motor 

vehicle. The utility corridor would be 

administratively converted to wilderness 

once the cable fails or another utility route is 

designated outside the wilderness. Impaired 

fire tower access and general management 

activities related to this designation would 

require staff time and, thus, have a negligible, 

adverse impact on park operations.

Cumulative Impacts

The general management goals and external 

management factors are the same as in the 

no-action alternative. The effect of these 

factors on park operations is long-term, 

moderate, and adverse. The modest increase 

in staffing and budget proposed by this 

alternative would have a long term, minor, 

beneficial cumulative impact on park 

operations by reducing resource impacts 

through limits placed on recreational 

activities and increasing the ability to 

maintain and rehabilitate National Riverways

resources.

When the likely effects of implementing the 

preferred alternative are added to impacts 

from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, there would be a 

long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impact 

to park operations. The preferred alternative 

would contribute a minor, beneficial 

increment to this cumulative impact, and 

leave the National Riverways better able to 

respond to external adverse threats than 

would the no-action alternative, while still 

allowing abundant recreational 

opportunities.

Conclusion

The preferred alternative would have a longterm, minor, beneficial impact on park 

operations through an increased staffing and 

operations budget that would allow park staff 

to better address some of their management 

challenges, striking a balance between 

enhanced resource protection and providing 

a wide variety of recreational opportunities.

ALTERNATIVE C

Under alternative C, park management 

would focus on providing river recreational 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

368

opportunities and experiences similar to 

those in the no-action alternative, as well as 

more quality land-based recreational 

opportunities. The large increase in funding 

and staff provided by this alternative would 

represent a moderate, long term, beneficial 

impact to park operations.

Zoning prescriptions for alternative C place 

significantly more park unit area in the 

resource-based recreation and developed 

zones. Forty-three miles of undesignated 

NPS roads, traces, and access would be 

closed and restored to natural conditions. A 

comprehensive study of river access points 

would be needed to document locations of 

undesignated access points and develop 

restoration strategies. Additional law 

enforcement staff would be hired to enforce 

compliance. Closure of these undesignated 

access points and improved patrolling would 

have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact 

on park operations due to reduced resource 

impact and reduced burden on law 

enforcement staff.

The general management plan would update 

guidance from the river use management plan 

related to visitor use management and 

examine how nonmotorized watercraft affect 

visitors use. Concession floating dropoff and 

pickup locations would be redistributed to 

reduce peak-season crowding and user 

conflicts. About 20 designated access points 

would be closed and restored and a similar 

number of new access points would be 

opened, keeping the total number of 

designated access points either the same or 

smaller.

The river sections where motorized boat use 

is permitted would decrease compared with 

the no-action alternative. A rule change 

would lower the allowable motor 

horsepower distribution in the National 

Riverways to the levels shown in table 4 (see 

chapter 2) for river segments in the National 

Riverways.

These changes would have a long-term,

moderate, beneficial impact from reduced 

resource impact due to new rules restricting 

motorized boat use and fewer user conflicts 

requiring park staff intervention.

The number of hiking trails would be 

increased, consistent with the zoning 

emphasis on recreation throughout park unit 

lands. An additional mile of trails that were 

accessible to people with disabilities would 

be provided. Mountain biking may be 

allowed in the National Riverways on 

designated trails to be determined.

A recreational horse use and trail 

management plan would be prepared. 

Approximately 65 miles of undesignated 

horse trails would be closed and restored to 

natural conditions, and the design of the 

current, approximately 23-mile-long, 

designated horse trail system would be 

improved. Creation of social trails, impacts 

on streams and riparian areas, conflicts with 

other users, and trail damage and pollution 

would all be reduced. 

To better spread out horse use, a 25-campsite 

horse campground and approximately 45 

miles of horse trail and stream crossing sites 

would be established to allow for longerdistance riding supported by horse camping. 

Trail additions would be coordinated with 

other landowners who maintain existing 

trails outside the National Riverways. A horse 

permitting system might be established to 

manage horse-use levels and achieve desired 

visitor experience and resource conditions. 

The combined effects of riders adhering to an 

improved designated trail network and 

creation of a permitting system would reduce 

resource impacts and the need for 

subsequent rehabilitation for a long-term,

minor, beneficial impact on park operations.

Alternative C would maintain existing 

vehicular access to designated sites on gravel 

bars, but would require the use of designated 

campsites on gravel bars. Two new 

campgrounds would be installed at current 

day use areas. There could be an increase in 

backcountry and primitive campsites to 
Park Operations

369

support resource-based recreation activities. 

Backcountry campsites would continue to be 

provided in designated areas, and would be 

removed from primitive zones. Primitive 

campsites would continue to be provided in 

primitive and natural zones, with no 

vehicular access. Construction of fixed

campsites would result in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact from reduced resource 

impact and subsequent need for 

rehabilitation.

A number of new interpretive and 

educational programs would be offered, with 

a focus on developing the outdoor recreation

skills of visitors. An Ozark Highlands 

Folkways Institute would be established and 

a living history farm would be developed. The 

availability of these interpretive programs 

would have a long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact, as they offer the chance to ensure 

that visitors enjoy the National Riverways

responsibly and safely, reducing resource 

impact and safety issues requiring staff 

attention.

The National Riverways would manage 

resources to ensure that desired conditions 

are met for the management zones. This 

alternative would provide additional 

geographic information system management 

and applied biological expertise. This would

allow substantial improvement of current 

programs, particularly in the areas of aquatic 

resource monitoring, karst system 

management, intensified efforts to monitor 

and protect rare terrestrial plants and wildlife 

habitat, and restoration of damaged and 

fragmented habitats.

The National Riverways would increase 

monitoring of land uses and activities that 

occur outside the boundary that impact 

National Riverways resources, including 

water quality. The National Riverways would 

work with outside entities to improve 

conditions.

The large staff increase would allow the 

National Riverways to implement this more 

aggressive monitoring regime, which offers a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact to 

park operations by providing early warning 

of resource-related problems. This capability 

is especially important given the higher levels 

of visitor use and distribution envisioned in 

alternative C. 

Cedargrove low-water bridge would be 

replaced with a high-water bridge, requiring 

staff assistance with planning and 

compliance. Funding sources for this effort 

have not yet been determined. The 

Cedargrove bridge replacement represents a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impact from 

offset deferred maintenance and improved 

safety.

The National Riverways would restore and 

make additional historic structures available 

to the public for interpretation. Additional 

cultural resource staff would ensure the 

cultural affiliation plan adheres to 

management zones, enable restoration of five 

additional cemeteries, and monitor and apply 

protective measures to the more than 400 

archeological sites in the park unit. 

Restoration of historic structures presents a 

long-term, minor, beneficial impact to park 

operations due to a reduction in deferred 

maintenance.

Three multioperational facilities would be 

constructed, one for each management 

district, to remove maintenance operations 

from existing Civilian Conservation Corps 

structures and consolidate maintenance and 

field staff operations. Approximately ten 

obsolete structures that are both part of the 

National Riverways’ deferred maintenance 

backlog and a health and safety concern 

would be removed and the sites restored. 

Four new housing duplex units would be 

built to support the additional need for 

seasonal or term staff. The initial demolition 

and construction costs would be covered by 

project funds. Adding new buildings to the 

park asset inventory offers a long-term, 

minor, beneficial impact from a reduction of 

deferred maintenance, and a long-term, 

negligible, beneficial impact from staff 

operating out of a modern building, 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

370

improvements in energy efficiency, and a 

reduction in staff travel time.

There are potential new concession 

opportunities under this alternative to 

provide shuttle services for nonmotorized 

watercraft users, overnight river activities 

such as guided floats trips, and guided (hikein) backcountry trips in the natural and 

primitive zones. New campground 

development could require an additional 

camp store. New concessions would have a 

negligible impact on park operations because 

they would be handled under the NPS’ wellestablished concessions program.

A priority for the National Riverways would 

be to develop a friends group. This goal has a 

potential moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impact on park operations by offering a 

means to increase revenue available for 

National Riverways needs and reducing the 

burden on park staff to provide interpretive 

programs and other visitor services.

Under this alternative, 1,779 acres of the Big 

Spring Wilderness Study Area, located south 

of Chilton Creek, would be recommended 

for wilderness designation. The area 

recommended for wilderness designation 

would be zoned primitive, and the remaining 

area would be zoned natural. The fire tower, 

incinerator, barn, NPS training range, and 

Civilian Conservation Corps-era camp would 

be outside the wilderness study area and 

would be retained. The fire tower, barn, NPS 

training range, and connecting roads would 

continue to be used for administrative 

purposes. The buried utility communication 

cable that serves the Big Spring cabins and 

residents located further down the line would 

be maintained.

Cumulative Impacts

The general management goals and external 

management factors are the same as in the 

no-action alternative. The effect of these 

factors on park operations is long-term, 

moderate, and adverse. The large increase in 

staffing and budget proposed by this 

alternative would have a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact on park 

operations by reducing resource impacts 

through some limits placed on recreational 

activities and substantially increasing the 

ability to monitor and rehabilitate park 

resources.

When the likely effects of implementing 

alternative C are added to the impacts from 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, there would be a long-term,

minor, adverse cumulative impact to park 

operations. Alternative C would contribute a 

moderate, beneficial increment to this 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion

Alternative C would have a long-term, 

moderate beneficial impact on park 

operations through an increased staffing and

operations budget that would allow park staff 

to better address their many management 

challenges while also providing significantly 

more recreational opportunities than the 

other alternatives.
371

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION

The analysis of impacts to the socioeconomic 

environment from this Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways Final General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement is based on research and the 

professional judgment of planners who have 

experience with similar projects. In terms of 

geographic scope, the impact analyses in this 

section primarily focus on the socioeconomic 

conditions of the local communities 

(primarily Eminence and Van Buren), and the 

two adjacent counties (Carter and Shannon 

counties) because this is where most impacts 

would be most noticeable.

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

The following definitions were used to assess 

the intensity of both adverse and beneficial 

impacts on socioeconomics. In the 

development of these definitions, it was 

assumed that beneficial impacts are those that 

most individuals or groups would recognize 

as increasing economic activity, either in 

general or for a specific group of people, 

businesses, organizations, or institutions.

Adverse impacts are those that most 

individuals or groups would recognize as 

diminishing economic welfare, either in 

general or for a specific group of people, 

businesses, organizations, or institutions.

Examples of adverse effects include a 

decrease in annual revenue at local business 

establishments, fewer job opportunities, and 

increases in costs of living without matching 

increases in income. The impact intensities 

for socioeconomic environment are as 

follows:

 Negligible: Very few individuals, 

businesses, or government entities 

would be impacted. Impacts would be 

barely detectable, or detectable only 

through indirect means and with no 

discernible impact on regional 

economic conditions.

 Minor: A few individuals, businesses, 

or government entities would be 

impacted. Impacts would be small but 

detectable, limited to a small 

geographic area, comparable in scale 

to typical year-to-year or seasonal 

variations, and not expected to 

substantively alter economic 

conditions. 

 Moderate: Many individuals, 

businesses, or government entities 

would be impacted. Effects would be 

readily apparent and detectable across 

a wider geographic area.

 Major: A large number of individuals, 

businesses, or government entities 

would be impacted. Effects would be 

readily detectable and observed, 

extend across much of the study area.

 Duration 

– Short term: The impact would be 

temporary in nature, lasting less 

than one year, such as the impacts 

associated with construction.

– Long term: The impact would last 

more than one year and could be 

permanent. Although an impact 

may occur only for a short 

duration at one time, if it occurs 

regularly over a longer period, the 

impact may be a long-term 

impact. 

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, the National 

Riverways would continue to provide the 

current range of appropriate and allowable 

visitor activities and services while protecting 

park scenic, natural, and cultural resource 

conditions and values. Management zoning 

in accordance with current NPS policy would 

not be applied. 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

372

This alternative would continue the existing 

policy of allowing motorboat use year-round,

with seasonal restrictions in certain portions 

of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. The 

motorboat horsepower limits that would be 

applied in this alternative, by river segment, 

are shown in table 4 (see chapter 2). As a 

result, socioeconomic impacts related to 

motorboat use would be negligible.

Under alternative A, the National Park 

Service would continue to allow boats to use 

60/40 hp motors on certain portions of the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. Motors with 

propeller units cannot exceed a maximum of 

40 hp. For jet units, a manufacturer-rated 60 

hp motor cannot exceed 40 hp at the jet 

output. Changes in motorboat usage are not 

expected to be significant with the continued 

allowance of 60/40 hp motors on certain 

portions of the Current and Jacks Fork 

Rivers.

Currently, 23 commercial services 

contractors provide services to visitors. The 

National Riverways would continue to 

require concessioners to limit nonmotorized 

watercraft rentals during busy periods to 

adhere to the 1989 river management plan.

Crowded conditions with a mix of different 

types of users would continue, especially on 

weekends during late spring and summer. 

Management of visitors is designed to not 

impact commercial services. However, some 

visitors may choose not to visit the National 

Riverways during certain crowded times. A 

reduction in visitor use would cause a longterm, minor, adverse economic impact to 

concessioners and other businesses in the 

area that provide visitor services.

Most floating activities are conducted 

through concessioner services. However, 

more visitors are bringing their own 

watercraft and floating on the riverways

without concessioners. Under the no-action 

alternative, the National Riverways would 

continue to not regulate private visitors. 

The National Riverways would continue to 

provide horseback riding opportunities on 

the current trail system to large numbers of 

nonlocal visitors as well as local, year-round 

horseback users. It is expected that the 

number of individuals who travel to the area 

for horse riding events and activities would 

not change from current conditions. 

The current practice of prohibiting mountain 

biking would continue on park unit trails. 

It is likely that nonlocal visitation would 

remain at current or slightly reduced levels, 

due to crowded conditions, under the noaction alternative. Nonlocal visitor spending 

is an important contributor to the economy 

in Carter and Shannon counties and would 

continue to have long-term, moderate, 

beneficial socioeconomic effects on local 

communities.

Under the no-action alternative, the Big 

Spring tract would no longer be proposed for 

wilderness designation. The National Park 

Service would continue to maintain the area’s 

natural, primitive character and its wilderness 

eligibility. The existing structures, roads, and 

utilities would continue to be used for 

administrative purposes. Maintaining current 

conditions at this tract would have negligible 

impacts on the socioeconomic environment. 

Visitation to the National Riverways would 

continue to play an important role in the 

fiscal conditions of local governments under 

the no-action alternative. As summarized in 

chapter 4, sales tax revenues from visitor 

spending are important to the local 

governments within the study area. The 

Riverways would continue to attract large 

numbers of visitors to the area, which would 

have a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact 

on local governments.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and future actions could affect 

the socioeconomic resources in the region.

Because the economic health of the area 
Socioeconomic Environment

373

depends on tourism, the trends and actions, 

beneficial and adverse, discussed in “Visitor 

Use and Experience” would have an impact 

on the economy of the study area.

In the future, a number of initiatives would 

likely affect visitation and the local economy. 

Future actions that result in an increase in 

visitation to the Riverways should also have 

positive impacts on the local economy, while 

actions that decrease visitation could have 

negative impacts. These initiatives include the 

following:

 The Missouri Department of 

Conservation is developing a plan to 

reintroduce elk in an area near the 

National Riverways. The plan calls for 

releasing up to 150 elk into a 346-

square-mile “restoration zone” in and 

around the Peck Ranch Conservation 

Area in Shannon, Carter, and 

Reynolds counties (Missouri 

Department of Conservation 2011).

 Efforts are under way to complete the 

Old Tram Road Trail, which would 

run from Van Buren to Chilton. 

Several miles of the trail would be 

located within Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. If completed, the trail 

would become part of the larger 

Ozark Trial.

 The Town of Van Buren is developing 

an economic development plan for 

the city that, in part, would focus on 

increasing tourism in and around the 

city.

 Cross Country Trail Rides, Eminence 

Missouri has horse trailing riding 

events that take place near the 

Riverways. Week-long events can 

attract between 2,000 and 2,500 riders 

and would be scheduled 

approximately six times per year, 

from May through October.

It is expected that these projects and 

activities, in combination with visitation to 

the Riverways, would have a moderate,

beneficial impact on the local economy. 

Development by others of additional visitor 

attractions or activities could increase the 

number of visitors to the area during off-peak 

seasons, encourage individuals to extend 

their stays, or attract a different type of visitor 

to the area. For instance, local businesses are 

currently planning to increase their services 

to visitors who are interested in wildlife 

viewing opportunities associated with the elk 

reintroduction at Peck Ranch Wildlife 

Management Area. 

Current and future national economic 

conditions would affect the local economy as 

they affect the entire United States. For 

example, tourism is sensitive to the cost of 

fuel, and changes in gasoline prices can have 

varying effects in communities near the 

Riverways. Because many National 

Riverways visitors live within a reasonable

driving distance, the number of day visitors 

increased during the most recent economic 

downturn. This may indicate that visitors are 

choosing to take vacations closer to their 

home rather than taking longer, more costly 

trips. However, some concessioners have 

observed that visitors who normally visit the 

National Riverways for a several-day trip are 

shortening their stays. In general, adverse 

economic factors in Missouri or across the 

nation are expected to have minor, adverse 

impacts on the study area.

In the long-term, cumulative impacts from all 

other actions affecting the regional economy 

would be moderate and beneficial, based on 

economic growth and plans to improve 

visitor activities in the future. However, 

continued economic stagnation at the 

national level could cause long-term, minor,

adverse impacts.

The effects of the no-action alternative would 

account for moderate increment of the longterm, moderate, beneficial cumulative effect 

on the social and economic conditions in the 

study area.
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

374

Conclusions

Visitation to the Riverways under the noaction alternative would continue to have 

long-term, moderate, beneficial effects on the 

local economy by supporting tourism and 

local spending. The National Riverways

would continue to play an important role in 

the fiscal conditions of local governments 

through sales tax generation. Cumulative 

impacts from all other actions affecting the 

local economy and the no-action alternative 

are expected to be long-term, moderate, and 

beneficial, with the no-action alternative 

accounting for a moderate increment. 

ALTERNATIVE A

Under alternative A, park management would 

emphasize greater opportunities for 

traditional, nonmechanized forms of 

recreation and visitor experiences that are 

quieter and slower paced. River recreation 

would be modified to redistribute current 

peak-season visitor crowding conditions. 

Under alternative A, a high percentage of 

National Riverways lands would be zoned as 

primitive (26.8%). Fifty-one percent of river

mileage would be in a nonmotorized zone, 

and 36% would be a mixed-use zone where 

motorboating and floating would be allowed 

year-round. 

The National Park Service would enforce the 

existing regulation that prohibits the use of 

motors that are rated higher than 40 hp by 

the manufacturer on certain portions of the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. Enforcement 

of this regulation would prohibit 60/40 hp

motors. Other motorboat use and 

horsepower limits that would apply, by river 

segment, are shown in chapter 2, table 4.

The motorized boating restrictions would 

prevent some individuals from using certain 

types of boats, especially during busy times of 

the year. This would likely affect a larger 

proportion of local residents that visit the 

Riverways because of its convenient location 

near home. Local businesses may experience 

a drop in sales due to a decline in individuals 

visiting the Riverways for motorized boat 

recreation. 

Users of the restricted motors could continue 

to visit regions just south of the park unit, so 

the long-term, adverse impact on local 

economies associated with boater visitor 

spending would be minor. However, local 

businesses that sell and/or manufacture boats 

may experience a shift in their market, which 

may have long-term, moderate, adverse 

effects on these businesses. To the extent that 

these manufacturers and dealerships can 

adjust to the shifting market, these adverse 

impacts would be short-term.

This alternative would emphasize traditional 

nonmechanized forms of recreation and 

visitor experiences, activities offered are 

expected to be quieter, less crowded, and 

slower paced. This includes additional 

opportunities for living history programs and 

ranger-led interpretive hikes, walks, and 

educational programs. This could have a 

long-term, minor, beneficial economic 

impact on local businesses that support 

visitors interested in pursuing these activities 

in the National Riverways. In addition, some 

visitors might extend their stays to enjoy 

these activities. Extended visits would have 

beneficial economic effects.

Commercial services may be limited or 

modified along different portions of the 

National Riverways to achieve desired visitor 

experiences and resource conditions. The 

National Riverways would redistribute 

concession dropoff and pickup locations for 

nonmotorized watercraft users to reduce 

peak-season crowding. Concession contracts 

and operating plans may be modified to 

better distribute and manage the numbers of 

nonmotorized watercraft by altering the 

patterns of use along the riverways to reduce 

congestion and conflicts. Access points 

would be closed and/or rehabilitated. This 

action would reduce the total number of 

access points available to concessioners and 

other visitors. As a result of this change, some 
Socioeconomic Environment

375

visitors may choose not to visit the National 

Riverways during certain times. 

Concession contracts may be impacted with a 

reduction in some recreational uses, but may 

realize increases in other service demands, 

such as ecotourism guided trips. Operators 

may also realize increased costs of moving 

operations or longer travel times, due to 

fewer access points and difficulties traveling 

in the National Riverways. Long-term, minor,

adverse economic impacts on commercial 

services and local businesses would result 

from the potential decrease in visitation or 

change to less lucrative services. Alternative A 

could have a long-term, moderate, adverse 

impact on visitor spending within local 

economy.

Vehicle camping on gravel bars close to the 

river would be eliminated. Individuals would 

still be able to camp on gravel bars, but would 

be restricted to designated campsites

accessible by boat or walk-in only. This

change may lead to a decline in visitation,

which could have long-term, minor, adverse 

economic impacts on commercial services 

and businesses that support these visitors. 

More opportunities for traditional tent 

camping and backcountry camping would be 

offered in designated areas. These changes 

may lead to an increase in visitation for those 

seeking this experience, which could have a 

positive impact on commercial services and 

businesses that support these visitors. More 

hiking trails would be provided, and 

mountain biking may become an allowable 

trail use only on designated trails. Mountain 

biking would not be allowed in primitive 

zones. Increased visitation and visitor 

spending associated with expanded or new 

activities would have long-term, minor,

beneficial impacts on the local economies.

The number of designated trails for 

horseback riding could increase under 

alternative A by approximately 25 miles as the 

National Riverways redesigns the current 

designated horse trail system to improve trail 

quality, reduce erosion and land disturbance, 

and keep riders on designated trails. The 

National Riverways would close 

approximately 65 miles of undesignated 

horse trails and some access points and river 

crossings used by horse riders. In addition, 

the National Riverways may implement a 

permit system for visitors using the park unit

for horse rides. These changes may deter 

some horseback riders from visiting the 

National Riverways to use the designated 

trails. However, the intensity of the longterm, adverse effect would be minor because 

many individuals travel to the area for horse 

riding events and activities, and other 

facilities and trails outside the Riverways

would still be available.

Under this alternative, 3,424 acres of the 

3,434-acre Big Spring Wilderness Study Area 

would be recommended for wilderness 

designation and zoned as primitive. The fire

tower, barn, NPS training range, and CCCera camp would be retained. The barn and 

NPS training range would be excluded from 

the recommended wilderness designation 

and would continue to be maintained for

administrative use. Motorized access to the 

fire tower would be prohibited. The utility 

communication cable would be excluded 

from the proposed wilderness designation 

and maintained. The wilderness designation 

of the Big Spring track is expected to have 

minor, adverse, socioeconomic impacts to 

those that currently use or access the site for 

administrative functions.

A long-term, moderate, adverse impact on 

visitor spending under this alternative could 

lead to a long-term, moderate, adverse fiscal 

impact on local government entities. A 

reduction in visitor spending associated with 

visits to the National Riverways is likely to 

cause a reduction in sales tax revenues to 

local governments, which are highly 

dependent on this form of revenue.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

376

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial socioeconomic 

impacts. 

While some of the management actions 

under alternative A may cause a decrease in 

visitation to the National Riverways for some 

activities, visitation could increase for other 

types of activities both inside and outside the 

National Riverways. Thus, effects of 

alternative A would account for a minor 

increment of the long-term, moderate,

beneficial, cumulative effect on the social and 

economic conditions in the study area.

Conclusions

Visitation to the Riverways under the 

alternative A is expected to decline for some 

activities but increase for others. The change 

in visitation would lead to a long-term, 

moderate adverse economic effect on the 

local economy with changes in tourism and 

local spending. In addition, a decline in 

visitation would result in a long-term,

moderate, adverse fiscal impact to local 

governments under alternative A.

It is likely that the enforcement of the 

horsepower regulations would result in 

reduced motorboat use on relevant river 

sections. Regulation of horsepower limits is 

likely to have a long-term, minor, adverse 

impact on the local economy. These impacts 

would occur with a reduction in visitor 

spending from less motorboat use and 

impacts to local boat manufacturers who may 

have to reduce their manufacturing and sales 

of higher-horsepower boats, retargeting to 

their local market. 

The wilderness designation of the Big Spring

track is expected to have minor, adverse 

socioeconomic impacts to those that 

currently use or access the site for 

administrative functions. 

The effects of alternative A would account 

for small increment of the overall cumulative 

effects of all past, present, and future projects 

affecting socioeconomic conditions in the 

study area. However, continued economic 

stagnation at the national and regional level 

could dampen these beneficial effects in the 

short term.

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED)

Under alternative B, the National Riverways

would provide a high level of natural and 

cultural resource protection, while 

expanding ways for visitors to experience and 

learn about these resources. Similar to 

alternative A, most of the Riverways’

resources would be managed for lower levels 

of visitors, with limited habitat fragmentation 

from roads, trails, and facilities. Under 

alternative B, 16.4%of the lands would be 

managed as primitive and 72% would be 

managed as natural. The seasonal mixed-use

zone would be applied to 36% of the riverbased mileage, and 64% would be a mixeduse zone with motorboating and floating 

available year-round. Motorboat use and 

horsepower limits that would apply, by river 

segment, are shown in chapter 2, table 4.

Under this alternative, the National Park 

Service would pursue rule-making to change 

the existing regulation to allow 60/40 hp

motors on certain portions of the Current 

and Jacks Fork Rivers. The use of 60/40 

motors on boats would be allowed in 

designated areas currently popular with 

motorized boat users. It is anticipated that 

motorized boating would not change 

significantly and would continue to support 

local businesses that sell and/or manufacture 

boats used specifically in the National 

Riverways. Rule making would also be 

pursued to establish a 150 hp limit from Big 

Spring to the southern boundary of the park. 

Boats with 150 hp motors would still be 

allowed from Big Spring to the southern 

boundary of the Riverways. 
Socioeconomic Environment

377

Under alternative B, the emphasis would be 

on a mix of recreational activities. 

Concession dropoff and pickup locations for 

river users using nonmotorized watercraft 

could be redistributed to reduce peak-season 

crowding effects or to protect river resources 

if changes in river flow conditions impact 

existing locations. The total number of access 

points available to concessioners and other 

visitors would remain constant. 

Commercial services may be modified along 

different portions of the National Riverways

to achieve desired visitor experiences and 

resource conditions, such as nonmotorized 

zones, noncommercial zones, ecotourism 

guided trips, and limitations and 

redistribution of tubes and watercraft. In 

order to remain consistent with existing and 

future plans, concession contracts and 

operating plans may be modified to better 

distribute and manage the numbers of 

nonmotorized watercraft by altering the 

patterns of use along the riverways to reduce 

congestion and conflicts. Commercial 

activities could promote nature-based 

educational activities. Concession contracts

may be impacted with a reduction in some 

recreational uses, but may realize increases in 

other service demands, such as ecotourism 

guided trips. Operators may also realize 

increased costs of moving operations or 

longer travel times with the closing of access 

points and the difficulties of traveling in the 

National Riverways. 

The National Riverways may reduce

vehicular access to some designated sites on 

gravel bars and require campers to camp at 

designated campsites. This may result in a 

slight decrease in vehicle camping, which 

may have a long-term, negligible, adverse 

impact on local economies.

Two developed campgrounds would be 

provided at Akers and Blue Spring. 

Additionally, more hiking trails would be 

provided, and mountain biking may become 

an allowable trail use only on designated 

trails. Mountain biking would not be allowed 

in primitive zones. Increased visitation and 

visitor spending associated with expanded or 

new activities would have long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts on local economies. The 

number of designated trails for horseback 

riding may increase under alternative B by 

approximately 25 to 45 miles and include 

some new stream crossings. The design of the 

existing network of horse trails would be 

improved as part of a roads and trails 

management plan. As part of this plan, the 

National Park Service would clearly identify 

authorized trails and corresponding trail 

uses, options for redesigning or improving 

trails to reduce trail user impacts, and suitable 

locations for improved trail signage to more 

clearly delineate authorized trails and orient 

trail users. 

The National Riverways would actively work 

to close and restore approximately 45 to 65 

miles of undesignated horse trails as well as 

some access points and river crossings used 

by horse riders. In addition, the National 

Riverways may implement a permit system 

for visitors using the park unit for horse rides. 

In addition, an approximate 25-campsite 

horse campground may be established. These 

actions would have long-term, negligible,

adverse effects on local businesses and the 

economy.

Increased access to cultural sites and 

improved interpretation of cultural sites 

would occur under this alternative, creating 

business opportunities to commercial 

operators and businesses that support these 

visitors. Visitors may extend their stay in the 

area with additional opportunities to visit 

cultural and historic sites. This could have 

long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts to 

businesses and the local economy.

It is anticipated that visitor use patterns could 

shift slightly and the composition of park unit 

visitation could change with the preferred 

alternative. The actual effects of the preferred 

alternative on visitation and the overall 

regional economy are uncertain, with minor 

positive and negative effects. The National 

Riverways is expected to remain a major 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

378

attraction for visitors and a significant 

contributor of economic activity in the area.

Under the alternative B, 3,430 acres out of the 

3,434 acres of the Big Spring Wilderness 

Study Area would be recommended for 

wilderness designation. The entire Big Spring 

Wilderness Study Area would be zoned 

primitive. The fire tower, barn, and Civilian 

Conservation Corps-era camp would be 

retained. The NPS training range would be 

removed and the area restored. 

Administrative vehicle access of roads in this 

area would be prohibited. The buried utility 

cable that serves the Big Spring cabins and 

residents located further down the line would 

be proposed as potential wilderness and 

would remain in use until it fails, or until 

another utility route outside of wilderness is 

designated. Once the nonconforming use of 

the cable is extinguished, the utility corridor 

would be administratively converted to 

wilderness. The National Park Service’s

decision to recommend the Big Spring area 

for wilderness designation is expected to 

have minor adverse socioeconomic impacts 

with the loss in the NPS training range and to 

those that currently use or access the site for 

administrative functions.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial socioeconomic 

impacts. 

While some of the management actions 

under alternative B may lead to a minor 

decrease in visitation to the Riverways for 

some activities, the decline in visitation may 

likely be overshadowed by increases in 

visitation for other types of activities both 

inside and outside the National Riverways.

Thus, effects of alternative B would account 

for minor increment of the overall, longterm, moderate, beneficial, cumulative effect 

on the social and economic conditions in the 

study area.

Conclusions

Visitor use patterns could shift slightly and 

the composition of park unit visitation could 

change with the preferred alternative. The 

actual effects of the preferred alternative on 

visitation and the overall regional economy 

are uncertain, with minor positive and 

negative effects. The National Riverways is 

expected to remain a major attraction for 

visitors and a significant contributor of 

economic activity in the area. Any slight 

changes in visitation patterns would lead to 

long-term negligible to minor beneficial and

adverse economic effects on the local 

economy with changes in tourism and local 

spending.

The effects of alternative B would account for 

a small increment of the cumulative, longterm, moderate, beneficial effects of all past, 

present, and future projects affecting 

socioeconomic conditions in the area. 

ALTERNATIVE C

Under alternative C, park management 

would provide the diversity of river 

recreational opportunities and experiences 

similar to those provided under the no-action 

alternative. The National Riverways would 

enhance the interpretive program with more 

opportunities for visitors to learn about 

traditional lifestyles and natural history of the 

area. 

Under alternative C, 6.5% of the lands would 

be managed as primitive and 28.2% would be 

managed as natural. Additionally, 21% of the 

river-based recreation would be in a 

nonmotorized zone, while 59%would be a 

mixed-use zone with motorboating and 

floating available year-round.
Socioeconomic Environment

379

Motorboat use and horsepower limits that 

would apply, by river segment, are shown in 

chapter 2, table 4.

Similar to the preferred alternative, the 

National Park Service would pursue rulemaking to change the existing regulation to 

allow 60/40 hp motors from Van Buren south 

to the park unit boundary. With the ability to 

access the riverways using boats with a 60/40 

hp, the adverse impacts on local and nonlocal 

visitors and local businesses would likely be 

short term and minor.

Emphasis under this alternative would be to 

provide a diverse range of recreational 

activities. This alternative may result in more 

nonmotorized river users (such as those using 

canoes, tubes, and kayaks) visiting the 

National Riverways due to fewer reductions 

in the number of access points and facilities. 

This may lead to an increase in traditional 

services provided by commercial outfitters 

and an increase in sales to local businesses. 

Since a larger percentage of nonmotorized 

river users are from outside the area, there 

would be long-term, minor, beneficial 

economic impacts to local economies.

Commercial services may also increase under 

alternative C with the increase in the number 

of visitors coming to the area for 

nonmotorized recreation. Commercial 

operators would benefit from increases in 

visitation for current nonmotorized river 

uses, but there could be fewer visitations

associated with services for other types of 

recreation, such as ecotourism guided trips. 

Concession contracts and operating plans 

may be modified to better distribute and 

manage the numbers of nonmotorized 

watercraft by altering the patterns of use 

along the riverways to reduce congestion and 

conflicts. There would likely be long-term,

minor, beneficial impacts associated with 

increases in visitation and spending impacts 

to local concessioners and local economies.

Vehicle and developed camping would

increase under this alternative, which may 

result in increased sales to local businesses 

and positive economic impacts. There would 

be limited restrictions on vehicular access to

designated sites on gravel bars, similar to the 

no-action alternative, and two developed 

campgrounds would be provided at Akers 

and Big Spring. More hiking trails would be 

provided, and mountain biking may become 

an allowable trail use only on designated 

trails. Mountain biking would not be allowed 

in primitive zones. There would be fewer 

opportunities for primitive or semiprimitive 

camping under this alternative, which would 

result in a decline in this type of recreational 

use. Overall, long-term, minor, beneficial 

impact on local economies would be 

expected from increased visitation and 

associated visitors spending with vehicle and 

tent camping uses.

The number of designated trails for 

horseback riding may increase under 

alternative C by approximately 45 miles and 

include some new stream crossings. 

Additionally, a 25-site horse campground 

along the Jacks Fork would be developed, 

which is likely to increase this type of 

recreation. However, illegal or social trails 

would be closed, similar to the other 

alternatives. Concessioners and business that 

support these activities would experience 

long-term, minor, beneficial impacts from 

additional visitation associated with horse 

riding in the Riverways.

Visitor access and visitation to historical 

structures would be expanded under this 

alternative, which would create business 

opportunities for commercial operators and 

businesses that support these visitors. 

Visitors may also extend their visit to the area 

because of additional opportunities to visit 

the historical and cultural sites. This could 

have long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on 

these businesses and the local economy.

Local government entities may experience a 

long-term, moderate, beneficial fiscal impact 

under this alternative, if visitation to the area 

were to increase. A slight increase in visitor 

spending in the communities surrounding the 

National Riverways is likely to cause an 
CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

380

increase in sales tax revenues to local 

governments, which are highly dependent on 

this form of revenue.

Under this alternative, 1,779 out of 3,434 

acres within the Big Spring Wilderness Study

Area, located south of Chilton Creek, would 

be recommended for wilderness designation. 

This amount is 52% of the total wilderness 

study area. The fire tower, barn, NPS training 

range, and Civilian Conservation Corps-era 

camp would be outside the area proposed for 

wilderness designation and would continue 

to be retained. The access roads to the fire 

tower, barn, and NPS training range would 

continue to be maintained for administrative 

uses. The utility cable that serves the Big 

Spring cabins and residents located further 

down the line would also be maintained.

Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the noaction alternative would be the same under 

this alternative, resulting in long-term, minor 

to moderate, beneficial socioeconomic 

impacts. 

These projects and activities in combination 

with the increased visitation to the Riverways

under alternative C would have a moderate,

beneficial impact on the local economy. 

Alternative C would account for a moderate 

increment of the long-term moderate 

beneficial cumulative effect.

Conclusions

Visitation to the Riverways under alternative 

C is expected to increase for several activities 

but decrease for others. The change in 

visitation would lead to a long-term, 

moderate beneficial economic effect on the 

local economy with changes in tourism and 

local spending. In addition, an increase in 

visitation would result in a long-term 

moderate beneficial fiscal impact to local 

governments under alternative C. 

While the enforcement of horsepower 

regulations could result in reduced 

motorboat use on some river sections, this 

impact would likely be minimized under 

alternative C if the National Park Service is 

able to pursue a regulation change to 

establish a year-round allowance of 60/40 hp

motors from Van Buren south to the park

unit boundary under this alternative.

With approximately half of the wilderness 

study area excluded from the wilderness 

designation proposal and the retention of all 

structures used for administrative purposes, 

the designation is expected to have negligible 

impacts on the socioeconomic environment.

The effects of alternative C would account 

for moderate increment of the overall 

cumulative effects of all past, present and 

future projects affecting socioeconomic 

conditions in the area. 


383

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

This Ozark National Scenic Riverways Final 

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement

represents input from the Riverways staff, 

NPS planners, other agencies, American 

Indian tribes, and the general public. 

Consultation and coordination among the 

tribes, agencies, and public were vitally 

important throughout the planning 

process. The primary avenues available to 

the public for providing input during the 

development of the plan included

participation in public meetings and 

submitting comments via the NPS planning 

website or regular mail.

Public meetings, newsletters, and 

workshops were used to keep the public 

informed and involved in the planning 

process for the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. A mailing list was compiled that 

consisted of members of government 

agencies, organizations, businesses, 

legislatures, local governments, and 

interested citizens. Comments and 

suggestions offered by participants 

provided NPS planners with important 

insights about what Riverways’ visitors, 

neighboring landowners, county officials, 

science experts, and others expect from the 

general management plan.

The notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 

233, Pages 70530–70531).

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS

Five public scoping meetings were held 

during September 2006 in Van Buren, 

Eminence, Poplar Bluff, Salem, and St. 

Louis. The purpose of these meetings was 

to obtain early input on the public’s vision 

for the Riverways’ future and any 

Riverways’ issues, concerns, and ideas 

related to the general management plan. 

More than 290 people attended these 

initial public scoping meetings.

A second set of public meetings and a 

public comment period occurred during 

the summer of 2009. Public open houses

took place in Van Buren, Eminence, Salem, 

Columbia, and St. Louis. The main purpose 

of the comment period and meetings was 

to discuss and receive feedback on the 

preliminary alternatives. Over 1,015 people 

attended the open houses. A total of 5,117 

comments were received through open 

houses, comment forms, e-mails, letters, 

and the project’s website.

NEWSLETTERS

The National Park Service issued three

newsletters between 2006 and 2009 during 

preparation of the draft general 

management plan. The first and third 

newsletters were released in conjunction 

with open public comment periods and the 

public scoping meetings mentioned in the 

above section. Over 7,000 comments were 

received from these newsletters and during 

meetings. This figure includes people who 

commented at public meetings, mailed 

back comment forms enclosed in a 

newsletter, wrote letters to the Riverways’

superintendent, or commented about the 

plan by electronic mail.

Newsletter 1 was issued in August 2006. 

This newsletter outlined the purpose of the 

Riverways and the general management 

plan. It also stated the Riverways’

significance and described the general 

process for completing the general 

management plan. The newsletter urged 

the public to actively participate in the 

planning process by commenting on the 

purpose and significance statements and by 

attending one of the public scoping 

meetings.
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

384

Newsletter 2 was distributed in August 

2007. It included an overview of the issues 

and comments received in response to the 

first newsletter, actions the Riverways had 

taken in response to some concerns, and a 

description of the next steps for the 

project.

Newsletter 3 outlined the preliminary 

alternatives and management zones for the 

general management plan. This newsletter 

was issued in May 2009 prior to the public 

comment period and meetings of that 

summer.

The public holds a wide range of interests 

and concerns about the National 

Riverways. Many expressed how much 

they value the National Riverways’ scenic

beauty, its water resources, and the variety 

of available visitor experience and 

recreational opportunities. People

commented on the importance of 

experiencing quiet and solitude and a 

family-friendly environment. Motorboat 

use and regulations were another comment 

topic for many members of the public.

Comments from the public have been 

instrumental in the formulation of the 

alternatives within this plan.

WORKSHOP

In response to the large number of 

comments on the preliminary management 

alternatives, particularly those relating to 

motorboat use and river use management, 

the National Park Service obtained

additional input from stakeholder groups 

in a workshop. In February 2010, 34 

stakeholders met over two days to discuss 

varying strategies for how to best manage 

park resources and recreation 

opportunities. The results of this workshop 

were considered when refining the 

alternatives.

Using input from the public, and 

considering the probable environmental 

consequences and costs of the alternatives, 

the planning team developed a preliminary 

preferred alternative through a “Choosing 

by Advantages” process in February 2011. 

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways Draft

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement 

was then produced and distributed for 

public review. After it is distributed, public 

meetings were held to give the public an 

opportunity to discuss the revised 

alternatives, including the preferred 

alternative, and to provide comments and 

suggestions.

PUBLIC MEETINGS FOLLOWING 

RELEASE OF THE DRAFT GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN /

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STAEMENT

Following release of the Draft Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways Final General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement on 

November 8, 2013, the National Park 

Service conducted four public meetings to 

share the draft plan with the public and 

solicit public feedback. Public open house 

meetings were held in Van Buren, 

Eminence, and Salem. One public meeting 

was held in the St. Louis area (Kirkwood). 

The draft general management plan was 

open for review for 90 days, ending on 

February 7, 2014. These meetings were 

attended by over 1,450 people and were 

some of the most widely attended public 

meetings held by the National Park Service 

nationwide in recent years. 

A report titled “Comments and Responses to 

the Ozark National Scenic Riverways Draft 

General Management Plan / Environmental

Impact Statement” is included at the end of 

this chapter. This report summarizes the 

substance of the comments received during 

this draft review period and provides a 

collection of National Park Service 

responses to the various categories of 

concerns that were raised.
385

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH

OTHER AGENCIES, OFFICES, AND TRIBES

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 

SECTION 7 CONSULTATION

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, requires in section 7 (a)(2) that 

each federal agency, in consultation with 

the Secretary of the Interior, ensure that 

any action the agency authorizes, funds, or 

carries out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical habitat. 

This section sets out the consultation 

process as implemented by 50 CFR 402.

The National Park Service contacted the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a letter 

dated January 12, 2011. The letter advised 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the 

National Park Service planning process for 

this Ozark National Scenic Riverways Draft 

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement

and requested a current list of federally 

listed threatened, endangered, and 

candidate species within the Riverways. 

A response memorandum from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, dated March 22, 

2011, indicated that three such species may 

be found within the Riverways. They 

include the Indiana bat, gray bat, and 

Ozark hellbender. Subsequent to this letter, 

in October 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service also proposed the northern longeared bat for listing as endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act. Copies of the 

planning process newsletters from the 

National Park Service were also provided 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over 

the duration of the planning process to 

keep the agency updated on the plan status.

In the months prior to the release of the

Ozark National Scenic Riverways Draft 

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement,

the National Park Service conducted 

informal discussions with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on possible effects on 

listed species from proposed National 

Riverways actions. The National Park 

Service also provided a copy of the draft 

document to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for their preliminary review.

In these informal consultation

communications, NPS staff sought advice 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

regarding how best to fulfill NPS 

responsibilities for complying with section 

7 of the Endangered Species Act. These

discussions had two primary outcomes: (1) 

the NPS would commit under all action 

alternatives to working closely with the US. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to develop and 

implement conservation plans and 

strategies for all federal listed species in the 

Riverways (under the Endangered Species 

Act, Section 7); and (2) the NPS would 

prepare and submit a biological assessment 

for this general management plan, with a 

biological opinion prepared by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service in response and 

prior to implementation of this plan. The 

biological opinion would likely provide 

determinations of effect for listed species, 

and mitigation measures for the National 

Park Service to follow to ensure protection 

of certain threatened or endangered 

species.

Subsequently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service reviewed the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways Draft General Management Plan 

/ Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement and submitted a review 

memorandum to the National Park Service, 

dated February 7, 2014 (see Appendix E).

This review letter reiterated the 

importance of further consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to 

the implementation of the plan. The letter 

also identified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

preference for alternative A and identified 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

386

various concerns with park management 

on the Ozark hellbender. The letter noted 

the importance of the National Park 

Service pursuing management actions and 

studies to assess management effects on the 

Ozark hellbender prior to plan 

implementation. A National Park Service 

response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service review comments is included in the 

“Comments and Responses to the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways Draft General 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement” section included later in this 

chapter.

The National Park Service also sent a letter 

dated January 12, 2011, to the Missouri 

Department of Conservation advising it of 

the NPS planning process for the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways Draft General 

Management Plan / Wilderness Study / 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

including a current list of special status 

species within the Riverways. The National 

Park Service asked the Missouri 

Department of Conservation to provide 

feedback regarding the accuracy and 

thoroughness of the list. 

On January 26, 2011, the Missouri 

Department of Conservation provided an 

updated list. Copies of each planning 

process newsletter were also provided to 

the Missouri Department of Conservation 

from the National Park Service to keep the 

department updated on the planning 

process.

SECTION 106 CONSULTATION

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 

USC 470 et seq.) requires that agencies 

with direct or indirect jurisdiction over 

historic properties consider the effect of 

any undertaking on properties listed in or 

eligible for listing in the National Register 

of Historic Places. To meet the 

requirements of the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation’s regulations (36

CFR 800), the National Park Service

invited the Missouri State Historic 

Preservation Office to participate in the 

planning process. The state historic 

preservation officer responded positively 

to the invitation to work with the National 

Riverways on the plan in a letter dated 

November 4, 2010. 

On November 15, 2010, park staff met with 

representatives of the Missouri State 

Historic Preservation Office and the 

Missouri Attorney General’s Office. At that 

meeting, the park staff explained the 

general management planning and 

wilderness study process and the current 

phase of the plan. The state historic 

preservation officer was provided a copy of 

newsletter 3 (spring/summer 2009) and 

was informed of the preliminary 

alternatives that had been developed. 

National Riverways staff agreed to keep the 

state historic preservation officer informed 

as the general management plan

progressed. 

In a letter dated June 11, 2014, the director 

of the Missouri State Historic Preservation 

Office notified the superintendent of 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways that their 

office had reviewed the draft general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement in accordance with section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act 

and 36 CFR 800. Based on their review, 

they concurred with the National Park 

Service finding that the preferred 

alternative (B) offers the outcomes that 

would be most beneficial to the 

preservation of the park’s historic, 

architectural, archeological, and cultural 

landscape resources. The National Park 

Service will continue to consult with the 

Missouri State Historic Preservation Office 

under section 106 requirements as 

undertakings presented in the general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement advance toward more detailed 

design development and implementation 

stages. 
Consultation and Coordination with Other Agencies, Offices, and Tribes

387

CONSULTATION WITH

AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES

The National Park Service recognizes that 

indigenous peoples may have traditional 

interests and rights in lands now under 

NPS management. Related American 

Indian concerns are sought through tribal 

consultations. The need for governmentto-government consultation with 

associated tribal governments stems from 

the historic power of Congress to make 

treaties with tribes as sovereign nations. 

Consultations with federally recognized 

tribes are required by various federal laws, 

executive orders, regulations, and policies. 

They are needed, for example, to comply 

with the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act and 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966.

In August 2003, park staff traveled to 

Oklahoma and Missouri to meet with the 

following culturally affiliated American 

Indian tribes:

 Cherokee Nation (Tahlequah, OK)

 Delaware Nation (Anadarko, OK)

 Delaware Tribe of Indians 

(Bartlesville, OK)

 Eastern Shawnee Tribe of 

Oklahoma (Seneca, MO)

 Osage Nation (Pawhuska, OK)

 United Keetoowah Band of 

Cherokee Indians (Tahlequah, OK)

The purpose of the meetings was to 

introduce NPS staff to the tribal leadership 

and improve the exchange of information 

as part of ongoing government-togovernment consultations. Tribal leaders 

were oriented to the National Riverways

and shared information regarding tribal 

origins, ancestral homelands, migrations to 

Oklahoma and eastern Missouri, and the 

relationships to other tribes in the area. 

NPS staff informed the tribes of upcoming 

park plans and facility development 

projects. The tribes were advised of the 

upcoming general management plan and 

the importance of tribal input in the 

planning process to help guide long-term 

park management. Tribes were asked to 

share potential interests and concerns 

related to the planning effort.

In October 2006, park staff traveled to 

Oklahoma and Missouri to update the 

affiliated tribes on the status of the general 

management planning process and to 

gather and share information. Consultation 

meetings were held with the following:

 Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians 

of Oklahoma (Shawnee, OK)

 Cherokee Nation (Tahlequah, OK)

 Delaware Nation (Anadarko, OK)

 Delaware Tribe of Indians 

(Bartlesville, OK)

 Eastern Shawnee Tribe of 

Oklahoma (Seneca, MO)

 Osage Nation (Pawhuska, OK)

 Shawnee Tribe (Miami, OK)

 United Keetoowah Band of 

Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma

(Tahlequah, OK)

In consultation meetings held in 

November 2010, park staff provided 

updates of the general management plan

and wilderness study. The tribes were 

given copies of newsletter 3 (spring/

summer 2009) and informed of the 

preliminary alternatives. The NPS staff 

extended invitations to all the tribal 

representatives to visit the National 

Riverways and to actively participate in the 

planning process. Meetings were held with 

the following:

 Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians 

of Oklahoma (Shawnee, OK)

 Cherokee Nation (Tahlequah, OK)

 Delaware Nation (Anadarko, OK)
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

388

 Delaware Tribe of Indians 

(Bartlesville, OK)

 Eastern Shawnee Tribe of 

Oklahoma (Seneca, MO)

 Shawnee Tribe (Miami, OK)

 United Keetoowah Band of 

Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma

(Tahlequah, OK)

A meeting with the Osage Nation was 

canceled due to a scheduling conflict, but 

park staff provided the tribe with an 

informational letter and materials 

regarding the general management 

planning effort.

The staff of Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways will continue to consult with 

affiliated tribes as part of ongoing 

government-to-government relations. NPS 

staff will further consult with regard to 

specific actions and undertakings arising 

from the general management plan that are 

proposed for future implementation.
389

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS

RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U. S. Forest Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Geologic Survey

U.S. SENATORS AND 

REPRESENTATIVES

Missouri Senator Roy Blunt

Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill

Representative Jason Smith, Missouri, 8th 

District

MISSOURI STATE AGENCIES

Department of Agriculture

Department of Conservation

Department of Game, Fish and Parks

Department of Natural Resources

Department of Transportation

State Historic Preservation Office

STATE OFFICIALS

Jay Nixon, Governor, Missouri

Senator Gary Romine, District 3

Senator Dan Brown, District 16

Senator Doug Libla, District 25

Senator Mike Cunningham, District 33

Representative Robert Ross, District 142

Representative Jeff Pogue, District 143

Representative Paul Fitzwater, District 144

Representative Todd Richardson, 

District 152

Representative Steve Cookson, District 153

Representative Shawn Rhoads, District 154

AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of 

Oklahoma, Shawnee, Oklahoma

Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, Oklahoma

Delaware Nation, Anadarko, Oklahoma

Delaware Tribe of Indians, Bartlesville, 

Oklahoma

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, 

Seneca, Missouri

Osage Nation, Pawhuska, Oklahoma

Shawnee Tribe, Miami, Oklahoma

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee 

Indians in Oklahoma, Tahlequah, 

Oklahoma

LOCAL AND REGIONAL 

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Carter County

Dent County

Mayors and Town Councils

Ozark Foothills Regional Planning 

Commission

Reynolds County

Shannon County

South Central Missouri Regional Planning 

Commission

Texas County

ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES

Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds

Audubon Society

Bass Pro / Wonders of Wildlife

Carter County Saddle Club

Cave Research Federation

Center for Biological Diversity

Community Betterment Association

Conservation Federation of Missouri

Ducks Unlimited

Environment Missouri

Friends of Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways

Good Sam Club

Houston Saddle Club
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

390

Jacks Fork Watershed Committee

L-A-D Foundation

Lions Club

Missouri Archeological Society

Missouri Canoe and Floaters Association

Missouri Coalition for the Environment

Missouri Equine Council

Missouri Native Plant Society

Missouri Parks Association

Missouri Speleological Society

Missouri Wild Horse League

National Association of Canoe Livery 

Operators

National Parks and Conservation 

Association

Ozark Cave Diving Alliance

Ozark Natural and Cultural Center

Ozark Trail Association

Ozark Trails ATV Club

Queen Ann’s Clubs

Riverways concessioners

Rotary Club

Salem Saddle Club

Scenic Rivers Stream Team Association

Scenic Rivers Watershed Partnership

Show-Me Missouri Back Country 

Horsemen, Inc.

Sierra Club

Small Mouth Bass Alliance

The Nature Conservancy

Trail Rides

Big Creek

Whispering Pines

Coldwater Ranch

Cross Country Trail Ride

Trails End Stable

Trout Unlimited

Voice of the Ozarks

Wild Turkey Foundation

NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES

The list of newspapers and magazines 

receiving a copy of the final plan and/or 

being notified of the availability of the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways Final 

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement is 

available from Riverways headquarters.

RADIO AND TELEVISION STATIONS

The list of newspapers and magazines 

receiving a copy of the final plan and/or 

being notified of the availability of the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways Final 

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement is 

available from Riverways headquarters.

INDIVIDUALS

The list of individuals receiving a copy of 

the final plan and/or being notified of the 

availability of the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways Final General Management Plan / 

Wilderness Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement is available from Riverways

headquarters.
391

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION

This section summarizes the comments 

received following the release of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways Draft General 

Management Plan I Environmental Impact 

Statement on November 8, 2013. In 

accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s regulations for 

implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act (40 CFR 1503), all written 

comments were considered during the 

preparation of the final general management 

plan and environmental impact statement. 

The comments help the planning team, 

National Park Service decision makers, and 

other interested parties review and assess the 

views of other agencies, organizations, and 

individuals related to the preferred 

alternative, the other alternatives, and 

potential impacts. However, it is important to 

stress that the selection of the preferred 

alternative and revisions to the alternative are 

not based on how many people supported a 

particular alternative.

All comments received during the public 

review and comment period have been duly 

considered and will remain in the project’s 

administrative record. The administrative 

record (or project file) documents the NPS 

decision-making process and records the basis 

and rationale for making the decision.

METHODOLOGY

The National Park Service offered three 

public meetings in the surrounding 

communities of Eminence, Salem, and Van 

Buren, Missouri and one public meeting in the 

St. Louis Metropolitan Area (Kirkwood, 

Missouri) during the initial 60-day public 

comment period. In response to severe winter 

weather and hazardous road conditions in 

early January 2014, these meetings were 

canceled and rescheduled for two weeks later. 

As a result, the National Park Service

extended the comment period from 60 to 90 

days (from November 8, 2013 through

January 8, 2014 to November 8, 2013 through

February 7, 2014). The National Park Service

made a concerted effort to advertise both 

rounds of meetings in local and regional 

media outlets, as well as online on the park

unit’s webpage and via social media. These 

meetings were among the most widely 

attended NPS public meetings in recent years, 

with more than 1,450 attendees. 

In preparation for these meetings, which were 

structured in a traditional “open house” 

format, NPS staff prepared summary 

handouts, posters, and other materials to 

ensure that the public could learn about the 

planning process and make informed 

comments on the draft general management 

plan / environmental impact statement, if 

desired. In addition, NPS staff had extra 

copies of the draft plan available, and set up 

computer stations so people could enter their 

comments on site. One to two NPS staff 

members were available at each station to 

answer questions and provide information. 

Open house meetings were followed by 

formal wilderness hearings in Van Buren and 

Kirkwood, Missouri that provided an 

additional opportunity to provide direct 

testimony related to potential wilderness 

designation associated with the 3,434-acre Big 

Spring Wilderness Study Area.

During the initial 60-day public comment 

period, the National Park Service received 

numerous requests to extend the public 

comment period and schedule additional 

public meetings. The comment period was 

extended from 60 to 90 days, and a public 

meeting in Salem, Missouri was added.

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

received 3,094 pieces of correspondence 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

392

during the public review and comment period 

from November 8, 2013, through February 7, 

2014. Correspondence was received by one of 

the following methods: hard copy letter via 

U.S. mail, email, transcript, comment form, 

fax, petition, or entered directly into the NPS 

Planning, Environment and Public Comment 

(PEPC) system. Letters received by email or 

through the U.S. mail, as well as the comments 

received from the public meetings, transcripts, 

faxes, and petitions were entered into the 

PEPC system for analysis. Each of these letters 

or submissions is referred to as 

correspondence.

Once all the correspondences were entered 

into the PEPC system, NPS staff read each one 

and identified specific comments. A total of 

4,806 comments were derived from the 

correspondence received.

In order to categorize and address comments, 

each comment was given a code to identify its 

general content. This coding structure 

allowed similar comments to be grouped 

together. A total of 23 codes were used to 

categorize all of the comments received on the 

draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement. An example 

of a code developed for this project is EQ100: 

Equestrian Uses and Facilities. In some cases, 

the same comment may be categorized under 

more than one code, reflecting the fact that 

the comment may contain more than one 

issue or idea. 

During coding, comments were also classified 

as substantive or non-substantive. A 

substantive comment is defined in the NPS 

Director’s Order 12 Handbook as one that 

does one or more of the following (Director’s 

Order 12, section 4.6A):

 question, with a reasonable basis, the 

accuracy of information presented in 

the environmental impact statement

 question, with reasonable basis, the 

adequacy of the environmental 

analysis 

 present reasonable alternatives other 

than those presented in the 

environmental impact statement 

and/or

 cause changes or revisions in the 

proposal 

As further stated in Director’s Order 12, 

“substantive comments raise, debate, or 

question a point of fact or policy. Comments 

in favor of or against the proposed action or 

alternatives, or comments that only agree or 

disagree with NPS policy, are not considered 

substantive.”

In addition to the substantive comments 

discussed above, the park unit received a 

variety of additional nonsubstantive 

comments. These comments did not meet the 

National Environmental Policy Act definition 

for “substantive comments,” but were all read, 

recorded, and coded according to topic area 

and are part of the administrative record, 

which is the official history of the general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement. 

Approximately 50% of the comments received 

related to 2 of the 23 codes. These codes were 

related to likes, dislikes, or suggestions about 

the proposed alternatives. Of the 3,094 

correspondences, approximately 83% came 

from commenters in the state of Missouri, 4% 

came from commenters in the state of 

Arkansas, while the remaining comments 

came from 43 other states. The majority of 

comments (98%) came from unaffiliated 

individuals.

GUIDE TO THIS REPORT

This report has the following two primary 

components:

Content Analysis Report: This is the basic 

report produced from the PEPC system that 

provides information on the numbers and 

types of comments received, organized by 

code and by various demographics. Table 37
Comments and Responses on the Ozark National Scenic Riverways

Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement

393

includes a summary of the number of 

correspondences that contain comments 

under each code. Table 38 presents data by

the type (i.e., number of comments through 

the PEPC system, emails, and letters). Table 39

presents data received by organization type 

(i.e., organizations, governments, individuals)

and table 40 shows the number of 

correspondences received by state.

Concern Response Report: The concern 

response report identifies concern statements 

based on the substantive comments and other 

comments that were received during the draft 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement public review comment 

process that require NPS clarification. The 

concern statements are organized by 

comment category and are supported by 

representative quotes from actual comments. 

The names of commenters are provided for 

elected officials and official representatives of 

organizations and other agencies. An NPS 

agency response is then provided for each 

concern statement.
394

CONTENT ANALYSIS REPORT

As mentioned above, this is the basic report 

produced from the PEPC system that provides 

information on the number and type of 

comments received, organized by code and by 

various demographics. Table 37 provides a 

summary of the number of comments that fall 

under each code or topic, and the percentage of 

comments that falls under each code. This table 

lists the substantive and nonsubstantive 

comments received on the draft plan; however, 

only substantive comments are included in the 

response portion of this report. The codes are 

represented alphabetically. 

Subsequent tables present data on the amount 

of correspondence by type (i.e. number of 

comments provided through the PEPC system, 

emails, and letters), number received by 

organization type, and number received by 

state. 

Note: Each comment may have multiple codes. 

As a result, the total number of 

correspondences below may be different than 

the actual correspondence total, and may also 

differ from the total number of comments 

stated elsewhere in this report.

TABLE 37. CORRESPONDENCE DISTRIBUTION BY CODE

Code Description

Number of 

Correspondences

Percent of 

Correspondences

AL0200 General comments on action alternatives 1,424 29.28%

AL0100 No-action alternative 750 15.42%

MT1000 Miscellaneous topics: general comments 352 7.24%

VU100 Visitor use and access (general) 270 5.55%

AL4000 Alternatives: new alternatives or elements 260 5.35%

NR100 Natural resource impacts/issues 252 5.18%

EQ100 Equestrian uses and facilities 239 4.91%

BT100 Boating 234 4.81%

RD100 Roads 226 4.65%

SE100 Impacts to socioeconomics 172 3.54%

OA100 Operations and administration 169 3.48%

WD100 Wilderness 137 2.82%

PN1000 Purpose and need: planning process and 

policy 80 1.65%

GB100 Gravel bar access 76 1.56%

CL100 Clarifications (including factual corrections 

and editorial comments) 54 1.11%

CR100 Cultural resource impacts/issues 42 0.86%

CA100 Camping 41 0.84%

XX100 Duplicate comment/correspondence 25 0.51%

FS100 Fishing (including gigging) 18 0.37%

CC1000 Consultation and coordination: general 

comments 16 0.33%

MZ100 Management zones 11 0.23%

CS100 Concessions 11 0.23%

GA3000 Impact analysis: general methodology for 

establishing impacts/effects 4 0.08%

TOTAL 4,863 100.00%
Content Analysis Report

395

TABLE 38. CORRESPONDENCE DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE

TABLE 39. CORRESPONDENCES BY ORGANIZATION TYPE

Organization Type

Number of 

Correspondences

Number of 

Signatures

Percent of 

Correspondences

Percent of 

Signatures

Business 8 9 0.16% 0.07%

Churches, religious groups 1 1 0.03% 0.01%

Civic groups 1 21 0.03% 0.17%

Conservation/preservation 23 9,088 0.45% 73.63%

County government 1 1 0.03% 0.01%

Federal government 8 11 0.23% 0.09%

Nongovernmental 1 1 0.03% 0.01%

Recreational groups 10 10 0.26% 0.08%

State government 13 35 0.36% 0.28%

Town or city government 5 34 0.16% 0.28%

Unaffiliated individual 3,020 3,130 98.22% 25.36%

University / professional society 2 2 0.03% 0.02%

TOTAL 3,094 12,343 100.00% 100.00%

Type

Number of 

Correspondences

Percent of 

Correspondences

Web form 2,797 90.40%

Letter 218 7.08%

E-mail 44 1.42%

Other 20 0.65%

Transcript 6 0.19%

Park form 5 0.16%

Fax 2 0.06%

Petition 1 0.03%

Total 3,094 100.00%
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

396

TABLE 40. CORRESPONDENCE DISTRIBUTION BY STATE

State

Number of 

Correspondences

Percent of 

Correspondences

MO 2,557 82.68%

AR 124 4.01%

IL 102 3.30%

Unknown 82 2.65%

KS 44 1.42%

TN 19 0.61%

CA 17 0.55%

IN 12 0.39%

IA 12 0.39%

TX 9 0.29%

CO 9 0.29%

FL 8 0.26%

NY 8 0.26%

OK 6 0.19%

NC 6 0.19%

MI 6 0.19%

PA 5 0.16%

KY 5 0.16%

WI 5 0.16%

MN 5 0.16%

OH 4 0.13%

NJ 4 0.13%

MS 4 0.13%

VA 4 0.13%

DC 4 0.13%

SC 4 0.13%

NM 3 0.10%

GA 3 0.10%

MT 2 0.06%

NV 2 0.06%

MD 2 0.06%

LA 2 0.06%
Content Analysis Report

397

TABLE 40. CORRESPONDENCE DISTRIBUTION BY STATE (CONTINUED)

State

Number of 

Correspondences

Percent of 

Correspondences

CT 2 0.06%

N/A 1 0.03%

AZ 1 0.03%

ID 1 0.03%

WA 1 0.03%

OR 1 0.03%

NH 1 0.03%

NE 1 0.03%

MA 1 0.03%

AL 1 0.03%

WV 1 0.03%

AK 1 0.03%

UT 1 0.03%

TOTAL 3,094 100.00%
398

CONCERN RESPONSE REPORT

Comments that contain substantive points 

regarding information in the draft plan or 

comments that need clarification are 

extracted below. A concern statement has 

been developed to summarize each of these 

comments, or collection of similar 

comments. Following each concern 

statement, “representative quotes” are 

included from original letters.

Representative quotes are a select subset or 

sampling of comments taken directly from 

the correspondents to illustrate the issue, 

concern, or idea expressed by the 

comments grouped under the concern 

statement. An NPS response is then 

provided for each concern statement. All 

comment letters from local, state, federal 

government agencies are provided in 

appendix E. 

Where appropriate, text in the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways Final General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement has been revised to address 

comments and changes as indicated in the 

following responses. 

ALTERNATIVES

AL0100—No-Action Alternative 

Concern ID: 50968 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

offered support for and opposition to the 

no-action alternative. Some commenters 

stated that the no-action alternative is not 

in accordance with NPS (NPS) guidance. 

Commenters also suggested that the noaction alternative could negatively affect 

visitor experience, the natural resources 

of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

(National Riverways or the park unit), 

and local socioeconomics. Other 

commenters supported the no-action 

alternative because they were concerned 

with the impacts of the action 

alternatives. 

Corr. ID: 842 

Comment ID: 368427

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: I would like to 

comment to say I support no action to the 

GMP because of the restrictions it will add 

to our river. I am a boater and any plan you 

offer is restricting boating abilities further. 

This is why I am against the GMP. Boating 

the Current River is extremely important to 

me and my heritage. I ride, I float, I swim, I 

fish, and I enjoy the river’s beauty all 

because of my boating abilities. It’s a 

necessity that we do no lose any boating 

abilities. 

Corr. ID: 2886 (Congressman Jason Smith)

Comment ID: 372108 

Organization: U.S. House of 

Representatives 

Organization Type: Federal Government 

Representative Quote: On behalf of the 

constituents from my district who use and 

enjoy the Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

(ONSR) and depend on its local economy; 

and also on behalf of the tourists who come 

from all over the country, and even the 

world, to use and enjoy the Park, I write 

urging you to continue implementing the 

No-Action Alternative proposed in the 

Draft General Management Plan. The “No 

Action Alternative” is a continuation of 

management policies that have been used 

successfully for over thirty years, and would 

continue sound park management without 

threatening the Public’s use and enjoyment 

of the rivers. 

Corr. ID: 2971 

Comment ID: 372461 

Organization: Cave Research Foundation 

Organization Type: Recreational Groups

Representative Quote: CRF believes that 

usage patterns that have developed over the 
Concern Response Report

399

last thirty years have had a degrading 

impact on the natural resources of the park.

The no-action “alternative” should not be 

considered because, basically, it would 

continue practices that are currently illegal 

and against NPS policy. This would result in 

degraded visitor experience which 

eventually would have a severe impact on 

the economic base of the surrounding 

communities. 

Corr. ID: 3058 

Comment ID: 372622 

Organization: Washington University in St. 

Louis 

Organization Type: University/Professional 

Society 

Representative Quote: Taking no action 

deviates from the NPS' statutory and 

regulatory directives and is not in 

accordance with the NPS’ own guidance. 

Corr. ID: 3080 (Stephen C. Cookson)

Comment ID: 375517 

Organization: Missouri House of 

Representatives 

Organization Type: State Government 

Representative Quote: We support the “NoAction Alternative” to the current operating 

system. The ONSR value to the region is 

unparalleled. Do not adopt a GMP that is 

contrary to our wishes, those of our 

constituents, and the other folks who 

depend on access to the Riverways and 

cannot operate with additional government 

regulations. In our opinion, the ONSR is 

already over-managed with burdensome 

federal regulations. The Riverways support 

a vibrant and growing tourism industry that 

is critical to our region and state. We will 

continue to strongly advocate against 

further encroachment by the National Park 

Service limiting our citizens’ access to 

public lands. 

Response: 

The no-action alternative is included in the 

general management plan for two reasons: 

to describe current or existing park unit 

management and to provide a basis for 

comparison. Although the no-action 

alternative is used to provide a baseline for 

comparing the other action alternatives, it is 

within the agency’s discretion to select the 

no-action alternative from among the range 

of viable alternatives. 

This new general management plan was 

initiated to address long-standing 

management issues that negatively affect 

visitor experience, and hinder park unit 

staff’s ability to preserve and protect the 

resources of the park unit, while providing 

exceptional recreational use.

AL0200—General Comments on Action 

Alternatives 

Concern ID: 50969 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

offered a new alternative for 

consideration—a combination of 

alternatives A and B. 

Corr. ID: 1165

Comment ID: 370564 

Organization: Sierra Club, Massachusetts 

Chapter, Vice Chair 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation

Representative Quote: The most 

important starting point is what the original 

park plan was intended to be and laid out 

and to restore that - but perhaps only for a 

few years. That would require closing all 

illegal access points and trails. Maintaining 

them as closed except for specifically 

permitted, guided activities will allow the 

park to recover from the years of an 

increasing level of unauthorized use. It 

recognizes the need to put the park back 

into a sustainable condition as the first step.

After three years, the closure of illegal 

access points and trails should be revisited 

to see what patterns of use have developed 

because of the return to the original plan. 

Any changes in that original plan can then 

be properly assessed in terms of habitat 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

400

preservation, public enjoyment and 

sustainability, and the showing for any such 

changes must be convincing and supported 

by substantial evidence and reason.

This comment is in effect support for 

Alternative A with an option after three 

years to assess the need for changing it to 

accommodate some of the factors in 

Alternative B. 

Response: 

A commenter suggested implementing 

alternative A prior to implementing 

alternative B, noting that this would allow 

natural areas to rejuvenate/rehabilitate and 

return to conditions that existed when the 

park unit was established. Once sufficient 

time was allowed for this restoration, the 

National Park Service could move forward 

and implement aspects of alternative B.

Although this suggested alternative was not 

vetted during the planning process, the 

National Park Service believes that the 

benefits that might accrue under this 

alternative have been analyzed as part of the 

current range of alternatives.

The National Park Service identified 

alternative B, rather than alternative A, as 

the preferred alternative because it provides 

the best combination of strategies to protect 

the park unit’s unique natural and cultural 

resources and visitor experience, while 

improving operational effectiveness and 

sustainability. To understand the complete 

rationale for why alternative B would 

provide the greatest overall advantage, 

please refer to chapter 2, Identification of the 

NPS Preferred Alternative.

While park unit staff has successfully closed 

unauthorized access points on a case-bycase basis, the park-wide approach 

identified in alternative B would more 

effectively address this issue. The preferred 

alternative proposes the development of a 

roads and trails management plan. This plan 

would be an important step in

implementing management strategies 

outlined in the general management plan to 

enhance resource protection efforts, and 

would include evaluating all roads and trails 

available to the public, identifying 

appropriate trail uses, and restoring 

undesignated access routes.

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND 

EXPERIENCE

BT100—Boating 

Concern ID: 50970 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

expressed support for and opposition to 

changes to boat horsepower limits. Some 

commenters suggested that horsepower 

limits should be enforced. Others 

suggested that the National Park Service

should consider further revisions to 

horsepower limits. Commenters opposed 

to changing horsepower limits stated that 

changes could have a negative impact on 

local communities and recreational 

opportunities, while commenters in favor 

of changing horsepower limits mentioned 

concerns regarding impacts to water 

quality, climate change, and aquatic 

resources. 

Corr. ID: 53 

Comment ID: 372435 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: My main concern is 

any suggested horsepower changes. I am a 

landowner in Carter County and I spend 

1/3 of my time there. I would like to see no 

changes in horsepower regulations, merely 

enforcement of existing laws. This means 

no personal watercraft in the park. If 

changes must occur I suggest 60/40 hp 

below Jerktail and Eminence to Big Spring 

landing #2. Unlimited hp below that to the 

park boundary. Twenty five hp from Pulltite 

to Jerktail and Alley Spring to Eminence. 

This would simplify the zones and protect 

the upper river. No motors above Pulltite 
Concern Response Report

401

and Alley Spring. This simplification is easy 

to understand, and would preserve the 

upper reaches and lifestyle of the residents 

on both the upper and lower rivers. 

Scenario ‘C’ is the closest to this suggestion. 

There would be a no motor zone, 

small/medium zone, and unlimited motor 

zone. The Current below Big Spring is a 

major river. 

Corr. ID: 263 

Comment ID: 372900 

Organization: Trout Unlimited, Ozark 

Flyfishers, Sierra Club 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Prohibit: ALL 

outboard motors on entire lengths of Jacks 

Fork and Current rivers in keeping with exSecretary Salazar’s memo about reduction 

of global warming emissions. Outboard 

motors, whether jet pump or prop driven, 

emit copious amounts of CO2 and, in 

addition, pose a hazard to kayakers, 

canoeists, and rafters. 

Corr. ID: 2295 

Comment ID: 367131 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Boat horsepower 

limits on the rivers need to be decreased, 

but most importantly, enforced. 

Corr. ID: 2555

Comment ID: 374393 

Organization: Cave Research 

Foundation/Missouri Caves and Karst 

Conservancy 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: We do not favor 

the horsepower limits as delineated in 

Alternative B. Specifically, we believe that 

horsepower limits be lowered on the 

Current River between Pulltite and Two 

Rivers. We suggest 25 horsepower limits 

between Two Rivers and Round Spring, and 

no motors allowed at all above Round 

Spring. If high-horsepower usage is reduced 

on these stretches then canoe traffic can be 

redistributed to these sections, as was the 

case in the 1970’s. Family camping on the 

stretch of river between Round Spring and 

Two Rivers has just about vanished due to 

the high usage by powerboats, day and 

night. 

Corr. ID: 2719 

Comment ID: 370523 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: We are in support 

of Alt. B with a couple of modifications. 

Even though we do not use the upper Jacks 

Fork or Current personally with our jet 

boat, we know that those areas are near and 

dear to the hearts of many, particularly 

during the gigging season. This is a cultural 

activity that has a strong tradition in all the 

communities surrounding ONSR. I feel that 

it would be a very wise compromise, in the 

interest of local good will, to make a 

modification to the preferred alternative 

that would allow the use of jet boats in 

those areas during the off-season, either full 

time or at least with a range of hours daily 

that allow for gigging and trapping. 

Corr. ID: 2735 

Comment ID: 370559 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I am in favor of 

opening the 1/2 mile stretch of river 

between Van Buren and Big Spring to the 

same HP size limit that is implemented 

below Big Spring. Closing that stretch 

created numerous parking problems at Big 

Spring and made it impossible for those 

who use larger motors in bass tournaments 

to fish that section of the river. If it was 

opened, those owning the larger sized 

motors could launch at Van Buren and 

motor downstream. This option was 

proposed in Alternative C. 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

402

Corr. ID: 2735 

Comment ID: 370561 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: The plan proposes 

for 60/40 HP in the unlimited HP section 

from Big Spring to Gooseneck (southern 

park boundary). This is the stretch of the 

river that I spend almost 80% o my time 

boating on. I do think that there should be a 

limit on HP in this section, however, not the 

60/40. There should be a section or zone of 

river open to boat operators who have 

larger size motors and fish on lakes. A limit 

of 150 HP would be sufficient. Motors with 

300 HP have no place on the river of this 

size. I would be in favor of limiting the HP 

size to 150. 

Corr. ID: 2876 

Comment ID: 376522 

Organization: Ozark Heritage Project 

Organization Type: Non-Governmental 

Representative Quote: OHP proposes that 

current rules be modified as following:

1) Implement a 90/65 motor size for above 

Van Buren to Two Rivers on Current River.

2) Implement a 60/40 motor size from Two 

Rivers to Highway 19 Bridge at Round 

Spring (more recognizable boundary) on 

Current River.

3) Implement 40/25 motor size from 

Highway 19 Bridge at Round Springs on up 

on Current River. The river will take care of 

how far; it will regulate itself.

4) Implement 60/40 from Two Rivers to 

Eminence on the Jack’s Fork River.

5) Implement 40/25 above Eminence on the 

Jack’s Fork River. Again, the river itself will 

regulate boat traffic in these areas. 

Corr. ID: 3045 

Comment ID: 384197 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: * The Upper Jacks 

Fork between the western boundary and 

Bay Creek especially during low flow 

cannot support any motor boats without 

damage to the aquatic invertebrates in the 

gravel substrate and motor oil and gas 

contamination. The Current River should 

limit the HP to 40 HP including even jet 

type motors. These boats disturb the gravels 

and the oils impairs the streams. A 

permitting system for the less than 40 HP 

flat bottom John Boats on the Current River 

is needed. 

Response: 

During the development of the draft general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement, the National Park Service 

considered a range of alternatives based on 

input received throughout the course of the 

planning process and data detailing the 

current use of the river. A range of 

horsepower limits has been proposed to 

accommodate a variety of desired river 

conditions and recreational uses.

When the 1984 general management plan 

was developed, it would have been difficult 

to predict how boat motors and boat design 

would evolve. Likewise, it is difficult to 

predict what advances in jet motors might 

be made in the future. The National Park 

Service recognizes that continuing to allow 

unlimited horsepower on the lower Current 

River is not prudent management, and is 

concerned that unlimited horsepower 

could result in safety concerns, degradation 

of visitor experience, and corresponding 

increases in the size of motorboats.

In response to public comments during the 

scoping phase of the planning process, the 

preferred alternative in the draft general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement proposed changing unlimited 

horsepower to 60 horsepower motor with a 

jet pump attached below Big Spring. 

Following further comments on the draft 

plan, and recognizing the greater depth and 

width of the river below Big Spring, the 

National Park Service revised the preferred 

alternative to allow 150 horsepower 

motorboats, rated at the power head of the 
Concern Response Report

403

motor, from Big Spring to the southern 

boundary of the National Riverways.

Several years ago, the park allowed the use 

of 60 horsepower motors with a jet pump 

instead of a propeller (commonly referred 

to as a 60/40 motor), because of the 

demonstrated reduction in horsepower at 

the jet outlet. The National Park Service has 

since learned that the horsepower of these 

types of motors is measured at the power 

head instead of the jet outlet, making their 

use inconsistent with the Code of Federal 

Regulations. Under the preferred 

alternative in both the draft and final 

general management plans, the park unit 

would allow the continued use of 60/40 

horsepower motors. To facilitate changes to 

horsepower limits, the National Park 

Service would need to pursue rulemaking. 

While that process is being completed, the 

current horsepower limits would remain in 

effect. 

Concern ID: 50972 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

suggested that motorized boat use should 

be regulated based on different times of 

the year and days of the week. One 

commenter suggested that the upper Jacks 

Fork and upper Current rivers already 

experience limited motorized boat traffic 

because of low water levels, and further 

restrictions on motorized boating in these 

areas would limit gigging and trapping. 

Corr. ID: 454 

Comment ID: 373663 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Gigging of 

fish(suckers) using motor boats is an Ozark 

Mountain tradition along with small mouth 

bass and trout fishing that needs to be kept 

open. 

Corr. ID: 2314 

Comment ID: 369156 

Organization: Cross Country Trail Ride, 

LLC 

Organization Type: Recreational Groups 

Representative Quote: Another concern is 

the proposed zoning of the rivers for 

motorized boats. While I partially 

understand the need for zoning in certain 

areas, I don’t understand the need on upper 

Jacks Fork and upper Current Rivers. Both 

of these areas are controlled by water level 

very effectively at the current time. The only 

outcome of eliminating motor boats in these 

areas would be to completely eliminate 

gigging in these zones, which I don’t 

understand. There is very little motorized 

boat traffic on the upper end of either of 

these rivers due to water level and that isn’t 

going to change. But, there are a lot of local 

folks who like to gig and trap those upper 

sections in the fall and winter and making 

this a non-motorized zone would certainly 

limit their user experience. I think it would 

be more appropriate to address the areas 

where a problem really exists instead of 

making a blanket regulation where it is not 

needed further alienating the local people 

and creating a problem where none 

currently exists. 

Corr. ID: 2409

Comment ID: 373197 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: That the Plan be 

amended to allow motorized access to these 

rivers from September 15 to January 31st 

inclusive during gigging season, as long as 

the individuals, or one adult family member 

of a group putting in has a valid Missouri 

fishing licenses and are engaged in that 

activity under current motor horsepower 

limits. I would further permit motorized 

fishing from January 31st until September 

15 with current motor hp limits from 4 p.m. 

Sunday to 10 a.m. Thursday of all weeks, 

excluding Memorial Day, 4th of July when 

it falls within that range of days, and Labor 

Day. On those holidays motorized boats 

would be excluded from the rivers from 

9:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

404

Corr. ID: 3073 

Comment ID: 375656 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I’m worried that 

the motor boat restriction on the upper 

current will impact trapping. Trapping is a 

legitimate use of the river. We use a 

motorboat to trap from Ceder Grove down 

to Pulltite. I’m not asking for a big motor. 

I’ve got a 20 horse on a Jon boat. Also 

gigging a lot of the - - a lot of the people 

have traditional uses. Trapping’s one; gig’s 

another. You’re going to stop all that 

traditional use when you limit the 

motorboat use. 

Response: 

Many commenters expressed the desire to 

have a recreational experience on the rivers 

that did not include motorized vessels and 

suggested that nonmotorized zones in the 

upper reaches of the rivers might provide 

those opportunities. The proposal to 

designate non-motorized zones on the 

upper stretches of both rivers stems, in part, 

from concerns raised by park users about 

congestion in some areas, where large 

numbers of floaters and boaters are trying 

to navigate the same stretches of the rivers.

Gigging at night from johnboats is a unique 

Ozark cultural experience. To ensure that 

this experience continues in the upper river 

stretches, the National Park Service is 

amending the preferred alternative to allow 

motorized johnboats equipped with 25 

horsepower or less from September 15 or 

the first day of gigging season for nongame 

fish in streams, through the end of trapping 

season, as established by the Missouri 

Department of Conservation. 

Concern ID: 50973 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Several 

commenters offered suggestions 

regarding the management of motor 

boats. One commenter suggested that 

boating speed limits should be established 

and enforced, rather than limiting 

horsepower. Other comments suggested 

restricting noise levels; using a permit 

system, and allowing electric-powered 

motors. 

Corr. ID: 1076 

Comment ID: 369978 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: In reviewing the 

options regarding ONSR, I noticed in one 

scenario, there would be a ban on 

motorized boats. In thinking about this, I 

suspect the real concern is with boats 

powered by internal combustion engines. 

They are noisy and disturb the quiet and 

peace to be enjoyed in nature. They frighten 

the wild life. They pollute the air and 

potentially the water as well.

Would the wording in ONSR not better 

serve the public and nature by prohibiting 

internal combustion engines and allowing 

electric powered trolling motors? Electric 

trolling motors are silent, they are clean, 

and they are less costly to buy and operate 

than gasoline powered motors. By allowing 

them exclusively, it also sends the message 

that the quiet and peace of our scenic river 

ways is something of value and is important 

to protect.

I am not a fisherman, but as a great lover of 

floating southern Missouri’s rivers, I hope 

you consider the needs of those for whom 

fishing is a passion as there is a viable 

compromise that will serve both their needs 

and ONSR’s. 

Thank you. 

Corr. ID: 2296 

Comment ID: 369045 

Organization: Greenway Network, Inc. 

St. Charles MO

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: The Upper Jacks 

Fork between the western boundary and 

Bay Creek especially during low flow 
Concern Response Report

405

cannot support any motor boats without 

damage to the aquatic invertebrates in the 

gravel substrate and motor oil and gas 

contamination. The Current River should 

limit the HP to 40 HP including even jet 

type motors. These boats disturb the gravels 

and the oils impairs the streams. A 

permitting system for the less than 40 HP 

flat bottom John Boats on the Current River 

is needed. 

Corr. ID: 2422 

Comment ID: 373754 

Organization: Stream Team 1028 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Instead of no 

motor zones, I would like to see, or rather 

hear a noise level restriction on the motors. 

Corr. ID: 2574 

Comment ID: 374500 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: As for the question 

of motor size, give us a speedlimit. A boat 

rigged for fishing (extra weight) can hardly 

run on plane with a 60/40 if you put a family 

(4) in the boat, as the jet pump is very 

sensitive to weight. 

Response: 

Most boats used on the National Riverways 

are not equipped with speedometers; 

therefore, users are unable to gauge their 

own speeds. Additionally, depending on 

direction of travel (downstream or 

upstream), speedometers may not 

accurately gauge speed of travel. 

Establishing an upper limit on horsepower

is the most effective way to achieve 

compliance. From a law enforcement 

standpoint, monitoring and enforcing speed 

limits on the river is not a practical solution 

for managing motorboat use and ensuring 

visitor safety. Rather, park unit rangers and 

other law enforcement officers can enforce 

existing regulations to prevent unsafe and 

careless boat operation, including excessive 

speed and reckless endangerment of 

floaters and swimmers.

Restrictions on noise levels are already in 

place in 36 CFR 3.15, stating that “A person 

may not operate a vessel at a noise level 

exceeding 75 dB(A) measured utilizing test 

procedures applicable to vessels 

underway.” As part of the development of a 

future river use management plan, the 

National Park Service will consider the 

implementation of a permit system and 

other means of distributing recreational 

uses. Electric trolling motors are allowed; 

however they are not considered a 

reasonable alternative for gasoline-powered 

engines in the current recreational 

operation of johnboats.

CA100—Camping 

Concern ID: 50974 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Some 

commenters suggested improving 

campground facilities within the park 

unit by adding electrical hookups and 

more recreational vehicle (RV) camping 

sites. One commenter suggested that 

primitive campsites should remain 

accessible by vehicles, because elderly or 

handicapped visitors have difficulty 

accessing these sites. Another commenter 

expressed opposition to imposing any new 

camping regulations along the river, 

while another commenter suggested that 

the National Park Service should not 

expand or upgrade the Blue Spring 

Campground because this area contains 

many rare plant species. 

Corr. ID: 2 

Comment ID: 369941 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: While an urban 

dweller, I choose to recreate in areas that 

tend to be primitive and off the grid as a 

form of disconnection and rejuvenation 

from the travails of modern living. I think 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

406

imposing additional regulation on when 

and where one could camp along the river -

with its concurrent forced congregation 

with other groups of users would seriously 

degrade the river systems use for such 

restorative and pastoral pursuits. 

Corr. ID: 2296 

Comment ID: 369042 

Organization: Greenway Network, Inc. 

St. Charles MO

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: The NPS should 

not expand or upgrade the “Blue Spring 

Campground” and it should be not be 

“developed”. This karst area with a pristine 

spring and sinks also contains many rare 

plant species. This natural resource needs 

the protection supplied with a designated 

“resourced-based recreation” not 

“developed”. 

Corr. ID: 2377 

Comment ID: 373035 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I am a Nurse 

Practitioner and disagree with proposed 

changes to the primitive camping. I have 

patients who are unable to walk to primitive 

camp sites for physical reasons. It is 

discrimination against people with 

disabilities to restrict their access to 

campsites which have been enjoyed for 

years. I advocate no change in the primitive 

sites accessible by vehicles. It is essential for 

their access which is only fair option. Even 

closing some roads to primitive campsites is 

not an option because people with 

disabilities may not have the funds to travel 

to other locations. Why is there a problem 

with these accesses anyway? 

Corr. ID: 2617 

Comment ID: 374647 

Organization: Stream Team 1028 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: There needs to be 

electric campsites at Pulltite and many more 

in the Round spring area, in a better 

location (in the shade, more level, less 

concrete). 

Corr. ID: 2760 

Comment ID: 370648 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Instead of limiting 

the amount of primitive camping accessible 

by land, add more areas for RV camping. 

Not everyone that enjoys camping wants to 

canoe or sleep in a tent, but like to be near 

the water and or near their motor boat. 

Boaters enjoy the camping experience and 

many have RV’s. With adding more 

campsites, the sites will be less crowded and 

the wear and tear would be spread out and 

not as concentrated in a few areas. This in 

return would increase access points to the 

river. Primitive RV camping for the 

handicapped and disabled would enhance 

the experience and add safety. More 

camping for horse riders should be 

provided. Not all riders like to go home at 

the end of the day. They enjoy the 

experience of on-the-trail camping. 

Corr. ID: 2794 

Comment ID: 370740 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Primitive and 

gravel bar camping: I strongly support the 

closing of the unauthorized maze of roads 

to primitive campsites and gravel bars, and 

the clear designation of authorized 

primitive sites and gravel bar camps, some 

accessible by motor vehicles and some 

walk-in. All designated primitive and gravel 

bar camps accessible by motor vehicle 

should be screened from view from the 

river, just as developed campgrounds are. 

Gravel bars and primitive camps should of 

course continue to be freely available for 

camping and day use from the river. 
Concern Response Report

407

Corr. ID: 3045 

Comment ID: 372548 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: * The NPS should 

not expand or upgrade the “Blue Spring 

Campground” and it should be not be 

“developed”. This karst area with a pristine 

spring and sinks also contains many rare 

plant species. This natural resource needs 

the protection supplied with a designated 

“resourced-based recreation” not 

“developed”. 

Response:

The National Park Service recognizes the 

need for additional amenities and 

improvements for its developed 

campgrounds. As stated in the NPS 

preferred alternative, additional 

improvements are fully dependent on 

future funding. 

Currently, a shortage of RV sites is observed 

only a few times a year on some busy 

weekends. Weekday occupancy is often 

below financially sustainable levels. 

In an effort to broaden the recreational 

experience and help protect resources, the 

NPS preferred alternative proposes to limit 

road access to some primitive campsites. 

Designated primitive campsites would not 

be closed, but in some cases the road or 

parking area would stop slightly short of the 

site. The road would be rehabilitated into a 

short hiking trail from the parking area to 

the campsite. However, the National Park 

Service would incorporate universal design 

principles to the extent practicable, and 

some sites would be accessible to persons 

with disabilities and the elderly (per 

requirements outlined in the Architectural 

Barriers Act of 1968 and the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, specifically). These 

rehabilitations would allow visitors to enjoy 

a more primitive camping experience in a 

few areas, while protecting resources and 

concealing vehicles from view from the 

river. The National Park Service would try 

to provide space for pop-ups or small 

campers, though these sites may be located 

a little further back from the river’s edge. 

No decision has been made about the 

primitive campsites that would be affected.

Any new campground development 

proposed within the park unit would follow 

the guidelines set forth through the 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

would assess environmental impacts, 

including potential impacts to threatened 

and endangered species.

EQ100—Equestrian Uses and Facilities 

Concern ID: 50975 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

suggested that designated horse trails 

should be located away from the river’s 

edge to prevent negative impacts to water 

quality. Commenters also noted that 

trails should be clearly mapped. 

Additional suggestions included 

implementing a permit system for 

equestrian uses, limiting the numbers of 

horses allowed, creating designated river 

crossings, and erecting additional signage 

that would notify riders of the distance to 

the river. One commenter asked for 

clarification on how a potential future 

permit system would affect existing 

commercial use authorizations (CUAs). 

Corr. ID: 83 

Comment ID: 372568 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Please continue to 

allow horseback riding in this area and 

stabilize trails and stream crossings to 

decrease negative impacts on the 

ecosystem. Perhaps you might consider 

creating a few stream crossings using 

techniques employed by the managers of 

the South Fork Recreation area in TN 

where they have installed concrete bars at 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

408

stream crossings to reduce siltation and 

erosion. 

Corr. ID: 102 

Comment ID: 372590 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I visit Eminence 

Missouri at least one week a year. While 

riding in the adjoining areas there’s one 

thing I'd love to see. We need signs saying 

when we're 50ft (or however far you want 

us) from the river. That way we can rest our 

horses and they'll probably poop then and 

not in the river. It's always so stressful and 

impossible to stop when your horse is 

pooping in the river. We don’t want tickets, 

we don’t want to add pollution. The reason 

most horses poop in the river is because 

that’s where we stop to rest and it’s the first 

chance they get to relax and go.

So if there’s a sign and small clearing at the 

appropriate distance from the river on the 

trails that have river crossings it would be 

hugely appreciated. I’ve been thinking of 

this for years but never knew who to tell. 

Corr. ID: 1147 

Comment ID: 370510 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Horseback riding 

restricted to only designated back country 

trails that are at least 100 yards from any

waterway and may not cross or interact 

with any type of water course no matter 

how small or large. Horseback riders must 

have a special license and pay a fee for use 

of trails to offset damage and fecal waste left 

behind. Horseback riding should not come 

within 100 yards of any camping or other 

recreational use area designated for 

pedestrian use. 

Corr. ID: 1543 

Comment ID: 370161

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Restrict the 

numbers daily of the equestrian community 

and related businesses to lessen the damage 

done to the parks land and rivers. Allowing 

such numbers that requires warnings of 

unhealthy Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria 

levels in certain areas of the rivers should be 

considered unacceptable. 

Corr. ID: 2296 

Comment ID: 369046 

Organization: Greenway Network, Inc. 

St. Charles MO 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: * Horse trails 

should be relocated wherever possible out 

of the flood plain areas within the entire 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways because 

of the loading, which harms the water 

quality. There are many miles of 

“Undesignated Horse Trails” which all need 

to be “Designated” or removed. All river 

crossing points of “designated” horse trails 

needs clearly mapped and reduced in 

number.

* The Horse Camps in the Upper Jacks Fork 

are point source pollution and should be 

removed especially from the flood plains 

which are sensitive. There should not be a 

25 horse campground at Blue Spring. This is 

a very bad idea because of the wastes in the 

flood plain and invasive plants resulting 

from the hay.

* A permitting system for the horses on the 

river is needed. 

Corr. ID: 2314

Comment ID: 369152 

Organization: Cross Country Trail Ride, 

LLC 

Organization Type: Recreational Groups 

Representative Quote: As a current CUA 

holder I am very interested in the 

suggestion of a permit system for horse 

trails. I currently purchase a CUA on an 

annual basis to allow my customers access 
Concern Response Report

409

to the few trails that are available within the 

park. I question whether my customers will 

also have to purchase a permit in the event 

this system is instituted? I feel this would be 

a double charge to visitors and not a very 

fair situation; I would like to suggest that 

serious consideration be given to this issue 

in the event that the permit system is 

instituted. 

Corr. ID: 2589

Comment ID: 374551 

Organization: Missouri Coalition for the 

Environment 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: With regard to 

horses, the capacity of the land to support 

the enormous demand for trail rides (for 

example, 3,000 horse stalls at Eminence) 

needs to be assessed to determine how 

horse use can best be accommodated. 

Solutions may include re-routing trails from 

sensitive areas, improving permitting, 

improving trails, better signage, better 

enforcement, encouraging off-park trails, 

route disclosure by riders with 

commitments to adhere to marked trails, 

and coordinating incentives to achieve 

temporal distribution of horse users at peak 

times (to prevent overloading on peak 

weekends). One researcher identified horse 

trails that include more than 80 places 

where horses cross the rivers. These areas 

can harm water quality with erosion and 

fecal coliform pollution. A 1991 NPS study 

suggested that the NPS consider restricting 

the total number of horse riders by utilizing 

a permit system (NPS 1991). At the time, the 

majority of riders in the Riverways were 

guided rides. This situation may have 

changed, which might require another 

solution. Alternatively, encouraging the 

development of horse trails outside the 

RIVERWAYS may help redistribute the 

impacts to a manageable level. In any case, 

the solutions must be developed in 

cooperation with all stakeholders who can 

help devise creative solutions. 

Corr. ID: 2971

Comment ID: 384194 

Organization: Cave Research Foundation 

Organization Type: Recreational Groups 

Representative Quote: -Horse trails 

should be limited to old road beds where 

degradation can be minimized. However, a 

joint backpacking and horse trail should be 

considered utilizing old roads on the upper 

Current River. Such a trail could go from 

Round Spring all the way to Cedargrove.

-We do not support the creation of new 

horse camps unless they are remote camps, 

utilized for overnight trips, or unless they 

replace current, unauthorized, 

unmaintained social camps. Otherwise off 

park facilities would be beneficial to the 

local community. Horse camps are not a 

low-maintenance item and a proliferation 

of them will likely degrade natural 

resources. 

Response: 

Horseback riding is currently a permitted 

use on 23 miles of designated trails and is an 

important and valued recreational activity 

that connects thousands of visitors to the 

National Riverways each year. As popularity 

of this activity has increased, so has the 

need to actively manage this use.

There are approximately 90 miles of 

undesignated horse trails in the park unit. 

Use of these undesignated trails has resulted 

in damage to sensitive park unit resources 

and made navigation of the trail system 

difficult for many trail users.

After the general management plan is 

finalized, the National Park Service will 

develop a roads and trails management plan 

that would provide a basis for making 

informed decisions about where to 

designate trails and river crossings to 

minimize impacts to sensitive areas, while 

also ensuring that the National Park Service 

continues to provide high quality 

experiences for horseback riders. As part of 

a future roads and trails management plan, 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

410

existing trails may be redesigned and 

improved to decrease the impacts of horses 

on sensitive areas. The plan also would 

identify types and suitable locations for 

improved trail signage to clearly delineate 

authorized trails and orient trail users. 

Based on the preferred alternative, the 

National Park Service would consider 

designating some of the existing, 

unauthorized trails by incorporating about 

25 to 45 miles of these trails into the existing 

National Riverways’ trail system, as well as 

some of the associated stream crossings. 

The remaining 45 to 65 miles of 

unauthorized horse trails and associated 

stream crossings would be closed and 

restored to their natural conditions. Until a 

roads and trails management plan is 

completed, unauthorized trails that pose the 

greatest threat to park unit resources and 

visitor safety would be closed on a case-bycase basis.

If necessary, the National Park Service may 

consider implementing a permit system for 

horseback riding. In the event that a permit 

system is implemented, the impact on 

commercial use authorizations for 

horseback riding would be considered. 

Concern ID: 50976 

CONCERN STATEMENT: One 

commenter recommended that the NPS

address the problem of horseback riders

crossing over to private land adjacent to 

the park. Another commenter suggested 

that rest stations should be built (for both 

horses and riders) away from the rivers. 

Corr. ID: 2666 

Comment ID: 369709

Organization: Pioneer Forest LLC 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: We have watched 

the horse trails multiply, up and down the 

rivers, seemingly without direction or 

planning. The result is that riders often 

cross onto private land, including ours, 

without permission. Resolving this issue 

should be one of your top priorities. 

Corr. ID: 2876 

Comment ID: 376523

Organization: Ozark Heritage Project 

Organization Type: Non-Governmental 

Representative Quote: To address the 

impact of horses in significant numbers and 

to decrease their environmental footprint 

(hoof print?), numerous horse owning 

volunteers stand ready at their own 

personal expense to build Rest Stations 

complete with wooden hitch rails and rustic 

wooden benches for both horse and rider to 

rest above and outside the flood area of the 

rivers. ONSR staff need only identify areas 

for construction and approve rudimentary 

designs. At this time, OHP stands ready to 

place these plans into operation for the 

main part of the 2014 riding season. 

Response: 

The National Park Service understands that 

maintaining good relations with adjacent 

landowners, surrounding communities, and 

private and public groups is important for 

parks to be successful. Trail access across 

private lands outside park boundaries are at 

each individual landowner’s discretion. As 

part of the future roads and trails 

management plan, the National Park 

Service would collaborate with landowners, 

commercial operators, interested citizens, 

and trail stakeholders to designate 

additional horse trails and explore 

opportunities for additional miles of trails 

outside the park unit’s boundaries that 

would connect to designated park horse 

trails. The National Park Service would 

secure authorized and/or permitted access 

for such trails only where it is in the mutual 

interest of the park unit and adjacent 

landowners.

The National Park Service appreciates the 

willingness of its partners to support 

development of new facilities such as rest 

areas for horseback riders and their horses. 

Trail-specific amenities such as these would 
Concern Response Report

411

be considered as part of the roads and trails 

management plan. 

Concern ID: 50977 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

indicated that reducing the number of 

horse trails would displace horseback 

riders and concentrate use on a reduced 

number of trails. One commenter 

supported a permit system to help fund 

trail development and maintenance. 

Another commenter expressed concern 

that the draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement did not 

include enough detail on equestrian trails 

to make informed decisions regarding 

trail closures. 

Corr. ID: 1271 

Comment ID: 371046

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: In line with Ken 

Burns Documentary on National Parks, the 

parks success is dependent on the public’s 

ability to access it. The ability to enjoy 

remote areas of the park may only be 

obtainable to the elderly or others with 

impairments (MS) via horse. This is one 

reason that horseback riding is so popular 

with the retired folks.

Trail riding continues to increase in 

popularity with people of all ages. When the 

number of trails are reduced this adds stress 

to the existing trails.

I am very concerned when the plan calls for 

closing 65 miles of trails and only adding 25 

miles. It costs next to nothing to close trails 

but funding for adding additional trails is 

always at risk.

Horse trails properly designed do not 

interfere with native vegetation and the 

natural condition of an area.

For these reasons we need to increase the 

miles of multi-use trails open to horseback 

riding. We should not close any trails until 

there are alternate ones to replace them. As 

such I would not be opposed to requiring 

“bridle tags” provided any and all funds 

were used for those trails exclusively. 

Corr. ID: 2744 

Comment ID: 370601 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: The Park Service 

does not show a map of the 65 miles of 

horse trails that they want to close, so how 

would anyone make an informed decision 

on whether or not this is a good plan. 

Response: 

Unauthorized horse trails have evolved 

without the required archeological or 

environmental reviews. CFR 36.2.16 

restricts horseback riding in national park 

areas to designated trails. The National Park 

Service may officially designate some of the 

existing unauthorized trails when it 

develops a roads and trails management 

plan but would close those trails that pose a 

threat to park unit resources.

Any future closure and restoration of 

unauthorized trails would be intended to 

encourage use of designated, authorized 

trails. While this may change use patterns 

for some trail users, it would not necessarily 

result in increased congestion on 

authorized trails. Through development of 

a roads and trails management plan, the 

National Park Service would evaluate all 

trails available to the public, permitted trail 

uses, and other related issues such as 

available parking, numbers of 

trailheads/access points, and available 

interpretation/signage. More specifically, 

NPS staff would employ techniques 

designed to relieve congestion and disperse 

trail use from one area to another. Some of 

these techniques might include limiting or 

expanding available parking for trail users, 

formally designating trails, and providing 

informational trail signage to help better 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

412

orient trail users. Park unit staff envisions 

that few if any new trails would need to be 

constructed. Park unit staff would take 

advantage of existing unauthorized trails, as 

long as they would not pose a threat to park 

unit resources. Trail data for designated and 

undesignated trails would be a critical 

component of this planning effort. In 

instances where this and/or other important 

resource data is unavailable, the National 

Park Service would make a concerted effort 

to gather such data.

If necessary, a permitting (tag) system is 

another management tool that could be 

implemented to ensure that trail use is more 

controlled and natural resources along trail 

corridors are maintained and preserved. 

Please see earlier response to Concern 

Statement ID #50975 for additional 

information on a potential permit system.

FS100—Fishing (Including Gigging) 

Concern ID: 50978 

CONCERN STATEMENT: One 

commenter suggested that fishing 

regulations should be changed for 

smallmouth bass. Another commenter 

suggested that the NPS consider stocking 

additional catchable species. 

Corr. ID: 43 

Comment ID: 372422 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: On another note, I 

would very much like to see some fishing 

regulations placed on smallmouth bass on 

the current river from two rivers to van 

buren. The river has the ability to produce

the biggest smallmouth bass in the ozarks if 

regulations are enacted and enforced. 

Corr. ID: 2296 

Comment ID: 376503 

Organization: Greenway Network, Inc. 

St. Charles MO 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: * NPS could 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and 

Mo DOC to consider stocking of other 

aquatic species I.e. Rainbow or Brook Trout 

if reasonable 

Response: 

The Missouri Department of Conservation 

sets regulations for fishing in the state of 

Missouri. Any suggested changes to these 

regulations should be directed to the 

Missouri Department of Conservation.

The stocking of rainbow and brown trout in 

the Current River is a historic practice for 

the Missouri Department of Conservation 

(existing prior to the establishment of the 

park unit). As a matter of policy, the 

National Park Service does not stock nonnative fish species; however, it recognizes 

the recreational value of the state’s longstanding stocking program.

GB100—Gravel Bar Access 

Concern ID: 50979 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

supported and opposed vehicular access 

to gravel bars. Some commenters were 

opposed to designated campsites on 

gravel bars, while others suggested that 

the NPS should identify the gravel bars 

that would be accessible to motor vehicles 

in the general management plan / 

environmental impact statement). 

Corr. ID: 16 

Comment ID: 370269 

Organization: Mo. Stream Teams, 

ST#713 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I am troubled and a 

bit confused by the proposed “prohibition” 

on gravel bar camping. I have no problem 

with closing the gravel bars to vehicular 

traffic, this should have happened long ago. 
Concern Response Report

413

However, one of the greatest draws to the 

ONSR is ones ability to float/camp among 

these wonders of Nature. To limit the 

experience, ie “Camping on gravel bars 

would be allowed in designated campsites 

only”, defeats the purpose, and denigrates a 

wilderness experience that we have the rare 

opportunity to engender with this new Use 

Management Plan. There are already a 

number of *designated* primitive sites on 

the rivers...Bay Creek on the Jacks Fork is a 

prime example. If you would, please clarify 

your meaning/intent in this regard. 

Corr. ID: 635 

Comment ID: 374300 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: The alternative to 

limit gravel bar camping to designated 

gravel bars away from the river is 

unjustified. The proposal asserts that this

would help minimize some riverbed 

disturbances, erosion, sedimentation, water 

quality degradation, and turbidity in many 

gravel bar areas. Anyone who has spent time 

on the river knows that the impact of a 

camper or tent on the gravel bar is 

extremely minor compared to the impact 

on these gravel bars with each spring flood. 

Every year the flood waters change these 

gravel bars. To suggest that my setting a tent 

and a small campfire or even an RV on the 

gravel bar has a negative impact is frankly 

unfounded. 

Corr. ID: 1730

Comment ID: 374860 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: For one thing, you 

leave yourself a blanket slate by saying that 

the number of gravel bars accessible to 

vehicles would be designated and reduced. 

That could mean one or all. I don’t think 

anyone believes that it would only be a few. 

If you can’t name the ones that you believe 

are a problem, then you shouldn’t be given 

the power to close any. 

Corr. ID: 2296 

Comment ID: 369048 

Organization: Greenway Network, Inc. 

St. Charles MO 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: ATV’s are not 

allowed in the Park grounds. They should 

not be on the gravel bars, flood plains, 

horse, hiking or mountain biking trails. 

They cause excessive erosion.

* The ATV users now use all trails and horse 

trails, this issue needs to be addressed with 

enforcement before any expansion of any 

possible additional trails or trail systems in 

the Park are considered. This was a source 

of many public comments at the public 

hearings.

* Motor vehicles and ATV’s do not belong 

on gravel bars. The oil and gas lowers the 

water quality and the stream disturbance 

kills the aquatic invertebrates in the gravel 

substrate. 

Corr. ID: 2385 

Comment ID: 373075 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: However I am 

deeply opposed to the statement on gravel 

bar camping in table 13: “Camping on gravel 

bars would be allowed in designated 

campsites only.” In discussions I have seen 

in the press and on the web, this statement 

is not being interpreted by Park Service staff 

as restricting gravel bar camping by 

canoeists, kayakers, other paddle craft 

users, or hikers. I would like the GMP to 

clearly state it will not restrict gravel bar 

camping by canoeists, kayakers, other 

paddle craft users, or hikers, but that it will 

also prohibit gravel bar camping by 

horseback riders, vehicle, RV, and ATV 

users. 

Corr. ID: 2409 

Comment ID: 373194 

Organization: Not Specified 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

414

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: That the wording 

of permitted gravel bar camping be made 

more clear that it includes people floating 

the river, or hiking in, and that barriers 

erected against vehicular traffic be 

constructed in such a way to allow passage 

of wheelchairs. 

Corr. ID: 2792 (Robert W. Ross)

Comment ID: 370728 

Organization: District 142 State 

Representative 

Organization Type: State Government 

Representative Quote: Camping along the 

river on gravel bars should not be limited to 

“designated areas.” Part of the enjoyment of 

floating/boating is being able to camp at a 

convenient time and location along your 

route. Attempting to regulate this is nearly 

laughable. While the NPS has focused on 

closing camping areas in recent years, there 

should be a renewed effort to attract 

families to visit, camp, and enjoy their stay; 

rather than to say, “You can’t camp here, 

because it's not designated.”

Response: 

The National Park Service acknowledges 

that when the draft general management 

plan / environmental impact statement was 

first released there were some typographical 

errors in the text that stated that camping 

on gravel bars would be allowed in 

designated campsites only. Currently, and 

in the preferred alternative, gravel bar 

camping would continue to be allowed for 

those accessing gravel bars by motorized 

and nonmotorized watercraft, and by foot, 

as long as the location of the campsite is 0.5

mile away from any designated campground 

and at least 50 feet away from any 

designated river access. For some gravel 

bars that are accessed by vehicles, 

alternative B proposes designated gravel bar 

camping areas and/or campsites. This 

action is intended to improve visitor safety 

and resource protection. 

ATVs and UTVs will continue to be 

managed in accordance with state statute. 

If gravel bars are currently being accessed 

by unauthorized roads, these roads would 

be evaluated and may be closed. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

review each area on an individual basis to 

evaluate if current usage is consistent with 

the direction set forth in the general 

management plan and the future roads and 

trails management plan.

Some number of gravel bars will continue to 

be accessible to licensed vehicles. The 

number of gravel bars accessible to vehicles 

and associated designated camping areas 

and/or campsites would be identified in a 

subsequent planning process.

VU100—Visitor Use and Access 

(General) 

Concern ID: 50980 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

provided a number of suggestions to 

enhance visitor experience, including, but 

not limited to, limiting use levels and 

group size, improving hiking trails, 

improving waste management, allowing 

rock climbing and mountain biking, and 

reopening caves. 

Corr. ID: 649 

Comment ID: 374336 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I would like to see 

these changes made to improve the hiking 

trail system:

1. Close roads in primitive zones and 

replace with hiking trails as stated in 

Alternative B.

2. Increase and improve signage and 

improve maintenance of present hiking 

trails.

3. Produce maps of hiking trails and make 

readily available.

4. Increase hiking trails in natural zones 

especially to natural and cultural features. 
Concern Response Report

415

Corr. ID: 984 

Comment ID: 369779 

Organization: Kansas City Climbing Club 

Organization Type: Recreational Groups 

Representative Quote: Climbing is a 

legitimate and longstanding use of our 

nation’s public lands. Throughout our 

National Park System, as administered by 

the National Park Service, climbing is 

considered a “welcomed and historical use. 

Please reconsider your restrictions on Rock 

Climbing in the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I support 

Alternative B with the following stipulation: 

Mountain biking should be allowed on all 

multi-purpose trails where hiking and 

horseback riding are allowed. Currently 

acceptable exceptions would be designated 

Wilderness or Primitive areas and short 

hiking only Nature trails near Visitor 

Centers. Under no other circumstances 

should mountain biking be forbidden on 

any trails acceptable for horseback riding 

unless a mountain biking/hiking only 

alternative is built along the same general 

path. 

Corr. ID: 1634 

Comment ID: 370367 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Limit the number 

of canoeists/horse back riders that are 

allowed on the river, and limit the size of 

groups that can travel together. 

Corr. ID: 1916 

Comment ID: 372883 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I would just like the 

commission to remember this is a National 

Park. While concerns over local profit 

making businesses are important, their 

welfare does not compare to the welfare of 

the river and surrounding eco system. The 

quality of the water, the damage caused by 

improper use, waste run off etc. all threaten 

the long term survival of one of the Nations 

finest natural resources. STRONG controls 

need to be put in place to halt the run off 

from all the horse stables, the ATV’s tearing 

up the areas around the rivers, including the 

noise which affects the wildlife in the area. 

Corr. ID: 2390 

Comment ID: 373100 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I would suggest 

placing a port potty at strategic locations 

along the river and let users know of those 

locations so that a significant amount of the 

human waste can be collected rather than 

deposited in close proximity to the river. 

Corr. ID: 2449 

Comment ID: 373911 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Reopen the caves. 

Humans do not spread WNS. People have 

stopped enjoying your park because they 

can not access the caves like Jam Up Cave. 

Everyone should have chance for 

responsible recreation. 

Corr. ID: 2589 

Comment ID: 374547 

Organization: Missouri Coalition for the 

Environment 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: Expands waste 

management. With 1.5 million visitors, the 

need for expanded, manageable and 

sustainable sewage treatment and restroom 

facilities is critical. Responsible waste 

management needs to be a priority in the 

GMP, with careful attention to users, the 

environment and operating budgets. 

Modern composting toilets, improved siting 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

416

and signage, and user education are likely 

part of the solution. 

Response: 

The National Park Service appreciates the 

suggestions to enhance visitor experience 

and access. The range of alternatives 

presented in the general management plan /

environmental impact statement was 

designed to evaluate the best mix of 

resource protection and visitor experiences 

within the National Riverways. In addition, 

these alternatives include comprehensive 

strategies to manage the distribution of use 

in the park unit.

Under the NPS preferred alternative, the 

number of hiking trails provided would 

increase compared to current conditions. 

When needed, trails would be developed to 

access some discovery sites; places that 

offer visitors the opportunity to explore and 

learn more about the park unit’s unique 

resources. Additional accessible trails (trails 

for persons with disabilities or the elderly) 

also would be created.

Waste management is an important 

management consideration for the park 

unit. Park unit staff is aware of the 

detrimental effects of human waste to water 

quality and visitor experience. In 2013, NPS 

managers began a concerted effort to train 

concessioners on “Leave No Trace” ethics 

as well as an educational campaign to 

educate park visitors about proper waste 

disposal. NPS managers and concessioners 

would continue to educate visitors about 

proper disposal of human waste and the 

location of existing facilities. The National 

Park Service would site these restroom 

facilities in appropriate locations as 

practicable and needed.

The National Park Service recognizes that 

climbing is a historical recreational use in 

many national park units. Technical rock 

climbing is allowed in the park unit; 

however, certain restrictions are in place to 

protect the park unit’s karst geology and 

other sensitive natural resources. The 

superintendent’s compendium on the park 

unit’s website contains specific, up to date 

climbing restrictions.

Mountain biking may become an allowable 

trail use, but only on designated trails, as 

determined through development of a 

roads and trails management plan. 

Mountain biking would not be allowed in 

primitive zones. After approval of the roads 

and trails management plan, the National 

Park Service is required to pursue rulemaking before mountain biking is allowed 

on designated trails.

The National Riverways is mandated 

through its enabling legislation to preserve 

caves. Closures are established to protect 

the fragile ecosystems and resources within 

the caves, and to minimize negative impacts 

on any endangered or threatened resource. 

One such threat is white-nose syndrome in 

bats. White-nose syndrome is a 

transmittable disease responsible for 

unprecedented levels of deaths in 

hibernating bats in the eastern United States

and the rapid spread continues to be a 

serious threat to bat populations across 

much of the country. The fungus causing 

this disease was discovered in Shannon 

County, Missouri, in 2010 and affected the 

federally endangered gray bat. The 

discovery of the fungus within the National 

Riverways’ boundary prompted park unit 

staff to use extreme caution in managing 

activities that impact caves and bats and 

could contribute to the spread of the 

disease from cave to cave. The May 14, 2010 

press release from the superintendent 

documents the urgency surrounding the 

need to close caves in the park unit. These 

closures are consistent with the guidance 

noted in a national interagency plan, A 

National Plan for Assisting States, Federal 

Agencies, and Tribes in Managing WhiteNose Syndrome in Bats, developed in 2011 

to ensure that federal and state agencies 

coordinate and cooperate in an effective 

national response to the disease. As noted in 

the interagency plan, the guidance for cave 
Concern Response Report

417

closures is rooted in the seriousness of the 

ecological threat and the notable potential 

for the disease to be spread by human 

activities in caves. In addition to this 

national white-nose syndrome plan, in 

September 2010, the deputy director of the 

National Park Service affirmed these 

decisions at the park unit by directing 

national park superintendents to take 

aggressive action to stop the spread of 

white-nose syndrome, which included the 

potential need to close caves to public 

access. 

Concern ID: 50982 

CONCERN STATEMENT: One 

commenter recommended that the park 

unit should work to ensure access points 

are safe and accessible for both public and 

commercial users, and that the NPS

should continue to allow hunting, fishing, 

and trapping throughout the park unit. 

Corr. ID: 2983 (Robert L. Ziehmer)

Comment ID: 372481 

Organization: Missouri Department of 

Conservation 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: The Department of 

Conservation (Department) appreciates this 

opportunity to submit comments on the 

National Park Service’s Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways (Scenic Riverways) draft 

General Management Plan / Wilderness 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement 

(GMP).

The Department’s mission is to protect and 

manage the forest, fish, and wildlife 

resources in the state; and to facilitate and 

provide opportunity for all citizens to use, 

enjoy and learn about these resources. In 

addition, the Department is responsible for 

managing significant acres for Missourians 

adjacent to the Scenic Riverways. Based on 

our review of the draft GMP, the 

Department offers the following comments:

1. Many aspects of the existing 1984 GMP 

.are not being implemented/enforced by the 

National Park Service (NPS), such as 

undesignated trails and roads. The 

Department opposes options presented in 

the newly prepared draft GMP, while 

supporting implementation/enforcement of

the existing 1984 plan.

2. The GMP states that “undesignated trails 

and crossings are not designed to withstand 

the use they receive or control potential 

impacts to natural resources. Typically, 

undesignated trails and crossings are 

susceptible to erosion and a loss of 

vegetation, which can lead to impacts on 

wildlife habitat, hydrologic processes, and 

water quality, including increased 

turbidity.” The NPS must work to ensure 

access points are safe and accessible for 

both public and commercial users. The 

Department requests that the NPS continue 

to allow hunting, fishing, and trapping 

throughout the Scenic Riverways. 

Response: 

The National Park Service has no plans to 

discontinue hunting, fishing, or trapping 

within the park unit. These are important 

activities enjoyed by visitors to the park 

unit. Under the park unit’s enabling 

legislation (as amended), sport fishing, 

hunting, and trapping are allowable uses 

(please refer to appendix B). 

Concern ID: 50983 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

suggested persons with disabilities and 

the elderly should be able to access areas 

of the park unit. One commenter 

indicated that these visitors should be able 

to obtain a permit that would allow them 

to operate motor vehicles inside the park 

unit; another commenter suggested that 

park unit roads should be maintained to 

ensure access for persons with disabilities 

and elderly visitors. 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

418

Corr. ID: 1037 

Comment ID: 369867 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: The Ozarks 

National Scenic Riverways has been a 

family recreational spot for our family for 

generations. By limiting the access to certain 

areas, many families would not be able to 

enjoy the natural environment that God 

created.

Walking long distances to be able to get to 

the water banks my be impossible for some. 

Many people may have handicaps, are 

confined to wheelchairs and may have 

illnesses prevent them from easily traveling 

to recreational areas.

Restrictions should NOT be placed on 

access to and from, nor should the general 

public not be allowed to enjoy the natural 

habitat. 

Corr. ID: 2115 

Comment ID: 376122 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Roads: All Park 

roads, traces and accesses, whether Parkowned, county-owned or public roads, 

should remain open and unimpeded for all 

park visitor usage. This should include both 

motorized and non-motorized use. All 

secondary (non-paved gravel) roads should 

be maintained on a regular basis with a 

minimum once-per-year grading of 

cemetery roads, traditionally prior to 

Memorial Day each year. With adequate 

(two-wheel drive) road access, families and 

cemetery associations will continue to 

maintain the graves and cemetery grounds. 

When access roads are not maintained to 

minimum (regular grading and brush 

removal) standards, deteriorated conditions 

severely affects elderly and physically 

limited visitors from driving to 

fishing/swimming holes, hunting areas, 

former family farms and/or other recreation 

uses. 

Corr. ID: 2409

Comment ID: 373193 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: That the NPS come 

up with a procedure of permits or 

exceptions to allow persons who, by reason 

of age, or physical impairment must use 

motorized forms of transportation to access 

the river, historic or natural sites of interest, 

old roads going to family homesteads and 

cemeteries and other places on a case by 

case basis, using the least intrusive means of 

transportation possible. No more than one 

permit for one individual (and caregivers if 

needed) shall be issued in any 6 month 

period, and the party needs to pick up the 

permit in person from one of the park 

offices or one of the concessioner’s stores, 

so that their impairment, or age can be 

verified by sight or by the same means as 

one obtains handicapped vehicle plates. 

Misuse of such permit or falsification of 

impairment will be grounds for no more 

permits being issued to that party. 

Response: 

Under the NPS preferred alternative, most 

of the existing access points would continue 

to be available throughout the park unit. 

Additional trails that are accessible to 

persons with disabilities and the elderly 

would also be established. Areas of the park 

unit with key discovery sites that offer 

visitors the opportunity to explore and 

learn more about the park unit’s unique 

resources along old access roads may be 

reopened to enable vehicular access. The 

majority of access proposed to be limited in 

the plan is unauthorized access.

Park unit staff strive to maintain roads 

within the park unit to ensure safe access 

for all visitors. The National Park Service 

takes all practicable efforts to make sure 

that facilities (including roads) are 
Concern Response Report

419

accessible and usable by all people per the 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Both of these 

acts are similar to the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 but pertain 

specifically to federal agencies. Accessibility 

is generally provided consistent with 

preserving park resources and providing 

visitor safety and high-quality visitor 

experiences. In meeting the goal of 

accessibility, emphasis is placed on ensuring 

that persons with disabilities are afforded 

experiences and opportunities along with 

other visitors to the greatest extent 

reasonable. In most instances, the degree of 

accessibility provided is proportionately 

related to the degree of human-made 

modifications in the area surrounding the 

facility.

The National Park Service only has 

jurisdiction over park-owned roads within 

park boundaries. In cases where other roads 

(such as county roads) provide access, the 

park unit would continue to partner with 

the entity that has jurisdiction to maintain 

roads within the park unit to appropriate 

standards, and maintain safe access.

The National Park Service is not currently 

considering a permit system for individuals 

that must use motorized forms of 

transportation or mobility devices. The 

National Park Service does, however, 

operate and maintain facilities consistent 

with federal regulations applicable to 

accessibility.

RD100—Roads 

Concern ID: 50984 

CONCERN STATEMENT: One 

commenter recommended 

environmentally sensitive maintenance 

techniques for improvements and 

maintenance of culverts and gravel 

roads. Another commenter proposed that 

the roads should be improved and 

widened to allow road bicycling. 

Corr. ID: 2423 

Comment ID: 373782 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I also support 

improving roads and adding shoulders to 

roads in the area to improve access for road 

bicycling where possible. 

Corr. ID: 2450

Comment ID: 373923 

Organization: The Nature Conservancy 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: The Conservancy 

recommends environmentally sensitive 

maintenance (ESM) techniques for 

improvements and maintenance of culverts 

and gravel roads.[10,11] ESM approaches 

construction and maintenance of gravel 

roads with consideration of downstream 

water quality impacts as central to the 

design. The practices are promoted by the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS), American 

Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, and many states 

across the country. Studies show that these 

techniques better withstand severe weather 

events, reduce erosion and sedimentation, 

and have lower life-cycle costs than 

traditional methods.[12,13] These 

techniques could reduce the demand on the 

Park’s limited budget, help the 

infrastructure withstand future changes in 

climate, improve water quality, and 

reconnect aquatic habitats. The 

Conservancy recommends incorporating a 

reference to ESM techniques on page 90 

under the Sustainable Development 

heading and by revising the second bulleted 

statement under Factor 5 on page 41 to: 

“Establish a partnership with the counties 

regarding road management, including 

closures, and promote the use of 

environmentally sensitive maintenance 

techniques on all roads within the Park 

boundaries.” 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

420

Response: 

The National Park Service agrees that 

future road development should 

incorporate environmentally sensitive 

maintenance techniques for improvements 

and construction. Most paved roads in the 

park unit are state-owned and maintained 

and about half of the gravel roads in the 

park unit are county-owned and 

maintained. The National Park Service 

would support the county, state, and federal 

highways programs when opportunities 

arise that could allow widening for bicycle 

use. The NPS preferred alternative also 

recommends designating some trails within 

the park unit for mountain biking, where 

deemed appropriate. 

Concern ID: 50985 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

were concerned that the draft general 

management plan / environmental 

impact statement failed to identify the 

designated and undesignated roads 

within the park unit, and one commenter 

suggested that the NPS should complete a 

detailed study to determine which river 

access points contribute to erosion. 

Another commenter questioned whether 

the NPS has legal authority to close roads 

and access points. 

Corr. ID: 542 

Comment ID: 374004 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: In response to the 

concerns of restricted access due to road 

and trail closures, it’s clear that the largest 

ecological issue that is being addressed by 

these closures is that of sediment and gravel 

erosion into the streams. Locals have been 

aware of the gravel erosion problem for 

some time, and we would be more willing to 

accept measures to reduce it if the NPS 

themselves weren’t notorious for 

circumventing that effort. Locals have a 

long memory, and events like the spreading 

of chat gravel on tourist parking lots that lie 

well below the flood plain are more than 

enough cause to question the intentions and 

wisdom of NPS efforts at gravel erosion 

prevention. Regardless of past erosion 

prevention failures, we do agree that there 

are more access points than necessary along 

the river, and that a great number of these 

are unmanaged by the NPS and in varying 

degrees of disrepair. We also understand 

and agree with the fact that in heavy rain, 

these roads and traces erode, dumping silt 

and gravel into streambeds already 

brimming with gravel. In general, we are in 

favor of a more detailed study that 

determines the access points that are the 

greatest offenders in contributing to the 

erosion problem, and the subsequent 

closing and restoration of these areas. 

When promoting the idea of road closures, 

it’s important for the NPS to understand 

that this knowledge of the back roads is a 

point of pride for those who have grown up 

here. It is also a very valuable method of 

finding ways to bypass the swarms of 

outsider tourists that are becoming more 

and more prevalent in the ONSR. The study 

of closing these access points should be 

undertaken with transparency and with 

open feedback from the local population. A 

compromise that could be considered by 

the NPS would be to determine and retain 

several of the least damaging and most 

valued secondary roads that are frequented 

by locals. These should be preserved as 

truly secondary access points, patrolled and 

to a degree maintained by the NPS, but not 

publicized or ever opened up for 

commercial use. 

Corr. ID: 2602 

Comment ID: 374598 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: The ONSR has 

done a terrible job at identifying the official 

roads and trails within the park boundaries. 

Nowhere in the draft GMP or the official 

website for the ONSR can I find where the 

NPS identifies what are and are not the 

official roads within the boundaries on the 
Concern Response Report

421

park. In this technological age it requires 

minimal effort to develop maps to display 

this information and disseminate to the 

public. 

Corr. ID: 2627 

Comment ID: 374894 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I further question 

the propriety of certain road and gravel bar 

closures due to vested public interests prior 

to ONSRs ownership. While certain roads, 

trails, gravel bar crossings and/or gravel bar 

uses were not in existence prior to ONSR 

acquisition, several were. This past 

continuous hostile use predating federal 

title arguably renders that title subject to the 

same. I suggest closures - or regulations 

restricting use beyond those uses common 

at title vestiture - of those areas in public use 

at ONSRs formation will operate as a 

taking.

For that reason, I request that the NPS 

address the following:

“For those areas subject to closure or 

restrictions, what efforts were made to 

evaluate the prior public use and potential 

prescriptive rights, and;” Please address the 

anticipated costs of future takings litigation.

Finally, I again request specific detailed 

facts justifying each regulatory land 

measure that restricts these prescriptive 

interests. I do not believe the justifications 

stated in the draft GMP are sufficient to 

meet the heightened review necessitated by 

the prescriptive rights in play. 

Response: 

The detailed study needed to identify 

designated and undesignated roads is 

beyond the scope of this planning process. 

However, the National Park Service will 

undertake a detailed study of roads and 

associated river access points. The general 

management plan also notes the need for a 

future roads and trails management plan in 

the section titled “Future Studies and 

Implementation Plans Needed” in chapter 

2. The completion of this plan is one of the 

park unit’s top priorities. The additional 

information regarding erosion that could be 

collected would be essential to prudent 

planning. This information would be used 

to identify alternative areas or determine 

how to mitigate impacts at existing sites.

Section 6 of the park unit’s enabling 

legislation gives management authority for 

the park unit to the National Park Service, 

in accordance with the NPS Organic Act, as 

amended, and the other laws, regulations, 

and policies relating to the administration 

of park areas. Nothing in the final general 

management plan constitutes a taking of 

private property. 

Concern ID: 50988 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Many 

commenters recommended that all 

motorized vehicles should be prohibited 

from the park unit because of the 

potential damage they cause to park unit 

resources. Conversely, one commenter 

suggested that the park unit should 

implement and charge a fee for ATV 

permits, inferring that this should be an 

allowable activity. 

Corr. ID: 1434

Comment ID: 371351

Organization: none

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual

Representative Quote: Hello, I think it is 

very important to try to preserve rivers and 

woods as close to their natural state as 

possible. Therefore, I think that motorized 

vehicles (ATVs, motorboats, jet boats, etc.) 

should be prohibited in our national and 

state parks. Specifically, no motorized 

equipment should be allowed in the rivers 

or in the woods. The use of ATVs, cars, etc. 

causes trails to be cut through the forest, 

which allows more and more vehicles to 

drive through the woods. And the use of 

motorized boats on the rivers damages the 

rivers. Please forbid these motorized 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

422

vehicles and boats in national and state 

parks. Thank you.

Corr. ID: 1245 

Comment ID: 371000 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: As far as ATV use 

why don’t you charge a fee for a daily use or 

yearly use permits. Leave most existing 

trails open do not allow riding on the gravel 

bars which I agree with except at designated 

crossings. If someone is being destructive 

fine them. 

Response: 

The National Park Service understands the 

importance of motorized vehicle use in the 

park unit for the purpose of enjoying the 

park and accessing park resources and 

recreational opportunities. The National 

Park Service is responsible for damage to 

park resources from motorized vehicles and 

will take action if the resources are 

impacted. One goal of the general 

management plan is to attempt to move 

motorized vehicles away from the banks of 

the rivers to limit potential damage and 

employ more sustainable resource 

management practices. With respect to 

boating, please refer to the response to 

Concern Statement ID 50970.

Off-road ATV and UTV use is not 

permitted on federal lands within the park 

unit and the National Park Service has no 

legal authority to designate ATV and UTV 

trails within the park unit, per management 

policies and regulations prohibiting their 

designation except in national seashores, 

national lakeshores, national recreation 

areas, and national preserves. ATV and 

UTV use will continue to be allowed on 

county roads within the park unit and be 

regulated by state statute, which requires a 

county permit. 

Concern ID: 50989 

CONCERN STATEMENT: One 

commenter questioned how the closing of 

roads may impact access to utilities for 

maintenance. 

Corr. ID: 936 

Comment ID: 369379

Organization: Howell-Oregon Electric 

Organization Type: Business 

Representative Quote: Has any one taken 

into consideration the closing of 

roads/trails that may limit access of utilities 

in the area for maintenance of existing 

facilities? 

Response:

The National Park Service will continue to 

honor the terms of and associated access to 

utility easements in the park unit. If within 

the roads and trails management plan (see 

chapter 2), the National Park Service 

determines a need to close a road in the 

future, it would work with all affected utility 

companies to evaluate all utility access 

options on a case by case basis.

PARK RESOURCES 

CR100—Cultural Resource 

Impacts/Issues 

Concern ID: 50990 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

provided several ideas for improving 

cultural resource education at the park 

unit (e.g., providing demonstrations) and 

rehabilitating historic structures and 

sites. 

Corr. ID: 1694 

Comment ID: 371073 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Return the Native 

American artifacts back to the Red Mill 

where they were excavated from 10-12 

years ago. Not one display is located in the 
Concern Response Report

423

Red Mill to show where those arrow heads 

were dug from the base of the Mill. 

Corr. ID: 2296 

Comment ID: 369051 

Organization: Greenway Network, Inc. 

St. Charles MO 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: Local nonprofessional archeologists could display 

their collection “on loan” along with NPS 

collections at a NPS museum or park office 

to help educate and network with the public 

and address the cultural history of the 

region. All to often these private collection 

are dispersed after the collector dies and the 

cultural value of these artifacts and the 

historic locations they were found are lost.

* A village archeological site might be 

researched, documented and possibly the 

village site could be rebuilt based upon the 

found remains. It could be done using local 

residence, students or non professional 

archeologists under the direct supervision 

of trained archeologists on staff at NPS.

* The powder mill needs major protection 

from flooding damage and the grounds in 

the flood plain need to be off limits to 

development. Is their a consideration to use 

the Mill again for public and cultural 

benefits? 

Corr. ID: 2352 

Comment ID: 369315 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Cemeteries and 

buildings that are important to the people 

who lived here for years have been allowed 

to torn down or rot down and not had any 

upkeep. Cemeteries have grown up and 

tomb stones knocked over. Those buildings 

that are still standing should be repaired so 

people can enjoy them. Some example are 

the cabins at Pulltite Springs, Maggard 

cabin across at Welch’s Spring, lodge at 

Welch’s Spring, and Akers Church( Mt. 

Zion) I am sure there must be more down 

the river. People who have roots in this part 

of the country want to come back and enjoy 

ruminates of their past. 

Corr. ID: 2763

Comment ID: 370654

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Cultural 

Interpretive Demonstrations: In addition to 

current cultural demonstrations, the Park 

should strive to re-implement the previous 

demonstrations of whiskey making, 

blacksmithing and sorghum making. These 

traditional native activities were extremely 

popular with the visiting public and very 

educational for area school groups. 

Corr. ID: 2971

Comment ID: 384195

Organization: Cave Research Foundation 

Organization Type: Recreational Groups 

Representative Quote: -We support the 

creation of a learning center at Powder Mill, 

provided that does not reduce the usage of 

the present research center, which is not 

mentioned. CRF occasionally keeps the 

present center open as a visitor contact 

point, with good results. The research 

center has enabled thousands of hours to be 

volunteered in the interest of park natural 

resource management. The wording of the 

GMP alternative says that “some living 

quarters” “might” be provided. This should 

be reworded if the intent is to keep the 

research center element. If the intent would 

be to remove the research center, then we 

would certainly be in opposition to that. 

Response: 

Although the draft general management 

plan / environmental impact statement did 

not make specific recommendations for 

exhibits and collections at Alley Mill (red 

mill), any future exhibits could potentially 

include archeological materials recovered 

from the site; although this would be 

discussed in a subsequent exhibit plan. The 

National Park Service ensures that artifacts 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

424

and cultural materials collected as a result 

of archeological investigations are properly 

protected, either at the park unit (where a 

new curatorial facility is proposed) or at the 

National Park Service Midwest 

Archeological Center.

The preferred alternative for Alley Mill is 

for its continued preservation management

as a late 19th century flour mill, including 

the cultural landscape associated with the 

site. The primary interpretive focus for 

future programs at the mill would interpret 

the mill’s historic role as a centerpiece of 

the surrounding community. Cultural 

demonstrations suggested by the 

commenter are provided during special 

events at both Alley and Big Spring.

NPS staff welcomes opportunities to 

cooperate with groups and individuals 

concerned with the preservation of the park 

unit’s archeological resources to promote 

stewardship and public education 

(including understanding of the penalties 

for the illegal collection of artifacts on 

public lands). Although it is preferable that 

the prehistoric and historic information 

contained within archeological sites be 

preserved undisturbed in place, there may 

be opportunities for interested members of 

the public to observe or participate in park 

unit staff-led archeological investigations 

conducted for research or mitigation 

purposes on a case-by-case basis.

Preservation of the park’s historic buildings 

and sites, including protecting and 

providing access to five additional family 

cemeteries, is an important goal of the park 

unit’s resource managers. The National 

Park Service preferred alternative proposed 

a focused program of resource monitoring, 

research, and preservation projects. 

Additional historic structures would be 

restored and selected structures would be 

available for public interpretation. As noted 

in the draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement, the 

Powder Mill interpretive center would be 

adapted for use as a learning center offering 

environmental education opportunities for 

school groups and others. Preserving and 

providing public access for the park unit’s 

large and diverse collection of historic 

buildings and sites can be challenging with 

limited staff availability and funding. 

Consequently the zoning approach 

presented in the general management plan 

recognizes that more extensive preservation 

options (restoration and rehabilitation) 

would be carried out as appropriate for 

buildings and structures in the developed 

and resource-based recreation zones. 

Preservation and stabilization treatment of 

less-frequented historic buildings in the 

natural and primitive zones would be 

carried out as feasible where rehabilitation 

may not be appropriate.

Demonstrations of traditional Ozarks 

folklife and customs would continue as part 

of the park unit’s interpretive and 

educational programs.

NR100—Natural Resource 

Impacts/Issues 

Concern ID: 50991 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

suggested that the NPS should prohibit 

mineral extraction in the park unit (e.g., 

gravel mining) because it may lead to 

degradation of natural resources. 

Another commenter noted that sewage 

treatment, agricultural and industrial 

runoff, and the construction of homes 

along the rivers and within the watershed 

also contribute to the degradation of 

water quality. 

Corr. ID: 1860 

Comment ID: 372843 

Organization: Five Rivers Historic 

Preservation, Inc. 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: Here in Randolph 

County, five beautiful rivers flow out of the 

Ozarks providing our drinking water, 

agriculural water, and a vital tourism 
Concern Response Report

425

industry. Their survial as clean, available 

streams is very significant to us.

We urge you to protect these watersheds to 

ensure that life here is possible. Particular 

concerns are lead minning, sewage 

treatment, agricultural and industrial 

runoff, construction of vacation homes 

along the rivers, and construction of 

earthen dams along the river tributaries.

Please keep these concerns in mind when 

enforcing and preparing laws for river 

protection in our region. 

Corr. ID: 2296

Comment ID: 369050 

Organization: Greenway Network, Inc. 

St. Charles MO 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: NPS should be 

stewards to resist the persistent pressures 

for mineral prospecting which always then 

leads to mining and the potential for major 

degradation of the upland topography and 

the entire watershed. Pressure for local 

gravel mining and use for roads should also 

be resisted, as it results in a complete 

change in hydrogeology and alteration of 

the pristine free flowing, fragile nature of 

the ozark uplands. 

Response: 

Mineral extraction, including gravel mining, 

is not permitted in the park unit except 

where mineral rights are privately owned. 

The National Park Service does not have 

jurisdiction to regulate activities outside the 

park unit boundaries. The National Park 

Service will continue to work with other 

state and federal agencies, local 

communities, industries, and land owners 

to find ways to minimize the negative effects 

of various external activities within the 

watershed, springshed, and along rivers 

wherever appropriate and possible. As 

noted in the “Alternatives” section of

chapter 2, NPS managers would strive to 

partner with communities to reduce 

impacts from waste water systems within 

the watershed and springshed.

The introduction section to chapter 5, 

“Cumulative Impacts, Environmental 

Consequences,” discusses the implications 

of effects from actions and activities that are 

beyond the scope of this general 

management plan. 

Concern ID: 50992 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Some 

commenters expressed concerns about 

ecological impacts and suggested that any 

potential impacts to natural resources in 

the park unit should be minimized to the 

extent possible through the use of best 

management practices and partnerships. 

Corr. ID: 1218 

Comment ID: 370958 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I would like to 

make a recommendation that some kind of 

light pollution plan be included, with the 

future management plan, to ensure that the 

night skies can remain as pristine as the 

landscapes of the area. I would like to 

recommend that ONSR limit the use of 

lighting whenever possible. When lighting is 

needed perhaps the NPS can use directional 

light fixtures to help reduce wasted light 

traveling upwards into the sky. Conceivably 

ONSR could work with the surrounding 

communities and together they could 

develop a plan for the entire region. I am 

aware that the NPS is familiar with light 

pollution and they have enacted policies in 

some of their other parks (e.g. Arches 

National Park). Maybe a similar plan can be 

adopted for ONSR. 

Corr. ID: 1438 

Comment ID: 371359 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

426

Representative Quote: I suggest you 

develop a policy regarding the non-native 

plant species, particularly the invasive 

species like Asian honeysuckle. Hopefully 

you will seek partnership with interested 

conservation organizations. 

The education focus of the plan is much 

needed. 

Corr. ID: 2689 

Comment ID: 370411 

Organization: US EPA Region 7 

Organization Type: Federal Government 

Representative Quote: In the event that 

there are jurisdictional wetlands impacted 

by the proposed action, we recommend that 

any mitigation should occur in the same 

HUC 8 or smaller watershed as the location 

of the project impacts. 

Corr. ID: 2689 

Comment ID: 370410 

Organization: US EPA Region 7 

Organization Type: Federal Government 

Representative Quote: We would like to 

suggest that any potential effects or 

disturbance of fish and wildlife species be 

minimized to the extent possible through 

the use of BMPs for such activity. 

Corr. ID: 2971

Comment ID: 384196 

Organization: Cave Research Foundation 

Organization Type: Recreational Groups 

Representative Quote: -Wording should 

be added that addresses partnering with 

“volunteers and others” to accomplish 

natural resource stewardship projects; that 

language was used for “cultural” resource 

projects but no mention was made of 

natural resource partnerships, which are 

ongoing at this time. The ongoing 

partnership with CRF and others has 

provided for effective management of cave 

resources within the park. 

Response: 

The preferred alternative of the general 

management plan includes a wide variety of 

management strategies and mitigation 

measures that would minimize adverse 

effects on natural resources in the park unit. 

Management strategies for natural 

resources include land- and water-based 

zoning, closures of undesignated social 

trails and river access points and crossings, 

restoration and monitoring of biological 

communities, and fostering resource 

stewardship partnerships. Mitigation 

measures are included for vegetation, 

wildlife, invasive species, threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern, 

water resources, wetlands, soils, and air 

quality. The full list of management 

strategies and mitigation measures are 

found in chapter 2. Chapter 2 of the final 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement now states that NPS 

managers would strive to work within a 

regional context to protect the night sky 

quality and continue to foster partnerships 

for natural resource stewardship. 

Concern ID: 50993 

CONCERN STATEMENT: One 

commenter noted that the park unit’s

resources have not been adversely 

impacted by access roads, horseback 

riders, boaters, or ATV operators. Other 

commenters noted that ATVs, horseback 

riders, hikers, and motorized boats may 

negatively impact park resources. 

Corr. ID: 2651 

Comment ID: 375082 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Horseback riding is 

blamed for occasional exceedance of total 

coliform bacteria standards in the Jacks 

Fork River. Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources (MDNR) sampled 

extensively to assess the coliform problem 

in the Jacks Fork River for about 10 years 

starting in the 1990s. Reports of those 

sampling programs are likely on file in at 

ONSR headquarters. They are also available 

from MDNR. Over 95% o samples taken 

did not exceed water quality standard for 
Concern Response Report

427

total coliform. Exceedances of the total 

coliform standards in place in the 1990s 

were occasionally found when water 

samples were taken immediately 

downstream of areas where horses were 

actively crossing the Jacks Fork River. 

Higher coliform levels were also sometimes 

found near the Eminence wastewater 

treatment plant outfall. Another area of 

exceedance was at the mouth of Shawnee 

Creek. The source of coliform bacteria in 

Shawnee Creek water is attributable to land 

use up the creek (beyond the ONSR). Data 

from these MDNR studies certainly 

indicate the coliform problem is minor, and 

not always related to horseback riding. 

Corr. ID: 2864 

Comment ID: 372043 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I have read some of 

the comments of environmental 

organizations. They talk of significant 

environmental impact due to too many 

access trails/roads, too many horseback 

riders and riding trails, too many ATV 

riders, too many floaters/boaters, etc. They 

assert that these uses are excessive and have 

led to environmental degradation. Yet none 

of these claims are based on empirical 

science and should not considered credible. 

I have a Ph.D. in environmental toxicology 

and have designed and managed many 

studies on terrestrial and aquatic impact. 

Based on personal observation and review 

of aquatic monitoring in the Jacks Fork 

River, environmental quality in the whole of 

the Ozarks is very good. If there are 

terrestrial studies within the ONSR 

demonstrating significant impact (= 

decreased species diversity or aberrant 

diversity indices), I don’t know of them. 

Despite the assertions by environmentalist, 

the ONSR is in excellent environmental 

health and is a long way from showing signs 

of being degraded. It cannot be assumed 

that the presence of man in a natural 

environment automatically translates to 

significant environmental degradation. It 

does not. If current management practices 

are protective of the environment, as they 

are, why close trails and accesses and 

impose other draconian provisions that are 

unnecessary. 

Response: 

One of the primary purposes of the general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement is to highlight the range of effects 

that are occurring and could occur in the 

National Riverways from various existing 

and proposed uses and activities (see the 

“Environmental Consequences” section in 

chapter 5). For example, undesignated 

social trail development from hiking, 

equestrian use, and/or ATV use is widely 

known to disturb wildlife behavior, 

fragment wildlife habitat, trample native 

vegetation, and further introduce nonnative plants. Additionally, disturbance of 

riverbanks, riverbeds, and gravel bars at 

river access points and crossings is widely 

known to cause soil erosion, native 

vegetation trampling, increased water 

turbidity, and disturbance/displacement of 

aquatic habitat. Horse manure has also been 

documented as a likely contributing source 

of bacteria in National Riverways’ waters by 

the Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources Water Quality Control Program 

(along with sewage systems and upstream 

cattle grazing). These are just a few 

examples of existing and potential future 

impacts to the natural resources of the 

National Riverways that are noted in the 

document. 

Concern ID: 50994 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

suggested that the draft general 

management plan / environmental 

impact statement does not include enough 

protection for the Ozark hellbender. 

Commenters also indicated that 

introducing nonnative trout to the 

Current River is contrary to NPS policies, 

goals, practices, and values. 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

428

Corr. ID: 61 

Comment ID: 372450 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: As you no doubt 

know, the Ozark hellbender is an amazing, 

ancient 2-foot-long salamander that is the 

largest salamander in North America.

While the draft management plan does 

close some undesignated trails that are 

damaging the local ecosystem, it does not go 

far enough to protect this ecosystem and 

the magnificent wildlife that call it home.

Specifically, the draft management plan 

authorizes 35 miles of new horse trails with 

additional river crossings, as well as a new 

horse campground along Jacks Fork. This 

would substantially increase the likelihood 

for water quality degradation.

The draft is a good start, but it does not do 

enough to preserve this area for future 

generations to enjoy. 

Corr. ID: 471 

Comment ID: 373689 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: The deliberate 

introduction of non-native trout to the 

Current River is contrary to NPS policies, 

goals, practices and values. As large aquatic 

predators, they must be having some 

negative impact on the aquatic ecosystem, 

which can no longer be assumed to even 

resemble the original system in which bass 

were presumably the top predator among 

fish species. One cant help but wonder if 

there is a correlation between continuing 

stocking of trout and the decline of Ozark 

hellbenders (an endangered species) in the 

Upper Current.

The NPS as a whole is aware of the impact 

of exotic fish stocking and is beginning to 

address it, as evidence from information on 

the NPS Fisheries website:

“Often new species were brought into an 

area and introduced into lakes or streams 

with hopes of increasing the number and 

diversity of fish available. As our scientific 

understanding and knowledge of natural 

ecosystems has progressed, managers of 

protected natural areas have come to realize 

that the introduction of fish species that are 

not native to the area results in harmful 

impacts to the natural ecology of the aquatic 

system. Native species are often out 

competed by the introduced fish species 

and become greatly reduced in number or 

even lost from the system completely. Food 

organisms may be over consumed and the 

natural balance of other aquatic organisms 

present will likely be changed.” 

(http://www1.nrintra.nps.gov/wrd/fisheries

/native_species.cfm) Emphasis added. 

Response: 

The National Park Service places a high 

priority on the protection of Ozark 

hellbender, as well as other special status 

species in the National Riverways. As 

described in the “Alternatives” section of 

chapter 2, at a very broad level, the landand water-based management zoning under 

this alternative aims to increase the level of 

protection for terrestrial and aquatic habitat 

in the National Riverways, which would 

benefit species such as the hellbender. 

Likewise, the reduction in access to gravel 

bars and improved management of river 

access and crossings under this alternative 

would also help minimize disturbance to 

aquatic habitat for the hellbender and other 

aquatic species. 

Other resource management actions under 

this alternative include efforts to restore 

degraded biological communities and 

partner with local communities to help 

address water quality degradation from 

wastewater systems. Other strategies that 

would help protect the hellbender and 

other listed species include a focused 

program of resource monitoring and 

research and management. In addition, a 

full range of mitigation measures for 
Concern Response Report

429

threatened and endangered species are 

included in chapter 2 and include 

protection of breeding areas, special status 

species education plans, and habitat 

restoration plans.

In tandem with the above management 

actions and mitigation measures included in 

the selected alternative, the National Park 

Service would continue to consult with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the 

Ozark hellbender (and other National 

Riverways species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act) in subsequent 

implementation plans/actions that stem 

from the general management plan. Also, as 

noted in the description of the NPS 

preferred alternative in chapter 2, the 

National Park Service would also work 

closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to develop and implement 

conservation plans and strategies to protect 

all federal listed species in the National 

Riverways to fulfill the intent of section 

7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act.

Although fishing would continue to be an 

allowed use in the National Riverways, the 

National Park Service, in cooperation with 

the Missouri Department of Conservation, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other 

appropriate partners would consider the 

effects of nonnative game fish stocking and 

timing/locations of fishing activities in a 

fisheries management plans. This plan, 

which has been added to the final general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement, would address the health of the 

National Riverways fisheries and associated 

aquatic resources, as well as fishing 

opportunities in the park unit. It will 

consider the effect of fisheries management 

and fishing activities on native aquatic 

species and resources, including the Ozark 

hellbender. The National Park Service and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hold the 

responsibility of setting forth plans and 

strategies to protect and manage the 

endangered Ozark Hellbender at the park 

unit under the terms of the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Concern ID: 50995 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

suggested that the draft general 

management plan / environmental 

impact statement should have included a 

discussion of the geomorphology of the 

National Riverways and placed greater 

emphasis on the restoration of natural 

river processes. 

Corr. ID: 2450 

Comment ID: 373924 

Organization: The Nature Conservancy 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: The Conservancy 

strongly encourages the Park to incorporate 

natural channel design principles in stream 

restoration rather than traditional, 

engineered solutions for bank restoration 

(e.g., using toe wood and floodplain 

reconnection rather than armoring banks 

with rip-rap). 

The Plan (page 174) notes implementing 

erosion and sediment control to protect 

hellbender habitat, and avoiding riparian 

corridor and channel alterations. The 

disturbance in the system may be a result of 

unnatural rates of change in the channel 

geomorphology that, without proper 

restoration, will continue unabated. To the 

extent that existing Park regulations will 

permit, the Conservancy recommends 

adding language that would allow the Park 

to implement restoration projects in the 

riparian corridors or channels if it is (1) 

based on natural channel design principles, 

(2) necessary to restore the reach to a 

balanced state, and (3) necessary to prevent 

further degradation of downstream habitat. 

Corr. ID: 2648 

Comment ID: 375052 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I was sorely 

disappointed to see that the draft GMP did 

not cover the geomorphology of the 

Riverways. All that I could find in the 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

430

document concerning geomorphology is 

reference to the karst geomorphology that 

provides the area with so many unique 

springs. While the karst features are an 

import aspect of the park and need to be 

preserved, there is more that should have 

been covered.

It is impossible for the National Park

Service to make educated and informed 

decisions on what impacts the Riverways, 

the gravel bars, and the adjacent floodplains 

without first understanding the 

geomorphology that drives this system. 

Historical accounts of the river state that 

there used to be very few gravel bars within 

the system and that the channel contained 

more of a bedrock bottom. I see no 

evidence that shows the park understands 

what has caused this change, how it is 

continuing to change, and how the 

Riverways should be managed in an 

environment that is so dynamic. I have my 

opinions on this; however, they are just 

opinions. There should be official research 

done by professional geologists and 

engineers to study this dynamic process of 

geomorphology in this region so that they 

can make informed decisions on how 

activities (such as canoeing, motor boating, 

off road vehicle use, etc.) along the river are 

impacting the resource. If recreational 

activities are adversely impacting the 

geomorphologic processes along the 

Riverways, then the NPS has a legitimate 

reason to restrict those activities. 

Response: 

Geomorphology was not included as an 

impact topic in the draft general 

management plan because the alternatives 

would not have a direct effect on this issue. 

While natural river geomorphology is not 

explicitly addressed by the general 

management plan, geomorphological 

principles and effects are noted in the 

“Water Resources, Rivers and Streams” 

section of chapter 4. The geomorphology of 

the various waterways in the park unit were 

most affected by historic land use activities 

during the settlement period through the 

20th century (e.g., land clearing for 

agriculture, floodplain development, and 

mining). As noted in chapter 4, the erosion 

and migration of chert gravel that followed 

past land use activities in the region 

continues to negatively affect the hydrology 

and geomorphology of the National 

Riverways. These cumulative impacts on 

geomorphological resources are noted in 

chapter 5 under the section titled “Geologic 

Resources and Soils and Water Resources.”

Although existing and proposed 

recreational activities in the park unit have 

existing and potential effects to local 

hydrology and geology in areas, these 

activities result in minor or negligible effects 

on the overall geomorphology of the river 

system. Additionally, the overarching 

resource management guidance of the NPS 

preferred alternative emphasizes the 

importance of maintaining and restoring 

natural processes and systems in the 

National Riverways, as well as restoring 

biological communities. In turn, protecting 

and restoring natural geomorphic river 

processes and associated aquatic and 

riparian habitat would be considered in 

future management actions and 

implementation plans noted in this plan. In 

areas where high potential exists for the 

restoration of natural geomorphic 

processes and associated habitat, the 

National Park Service would consider 

developing subsequent restoration plans. 

Such efforts would be aimed at restoring 

natural channel and floodplain processes 

(by employing natural channel design 

principles) that would help improve aquatic 

habitat and riparian habitat conditions. 

Corr. ID: 3,094 

Comment ID: 384908

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Organization Type: Federal agency

See Appendix E of the Final GMP/EIS for 

the complete U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

letter regarding Endangered Species Act 

consultation and compliance. 
Concern Response Report

431

Response: 

As noted elsewhere in this comment 

response report, the National Park Service 

identified alternative B as the preferred 

alternative because it would provide the 

best combination of strategies to protect the 

park unit’s unique natural and cultural 

resources and visitor experience, while 

improving operational effectiveness and 

sustainability. Alternative B aims to balance 

recreational uses and resource preservation 

in the context of a high visitation 

destination. As it relates to protecting 

species protected under the Endangered 

Species Act, the natural resource and 

recreation management strategies and 

actions of alternative B (see chapter 2) 

should offer improved protection for listed 

species in the park unit relative to the 

current conditions and management.

The general management plan is a 

programmatic document that aims to 

provide broad guidance on future 

management of the National Riverways. 

The plan would be implemented through 

future facility rehabilitation, historic 

preservation, natural resource restoration 

and protection, facility removal, recreation 

development, recreation regulation 

changes, and new construction. These 

activities and management strategies, as 

guided by the general management plan, 

would be broken down into future projects 

and actions which would be implemented 

as funding and need arise. Once specific 

projects and actions under the general 

management plan are further defined, 

section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service under the Act would 

commence.

No changes to current park management

would be implemented until the 

appropriate Endangered Species Act,

Section 7 consultation and compliance was 

complete.

Potential site-specific and species-specific 

impacts to threatened and endangered 

species resulting from proposed facility 

improvements, construction, recreational 

uses, and other management actions are 

intended to be further analyzed and 

determined during project review and 

compliance processes for these subsequent 

implementation plans, projects, regulation 

changes, and other actions. The National 

Park Service agrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that the broad, programmatic 

nature of a general management plan does 

not provide enough information and 

specific detail on the plan’s (alternatives’) 

impacts on federally listed species or their 

habitat, particularly from the types and 

levels of recreational uses in the National 

Riverways. 

The National Park Service analyses and 

impact determinations in this general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement for potential effects on species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act are 

based on input from subject matter experts 

and resource planners at the park (see the 

“Natural Resources” section of chapter 5). 

The scope and detail of these sections of the 

general management plan are consistent 

with the conceptual nature of this long-term 

programmatic planning document and the 

fact that more site-specific or projectspecific Endangered Species Act 

compliance would be conducted prior to 

future implementation of the various 

actions and plans called for by this general 

management plan.

The National Park Service commits to work 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 

the following future review and compliance 

efforts: 

1) For each of these individual 

activities, plans, or actions called for 

in the general management plan, the 

National Park Service commits to 

fulfilling the terms of section 7(a)(2) 

of the Endangered Species Act by 

consulting with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, as it relates to the 

identified federally listed species 

that may occur in the park unit. 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

432

Through these individual 

consultation processes, the National 

Park Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service would evaluate the 

specific effects on listed species 

from each action, plan, or activity 

set forth by the general management 

plan occurring within or authorized 

by the park unit, and would identify 

ways to minimize or avoid adverse 

effects. If it is determined that any 

actions or activities are likely to 

result in adverse effects to species 

listed under the Endangered Species 

Act, and these adverse effects 

cannot be prevented through the 

use of conservation measures, the 

National Park Service would then 

initiate formal consultation and 

develop a biological assessment of 

the proposed action or activity.

2) The National Park Service also 

commits to work with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service in fulfilling 

section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered 

Species Act to develop and 

implement a conservation plan for 

federally listed species. Rather than 

providing this level of detail and 

analysis in the general management 

plan / environmental impact 

statement, the review processes 

associated with the actions and 

plans that would stem from this plan 

would include all applicable 

environmental compliance through 

the National Environmental Policy 

Act and the Endangered Species 

Act.

Both the consultation efforts and the 

species conservation planning would 

consider all possible effects on listed 

species, including the potential effects of 

water quality degradation from park unit 

activities on the Ozark hellbender.

The assessment of potential effects to listed 

species would factor in information 

gathered from the past, ongoing and future 

monitoring and studies conducted by the 

National Riverways staff (often in 

conjunction with other state and federal 

agencies). For example, regarding the Ozark 

hellbender, National Riverways staff are 

continuing their assistance in an ongoing 

collaborative effort with federal, state and 

other organizations in inventorying and 

monitoring hellbender populations within 

the park unit boundaries. This 

collaboration incorporates the use of the 

same protocols across rivers within the state 

and helps provide a consistent 

understanding of the status of the Ozark 

hellbender population as a whole. Staff will 

also continue to contribute to the 

cooperative effort by processing research 

permit applications, assisting in conducting 

field site searches and animal condition 

assessments, and monitoring thermal 

conditions within the river. This 

information helps inform the St. Louis Zoo 

in their efforts to mimic river habitat 

conditions at their facility. Park staff have 

also previously attended and contributed to 

a population viability assessment workshop

on the hellbender, and currently serve on 

the recovery team for this species.

PARK OPERATIONS

CS100—Concessions 

Concern ID: 50996 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

suggested that text in the draft general 

management plan / environmental 

impact statement regarding concession 

operations is unclear, specifically 

regarding the redistribution of concession 

dropoff and pickup locations. A 

commenter questioned whether the 

proposed new concessions for shuttle 

service would be in direct competition 

with existing concession contracts. 

Another commenter suggested that the 

NPS partner with concessioners to 

implement visitor use guidelines. 
Concern Response Report

433

Corr. ID: 2149 

Comment ID: 373379 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: This proposed 

General Management Plan will have a 

profound effect on these concessions as it is 

currently written. Below are the statements 

and positions of this proposed GMP that 

are of great concern to this concessioner as 

to the management direction for the Lower 

Current River.

Operating five of the six concession 

contracts on the Lower Current River and 

being constrained to the specific use of the 

Waymeyer to Big Spring river section, it is 

apparent that this plan will have a profound 

impact to our concession operations in this 

area. With this section of the river being 

singled out in this plan for guidelines, we 

believe that further studies using actual data 

of specific non-motorized watercraft use 

should be undertaken. Our 35 years of 

experience in providing floating 

opportunities on this river section make us 

very qualified to partner with the 

administration of Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways to better establish nonmotorized watercraft use guidelines. This 

plan should allow for that partnership to 

prosper and provide an avenue for 

discussions and implementation of 

guidelines that would be beneficial to both 

NPS and the Lower Current River 

concessioners. 

Corr. ID: 2688 

Comment ID: 370406 

Organization: Big Spring RV Camp 

Organization Type: Business 

Representative Quote: Third, in Table 13, 

for nonmotorized watercaft, Alternatives A, 

B, and C indicate concession dropoff and 

pickup locations would be redistributed to 

reduce peak season crowding effects. At this 

point we are not sure what this means. For 

example, if it means establishing separate 

but comparable put in and take out points 

for concessioners which are separate from 

public put in points it could be positive. If in 

entails delegating concessioners to less 

opportune put in and take out points in it 

could have a devastating economic impact 

on our float business and our companion 

camping business. 

Corr. ID: 2688 

Comment ID: 370407 

Organization: Big Spring RV Camp 

Organization Type: Business 

Representative Quote: Fourth, also in 

Table 13, for concessions, Alternatives B 

and C indicate potential opportunities for 

new concessions for shuttle services for 

visitors using nonmotorized watercraft. 

Would this not be in direct competition 

with existing concession contracts? 

Corr. ID: 2971

Comment ID: 372459 

Organization: Cave Research Foundation 

Organization Type: Recreational Groups 

Representative Quote: For example, on 

the upper Jacks Fork, concession-available 

access points are only needed at a very few 

sites:

Buck Hollow, Bay Creek, and Alley Spring:

-We support the creation of new 

concession opportunities for nonmotorized activities. The potential exists for 

shuttle service for backpackers as trails 

continue to be built in the river corridor. 

Response: 

Any change in the number and/or 

distribution of concessioner access points 

in Ozark National Scenic Riverways would 

be done in response to changes in observed 

conditions such as water levels in the rivers 

or visitor use patterns (i.e., capacity). The 

preferred alternative states that 

approximately 20 access points would be 

eliminated, but a similar number of 

designated access points would be opened 

in alternative locations. The total number of 

access points in the National Riverways 

would remain the same or decline slightly, 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

434

with the final number dependent on 

observed conditions. No decision to 

relocate or eliminate any currently 

established access point has been made, and 

no specific river segment has been singled 

out for access point redistribution or 

reduction. 

All current concessioners are meeting 

existing needs of park unit visitors for 

shuttling river users with nonmotorized 

watercraft. The National Park Service has 

removed this strategy from the preferred 

alternative; however, there may be a 

potential need for shuttle services for 

overnight activities and dropoff/pickup for 

hiking that is not covered under current 

concession contracts. New concessions 

would provide additional opportunities for 

expansion of commercial activities not 

associated with existing concessions.

The park unit has pledged to develop and 

implement any management action related 

to access points in the future in concert 

with park unit concessioners. 

Concessioners are a critical component of 

the visitor experience at the National 

Riverways; the goal of any management 

action would be to accomplish any resource 

protection or visitor experience goals with 

minimal negative effect on concessions 

operations. With a careful approach, any 

effects should be minimal, and could be 

positive in the long run.

Any new proposed concessions operation 

must meet the NPS criteria of “necessary 

and appropriate.”

OA100—Operations and Administration 

Concern ID: 50997 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

suggested that the number of park unit 

staff be increased to more effectively 

enforce the rules and regulations. 

Commenters also recommended that rule 

violators pay a fine. Commenters 

suggested that alcohol be prohibited 

within the park unit. 

Corr. ID: 468 

Comment ID: 373679 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: It has been argued 

that an alcohol ban would have a 

detrimental effect on local businesses. 

Possibly so, but this is short term thinking. 

With the behavior situation under control, 

and good press about how the rivers were 

taken back from the drunken mobs, more 

affluent family groups would return to the 

area. The park, and concessionaires should 

undertake a positive spin publicity 

campaign after the ban is in place. Targeted 

at family groups, advertising by 

concessionaires and press releases by the 

park, would quickly spread the word of the 

changed atmosphere. 

Corr. ID: 809 

Comment ID: 368281 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: The NPS doesn’t 

enforce its own laws right now what good is 

it going to add more. A lot of problems on 

the river can be traced back to alcohol. 

What about public intoxication? Isn’t there 

a law against that. Boater or canoer a drunk 

that can barely stand up doesn’t have any 

business being on the river and should be 

taken care of by some type of law official. 

Corr. ID: 994 

Comment ID: 369803 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Enforcement, no 

matter which route is used to better manage 

ONSR, is crucial, absolutely critical to 

success. Therefore, increased staff for 

monitoring and regulating all activities is 

necessary. Establish serious penalties (stand 

by those and publicize well) and of course 
Concern Response Report

435

make Clear the Regulations/ Rules for each 

activity. 

Corr. ID: 3069 

Comment ID: 375562

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I just wanted to add 

in addition to the prohibition of booze and 

cigarettes, that they establish a substantial 

fine so that it’s not just a slap on the wrist, 

that if the park rangers give them a ticket for 

having alcohol or cigarette or, you know, 

throwing their cigarette butts in the river 

and stuff that there is a substantial fine, that 

it makes an impact on the people that 

violated and as an example to future 

canoeist that they need to obey the rules. 

Response: 

The preferred alternative proposes 

additional law enforcement staff to address 

visitor safety and resource protection 

needs. Any increase in staff is contingent on 

future funding. Park unit visitors that 

violate park rules are subject to fines and/or 

arrest. 

Over the last few years, public drunkenness 

and unruly behavior has decreased as a 

result of stepped up enforcement. Should 

further increases in staff and education 

efforts not adequately resolve this issue, the 

park unit superintendent has the option of 

instituting certain park-wide bans. During 

public scoping, the elimination of alcohol 

was an issue. This issue was discussed by the 

NPS planning team and dismissed from 

further analysis because the National Park 

Service already has specific regulations to 

limit problems associated with alcohol use 

and other, sometimes-related, dangerous 

behavior. (See the “Alternatives and Actions 

Considered but Dismissed from Further 

Analysis” section in chapter 2,). 

Concern ID: 50998 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

recommended that scenic easements 

should be monitored, enforced, and 

corrected. 

Corr. ID: 2285 

Comment ID: 368978 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: When my parents 

sold the scenic easement when the park was 

established, we received a document 

containing explicit rules and restrictions on 

the use of our land as private owners within 

the park. These include such things as the 

prohibition of running cattle, harvesting 

timber, operating a commercial enterprise, 

erecting new buildings, etc. My family 

understood and accepted these conditions, 

and in fact welcomed the policies which 

would tend to protect and preserve the wild 

nature of the park. Through all these years 

we have scrupulously upheld our 

responsibilities to use our land carefully, 

causing little or no impact on the 

environment. We have trusted the park 

authorities to take these restrictions and 

duties seriously also.

I have heard by the grapevine that some 

private landowners have been granted 

variances to build unsuitable, large 

dwellings and possibly to utilize unofficial 

river access points. I find it very 

disappointing, assuming these stories are 

true, that the park has abandoned its duty to 

enforce the provisions of the scenic 

easements. A concern I have is that the park 

has not communicated with us at all, over 

the last fifty years. Perhaps the park needs 

to stay in touch with landowners and 

remind them of the policies which are 

applicable. This topic has not been 

addressed in the new proposed 

management plan, which I believe is a 

serious oversight. 

Corr. ID: 2510 

Comment ID: 374102 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

436

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: As a long time user 

of the ONSR, I urge you to improve your 

management of this special place. The 

NPS’s management of the ONSR in recent 

times has frankly been a major blemish on 

the reputation of your otherwise esteemed 

agency.

I urge you to enforce the scenic easements 

that exist on thousands of acres along the 

rivers. The NPS’s failure to do so over the 

past 10 years has been a major 

embarrassment that has left permanent 

blemishes on the land. 

Corr. ID: 2614 

Comment ID: 374632 

Organization: Friends of Ozark 

Riverways 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: SCENIC 

EASEMENTS. Although there are no 

changes to scenic easements proposed in 

this plan there are 9,257 acres of scenic 

easements that are intended to maintain the 

natural environment and scenery for the 

benefit of the visiting public. These 

easements are critical to the quality of the 

Riverways. They were acquired to add 

public value to the national park and need 

to be effectively monitored in a timely 

manner. Easement violations must be 

corrected promptly. 

Corr. ID: 2794 

Comment ID: 370738 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Scenic Easements. 

The more than 9,000 acres of private 

riverine land under scenic easement to NPS 

need to be effectively monitored, enforced, 

and corrected to avoid the sorts of 

violations that have occurred in recent 

decades. 

Response: 

Scenic easements are monitored on an 

annual basis and corrective issues are 

addressed as they arise. More frequently, 

throughout the year, park unit staff conduct 

drive by assessments and informal 

observations to assure compliance with 

easement terms. With the support of the 

U.S. Attorney’s office, the park unit is 

making every effort to ensure compliance 

with scenic easement terms and 

appropriately address violations. 

Concern ID: 51000 

CONCERN STATEMENT: One 

commenter recommended that the park 

unit should implement an entrance fee 

that could be invested back into the park 

unit. 

Corr. ID: 1655

Comment ID: 370861

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I also favor or 

propose a nominal daily use fee for any 

recreation in the park area. A one to five 

dollar per day use fee is perfectly reasonable 

and yearly passes at a significant discount 

could also be made available for frequent 

users. 1.5 million visitors each year could 

generate a significant amount of revenue if 

it is invested back into the park system. 

Response: 

The cost of collection, including the 

administrative workload involved, would be 

cost-prohibitive because of the large 

number of entrances and the number of 

state and county roads in the park unit. In 

the future, the National Park Service would 

consider fees for certain activities to offset 

operational and maintenance costs. This 

could include fees for horse trail use, boat 

launches, weddings, and other special uses. 
Concern Response Report

437

Concern ID: 51001 

CONCERN STATEMENT: One 

commenter suggested that the NPS should 

figure out how to operate the Akers Ferry 

on a consistent basis. 

Corr. ID: 2648 

Comment ID: 375059 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Currently there is a 

ferry boat at Akers that is used to connect 

Highway K across Current River. Due to 

insufficient maintenance from the NPS this 

ferry is often inoperable. As a result people 

have a legitimate need (and right) to ford 

the river at this location as it is part of the 

state highway system. The NPS should seek 

a solution to have the ferry operated on a 

more consistent basis (i.e. keeping the area 

clear of gravel to allow the ferry boat to 

cross) or some other measures to maintain a 

balance between traffic needs and 

environmental concerns.

The only reason that people cross the 

Current River in off-road vehicles at FlyingW is because of recreation. There is not a 

legitimate case that would support it as a 

viable roadway with economic benefit. With 

evidence that it degrades the environment 

the NPS should look to enforce laws that 

are already in place by the State of Missouri. 

Response: 

The National Park Service and Shannon 

County Commission have agreed that 

construction of a bridge at Akers is 

desirable and this final general management 

plan / environmental impact statement has 

been updated to include this action. 

Construction of a bridge on State Highway 

K at Akers would provide better emergency 

access for this area of the county and 

eliminate the need for maintenance and 

operation of the ferry; it would also 

eliminate the need for a vehicle ford at this 

location. Until such time that a permanent 

solution for the replacement of the ferry 

with a bridge is in place, the National Park 

Service will continue to require the 

concessioner at Akers to operate the ferry. 

The future of the Akers Ferry would be 

determined if and when a new bridge is 

constructed.

WILDERNESS

WD100—Wilderness 

Concern ID: 51002 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Some 

commenters expressed support for the 

designation of wilderness areas in the 

park unit. Other commenters were 

opposed to designating any wilderness 

areas in the park unit, suggesting that 

enough wilderness exists outside of the 

park unit, and that designating any 

additional wilderness areas within the 

park unit would be the beginning of 

designating the entire park unit a 

wilderness area. One commenter 

indicated that establishing wilderness in 

the park unit would require the NPS to 

collaborate and coordinate with the U.S. 

Forest Service regarding the management 

of adjacent national forest lands. 

Corr. ID: 542 

Comment ID: 374003 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: We also support 

the designation of the proposed area near 

Big Spring as “wilderness” due to the area 

existing currently as undeveloped land -

wilderness in all aspects outside of official 

designation. The Ozarks, and Missouri in 

general, have very few options in providing 

a wilderness experience. Those who seek 

true undeveloped wilderness in a dramatic 

landscape are forced to head west to the 

Rocky Mountains or East to Appalachia. 

The Big Spring Wilderness can be an 

attractive alternative to local people and 

offer a destination to outdoor lovers 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

438

coming from outside of the Missouri 

Ozarks. 

Corr. ID: 655 

Comment ID: 374407 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I support 

management of Big Springs area as 

wilderness. It would be an important 

addition to the Wilderness Areas of 

Missouri. The wilderness area would be a 

draw to the area and increase tourist 

revenues by hikers and hunters. 

Corr. ID: 2341 

Comment ID: 369295

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I also support the 

designation of wilderness area to those 

locations where this is feasible, including 

the 3,430 acres near Big Spring 

recommended to be wilderness in 

Alternative B. 

Corr. ID: 2667 

Comment ID: 369711 

Organization: Mark Twain National Forest 

Organization Type: Federal Government 

Representative Quote: Recommendations 

for establishment of a Wilderness from 

lands in the wilderness study area could 

have an impact on management of adjacent 

National Forest lands, and this needs to be 

fully considered in future planning and 

discussions. 

Corr. ID: 3073 

Comment ID: 375657 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: On the wilderness 

designated area, I don’t agree with that. I 

think it’s just a start to more, eventually just 

keep adding more and more until it’s all 

wilderness and no one’s allowed on the 

river. 

Response: 

Wilderness designation does not preclude 

public use. The Wilderness Act emphasizes 

natural conditions and primitive, 

unconfined types of recreation. Through 

the Wilderness Act, the National Park 

Service promotes opportunities for 

solitude; necessarily excluding the use of 

motorized vehicles and mechanized 

equipment. The Wilderness Study included 

in the draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement concluded 

that 3,430 acres of the Big Spring Study Area 

be proposed for wilderness designation

with an additional 4 acres proposed as 

potential wilderness. At this time, the Big 

Springs Study Area was the only area in the 

National Riverways determined to meet the 

eligibility criteria for wilderness. The 1984 

general management plan originally 

identified three areas in the park unit for 

assessment of their suitability as wilderness: 

Cardareva, Upper Jacks Fork, and Big 

Springs. Conditions at Cardareva and the 

Upper Jacks Fork continue to preclude 

these areas from being studied for 

wilderness. 

The U.S. Forest Service manages an 

adjoining portion of the Mark Twain 

National Forest near Big Spring as a 

designated roadless area and in a manner 

compatible with the protection of 

wilderness values, although the parcel is not 

designated wilderness. The National Park 

Service would continue to consult with the 

U.S. Forest Service to fully consider and 

develop compatible strategies that best 

protect wilderness values and character in a 

fashion that mutually benefits the 

management objectives of both agencies for

the Big Spring area. 

Concern ID: 51005 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

noted that establishing wilderness areas 

in the park unit would eliminate options 

for fire management, natural resource 

management, and climate change 

responses. One commenter stated that the 
Concern Response Report

439

primeval character of the Big Springs 

area is no longer present; therefore, a 

wilderness designation is not 

appropriate. 

Corr. ID: 2450 

Comment ID: 373922 

Organization: The Nature Conservancy 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: The Conservancy 

does not support wilderness designation for 

the Big Springs tract. However, we strongly 

support maintaining this area in its current 

primitive condition. Given historical 

resource constraints and the potential 

added cost of doing management under the 

“minimum requirements analysis,” we are 

concerned a wilderness designation could 

limit the Park's ability to implement good 

forest management (e.g., prescribed fire) 

and respond to threats of a changing 

climate (e.g., invasive species, forest pests). 

Corr. ID: 2947

Comment ID: 372250 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I am opposed to the 

Wilderness proposal. The area you propose 

to be classified as Wilderness has been 

exposed to centuries of anthropogenic 

impacts such as fire, large scale logging 

operation and grazing. All of these activities 

have caused dramatic changes in the 

composition of forested areas and local 

streams. The primeval characters in this 

area is long gone and can never be 

recovered. 

Corr. ID: 2983 (Robert L. Ziehmer)

Comment ID: 372482 

Organization: Missouri Department of 

Conservation 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: 3. The Department 

opposes the recommendation to designate 

3,430 acres of the Big Spring unit as 

“Wilderness” under the Wilderness Act of 

1964. The area under consideration for the 

wilderness designation includes the Big 

Spring Pines Natural Area and is also part of 

the Department's Current River Hills 

Conservation Opportunity Area. The 

wilderness designation is a concern for 

continued management of the pine-oak 

woodlands because this community type 

requires periodic fires and natural 

disturbance. The wilderness designation 

usually precludes the use of chainsaws, leaf 

blowers, ATVs/UTVs, and air operations, 

which are critical for safe prescribed fire 

operations. Limiting prescribed fire crews 

to hand tools would hinder efforts to 

restore and maintain the area’s pine-oak 

woodlands. The wilderness designation 

would also constrain standard operating 

procedures for wildfire suppression, 

creating safety concerns for firefighters and 

risks for adjacent lands. 

Response: 

Wilderness designation would require 

careful consideration of the means and 

methods of carrying out forest and resource 

management measures, including fire 

management, largely because of the 

constraints placed on the use of mechanical 

equipment. In accordance with NPS 

policies, park unit managers would employ 

the “minimum requirements” concept to 

ensure that non-mechanized equipment is 

used in wilderness to the greatest extent 

possible. In particular, emergency 

situations, such as wildfire suppression,

would continue as they are today. Fire 

suppression activities would be conducted 

in ways that minimize the lasting impacts of 

suppression actions. More detailed future 

planning (e.g., wilderness stewardship plan, 

fire management plan) would be conducted 

as necessary to provide managers with the 

guidance and procedures to appropriately 

and safely protect human life, resources, 

and property in the wilderness area and 

adjoining lands. 

The minimum requirements concept would 

be incorporated into planning and 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

440

management decisions regarding the use of 

prescribed fire and other methods for 

preserving the area’s pine-oak woodlands 

that depend on fire to remain a viable 

ecosystem. It is anticipated that 

management of the area to achieve the 

objectives of wilderness preservation would 

further the natural recovery of the area, and 

important cultural resources in the area 

would also be preserved as reminders of the 

region’s past history. 

Despite the recognized impacts to the Big 

Spring study area from previous logging, 

grazing, and other factors, it was 

determined that the area retains sufficient 

wilderness characteristics and meets 

eligibility criteria prescribed by the 

Wilderness Act.

LOCAL COMMUNITIES/ECONOMIES

SE100—Impacts to Socioeconomics 

Concern ID: 51010 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

stated that the draft general management 

plan / environmental impact statement

would have either positive or negative 

impacts on the economies of surrounding 

communities. Some commenters 

suggested that these economies would be 

adversely impacted if the NPS limits 

access and visitor activities (such as 

horseback riding, boating, and camping) 

within the park unit. One commenter 

indicated that allowing mountain biking 

could generate revenue for the state and 

surrounding communities. Other 

commenters noted that the deteriorating 

natural resources in the park unit may 

deter visitors, which could adversely 

impact the economies of surrounding 

communities. 

Corr. ID: 90 

Comment ID: 372576 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: In these tough 

economic times people do not have extra 

money for permits and passes to use areas 

that were established for recreational 

purposes to begin with so they will just stay 

home or find some place else to go for 

vacation. 

Corr. ID: 442 

Comment ID: 373645 

Organization: Environment Missouri 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: Visitors to the 

park-the vast majority of them from outside 

the Ozarks and outside of the state-are the 

single biggest contributors to the economies 

of Shannon, Carter and Dent counties, 

which rank among the most impoverished 

in the state. Should the rivers lose their 

natural charm, people will stop visiting. And 

if people stop visiting, the communities that 

live along the river will suffer economically. 

Corr. ID: 501 (Doug Libla)

Comment ID: 373797 

Organization: Missouri State Senate 

Organization Type: State Government 

Representative Quote: We should provide 

citizens with a variety of recreational 

opportunities while continuing to preserve 

and protect the economic, natural, and 

cultural resources of the ONSR for future 

generations. The current proposals under 

the new GMP do not address my primary 

concern:

Tourism is one of the most critical 

components of our rural economy and the 

ONSR is the primary attraction. Thousands 

of out-of-state as well as in-state hikers, 

campers, boaters, hunters, fishermen and 

horseback riders visit this area annually and 

bring many irreplaceable dollars when they 

come. Any further limitations on the access 

to these assets would severely impact this 

local economy.

We must not overlook our citizens’ heritage 

and livelihood. 
Concern Response Report

441

Corr. ID: 597 

Comment ID: 374210

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Restricting the 

number of non-motorized watercraft at 

specific landing points will harm the 

economy of local businesses. There will be 

less people camping and using local canoe 

rentals, motels, grocery stores, restaurants, 

gas stations, etc. 

Corr. ID: 961 

Comment ID: 369453 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Missouri’s rivers 

and their water quality are critical to our 

quality of life and our state’s economy. 

Undesignated horse trails have brought 

water pollution, specifically E. coli, to the 

rivers. Horse trails should be kept far 

enough away from the rivers to prevent 

these impacts. Illegal roads and vehicles 

traversing the rivers and gravel bars 

produce erosion and sedimentation of 

streams which harm fish habitat. These 

areas should be managed for maximum 

protection of biodiversity, which form the 

basis of our quality of life and our state’s 

economy. 

Corr. ID: 1253 

Comment ID: 371012 

Organization: Security Bank of the 

Ozarks 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: As far as the 

boating issue is concerned, your proposed 

plan will have a detrimental effect on the 

local boating industry. We have business 

that build the boats, boat dealerships who 

have contacts at the local banks to arrange 

financing for the purchase of their boats, as 

well as the individuals who do the 

upholstery for the boats who work out of 

their homes just to be able to save on rental 

expenses. Then you have the private 

individuals who do the graphics for the 

boats and the polishing of the boats for 

those who like to keep their boats polished. 

That is just the boating industry alone. In 

the summertime, boats are on the river 

every weekend enjoying what nature 

provides. The tourist industry impacts every 

area in this town from gas stations (who rely 

heavily on the tourist trade) to the 

restaurants, grocery stores, the t-shirt shop 

selling souvenir shirts, beauty shops, auto 

repair places just to name a few. Just the 

economic impact alone is reason enough 

not to make any changes. 

Corr. ID: 2321 

Comment ID: 369218 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: The family 

businesses in the Big Creek area will be 

destroyed if the trails in that area are closed. 

Shannon county is a poor county and its 

towns are plagued with empty buildings due 

to businesses not surviving this bad 

economy. Now our government is making a 

plan to limit the numbers of people allowed 

on the rivers and in the forests. Tourism is 

important to Shannon County. 

Corr. ID: 2588 

Comment ID: 374535 

Organization: 2 Timing Guys LLC 

Organization Type: Business 

Representative Quote: Creating mountain 

biking opportunities in the area will help 

make the park more appealing to visitors. It 

helps generate revenue for the state with 

races and events being held in the parks. 

Mountian biking should be allowed as well 

as mountain bike related events. All those 

around these events can benefit from the 

trails we build/maintain and the revenue we 

generate attending these events. 

Corr. ID: 2614 

Comment ID: 374630 

Organization: Friends of Ozark 

Riverways 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

442

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: If well cared for, 

the Riverways will not only protect priceless 

natural and cultural resources but also 

provide substantial economic contributions 

to the region from jobs, visitor spending, 

added sales tax revenue, and national park 

expenditures and thus sustain small 

communities along the river. 

Corr. ID: 2751 

Comment ID: 370633 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: If the Park Service 

chooses the Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

and closes 20 access points it will negatively 

affect the economy of the surrounding 

communities. Closing access points will 

harm the surrounding canoe rentals, motels, 

convenience stores, restaurants, and all 

other local businesses. The plan does not go 

into detail and say what 20 access points 

will be closed. This means that the Park 

Service will close any access points that they 

feel like. 

Corr. ID: 2783 

Comment ID: 370698 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: It is unnecessary 

for additional restrictions to be placed on 

horseback riding on the Jacks Fork and 

Current River, and trails in the surrounding 

areas. Vacationing horse enthusiasts and 

trail riders bring significant revenue to our 

local economy. Further limitations and 

restrictions on trail riding will have a 

negative economic impact. 

Corr. ID: 2859 

Comment ID: 375251 

Organization: The Eminence Area 

Chamber of Commerce 

Organization Type: Civic Groups 

Representative Quote: The Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways not only 

provides respite for travelers, vacationing 

experiences, recreational activities, for 

locals and tourists, alike, but it also provides 

a much needed income to the local 

economy of Eminence and Shannon 

County, Missouri. The impact of the ONSR 

on this region is significant. The Current 

and Jacks Fork watersheds has provided 

many jobs, income avenues, and 

recreational opportunities for generations 

of the traditional residents of this area. This 

area is economically depressed and 

Shannon County is one of the poorest percapita counties of the United States. It is the 

lowest income per-capita in the State of 

Missouri. In the last ten years employment 

has decreased, residents must travel outside 

of the county to find substantial work, and 

residents experience increasing regulations 

on their recreational activities, forcing some 

to relocate. The US government is not 

intended to limit liberty, freedom, nor the 

right to pursue happiness. These words 

directly apply to any negative impacts the 

current ONSR

Management Plan Draft contains. 

Corr. ID: 2863 

Comment ID: 376532 

Organization: Eminence Area Chamber 

of Commerce Board of Directors and 

undersigned supporters 

Organization Type: Civic Groups 

Representative Quote: The tourist 

economy is vital to Shannon County, since 

the land for which productive use for 

economic activities is owned by the 

aforementioned entities. Tourism is vital to 

the economy for many reasons, it not only 

brings income into the county, but also 

helps to increase the services of the 

residents of the county as the tourist need 

access to those various services as well. 

Tourists are not only from throughout the 

nation, but we have local and regional 

residents that we might consider in the 

tourist category, this is a definite impact on 

the economy.

It cannot be overstated how important 

tourism is to the economy of Shannon 
Concern Response Report

443

County and it should be the duty of the 

National Park Service to work with our 

county to improve tourism in this region, 

rather than to squash and starve the 

resident population with superfluous rules 

and regulations. 

Corr. ID: 3093 

Comment ID: 376533 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I know that some 

members of Congress have suggested that 

the local community would suffer from the 

National Park Service’s proposed new 

management plan, but I fish on the Current 

River roughly fifteen days per year and on 

each trip I patronize local merchants, 

including gas stations, restaurants, sporting 

goods stores and canoe rental companies. 

Over the years my family and I have 

probably spent thousands of dollars in 

Houston, Jadwin, Eminence and other local 

towns. If the decline of this park continues I 

will feel obligated to seek out other sites for 

my outdoor recreation, including the 

Buffalo River in Arkansas, which seems 

(from what I can tell) to be more tightly 

regulated than ONSR. 

Response: 

The National Park Service supports tourism 

and recognizes the benefits that accrue to 

local communities providing support for 

park unit visitors. Implementation of the 

preferred alternative would likely have 

minimal impacts on socioeconomic 

conditions in the local region. While some 

recreational activities would be more 

closely managed, these changes are 

expected to have marginal impacts on 

visitation. In addition, the preferred 

alternative is expected to improve visitor 

experiences by adding to the existing 

designated horse trail system, providing 

new recreational opportunities (mountain 

biking), and expanding developed camping 

areas.

The use of 60/40 hp motors on boats would 

be allowed in designated areas currently 

popular with motorized boat users. It is 

anticipated that motorized boating would 

not change significantly and would 

continue to support local businesses that 

sell and/or manufacture boats used 

specifically in the National Riverways. 

Please refer back to concern statements 

50970 and 50972 for more information 

related to general management plan 

changes related to designated areas for 

motor boating.

It is anticipated that visitor use patterns 

could shift slightly and the composition of 

park unit visitation could change with the 

preferred alternative. The actual effects of 

the preferred alternative on visitation and 

the overall regional economy are uncertain, 

with small positive and negative effects. The 

National Riverways is expected to remain a 

major attraction for visitors and a 

significant contributor of economic activity 

in the area.

GENERAL COMMENTS

CC1000—Consultation and 

Coordination: General Comments 

Concern ID: 51012 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

suggested that the NPS establish 

mechanisms to communicate effectively 

with the public. Some commenters 

recommended that an advisory or 

working group be established to maintain 

a dialogue on protecting and enhancing 

the interests of the park unit. 

Corr. ID: 1060 

Comment ID: 369922 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I would like to see a 

major park visitors’ center in Eminence. It is 

centrally located for the park and would be 

accessed by more visitors than a center at 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

444

Van Buren or one of the other park 

extremities. I suppose this is irrelevant since 

the alternatives are defined but maybe for 

the next plan in 20 years.... 

Corr. ID: 2296 

Comment ID: 369056 

Organization: Greenway Network, Inc. 

St. Charles MO

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: * NPS could 

network with local Government agencies 

and the local Stream Teams to paint 

warnings on all Storm Water Sewers Covers 

in the developed areas of Eminence and 

Van Buren. Greenway Network is presently 

working with local governmants in a similar 

way to paint 6000 sewer covers in St. 

Charles using local scout groups, residence 

and students.

* Perhaps the NPS could work with the local 

Univ. of Mo. Extension Centers or local 

garden clubs to discuss ways to address 

point source contamination reduction using 

wetlands, native prairies, rain gardens or 

vegetative swales near loosing streams or 

sinks.

* NPS could network with the Stream Team 

Program and turn the old fishing lodge 

(Welsh Lodge) into an educational 

school/camp for the children of Missouri. 

The Stream Teams locally and the NPS 

Ozark Stream Team, if created, could use 

this area as an outdoor educational 

classroom to teach both the public and the 

employees of the NPS about the importance 

of the aquatic invertebrate balance of 

healthy rivers and water testing to show 

point source pollution.

* NPS could network with the St. Louis Zoo 

to stage areas to incorporate the Hellbender 

population back to healthy stream sections 

of the park. Hellbender habitat areas need 

both protection and new areas need to be 

added and there needs to be a definite 

designation of protection for such habitat. 

The scientific, biologic reason for the 

species loss needs to be detailed. 

Corr. ID: 2745 

Comment ID: 370610 

Organization: National Parks 

Conservation Association 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: Since the state of 

Missouri is responsible for water testing in 

the rivers at OZAR, NPCA strongly urges 

the NPS, in cooperation with the state, to 

develop a communication system to notify 

people on the rivers that the E. coli count is 

high enough to risk human health. In 

addition, the NPS should consider closing 

portions of the river until levels are within a 

healthy range. Finally, the NPS should 

adopt an aggressive education campaign 

through local outfitters and at authorized 

river access points to educate visitors about 

how human body waste must be disposed of 

while in the park. 

Corr. ID: 2787 

Comment ID: 370714 

Organization: Indiana University Robert 

H. McKinney School of Law 

Environmental and Natural Resources 

Law Program 

Organization Type: 

University/Professional Society 

Representative Quote: I recommend that 

the NPS Establish local ONSR Public 

Information Offices on the main streets of 

the two communities most closely 

connected to the rivers, Eminence and Van 

Buren. This could be as simple and 

inexpensive as an information kiosk within 

local businesses and/or a small office that is 

staffed by an existing public information 

officer or park ranger during peak tourist 

season or on weekends. The offices could 

provide information and interpretation for

tourists and could also serve as a point of 

contact with the local community. 

Corr. ID: 2787 

Comment ID: 370715 
Concern Response Report

445

Organization: Indiana University Robert 

H. McKinney School of Law 

Environmental and Natural Resources 

Law Program 

Organization Type: 

University/Professional Society 

Representative Quote: I recommend that 

the NPS respond to some of the widespread 

misinformation among local residents 

concerning the ONSR and its benefits as a 

conservation area - as well as the costs of 

overuse and high-impact use - by (a) using 

remote sensing technology to document the 

impact of visitor-created roads (informal 

trails and river crossings) on the ONSR; and 

(b) gathering data regarding the economic 

contribution of visitation to the local 

economy in a manner that allows the 

disaggregation of ecotourism benefits from 

other tourism benefits. 

Corr. ID: 2787 

Comment ID: 370713 

Organization: Indiana University Robert 

H. McKinney School of Law 

Environmental and Natural Resources 

Law Program 

Organization Type: 

University/Professional Society 

Representative Quote: I recommend that 

the NPS, or the ONSR superintendent 

acting under his authority as the manager of 

the ONSR, create an ONSR Citizen 

Advisory Group comprised of local 

residents who are opinion leaders (such as 

chambers of commerce heads, prominent 

business owners, high school teachers or 

administrators, etc) along those who visit 

the ONSR for recreation and are concerned 

with its management but do not live locally 

(such as representatives of public interest 

environmental groups or tourist agencies). 

Corr. ID: 2983 (Robert L. Ziehmer)

Comment ID: 384205 

Organization: Missouri Department of 

Conservation 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: The Department 

requests the NPS to organize a working 

group that includes local community 

members, resource agencies, and other 

interest groups to develop new 

management approaches that resolve 

unauthorized access/use issues within the 

Scenic Riverways. 

Corr. ID: 3091 (Senator Roy Blunt)

Comment ID: 375547 

Organization: United States Senate 

Organization Type: Federal Government 

Representative Quote: In submitted 

comments, MDC has committed to work 

closely with ONSR to administer a GMP 

that will provide sustainable and practical 

management for future generations. MDC 

has suggested developing a working group 

to maintain a dialogue on protecting and 

enhancing the interests of the ONSR. 

Stakeholders throughout the region have 

also expressed interest in this proposal to 

my staff repeatedly during the ONSR GMP 

hearings. The ONSR cannot overlook what 

MDC can provide as one of our nation’s 

most highly respected state conservation 

agencies. 

Response: 

The general management plan / 

environmental impact statement identifies a 

desire to work cooperatively with others to 

anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential 

conflicts, protect the National Riverways 

resources, and address mutual interests in 

the quality of life for community residents. 

Partnerships with local community 

organizations and chambers of commerce 

for park cultural demonstrations and 

special events could help generate 

additional business opportunities in local 

communities. Regional cooperation would 

involve federal, state, and local agencies; 

Indian tribes; neighboring landowners; and 

all other concerned parties. 

The general management plan identifies a 

number of strategies to achieve this, 

including fostering a spirit of cooperation 

with neighbors and encouraging compatible 

adjacent land uses; keeping landowners, 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

446

land managers, local governments, and the 

public informed about management 

activities; and sharing information with 

adjacent landowners on resources, natural 

processes, and threats to resources. 

Along these lines, the park unit began a 

regular “Riverways Reflections” column to 

share information about park unit events 

and important issues. The park unit intends 

to continue sharing these columns with 

local and regional media outlets, and 

expand outreach via social media and its 

website. 

Also of note, section 7 (a) of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways Enabling 

Legislation (78 Stat. 608) established an 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

Commission to help foster better 

communication and help guide the park 

unit over the first ten years of its 

development. While the terms and model of 

this commission no longer apply today, the 

park unit recognizes the importance of 

maintaining effective communication with 

stakeholders. In an effort to improve 

communications, the park unit would 

develop a communication plan. This plan 

would detail how park unit management 

proposes to disseminate information to the 

public on a regular basis, respond to 

concerns about park unit operations, and 

encourage feedback on park unit issues. 

Park unit staff believes successful 

implementation of such a plan would help 

facilitate expanded communication, 

provide opportunities for more direct input 

with park unit staff, and help promote 

awareness and understanding of park unit 

issues.

GA3000—Impact Analysis: General 

Methodology for Establishing 

Impacts/Effects 

Concern ID: 51014 

CONCERN STATEMENT: One 

commenter questioned the methodology 

used to collect visitation trends in the 

park unit, and queried which user 

group(s) the NPS is focusing on with this 

planning effort. 

Corr. ID: 2267 

Comment ID: 368627 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: the proposal did 

not include any breakdown of the type of 

visitors who came to OZAR historically, 

currently or as anticipated, in terms of their 

reasons for coming. Specifically how many 

of the park visitors came to blow off steam 

on the river, how many came for that Muir 

experience in the woods and how many 

came to sit along the riverbank and watch 

the river go by from their camper. Many of 

the park visitors come to the park one time 

per year while many others come weekly. 

Are you planning for that one time per year 

visitor or the one visiting more frequently? 

Have you done any type of monitoring and 

by that I mean monitoring that has been 

tested and determined to be statistically 

accurate as a basis for the presumptions 

included here not a jumble of park 

registrations and other data that do not 

include visitor hours as opposed to visits? 

The reference is made to “traditional family 

oriented” experiences but what are you 

talking about. How many visitors consist of 

“traditional family units”? 

Response: 

The alternatives proposed in this general 

management plan were developed to 

provide comprehensive guidance for 

protecting natural systems, preserving 

cultural resources, and providing 

opportunities for quality visitor experiences 

at Ozark National Scenic Riverways for the 

next 15 or 20 years. Therefore these broad 

alternatives were examined for impacts of 

implementing management strategies that 

apply to all visitors that come to enjoy the 

National Riverways.
Concern Response Report

447

The plan includes an analysis of visitor 

trends, characteristics, perceptions, and 

opinions for river and land-based 

recreation in the “Visitor Use Trends” 

section of chapter 4. This section discusses 

activity type and participation, 

environmental and social perceptions, 

concessioner utilization, preference and 

satisfaction measures, and policy and 

management issues. Studies also include 

demographic information. Average group 

size for groups visiting the park is stated in 

chapter 4.

During public scoping for this plan, the 

most commonly expressed concerns were 

related to visitor behaviors. More details on 

comments heard can be found in the 

“Planning Issues and Opportunities” 

section of chapter 1, of this final general 

management plan. Many families stated 

they would no longer visit the National 

Riverways because of the growth of 

inappropriate visitor behaviors. Therefore, 

references to family-oriented experiences 

were meant to convey safe experiences 

appropriate for groups with young children, 

seniors, or any group members who desire 

experiences free of disruptive behaviors 

commonly identified during public 

comment. The National Park Service does 

not measure how group members are 

associated, as it is not relevant to the 

planning effort.

The majority of references in the document 

were to family friendly experiences and 

atmospheres. In order to be consistent and 

avoid confusion, all references to familyoriented experiences in the draft plan have 

been changed to family-friendly.

Concern ID: 51015 

CONCERN STATEMENT: One 

commenter noted that the draft general 

management plan / environmental 

impact statement did not provide 

evidence that outboard motors cause 

adverse impacts to the river or conflict 

with other forms of recreation. 

Corr. ID: 305 

Comment ID: 373066

Organization: Ozark Heritage Project 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: There has been NO 

evidence offered that the use of outboards 

on that stretch harm either the river or the 

riparian border is harmed by their use. 

There has been little evidence offered that 

their use significantly conflicts with other 

recreational use in the peak season and NO 

evidence it interferes in the off season. 

Response: 

The proposals in the draft general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement for non-motorized zones were 

developed after considering public input 

during the scoping phase of this planning 

process. Many people expressed a desire for 

a recreational experience that did not 

include motorized vessels. Visitor use 

surveys were conducted to collect visitor 

input about their experiences interacting 

with other user groups. These include: 

“Ozark National Scenic Riverways Visitor 

Use Study” (Dr. Mark Morgan, 2007) and 

“Assessment of Visitor-Related Impacts and 

Potential Management Strategies at Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways” (Logan Park, et. 

al., 2011). In addition, “Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways Acoustical Monitoring 

2010-2011” (NPS, 2011b) studied the sound 

levels at several locations in the park unit. 

Please refer to the “Visitor Use and 

Experience” section in chapter 4 for 

highlights of the results of these studies. In 

addition, non-motorized zones were 

proposed as a way to broaden the range of 

recreational opportunities and visitor 

experiences.

PN1000—Purpose And Need: Planning 

Process and Policy 

Concern ID: 51017 

CONCERN STATEMENT: Commenters 

suggested that the public meetings for the 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

448

draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement were

poorly managed and poorly advertised. 

Several commenters were dissatisfied 

with the open house format of the 

meetings, while others were dissatisfied 

with the amount and quality of the 

information provided at the meetings. 

Commenters also recommended that 

additional meetings should have been 

offered. However, some commenters 

noted that the public meetings were wellorganized, and that park unit staff was 

prepared to answer questions from the 

public. 

Corr. ID: 787 

Comment ID: 368183 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: ONSR Draft 

General Management Plan

I finally got into one of the public meetings 

for the Draft General Management Plan of 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways after 

driving to the last two meetings to find them 

rescheduled. Very disappointed again to 

find there was not going to be a meeting 

here in Eminence and instead it was just an 

open house. There was at least 20 or more 

National Park Service personnel there to 

hand out free cd’s of the complete Plan and 

answer questions, but there was no one 

there to answer questions and give you a 

truthful answer. Most all the local county 

and state officials that were there expected 

an open meeting where we could all ask 

questions and voice our opinion. 

Corr. ID: 801 

Comment ID: 368235 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I am, however 

disappointed that the NPS allowed two 

unscheduled meetings, at the very last 

minute, to be held in Salem and Eminence. 

The Riverways are National Parks and 

visitors come from all over the world to 

enjoy it and spend their money locally. Why 

not have a meeting in Springfield or 

Columbia? There are many people from 

Southwest Missouri that love and use those 

rivers who feel shafted by the process. 

Corr. ID: 921 

Comment ID: 369265

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Upon the meeting 

held 01/21/14@ Van Buren community 

center, I was enlightened on the subject 

concerned. The reception was handled very 

professionally, needless to say, upon leaving 

I was satisfied! 

Corr. ID: 1187 

Comment ID: 370611 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: I think you should 

have had more meetings in the St. Louis 

area and in Kansas City - even in IL, Ia, KS 

and AR. 

Corr. ID: 2308 

Comment ID: 369131 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Who made the 

decision to have these meetings in the “mill 

around the stations” format? What was 

their rationale for this particular choice? 

Corr. ID: 2893 

Comment ID: 372118 

Organization: Not Specified 

Organization Type: Unaffiliated 

Individual 

Representative Quote: Thank you for the 

opportunity to attend your open house 

regarding the National Park Service’s Draft 

Management Plan for the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways held in Van Buren, 

Missouri, on January 21, 2014. I found the 
Concern Response Report

449

exhibits informative and the staff generally 

prepared to answer direct questions. 

Corr. ID: 2907 

Comment ID: 372175 

Organization: Missouri Farm Bureau 

Federation 

Organization Type: Business 

Representative Quote: Although many of 

our members participated in the recent 

public meetings and have submitted written 

comments, our organization was not among 

those notified by the National Park Service 

(NPS) of these meetings and other 

opportunities to provide input during the 

development of the draft plan. The 

notification mailing list provided by NPS 

pursuant to our request includes the 

Missouri Coalition for the Environment, 

Sierra Club, L.A.D. Foundation, Missouri 

Parks Association, American Rivers and 

The Nature Conservancy, but no 

organizations of comparable stature 

representing landowner interests. On a 

regulatory proposal with potentially 

significant ramifications for land use policy, 

we believe this was a serious oversight. At 

this point, we strongly urge the NPS to 

“level the playing field” by according 

proportionately more weight to views 

expressed by local residents. 

Corr. ID: 2974 (Darrell Skiles)

Comment ID: 372467 

Organization: Dent County Commission 

Organization Type: Town or City 

Government 

Representative Quote: Further, the Dent 

County Commission would like to express 

our overall extreme disappointment in the 

Draft General Management Plan produced 

by the Park Service and our anger over the 

National Park Service conduct at the 4 

public meetings held by the Park Service to 

discuss it. It is clear the National Park 

Service totally ignored local input and 

concerns about the Riverways when 

constructing this Draft Plan and Park 

Service staff openly and blatantly attempted 

to influence those in attendance at all of the 

public meetings to support the restrictive 

Alternatives A, B, or C by telling attendees 

the “No Action Alternative” was really not 

an alternative at all.

It is readiliy apparent the National park 

Service has skewed this entire process and 

proposal. 

Corr. ID: 2976 

Comment ID: 372469

Organization: EOAS Conservation 

Committee 

Organization Type: 

Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: There has been a 

good deal of opposition to the NPS 

proposals expressed by local politicians and 

to a lesser extent from the populace of the 

counties surrounding the Riverways. I 

believe the extent of local opposition is 

overblown and I think the politician’s 

opposition is largely opportunistic, driven 

by a radical anti-government ideology. 

Although I did not speak publicly, I did 

attend the Van Buren open house and 

found the forum to be extremely 

intimidating to anyone not in conformance 

with the Tea-Party line which amounted to: 

the government cannot put any restrictions 

on use of the river; the National Park 

Service is illegitimate; give control of the 

Riverways back to the State and counties. 

The meeting was badly managed in that the 

spokesman for Representative Smith was 

allowed to give an opening speech which 

frankly amounted to rabble rousing, thus 

setting a hostile tone, and other politicians 

were happy to follow that example. There 

was no attempt by the moderator to 

encourage a respectful exchange of

opinions, indeed no attempt at moderation! 

I personally know of many people who 

broadly support the proposed changes who 

stayed away from the Van Buren meeting 

because they feared the scenario that in fact 

developed. This anti-government ideology 

is extremely unhelpful to the National Park 

Service Riverways managers and I firmly 

believe it does not represent the views of a 

large majority of Riverways users and 

visitors: despite the wishes of the more 

extreme elements, the Riverways belong to 
CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

450

the people of the United States, not solely to 

the citizens of Shannon and Carter 

Counties. As you point out in the Draft 

Plan, the “no action” scenario is a baseline 

against which to measures the management 

proposals, not a rational or practical 

alternative. Maintaining the status quo is 

simply unacceptable. 

Response: 

In addition to extensive public engagement 

conducted in earlier phases of the general 

management planning process, the National 

Park Service conducted four public 

meetings in January 2014 to share the draft

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement with the public and solicit 

public feedback. The draft plan was 

released to the public on November 8, 2013, 

with a 90-day comment period that closed 

on February 7, 2014. Public meetings were 

initially scheduled in December 2013, but 

severe winter weather and requests from 

the public resulted the postponement of the 

meetings. The National Park Service 

rescheduled the meetings twice and finally 

held them on January 16, 17, 21, and 22. 

Three of the meetings were held in the 

surrounding communities of Eminence, 

Salem, and Van Buren. One public meeting 

was held in the St. Louis area (Kirkwood). 

The National Park Service made a 

concerted effort to advertise both rounds of 

meetings in local and regional media 

outlets, as well as through direct mailings, 

online information on the park unit’s 

webpage, and via social media. These 

meetings attracted more than 1,450 

attendees and were some of the most widely 

attended public meetings held by the 

National Park Service nationwide in recent 

years.

The goal of public engagement process was 

to clarify draft alternatives carried through 

to the general management plan / 

environmental impact statement, answer 

questions regarding these alternatives, and 

gather testimony on the Wilderness Study. 

The meetings used two formats—a 

traditional open house format and a public 

hearing format. NPS staff prepared 

summary handouts, posters, and other 

materials to ensure that the public could 

learn about the planning process and make

informed comments on the draft plan. In 

addition, extra copies of the draft plan were 

made available, and computer stations were 

set up so people could enter their 

comments on site. One or two NPS staff 

were available at each station to answer 

questions and provide information. Court 

reporters were also made available to 

record public comments and testimonials at 

the Wilderness hearing. The “Consultation 

and Coordination” section at the beginning 

of Chapter 6 contains additional 

information on the public involvement 

process.

The initial public comment period was 60 

days; however, the National Park Service 

received numerous requests to extend the 

public comment period and schedule 

additional public meetings. As noted 

previously, the comment period was 

extended from 60 to 90 days. In addition, 

the National Park Service added the public 

meeting in Salem, Missouri.


453

APPENDIX A: SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO OZARK 

NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS
This page is intentionally left blank
455

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Relations / partnerships with organizations, communities, agencies and tribes

Relations with private 

and public organizations, 

owners of adjacent land, 

and governmental 

agencies 

NPS Management Policies 2006 emphasizes consultation and cooperation with local, state, tribal, and federal entities (5.2.1) and 

calls for cooperative conservation beyond park unit boundaries (1.6) and for cooperative planning (2.3.1.8). Director’s Order 75A, 

“Civic Engagement and Public Involvement,” provides further guidance.

Desired Conditions: Ozark National Scenic Riverways is managed as part of a greater ecological, social, economic, and cultural 

system.

Good relations are maintained with adjacent landowners, surrounding communities, and private and public groups that affect 

and are affected by Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The area is managed proactively to resolve external issues and concerns and 

ensure that area values are not compromised.

Because the National Riverways is a part of a larger regional environment, the National Park Service and its neighbors work 

cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential conflicts, protect the National Riverways’ resources, and 

address mutual interests in the quality of life for community residents. Partnerships with local community organizations and 

chambers of commerce for park cultural demonstrations and special events could help generate additional business opportunities 

in local communities. Regional cooperation involves federal, state, and local agencies; Indian tribes; neighboring landowners; and 

all other concerned parties.

Strategies: NPS staff will continue to establish and foster collaborative partnerships with public and private organizations, 

landowners and other stakeholders to achieve the purposes of Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Partnerships will continue to be 

sought for resource protection, research, education, and visitor enjoyment purposes.

To foster a spirit of cooperation with neighbors and encourage compatible adjacent land uses, NPS staff will continue to keep

landowners, land managers, local governments, and the public informed about Ozark National Scenic Riverways management 

activities. Likewise, NPS managers will seek relationships with adjacent landowners and jurisdictions that will keep NPS managers 

informed about their activities that may affect the National Riverways. Periodic consultations will continue with landowners who 

may be affected by visitors and management actions. NPS staff will continue to respond promptly to conflicts that arise over NPS 

activities, visitor access, and proposed activities and developments on adjacent lands that could affect Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. Information will be shared with adjacent landowners on resources, natural processes, and threats to resources. NPS

staff may provide technical and management assistance to landowners to address issues of mutual interest.

NPS staff will continue to work closely with local, state, and federal agencies and tribal governments whose programs affect or 

are affected by activities in Ozark National Scenic Riverways. NPS managers will continue to pursue cooperative regional planning 

whenever possible to integrate the National Riverways into issues of regional concern.

NPS staff will continue to work closely with local, state, and federal agencies and tribal governments to foster interagency 

training, cooperation, and mutual assistance that afford the highest level of protection and security for visitors and park 

resources.
456

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Relations with the 

Town of Van Buren, 

Town of Eminence, 

and Shannon, Dent, 

Texas and Carter 

Counties 

As stated above, NPS Management Policies 2006 emphasizes consultation and cooperation with local governments and for cooperative 

planning.

Desired Conditions: NPS staff continues its close working relationships with the Town of Van Buren, the Town of Eminence, and 

Shannon, Dent, Texas and Carter counties. NPS staff and local officials maintain a high level of trust and goodwill. Local government 

officials feel they have an important stake in Ozark National Scenic Riverways, and NPS staff feel they have an important stake in the

local communities. NPS managers are familiar with local issues and concerns.

Strategies: NPS staff will continue to regularly communicate and meet with local government officials to identify problems and concerns 

facing the local governments and Ozark National Scenic Riverways, and actions that can be taken to address these problems and 

concerns.

Local government officials will continue to be kept informed of planning and other actions in Ozark National Scenic Riverways that could 

affect the local governments. Likewise, NPS managers will seek relationships with local government officials that will keep NPS managers 

informed about their activities that may affect the National Riverways. NPS staff will continue to work with local government law 

enforcement, emergency services, and community education programs.

When appropriate, NPS staff will provide technical and management assistance to the local governments, including sharing information 

and resources, to address problems and issues of mutual interest, such as growth in park visitation and ecotourism. NPS staff will 

continue to be involved in community-based efforts. NPS staff will participate in community planning when it may influence the National 

Riverways.

Government-togovernment 

relations between 

American Indian 

Tribes and Ozark 

National Scenic 

Riverways

Mandates or policies for the National Park Service to maintain a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribal 

governments are included in the Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994; Executive Order 13175; Executive Order 13007 (Indian 

Sacred Sites); a variety of federal statutes, such as the National Historic Preservation Act; and NPS Management Policies 2006 (1.11.1).

Desired Conditions: The National Park Service and tribes culturally affiliated with the National Riverways maintain positive, productive, 

government-to-government relationships. Park managers and staff respect the viewpoints and needs of the tribes, continue to promptly 

address conflicts that occur, and consider American Indian values in park management and operation.

Strategies: NPS staff continue to meet and communicate with tribal officials to identify problems and issues of mutual concern and 

interest, and work together to take actions to address these concerns.

Tribal officials will continue to be kept informed of planning and other actions in Ozark National Scenic Riverways that could affect the 

tribes.

When appropriate, NPS staff provide technical assistance to the tribes, including sharing information and resources, to address problems 

and issues of mutual concern.

NPS staff continue to recognize the past and present existence of native peoples in the region and the traces of their land use and 

occupation as an important part of the cultural environment to be researched, preserved, and interpreted, if appropriate. 

NPS staff consult with the tribes traditionally associated with the National Riverways to develop and accomplish the programs of Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways in a way that respects the beliefs, traditions, and other cultural values of the tribes with ties to National 

Riverways lands.

NPS staff accommodate access to traditionally used areas, once they have been identified through consultation and research, in ways 

consistent with park purposes and American Indian values, and that avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sites and 

resources. 

NPS staff conduct appropriate ethnographic, ethno-historical, or cultural anthropological research in conjunction with, and in 

cooperation with, American Indian tribes traditionally associated with the National Riverways and cooperate as appropriate in light of law 

and policy with any continuation of subsistence activities.
457

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Natural resources

Ecosystem 

management

NPS Management Policies 2006 (1.6, 4.1, 4.1.4, 4.4.1) provides general direction for managing park units from an ecosystem 

perspective.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways is part of a greater ecological, social, economic, and cultural system. Activities that take place outside 

the park affect, sometimes profoundly, the National Park Service’s ability to protect natural resources inside the park. As section 1.6 of 

NPS Management Policies 2006 states, “Recognizing that parks are integral parts of larger regional environments, and to support its 

primary concern of protecting park resources and values, the service will work cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve 

potential conflicts; protect park resources and values; provide for visitor enjoyment; and address mutual interests in the quality of life of 

community residents, including matters such as compatible economic development and resource and environmental protection.” 

Thus, it is important to manage Ozark National Scenic Riverways from an ecosystem perspective, where internal and external factors 

affecting visitor use, environmental quality, and resource stewardship goals are considered at a scale appropriate to their impact on 

affected resources. 

Ecosystem management is a collaborative approach to natural and cultural resource management that integrates scientific knowledge of 

ecological relationships with resource stewardship practices for the goal of sustainable ecological, cultural, and socioeconomic systems. 

Approaches to ecosystem management are varied and occur at many levels. Achieving the desired future conditions stated in this plan 

for park resources requires that a regional perspective be considered, recognizing that actions taken on lands surrounding the park 

directly and indirectly affect the park. Many of the threats to park resources, such as threats to water quality and invasive species, come 

from outside the park boundaries, requiring an ecosystem approach to understand and manage the park’s natural resources.

Imperative in this effort is understanding the health or condition of the ecosystem. Key indicators of resource or system conditions must 

be identified and monitored.

Cooperation, coordination, negotiation, and partnerships with agencies and neighbors are also crucial to meeting or maintaining desired 

future conditions for the park while recognizing the need to accommodate multiple uses on a regional scale. This approach to ecosystem 

management may involve many parties or cooperative arrangements with state agencies or tribes to obtain a better understanding of 

trans-boundary issues.

Desired Conditions: Ozark National Scenic Riverways is managed holistically, from an ecosystem perspective, where internal and 

external factors affecting visitor use, environmental quality, and resource stewardship goals are considered at a scale appropriate to their 

impact on affected resources. The National Park Service is a leader in resource stewardship and conservation of ecosystems within and 

outside the park. Natural processes and population fluctuations occur within a natural range of variability with as little human 

intervention as possible. Park resources and visitors are managed considering the ecological and social conditions of the park and 

surrounding area. Ecological integrity is maintained or restored in areas not developed for visitors. NPS managers adapt to changing 

ecological and social conditions within and external to the park and continue as partners in regional planning and land and water 

management. The park is managed proactively to resolve external issues and concerns to ensure that park values are not compromised.

Strategies: NPS staff will continue to participate in programs that have importance within and beyond park boundaries and encourage 

ongoing partnerships with local, state, tribal, and federal agencies; educational institutions; and other organizations. Cooperative 

agreements, partnerships, and other arrangements can be used to set an example in resource conservation and innovation, and to 

facilitate research related to park resources and their management. Partnerships important to the long-term viability of natural and 

cultural resources include, but are not limited to, the following:

• inventorying, monitoring, and managing terrestrial resources
458

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Ecosystem 

management

(continued)

• managing wildlife across human-created boundaries, such as jurisdictions and property lines

• monitoring and managing aquatic resources (for example, water quality), and enforcing regulations

• managing nonnative invasive species

• supporting scientific research and ecological monitoring to increase understanding of park resources, natural processes, and 

human interactions with the environment, and to guide recovery/conservation efforts

• approaching all resource management questions from an ecosystem standpoint, taking into account all biological 

interrelationships

• continuing long-term monitoring of the change in condition of cultural and natural resources and related human influences

• identifying management considerations for areas external to the park where ecological processes, natural and cultural 

resources, and/or human use affect park resources or are closely related to park resource management, initiating joint 

management actions, agreements, or partnerships to promote resource conservation

• practicing science-based decision making and adaptive management, and incorporating the results of resource monitoring and 

research into NPS operations

• as called for in the National Riverways’ fire management plan (NPS 2004b), continuing to use prescribed fire as appropriate to 

reduce hazardous fuel conditions, supplement the ecological role of fire as a natural process, eliminate or reduce nonnative 

species, protect or restore key plant or animal habitats or communities, and restore or maintain cultural/historic scenes in the 

park unit

• detecting and investigating illegal activities; apprehending and successfully prosecuting violators; and preventing unauthorized 

and illegal access and operations through resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence
459

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

River processes River processes, including channel migration wave action (erosion) and deposition and movement of sediments, have, and continue to 

shape, the path of the National Riverways’ main river channel as well as the banks of the river. NPS Management Policies 2006 (4.6.6) 

and the Natural Resource Reference Manual #77 provide general direction on the management of watershed and river process in park 

units.

Desired Conditions: The National Riverways’ river processes are preserved and protected as integral components of the park unit’s 

natural systems. Natural river processes, such as erosion, deposition, and channel migration, function in as natural a condition as 

possible. To the extent possible, structures such as boat ramps and activities such as boating (motorized and nonmotorized) do not alter 

the nature or rate of natural river processes.

Strategies: NPS staff will continue to be a partner with federal, state, and local agencies and with academic institutions to conduct 

research on the river. NPS managers will work with researchers to study the effects of boat ramps and boating (motorized and 

nonmotorized) on river processes, such as the transport of sediment and the accretion/erosion of adjacent riverbanks. The National Park 

Service will establish and implement a geomorphological monitoring program to establish baseline data and detect changes over time.

Any manipulation of the river proposed to protect cultural resources will preserve or restore natural geologic and river processes as much 

as possible.

Inventorying and monitoring will continue to ensure that river features are not adversely affected by human activities. Effects of 

recreation on river habitat will continue to be monitored at sites with known impacts.

New or replacement developments will not be placed in areas vulnerable to wave erosion or active flooding processes unless the 

development is essential to meet the park’s purposes and:

• No practicable alternative locations are available.

• The development will be reasonably assured of surviving during its planned life span without the need for riverbank control 

measures.

• Steps will be taken to minimize safety hazards and harm to property and natural and cultural resources.

• Work will continue on restoring the disturbed riverbanks as needed.

• Interpretive and educational programs will continue to be developed to educate visitors and the public about the nature and 

importance of river features and processes.

Geologic resources Ozark National Scenic Riverways geologic setting is a fundamental underlying factor for the characteristics of its landscapes. Geology is a 

major determinant of the chemistry of the water and soil, type of plants that will grow and thrive, stability of the hillsides, availability of 

fresh water, and locations of habitats. Geologic resources are important for their role in the ecosystem, scenic grandeur, and 

contribution to visitor enjoyment.

The National Riverways’ geologic resources include both geologic features and geologic processes. Karst topography, river processes, and 

soils are discussed separately below. NPS Management Policies 2006 (4.8.1.2) and the Natural Resource Reference Manual #77 provide 

general direction on the management of geologic resources in park units.

Desired Conditions: The National Riverways’ geologic processes are preserved and protected as integral components of the park’s 

natural systems.

Strategies: NPS managers will integrate the management and protection of National Riverways geologic resources into park planning 

and operations.

Geologic resources will be systematically inventoried and monitored. 

Scientific research and geologic education and interpretation will be encouraged.
460

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Geologic resources

(continued)

NPS staff will continue to detect and investigate illegal activity; apprehend and successfully prosecute violators; and prevent unauthorized 

and illegal access and operations through resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence.

Natural resources: 

restoration of 

natural 

environment and 

management of 

nonnative species

NPS Management Policies 2006 (4.4) calls for the National Park Service to maintain natural ecosystems in park units and restore native 

plant and animal populations. Natural Resource Reference Manual #77 also provides general direction on the restoration of natural 

resources for the Riverways.

Many of Ozark National Scenic Riverways natural ecosystems have been altered by the activities of people and the introduction of 

nonnative species. (Nonnative species, also referred to as exotic, alien, or invasive species, are those species that occupy or could occupy 

National Riverways lands directly or indirectly as the result of deliberate or accidental human activities). More specifically, the condition of 

natural vegetation communities has declined in the National Riverways due to the expansion of annual grasses and the spread of 

nonnative plant and animal species. NPS Management Policies 2006 (4.4) calls for the National Park Service to maintain natural 

ecosystems in park units and to restore native plant and animal populations.

Desired Conditions: With the exception of culturally significant areas (including open fields), the Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

environment is restored as nearly as possible to the conditions it would be in today had natural ecological processes not been altered. 

Native species populations that have been severely reduced in or extirpated from the Riverways are restored where feasible and 

sustainable. Populations of native plant and animal species function in as natural a condition as possible except where special 

considerations are warranted. Vegetation is in a condition reminiscent of when the National Riverways was first designated. All federally 

and state threatened and endangered species are no longer in danger of extinction and are at least stable.

The presence of nonnative species in the National Riverways (including nonnative species present in aquatic and subterranean habitats) is 

minimized to the degree possible. The NPS staff provides for their control to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health 

impacts that these species cause.

Strategies: Active restoration efforts continue throughout the National Riverways, primarily focusing on management of nonnative plant 

and animal species, revegetation of native plants, prescribed fire, and restoration of native plants and animals. The management of 

populations of nonnative plant and animal species, up to and including eradication, are undertaken wherever such species threaten park 

resources or public health, and when control is prudent and feasible.

Inventory and monitoring of invasive nonnative plant species continue. High priority is given to managing nonnative species that have or 

potentially could have a substantial impact on park resources, and that can reasonably be expected to be successfully controllable. Efforts 

continue to control or eradicate nonnative plants that are particularly invasive and destructive pests, or have the potential to rapidly 

spread and dominate plant communities. Lower priority would be given to nonnative species that have almost no impact on park 

resources or that probably cannot be successfully controlled.

Restoration of previously or newly disturbed areas uses native genetic materials (when available) from the local region to regain 

maximum habitat value. Should facilities be removed, the disturbed lands are restored to natural topography and soils, and the areas are

revegetated with native species. Only plants that are not invasive and would remain within developed areas are used.

The current fire management plan (NPS, 2004) is designed to meet resource management objectives prescribed for the various areas of

the National Riverways and to ensure that the safety of firefighters and the public are not compromised.

All wildland fires are effectively managed, considering resource values to be protected and firefighter and public safety, using the full 

range of strategic and tactical operations as described in the approved fire management plan.

Research is supported that contributes to management knowledge of native species.

Interpretive and educational programs continue to be provided on the preservation of native species for visitors and for residents 

neighboring the National Riverways.
461

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Federally and statelisted threatened 

and endangered 

species

Under the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service is mandated to promote the conservation of all federal threatened and 

endangered species and their critical habitats within park unit boundaries. NPS Management Policies 2006 (4.4.2.3) calls for the agency 

to survey for, protect, and strive to recover all species native to park units that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, 

the National Park Service is directed to inventory, monitor, and manage state listed species in a manner similar to the treatment of 

federal listed species, to the greatest extent possible.

Several federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species have been recorded at Ozark National Scenic Riverways (see chapter 

4 for a detailed listing). However, there is the possibility that threatened and endangered species occur in the National Riverways but 

have not yet been documented as being present.

Desired Conditions: Ozark National Scenic Riverways contributes to the overall recovery and eventual delisting of all listed species and 

species proposed for listing. Essential habitats that support these species are all protected. Federally and state-listed threatened and 

endangered species and their habitats are protected and sustained.

Native threatened and endangered species populations that have been severely reduced in or extirpated from the National Riverways are 

restored where feasible and sustainable.

Strategies: NPS staff, cooperators, and contractors continue to survey and monitor for the presence of federally and state threatened 

and endangered species in the National Riverways. NPS staff cooperate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Missouri Department 

of Conservation in inventorying, monitoring, protecting, and perpetuating the natural distribution and abundance of all federally and 

state-listed species and their essential habitats. These species and their required habitats are specifically considered in ongoing planning 

and management activities. If appropriate, surveys for threatened and endangered species are undertaken prior to permitting grounddisturbing activities or developments.

If any federally and state-listed or proposed threatened or endangered species are found in areas that would be affected by construction, 

visitor use, or restoration activities proposed in any of the alternatives in this plan, the NPS staff will first consult informally with the 

above agencies. The NPS staff will then take action to address any potential adverse impacts on federally and state-listed species. Should 

it be determined through informal consultation that an action may adversely affect a species that is federally listed or proposed for 

listing, NPS staff initiate formal consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
462

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Air quality The Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.) gives federal land managers the responsibility for protecting air quality and related values, 

including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, cultural resources, and public health, from adverse air pollution impacts. NPS

Management Policies 2006 (4.7), and Natural Resource Reference Manual #77 provide further direction on the protection of air quality 

and related values for park units.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways is classified as a Class II area under the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.). This air quality classification 

is the second most stringent and is designed to protect most of the country from air quality degradation. The Clean Air Act gives federal 

land managers the responsibility for protecting air quality and related values, including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, 

cultural resources, and public health, from adverse air pollution impacts. 

Desired Conditions: Good to excellent air quality is maintained. Air quality in the National Riverways meets national ambient air quality 

standards for specified pollutants. The National Riverways’ air quality is maintained or enhanced with no significant deterioration. Nearly 

unimpaired views of the landscape both within and outside the National Riverways are present. Scenic views, both day and night, are 

protected and unimpaired for the enjoyment of current and future visitors. 

Strategies: NPS staff continues to work with appropriate federal and state government agencies and nearby communities to maintain 

and improve the National Riverways’ regional air quality. NPS staff members participate in regional air quality planning, research, 

educating other users, the implementation of air quality standards, and the implementation of air quality standards.

Air quality in the National Riverways is periodically monitored to gain baseline information and measure any significant changes 

(improvement or deterioration) to the Ozark National Scenic Riverways air shed.

To minimize smoke impacts, controlled burns occur only when favorable meteorological conditions are present. The vegetation to be 

burned is in a condition that facilitates combustion and minimizes the amount of smoke emitted during combustion.

Water quality Water is a key resource to Ozark National Scenic Riverways, shaping the landscape and affecting plants, animals, and visitor use. The 

Clean Water Act strives to restore and maintain the integrity of U.S. waters, which include waters in the National Riverways. NPS

Management Policies 2006 (4.6.3) and Natural Resource Reference Manual #77 provide direction on the protection and management of 

water quality in Ozark National Scenic Riverways.

The Jacks Fork and Current Rivers within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways are designated as Outstanding National Resource Waters 

because of their exceptional water quality. This designation has national, recreational, and ecological significance. Both rivers are also 

classified as Tier Three Waters by the State of Missouri. These stringent federal and state standards are designed to protect against any 

degradation in the water quality of these rivers.

Desired Conditions: Ozark National Scenic Riverways water quality reflects natural conditions and supports native plant and animal 

communities and administrative and recreational uses. All water in the National Riverways meets applicable state standards. All human 

sources of water pollution, both within and outside the park unit, that are adversely affecting Ozark National Scenic Riverways are 

eliminated, mitigated, or minimized.

Strategies: Using a standardized suite of parameters, NPS staff will monitor surface water quality on a regular basis throughout Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. Other chemical contaminants, such as pesticides and bacteria levels, will be periodically monitored.

NPS staff will work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Missouri Department of Conservation, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and adjacent landowners to identify pollution sources outside the National Riverways’ boundaries that are 

affecting water quality, such as long-range transport of pollutants and wastewater discharges. Locations of storm water discharges, 

which contain a number of potentially toxic substances, will be documented.

Mitigative measures will be required as part of construction to avoid potential impacts to water quality.

NPS managers will continue to educate visitors about current boating regulations and risks posed by fuel spills, human waste discharge, 
463

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Water quality

(continued)

aquatic invasive species, and discharge of bilge water or bait buckets.

NPS staff will continue to detect and investigate illegal activity; apprehend and successfully prosecute violators; and prevent unauthorized 

and illegal access and operations through resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence.

Best management practices will be applied in the National Riverways to storm water runoff and to all pollution-generating activities and 

facilities, such as maintenance and storage facilities and parking areas.

The use of pesticides and other chemicals will be minimized and managed in conformance with NPS policy and federal regulations.

A hazardous substance and spill contingency plan will be kept current on contamination from hazardous materials, such as petroleum 

products, sewage, and agricultural chemicals).

NPS staff will continue to educate and promote greater public understanding of the importance of water quality to the National 

Riverways. Information regarding water quality and related values, including threats of water pollution to park resources, will be provided 

to park visitors and regional residents.

NPS staff will review permit applications for major new water pollution sources that could affect the National Riverways.

Floodplains Floodplains exist along the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. Floods can occur due to seasonal rains and year-round storms, posing a risk to 

structures, visitors, and employees. Floodplains are protected and managed in accordance with Executive Order 11988 (“Floodplain 

Management”), NPS Director’s Order 77-2 and its accompanying procedural manual, and NPS Management Policies 2006 (4.6.4).

Desired Conditions: Natural floodplain values are preserved or restored. Long- and short-term impacts associated with the occupancy 

and modification of floodplains are avoided. Hazardous conditions associated with flooding that could affect visitor safety are minimized. 

Strategies: Whenever possible, new structures are located on sites outside floodplains. If it is not possible to avoid locating a new 

structure on a floodplain or to avoid a management action that would affect a floodplain, the National Park Service will perform the 

following:

• prepare and approve a statement of findings in accordance with Director’s Order 77-2

• use nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce hazards to human life and property while minimizing impacts on 

the natural resources of the floodplains

• ensure that structures and facilities are designed to be consistent with the intent of the standards and criteria of the National 

Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR 60)

Mitigation measures will be required as part of construction to avoid any potential indirect effects on floodplains. Before initiating any 

ground-disturbing projects, further investigation will be conducted to determine if floodplain resources would be affected. Floodplains 

will be addressed at the project level to ensure that projects are consistent with NPS policy and Executive Order 11988.

Visitor interpretive and education efforts emphasize the hazards that exist when flash flooding occurs in the recreation area, and 

appropriate responses.
464

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Wetlands Wetlands are present throughout most of the National Riverways. Wetlands are protected and managed in accordance with Executive 

Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” and NPS Director’s Order 77-1, “Wetland Protection” and its accompanying procedural manual.

Desired Conditions: The natural values of wetlands are maintained and protected. If appropriate, wetlands are used for educational, 

recreational, scientific, and similar purposes provided the uses do not disrupt natural wetland functions.

Strategies: A monitoring program will be developed for wetlands in the National Riverways based on wetland inventory information to 

help ensure proper management and protection of wetland resources. More detailed wetland mapping will be done in areas that are 

proposed for development or are otherwise susceptible to degradation or loss due to human activities.

NPS staff will be trained on identifying wetlands to ensure that operational activities do not inadvertently drain or alter wetlands, 

including ephemeral (seasonal) wetlands.

The construction of new developments avoids wetlands. If it is not possible to avoid locating a new development in a wetland or to avoid 

a management action that would adversely affect a wetland, the National Park Service will comply with the provisions of Executive Order 

11990, the Clean Water Act, and Director’s Order 77-1. All practicable measures, including the best management practices described in 

appendix 2 of Procedural Manual #77-1, Wetland Protection, will be included in the proposed action to minimize harm to wetlands. The 

loss of any wetlands will be compensated.

A statement of findings for wetlands will be prepared in accordance with the guidelines defined in procedural manual #77-1 if an action 

would result in an adverse impact on a wetland. The statement of findings would include an analysis of the alternatives, delineation of 

the wetland, a wetland restoration plan to identify mitigation, and a wetland functional analysis of the impact site and restoration site.

Lightscape 

management

NPS Management Policies 2006 (4.10), recognizes that the night sky contributes to the visitor experience. The policy further states that 

the NPS staff will seek to minimize the intrusion of artificial light into the night scene. In natural areas, artificial outdoor lighting will be 

limited to meet basic safety requirements and would be shielded when possible.

Desired Conditions: Opportunities to view the night sky at Ozark National Scenic Riverways are available. Artificial light sources within 

the National Riverways do not unacceptably affect night sky viewing opportunities or wildlife populations.

Strategies: To the extent possible, the NPS staff work within a regional context to protect the night sky quality.

NPS staff seek to minimize the intrusion of artificial light into the night scene. In natural areas, artificial outdoor lighting is limited to 

meet basic safety requirements and is shielded when possible. If it is determined that light sources within the National Riverways affect 

views of the night sky, alternatives will be studied to address the impact, such as shielding lights, changing lamp types, or eliminating 

unnecessary sources.

NPS managers participate in planning meetings at the state and county level to protect the night sky from light from new developments 

adjacent to the National Riverways.

Soundscape 

management 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (4.9) and Director’s Order 47, Sound Preservation and Noise Management require NPS managers to 

strive to preserve the natural soundscape (natural quiet) associated with the physical and biological resources (for example, the sounds of 

the wind in the trees).

NPS regulations (36 CFR 2.12) identify audio disturbances that are prohibited in park units. In addition, NPS regulations (36 CFR 3.7) 

state that when operating a vessel in or upon inland water, the noise level should not exceed 82 decibels measured at a distance of 82 

feet from the vessel.

Desired Conditions: Natural soundscapes are preserved. Visitors have opportunities in most of Ozark National Scenic Riverways to hear 

natural sounds. The sounds of civilization are generally confined to developed areas (and limited to specific hours of the day). 

Unreasonable noise from motorized equipment, including motor vehicles, considering such factors as the purposes of the park and the 

impact on other park users, is prohibited. Noise-generating activities that could adversely affect National Riverways wildlife populations 
465

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Soundscape 

management

(continued)

are also prevented or minimized to the greatest extent possible.

Strategies: Baseline data on National Riverways soundscapes are collected to understand characteristics and trends in natural 

soundscapes.

Activities causing excessive or unnecessary unnatural sounds in and adjacent to the National Riverways are monitored, and action is

taken to prevent or minimize unnatural sounds that adversely affect park resources or values or visitors’ enjoyment of them.

NPS managers work with concessioners and boat owners to help minimize the noise impacts of boats on the National Riverways.

Visitors are encouraged to avoid unnecessary noise, such as maintaining quiet hours at campsites.

Interpretive programs and materials help visitors understand the role of natural sounds and the value of natural quiet.

NPS managers minimize noise generated by management activities by strictly regulating NPS administrative use of noise-producing 

machinery such as motorized equipment. Noise is a consideration when procuring and using NPS equipment. 

NPS staff detect, investigate, and enforce violations relating to unreasonable noise described in 36 CFR 2.10, 2.12, 2.15, 2.34, 2.38, 

2.50, 2.51. 3.15, 4.2; successfully prosecute violators; and prevent unauthorized and illegal activities through resource education, public 

safety efforts, and deterrence.

Cultural resources

Archeological

resources 

NPS Management Policies 2006 (5.3.5.1) calls for the National Park Service to protect and manage archeological resources in situ to the 

greatest extent possible. If site disturbance is unavoidable, data recovery or other mitigation measures are carried out in consultation 

with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office, traditionally associated tribes and other concerned parties. Management occurs in 

accordance with 36 CFR 79 and The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Documentation.

More than 480 prehistoric and historic archeological sites have been recorded in the National Riverways and additional undiscovered sites 

are likely to be present.

Desired Conditions: Archeological sites are protected in an undisturbed condition unless it is determined through formal processes that 

disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable. 

Strategies: Archeological surveys occur as needed to identify, inventory, and document archeological sites and assess their eligibility for 

the National Register of Historic Places. In accordance with section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, archeological surveys 

continue to be carried out in a systematic fashion so that as much of the National Riverways as is reasonably possible is surveyed.

When disturbance or deterioration is unavoidable, the site through data recovery is professionally excavated and documented, and the 

resulting artifacts, materials, and records are curated and conserved in consultation with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office, 

associated American Indian tribes, and other groups as appropriate. Some archeological sites that can be adequately protected may be 

interpreted to visitors.

NPS staff continue to detect and investigate violations of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act; successfully prosecute violators; 

and prevent unauthorized and illegal activities through resource education, public safety efforts, and other deterrence measures.
466

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Historic structures NPS Management Policies 2006 (5.3.5.4) calls for the treatment of historic and prehistoric structures to be based on sound preservation 

practice to enable the long-term preservation of historic/architectural features, materials, and qualities. Preservation treatments are 

conducted in accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The National Historic 

Preservation Act calls for analyzing the effects of possible federal actions on historic structures listed or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places and for inventorying and evaluating their significance and condition.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways has a wide variety of historic structures, ranging from homesteads to grist mills. The NPS List of 

Classified Structures identifies all structures within the National Riverways that possess historical and/or architectural and engineering 

significance. Many of these structures are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Desired Conditions: Structures listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places are managed and maintained to 

ensure their long-term preservation and the protection of character-defining features. 

Strategies: Appropriate preservation treatments for historic structures are carried out in accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. As required, historic structures requiring more intensive rehabilitation or restoration 

treatments receive further investigation and documentation (for example, historic structure reports) to support management decisions 

and ensure protection of historic fabric and architecturally significant features. Preservation of historic structures is emphasized as a 

critical component of the National Riverways’ ongoing maintenance and resource protection programs.

NPS staff partner with others to maintain historically significant properties to the extent necessary.

NPS staff continue to promote and encourage relevant studies to provide baseline documentation in support of appropriate treatment 

and management.

National register nominations and supporting documentation are prepared for eligible properties in consultation with the state historic 

preservation office and other concerned parties.

NPS staff and volunteers continue to interpret selected historic properties to the public, demonstrating the importance of preservation 

maintenance, stabilization and restoration/rehabilitation undertakings along with interpretation of historical and cultural significance. 

NPS staff monitor, evaluate, and implement measures to minimize visitor use impacts on historic structures.

NPS staff continue to detect and investigate acts of tampering, vandalism, damage, and violations affecting historic structures; 

successfully prosecute violators; and prevent unauthorized and illegal activities through resource education, public safety efforts, and 

deterrence measures. 

Ethnographic

resources

Ethnographic resources exist throughout Ozark National Scenic Riverways. NPS Management Policies 2006 (5.3.5.3) calls for gathering 

ethnographic information through anthropological and collaborative community research that recognizes the sensitive nature of such 

cultural data and documents the meanings that traditionally associated groups assign to natural and cultural resources and the 

landscapes they form. In accordance with NPS Management Polices 2006 and the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Park 

Service strives to preserve and conserve ethnographic resources in park units, and encourages the continuation of cultural traditions and 

uses that are a living expression of our diverse American heritage. Executive Order 13007 also calls for NPS managers to accommodate 

access to and the ceremonial use of American Indian sacred sites by practitioners and to preserve the physical integrity of these sites.

Desired Conditions: Traditionally associated groups retain access to culturally important places and resources. Traditional activities, 

uses, and resource procurement for ceremonial or other purposes are allowed, provided such uses are consistent with the park’s 

purposes and resource protection objectives. 

Access to and ceremonial use of American Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners is accommodated in a manner that avoids 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of these sites.

All ethnographic resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places are protected as traditional 
467

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Ethnographic

resources

(continued)

cultural properties.

Strategies: Appropriate cultural anthropological research is conducted in cooperation with groups associated with the National 

Riverways to identify potential ethnographic resources, determine their significance as traditional cultural properties, and suggest 

preservation treatments and management options.

If disturbance of ethnographic resources is unavoidable, formal consultation with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office, 

associated tribes and/or other traditionally associated groups (for examples, descendants of the region’s Euro-American settlers) is 

conducted. This consultation is in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, the implementing regulations of 

the Advisory Council on Historic Places, and other laws, policies, regulations or agreements. 

Protection and preservation of ethnographic resources are emphasized as a critical component of the National Riverways’ ongoing 

maintenance and resource protection programs.

The identities of community consultants and information about culturally sensitive places and practices are kept confidential when 

research agreements or other circumstances warrant.

Cultural landscapes NPS Management Policies 2006 (5.3.5.2) calls for the preservation of the physical attributes, biotic systems, and uses of cultural 

landscapes that contribute to historical significance. 

Desired Conditions: Character-defining features and attributes contributing to the national register significance of the National 

Riverways’ cultural landscapes are appropriately identified, documented, and preserved. Additional inventories of other National 

Riverways areas are carried out to identify cultural landscape resources potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Strategies: NPS staff will prepare cultural landscape inventories and reports to provide baseline documentation and management 

recommendations supporting the appropriate treatment of the National Riverways’ cultural landscapes. National register nominations 

and supporting documentation are prepared for eligible landscapes in consultation with the state and tribal historic preservation offices 

and other concerned parties.

Cultural landscape preservation is emphasized as a critical component of the National Riverways’ ongoing maintenance and resource 

protection programs.

Management of cultural landscapes focuses on protecting, preserving, and possibly rehabilitating each landscape’s character-defining 

features and attributes in accordance with recommendations in an up-to-date cultural landscape report. The appropriate preservation 

treatment of cultural landscapes is undertaken in accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guideline’s for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.

Museum collections NPS Management Policies 2006 (5.3.5.5) states that the National Park Service “...will collect, protect, preserve, provide access to, and 

use objects, specimens, and archival and manuscript collections ... in the disciplines of archeology, ethnography, history, biology, 

geology, and paleontology to aid understanding among park visitors, and to advance knowledge in the humanities and sciences.”

Museum collections are managed in accordance with 36 CFR 79 (“Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archeological 

Collections”), 36 CFR 2.5, NPS Museum Handbook, Director’s Order 24 (“NPS Museum Collections Management”), and other relevant 

policies.

Desired Conditions: All museum collections and archives and their component artifacts, objects, specimens, documents, photographs, 

maps, plans, and manuscripts, are properly inventoried, accessioned, catalogued, curated, documented, protected, and preserved. 

Appropriate measures provide access to the collections by NPS staff and other researchers and allow their use in scientific and historical 

research, exhibits, and interpretation. The qualities that contribute to the significance of collections are protected and preserved in 

accordance with established NPS museum curation and storage standards.
468

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Museum collections

(continued)

Strategies: Museum objects that are currently on exhibit will remain in the National Riverways for the duration of their exhibition. Longterm museum storage will continue to be provided in the collection storage facility near Big Spring. A future, multipark storage facility 

may be constructed in the National Riverways in accordance with the Midwest Region’s Museum Collection Storage Plan (2006). A select 

”core” of historically significant objects and archives (primary source records) may be curated locally if suitable partnership opportunities 

are identified that meet NPS preservation, protection, and controlled access standards. The Riverways’ archeological materials and 

associated records will continue to be curated at the Midwest Archeological Center in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Visitor use and experience

Visitor use and 

experience 

The NPS Organic Act, NPS General Authorities Act, 1978 National Parks and Recreation Act, and NPS Management Policies 2006 (1.4, 

8.1) all address the importance of park units being available to all Americans to enjoy and experience. Current laws, regulations, and 

policies leave considerable room for judgment about the best mix of types and levels of visitor use activities, programs, and facilities. For 

this reason, most decisions related to visitor experience and use are addressed in the general management plan alternatives.

Desired Conditions: Park resources are conserved “unimpaired” for the enjoyment of future generations. Visitors have opportunities 

for forms of enjoyment that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the superlative natural and cultural resources found in the National 

Riverways; opportunities continue to be provided for visitors to understand, appreciate, and enjoy Ozark National Scenic Riverways. For 

all of the National Riverways’ management zones, the types and levels of visitor use are consistent with the desired resource and visitor 

experience conditions prescribed for those areas. No activities occur that would cause degradation of the values and purposes for which 

the National Riverways was established.

Visitors have opportunities to understand and appreciate the significance of the National Riverways and its resources, and to develop a 

personal stewardship ethic.

To the extent feasible, all programs, services, and facilities in the National Riverways are accessible to and usable by all people, including 

those with disabilities.

High-quality public opportunities continue to be available for appropriate uses, including such activities as hiking, boating, picnicking, 

photography, sightseeing, horseback riding, and fishing.

Strategies: All of Ozark National Scenic Riverways’ programs and facilities are evaluated on a regular basis to ensure that they are 

accessible to the extent feasible.

Visitor surveys are periodically conducted to determine visitor satisfaction with the park facilities, NPS management, and the experiences 

visitors are having.

NPS staff periodically meet with chambers of commerce, tourism agencies, and other land managers in the region, such as the U.S. 

Forest Service, to improve visitor trip planning, information and orientation, and interpretation and education opportunities for Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways visitors.

NPS staff continue to monitor visitor comments on issues such as crowding and availability of parking spaces and campsites at busy times 

of the year, and monitor for resource impacts caused by visitors. Should any of the trends increase to levels unacceptable to managers, 

NPS staff will consider what actions to take. (Additional information is provided in the visitor use management and visitor capacity 

section of this document in chapter 2).

If new campsites are built, they will be developed according to design standards that would protect resources and provide a high-quality 

visitor experience consistent with the Ozark National Scenic Riverways environment.
469

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Visitor information, 

interpretation, and 

education

A variety of methods are used to orient visitors to Ozark National Scenic Riverways, provide information about the National Riverways, 

and interpret the National Riverways’ resources. Interpretation and education are two key park programs for achieving the park’s 

purposes and maintaining its significance. NPS Management Policies 2006 (chapter 7), and Director’s Order 6, Interpretation and 

Education provide guidance for park interpretive and educational programs.

Desired Conditions: Interpretive and educational services/programs at the National Riverways facilitate intellectual and emotional 

connections between visitors and park resources, foster understanding of park resources and resource stewardship, and build a local and 

national constituency. Outreach programs through schools, organizations, and partnerships build connections to the National Riverways. 

Curriculum and place-based education inspire student understanding and resource stewardship. Visitors receive adequate information to 

orient themselves to the National Riverways and opportunities for a safe and enjoyable visit. Pretrip information is available for visitors to 

plan a rewarding trip.

Strategies: The National Riverways’ comprehensive interpretive plan is implemented and updated as appropriate, with emphasis on 

providing information, orientation, and interpretive services in the most effective manner possible. 

NPS staff stay informed of changing visitor demographics and preferences to effectively tailor programs for visitors. Interpretive media 

are developed to support park purposes, significance, interpretive themes, and fundamental resources and values. 

NPS staff continue to promote improved pretrip planning information and orientation for park visitors through the National Riverways’ 

web site and other media. NPS staff work with local communities and other entities to provide services outside park unit boundaries, 

where appropriate. 

NPS staff cooperate with partners, other governmental agencies, educational institutions, and other organizations to enrich interpretive 

and educational opportunities locally, regionally, and nationally.

An education strategy plan will be developed and implemented, which outlines goals and actions for providing curriculum and placebased education programs.

NPS staff continue to regularly update plans and prioritize actions needed to serve visitors and provide effective interpretation.

Efforts continue to educate staff, visitors, and the public about park interpretive and education programs.

NPS staff continue to educate, interpret, and inform the public about the significance and uniqueness of park resources; conservation; 

ecologically sound practices; and the laws, rules, and regulations developed to protect park resources and provide for their safe and 

nonconsumptive use. 

NPS staff stay informed on natural and cultural conditions and the latest science based research findings affecting park resources.
470

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Public health and 

safety

NPS Management Policies 2006 (8.2.5) state that the saving of human life would take precedence over all other management actions as 

the National Park Service strives to protect human life and provide for injury-free visits. Other federal statutes and regulations that apply 

to the protection of public health and safety include the following:

• Director’s Order 50 and Reference Manual 50, Safety and Health

• Director’s Order 58 and Reference Manual 58, Structural Fire Management

• Director’s Order 83 and Reference Manual 83, Public Health

• Director’s Order 51 and Reference Manual 51, Emergency Medical Services

• Director’s Order 30 and Reference Manual 30, Hazard and Solid Waste Management

• regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations

Desired Conditions: While recognizing that there are limits on its ability to totally eliminate all hazards, the National Park Service and its 

partners, contractors, and cooperators work cooperatively to provide a safe and healthful environment for visitors and employees. NPS 

staff strive to identify recognizable threats to safety and health and protect property by applying nationally accepted standards. 

Consistent with mandates and nonimpairment, the NPS staff reduce or remove known hazards or apply appropriate mitigating 

measures, such as closures, guarding, gating, education, and other actions. 

Strategies: A documented safety program is maintained in the National Riverways to address health and safety concerns and identify 

appropriate levels of action and activities.

Maintenance efforts continue to ensure that all potable water systems and wastewater systems in the National Riverways meet state and 

federal requirements.

Interpretive signs and materials are provided as appropriate to notify visitors of potential safety concerns, hazards, and procedures to 

help provide for a safe visit to the National Riverways and to ensure that visitors are aware of possible risks of certain activities.

NPS staff continue to work with local emergency and public health officials to make reasonable efforts to search for lost persons and 

rescue sick, injured, or stranded persons.

Recreational fishing Under the National Riverways’ enabling legislation and NPS Management Policies 2006 (8.2.2.5) fishing is allowed at Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways. Recreational fishing is a popular activity in the National Riverways. 

Desired Conditions: High-quality public opportunities continue to be available for fishing in the National Riverways, provided that 

harvesting does not unacceptably impact park resources or natural processes.

Strategies: NPS staff continue to work with the Missouri Department of Conservation in monitoring fish populations and enforcing state 

laws to ensure stocking and harvest levels do not adversely affect the park’s fish populations.

Populations of nonnative fish are managed whenever such species threaten park resources or public health and when control is prudent 

and feasible.

NPS managers work with agencies to minimize stocking inside and out park unit boundaries that will influence park resources.

NPS staff continue to detect and investigate fishing violations and illegal transportation of fish, water, and invasive aquatic species; 

apprehend and successfully prosecute criminal violators; and prevent unauthorized and illegal activities through resource education, 

public safety efforts, and deterrence.
471

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Hunting/trapping Under the National Riverways’ enabling legislation, hunting and trapping are permitted in Ozark National Scenic Riverways, provided that 

these activities do not unacceptably impact park resources or natural processes. 

Desired Conditions: High-quality opportunities for the public continue to be available for hunting and trapping in the National 

Riverways and do not unacceptably impact park resources or natural processes or endanger other visitors.

Strategies: NPS staff continue to work with the Missouri Department of Conservation to set harvest limits, dates, and seasons for 

hunting and trapping in the National Riverways; develop and revise these regulations as needed; monitor and enforce the regulations to 

ensure that harvest levels are sustainable; and ensure that visitors have a safe, quality experience. 

NPS staff may encourage the intensive harvesting of certain species, such as deer, in certain situations when needed to meet park 

management objectives. Habitats will not be manipulated to increase the numbers of a harvested species above their natural population 

ranges.

NPS staff continue to detect and investigate hunting and trapping violations; apprehend and successfully prosecute criminal violators; 

and prevent unauthorized and illegal activities through resource education, public safety efforts, and deterrence.

Other topics

Sustainable design/

development

Sustainability involves doing things in ways that do not compromise the environment or its capacity to provide for present and future 

generations. Sustainable practices consider local and global consequences to minimize the short- and long-term environmental impacts 

of human actions and developments through resource conservation, recycling, waste minimization, and the use of energy-efficient and 

ecologically responsible materials and techniques.

The federal government has been increasingly emphasizing the adoption of sustainable practices. In particular, Executive Order 12873 

mandates federal agency recycling and waste prevention and Executive Order 12902 mandates energy efficiency and water conservation 

at federal facilities. NPS Management Policies 2006 (1.8, 1.9.5.2, 8.2, 9.1.1, 9.2) also call for sustainable operations, facilities, and uses in 

park units.

Desired Conditions: Ozark National Scenic Riverways is a leader in sustainable practices. Administrative and visitor facilities are 

harmonious with park resources, compatible with natural processes, aesthetically pleasing, functional, as accessible as possible to all 

segments of the population, energy-efficient, and cost-effective. 

All decisions regarding operations, facilities management, and development in the National Riverways, from the initial concept through 

design and construction, reflect principles of resource preservation. Thus, all park developments and operations are sustainable to the 

maximum degree possible and practical. 

New developments and existing facilities are located, built, and modified according to the Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (NPS 

1993) or other similar guidelines. The National Riverways’ land, water, soil, wildlife, and other natural resources are managed in ways 

that improve their condition and mimic or restore natural conditions wherever possible. 

The National Riverways has state-of-the-art systems for conserving water, using energy conservation technologies, and using renewable 

energy sources whenever possible. Nontoxic, biodegradable, and/or durable materials are used in the National Riverways whenever 

possible. The reduction, use, and recycling of materials is promoted, while materials that are nondurable, environmentally detrimental, or 

require transportation from great distances are avoided as much as possible. 

The National Riverways’ carbon footprint is minimized as much as possible.

Strategies: NPS staff work with experts both inside and outside the National Park Service to make Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

facilities and programs sustainable. Partnerships are sought to implement sustainable practices in the National Riverways. NPS staff work 

with stakeholders and business partners to augment NPS environmental leadership and sustainability efforts.
472

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Sustainable design/

development

(continued)

NPS staff will be educated to have a comprehensive understanding of their relationship to environmental leadership and sustainability.

NPS staff encourage suppliers and contractors to follow sustainable practices. 

Energy use is monitored and energy efficient practices and renewable energy sources are promoted wherever possible.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways interpretive programs highlight sustainable and nonsustainable practices. Visitors can become familiar 

with the principles of environmental leadership and sustainability through exhibits, media, and printed material.

Value planning, which also is called value analysis, engineering, or management, is incorporated into all levels of park planning. Park 

managers use this tool, including life-cycle analysis, to examine the energy, environmental, and economic implications of proposed 

developments.

NPS managers measure and track environmental compliance and performance. Audits ensure environmental compliance, emphasize best 

management practices, and educate employees at all levels about environmental management responsibilities.

Accessibility A primary principle of accessibility is that, to the highest degree practicable, people with disabilities are able to participate in the same 

programs, activities, and employment opportunities available to everyone else. In choosing among methods of providing accessibility, 

higher priority will be given to methods that offer programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate. Special, separate, or 

alternative facilities, programs, or services will be provided only when existing, integrated ones cannot reasonably be made accessible. 

The determination of what is practicable will be made only after careful consultation with persons with disabilities or their 

representatives.

The National Park Service is committed to making all practicable efforts to make NPS facilities, programs, services, employment, and 

work opportunities accessible to and usable by all people, including those with disabilities. This policy reflects the commitment to provide 

access to the widest cross section of the public and to ensure compliance with legal and policy requirements. The accessibility of 

commercial services within national parks is also covered under all applicable federal, state, and local laws.

Guidance regarding climate change is available in the following:

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, specifically Section 504 which requires affected entities to consider the accessibility of programs, services, and 

activities.

Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC 12207) including section 507, which relates specifically to the operation and

management of federal wilderness areas

NPS Management Policies Section 1.9.3, Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities

NPS Director’s Order #42, Accessibility for Park Visitors

Desired Conditions: Establish a set of goals and objectives for accessibility at the park and prepare for project work that may be needed 

to comply with accessibility laws, regulations, and policies. Park managers shall make every attempt to evaluate their programs and 

facilities for accessibility. Through the action and transition planning process, park staff will ensure that key representative experiences 

and opportunities throughout the park identified in this general management plan will be available to people with disabilities

Strategies: Develop a Self-evaluation and Transition Plan (SETP) to provide the park with a tool for addressing overall accessibility needs. 

The plan will establish a methodical process for identifying and improving park-wide access and propose strategies for implementing the 

plan over time, in a manner consistent with park requirements and protocols.
473

Table A-1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies

Pertaining to Ozark National Scenic Riverways (continued)

Topic Desired conditions and strategies 

to achieve legal and policy requirements

Climate change Climate change is occurring and is expected to affect the National Riverways’ weather, resources (for example, its vegetation, fish,

wildlife, and historic structures), and visitors (for example, use seasons and recreational fishing). These changes will affect resource 

management, park operations, and the way visitors use and experience the National Riverways. Although climate change will likely affect 

the National Riverways during the life of this plan, the specific effects, rates of change, and severity of impacts are not known. 

Guidance regarding climate change is available in the following:

 NPS Organic Act

 Executive Order 13423, which includes requirements for the reduction of greenhouse gases and stipulates the use of energy and 

water conservation measure

 NPS Climate Change Response Strategy

 NPS Green Parks Plan

 Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3226, which requires that climate change impacts are taken into account in 

connection with departmental planning and decision making

 NPS Management Policies 2006, including sections on environmental leadership (1.8), sustainable energy design (9.1.1.6), and 

energy management (9.1.7)

Desired Conditions: Education and interpretive efforts help park visitors understand the process of climate change, its effects on the 

National Riverways and the wider environment, and how they can respond. Park staff promote innovation, best practices, adaptive 

management, and partnerships to respond to the challenges of climate change and its effects on park resources. Park staff monitor, 

plan, and adapt to the effects of climate change by using the best information as it becomes available.

Strategies: The National Riverways’ strategies related to climate change is two-pronged. One aspect focuses on reducing the National 

Riverways’ greenhouse gas contributions and the other focuses on planning for and responding to the effects of climate change on park 

resources. Ozark National Scenic Riverways may become a member of the Climate Friendly Parks program, measuring park-based 

greenhouse emissions, developing sustainable strategies to mitigate these emissions and adapt to climate change impacts, educating the 

public about these efforts, and developing future action plans. Through targeted vulnerability assessments, identify key natural and 

cultural resources and processes that are at risk from climate change; establish baseline conditions for these resources, identify their 

thresholds, and monitor for change. Increase reliance on adaptive management to minimize risks.

Pursue studies concerning the relationship between projected climate changes, output from the natural springs, river flows, and an 

examination of potential future fire regimes.

Form partnerships with other resource management entities to maintain regional habitat connectivity and refugia that allow species 

dependent on Riverways resources to better adapt to changing conditions.

Since emissions from all motorized vehicles contribute to the National Riverways’ emissions, options to improve transportation 

efficiencies will be explored, including NPS and visitor activities on both water and land. Emissions from visitors’ travel to the National 

Riverways, and from employees commuting to work and traveling for business. Alternative transportation options and effective carbon 

offset strategies will be considered for opportunities to reduce the emissions associated with the National Riverways. 

National Riverways education and interpretive efforts will engage park employees, partners, visitors, and the public on climate change. 

This could include providing the latest park research and monitoring data and trends, informing the public about what responses are 

being taken at the National Riverways and inspiring visitors to reduce their carbon footprint.

Use the fragile environments of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways as an opportunity to educate visitors about the effects of climate 

change on the resources they are enjoying. Inspire visitors to take action through leadership and education.

NPS staff will work with local, regional, and national agencies, universities, and other partners to conduct scenario planning for climate 

change and identify actions that can be taken to respond to these changes.
This page is intentionally left blank
475

APPENDIX B: ENABLING LEGISLATION
This page is intentionally left blank
16 U.S.C. 

8QLWHG6WDWHV&RGH(GLWLRQ

7LWOH&216(59$7,21

&+$37(51$7,21$/3$5.60,/,7$5<3$5.602180(176$1'6($6+25(6

68%&+$37(5/;;2=$5.1$7,21$/6&(1,&5,9(5:$<6

)URPWKH86*RYHUQPHQW3ULQWLQJ2IILFHZZZJSRJRY

SUBCHAPTER LXX—OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS 

§460m. Establishment

)RUWKHSXUSRVHRIFRQVHUYLQJDQGLQWHUSUHWLQJXQLTXHVFHQLFDQGRWKHUQDWXUDOYDOXHVDQG

REMHFWVRIKLVWRULFLQWHUHVWLQFOXGLQJSUHVHUYDWLRQRISRUWLRQVRIWKH&XUUHQW5LYHUDQGWKH-DFNV

)RUN5LYHULQ0LVVRXULDVIUHHIORZLQJVWUHDPVSUHVHUYDWLRQRIVSULQJVDQGFDYHVPDQDJHPHQW

RIZLOGOLIHDQGSURYLVLRQVIRUXVHDQGHQMR\PHQWRIWKHRXWGRRUUHFUHDWLRQUHVRXUFHVWKHUHRIE\

WKHSHRSOHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVWKH6HFUHWDU\RIWKH,QWHULRUKHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDVWKH

36HFUHWDU\ ́VKDOOGHVLJQDWHIRUHVWDEOLVKPHQWDVWKH2]DUN1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\VWKHDUHD

KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV3VXFKDUHD ́JHQHUDOO\GHSLFWHGRQPDSQXPEHUHG152=$

HQWLWOHG33URSRVHG2]DUN1DWLRQDO5LYHUV ́GDWHG'HFHPEHUZKLFKPDSLVRQILOHIRUSXEOLF

LQVSHFWLRQLQWKHRIILFHRIWKH1DWLRQDO3DUN6HUYLFH'HSDUWPHQWRIWKH,QWHULRUProvided7KDW

WKHDUHDVRGHVLJQDWHGVKDOOQRWLQFOXGHPRUHWKDQVL[W\ILYHWKRXVDQGDFUHVRIODQGQRZLQ

SULYDWHRZQHUVKLSDQGWKDWQRODQGVVKDOOEHGHVLJQDWHGZLWKLQWZRPLOHVRIWKHSUHVHQW

ERXQGDULHVRIWKHPXQLFLSDOLWLHVRI(PLQHQFHDQG9DQ%XUHQ0LVVRXUL7KH6HFUHWDU\ZLWKWKH

FRQFXUUHQFHRIWKH6WDWHVKDOOGHVLJQDWHIRULQFOXVLRQLQWKH2]DUN1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\V

WKHODQGVFRPSRVLQJ%LJ6SULQJV$OOH\6SULQJVDQG5RXQG6SULQJ6WDWH3DUNVDQGWKH

6HFUHWDU\LVKHUHE\GLUHFWHGWRQHJRWLDWHZLWKWKH6WDWHIRUWKHGRQDWLRQDQGWKHLQFOXVLRQRIVXFK

SDUNODQGVLQWKH2]DUN1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\V

3XE/±$XJ6WDW

§460m–1. Acquisition of lands, easements, etc.; exchange of lands; consent of

State; reversion to State; administrative jurisdiction of Federal lands or 

waters

7KH6HFUHWDU\PD\ZLWKLQWKHDUHDGHVLJQDWHGRUDOWHUHGSXUVXDQWWRVHFWLRQP±RIWKLV

WLWOHDFTXLUHODQGVDQGLQWHUHVWVWKHUHLQLQFOXGLQJVFHQLFHDVHPHQWVE\VXFKPHDQVDVKHPD\

GHHPWREHLQWKHSXEOLFLQWHUHVWProvided7KDWVFHQLFHDVHPHQWVPD\RQO\EHDFTXLUHGZLWKWKH

FRQVHQWRIWKHRZQHURIWKHODQGVRUZDWHUVWKHUHRIAnd provided further7KDWDQ\SDUFHORI

ODQGFRQWDLQLQJQRWPRUHWKDQILYHKXQGUHGDFUHVZKLFKERUGHUVHLWKHUWKH&XUUHQW5LYHURUWKH

-DFNV)RUN5LYHUDQGZKLFKLVEHLQJSULPDULO\XVHGIRUDJULFXOWXUDOSXUSRVHVVKDOOEHDFTXLUHG

E\WKH6HFUHWDU\LQLWVHQWLUHW\XQOHVVWKHRZQHURIDQ\VXFKSDUFHOFRQVHQWVWRWKHDFTXLVLWLRQRI

DSDUWWKHUHRI3URSHUW\VRDFTXLUHGZKLFKOLHVRXWVLGHWKHERXQGDU\JHQHUDOO\GHSLFWHGRQWKH

PDSUHIHUUHGWRLQVHFWLRQPRIWKLVWLWOHPD\EHH[FKDQJHGE\WKH6HFUHWDU\IRUDQ\ODQGRI

DSSUR[LPDWHO\HTXDOYDOXHZLWKLQWKHERXQGDULHV/DQGVDQGZDWHUVRZQHGE\WKH6WDWHRI

0LVVRXULZLWKLQVXFKDUHDPD\EHDFTXLUHGZLWKWKHFRQVHQWRIWKH6WDWHDQGQRWZLWKVWDQGLQJ

DQ\RWKHUSURYLVLRQRIODZVXEMHFWWRSURYLVLRQIRUUHYHUVLRQWRVXFK6WDWHFRQGLWLRQHGXSRQ

FRQWLQXHGXVHRIWKHSURSHUW\IRU1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\)HGHUDOO\RZQHGODQGVRUZDWHU

O\LQJZLWKLQVXFKDUHDVKDOOXSRQHVWDEOLVKPHQWRIWKHDUHDSXUVXDQWWRVHFWLRQP±RIWKLV

WLWOHEHWUDQVIHUUHGWRWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKH6HFUHWDU\ZLWKRXWWUDQVIHURIIXQGV

IRUDGPLQLVWUDWLRQDVSDUWRIWKH2]DUN1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\V

#RRGPFKZ$'PCDNKPI.GIKUNCVKQP

ƘƋƋ
3XE/±$XJ6WDW3XE/±WLWOH,9$SU

6WDW

AMENDMENTS

197223XE/±VXEVWLWXWHGSURYLVLRQVDXWKRUL]LQJODQGVDQGZDWHUVRZQHGE\WKH6WDWHRI

0LVVRXULWREHDFTXLUHGZLWKWKHFRQVHQWRIWKH6WDWHVXEMHFWWRUHYHUVLRQWRVXFK6WDWHFRQGLWLRQHGXSRQ

WKHFRQWLQXHGXVHRIWKHSURSHUW\IRUWKH1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\IRUSURYLVLRQVDXWKRUL]LQJODQGVDQG

ZDWHUVRZQHGE\WKH6WDWHRI0LVVRXULWREHDFTXLUHGRQO\ZLWKWKHFRQVHQWRIWKH6WDWH

§460m–2. Reservation of use and occupancy of improved property for

noncommercial residential purposes; term; valuation 

$Q\RZQHURURZQHUVLQFOXGLQJEHQHILFLDORZQHUVKHUHLQDIWHULQWKLVVHFWLRQUHIHUUHGWRDV

3RZQHU ́RILPSURYHGSURSHUW\RQWKHGDWHRILWVDFTXLVLWLRQE\WKH6HFUHWDU\PD\DVD

FRQGLWLRQWRVXFKDFTXLVLWLRQUHWDLQWKHULJKWRIXVHDQGRFFXSDQF\RIWKHLPSURYHGSURSHUW\IRU

QRQFRPPHUFLDOUHVLGHQWLDOSXUSRVHVIRUDWHUPHQGLQJDWWKHGHDWKRIVXFKRZQHURUWKHGHDWKRI

KLVVSRXVHRUDWWKHGHDWKRIWKHVXUYLYRURIHLWKHURIWKHP7KHRZQHUVKDOOHOHFWWKHWHUPWREH

UHVHUYHG7KH6HFUHWDU\VKDOOSD\WRWKHRZQHUWKHIDLUPDUNHWYDOXHRIWKHSURSHUW\RQWKHGDWH

RIVXFKDFTXLVLWLRQOHVVWKHIDLUPDUNHWYDOXHRQVXFKGDWHRIWKHULJKWUHWDLQHGE\WKHRZQHU

3XE/±$XJ6WDW

§460m–3. Establishment; notice in Federal Register; alteration of boundaries;

acreage limitation 

:KHQWKH6HFUHWDU\GHWHUPLQHVWKDWODQGVDQGZDWHUVRULQWHUHVWVWKHUHLQKDYHEHHQDFTXLUHG

E\WKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLQVXIILFLHQWTXDQWLW\WRSURYLGHDQDGPLQLVWUDEOHXQLWKHVKDOOGHFODUH

HVWDEOLVKPHQWRIWKH2]DUN1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\VE\SXEOLFDWLRQRIQRWLFHLQWKH)HGHUDO

5HJLVWHU7KH6HFUHWDU\PD\WKHUHDIWHUDOWHUVXFKERXQGDULHVIURPWLPHWRWLPHH[FHSWWKDWWKH

WRWDODFUHDJHLQWKH2]DUN1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\VVKDOOQRWH[FHHGVL[W\ILYHWKRXVDQGDFUHV

H[FOXVLYHRIODQGGRQDWHGE\WKH6WDWHRI0LVVRXULRULWVSROLWLFDOVXEGLYLVLRQVDQGRIIHGHUDOO\

RZQHGODQGWUDQVIHUUHGSXUVXDQWWRVHFWLRQP±RIWKLVWLWOH

3XE/±$XJ6WDW

§460m–4. Cooperative land development programs; hunting and fishing

(a) Development of comprehensive plans 

,QIXUWKHUDQFHRIWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLVVXEFKDSWHUWKH6HFUHWDU\LVDXWKRUL]HGWRFRRSHUDWHZLWK

WKH6WDWHRI0LVVRXULLWVSROLWLFDOVXEGLYLVLRQVDQGRWKHU)HGHUDODJHQFLHVDQGRUJDQL]DWLRQVLQ

IRUPXODWLQJFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQVIRUWKH2]DUN1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\VDQGIRUWKHUHODWHG

ZDWHUVKHGRIWKH&XUUHQWDQG-DFNV)RUN5LYHUVLQ0LVVRXULDQGWRHQWHULQWRDJUHHPHQWVIRUWKH

LPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIVXFKSODQV6XFKSODQVPD\SURYLGHIRUODQGXVHDQGGHYHORSPHQWSURJUDPV

IRUSUHVHUYDWLRQDQGHQKDQFHPHQWRIWKHQDWXUDOEHDXW\RIWKHODQGVFDSHDQGIRUFRQVHUYDWLRQRI

RXWGRRUUHVRXUFHVLQWKHZDWHUVKHGVRIWKH&XUUHQWDQG-DFNV)RUN5LYHUV

(b) Establishment of hunting and fishing zones and periods 

7KH6HFUHWDU\VKDOOSHUPLWKXQWLQJDQGILVKLQJRQODQGVDQGZDWHUVXQGHUKLVMXULVGLFWLRQ

ZLWKLQWKH2]DUN1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\VDUHDLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKDSSOLFDEOH)HGHUDODQG

6WDWHODZV7KH6HFUHWDU\PD\GHVLJQDWH]RQHVZKHUHDQGHVWDEOLVKSHULRGVZKHQQRKXQWLQJ

VKDOOEHSHUPLWWHGIRUUHDVRQVRISXEOLFVDIHW\DGPLQLVWUDWLRQRUSXEOLFXVHDQGHQMR\PHQWDQG

#22'0&+:'5

ƘƋƠ
VKDOOLVVXHUHJXODWLRQVDIWHUFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWKWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQRIWKH6WDWHRI

0LVVRXUL

3XE/±$XJ6WDW

§460m–5. Administration

7KH2]DUN1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\VVKDOOEHDGPLQLVWHUHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHSURYLVLRQV

RIVHFWLRQVDQGRIWKLVWLWOHDVDPHQGHGDQGVXSSOHPHQWHGDQGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK

RWKHUODZVRIJHQHUDODSSOLFDWLRQUHODWLQJWRWKHDUHDVDGPLQLVWHUHGDQGVXSHUYLVHGE\WKH

6HFUHWDU\WKURXJKWKH1DWLRQDO3DUN6HUYLFHH[FHSWWKDWDXWKRULW\RWKHUZLVHDYDLODEOHWRWKH

6HFUHWDU\IRUWKHFRQVHUYDWLRQDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVPD\EHXWLOL]HGWRWKHH[WHQW

KHILQGVVXFKDXWKRULW\ZLOOIXUWKHUWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLVVXEFKDSWHU

3XE/±$XJ6WDW

§460m–6. Free-roaming horses

(a) In general 

7KH6HFUHWDU\LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKLVVHFWLRQVKDOODOORZIUHHURDPLQJKRUVHVLQWKH2]DUN

1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\V:LWKLQGD\VDIWHU1RYHPEHUWKH6HFUHWDU\VKDOOHQWHU

LQWRDQDJUHHPHQWZLWKWKH0LVVRXUL:LOG+RUVH/HDJXHRUDQRWKHUTXDOLILHGQRQSURILWHQWLW\WR

SURYLGHIRUPDQDJHPHQWRIIUHHURDPLQJKRUVHV7KHDJUHHPHQWVKDOOSURYLGHIRUFRVWHIIHFWLYH

PDQDJHPHQWRIWKHKRUVHVDQGOLPLW)HGHUDOH[SHQGLWXUHVWRWKHFRVWVRIPRQLWRULQJWKH

DJUHHPHQW7KH6HFUHWDU\VKDOOLVVXHSHUPLWVIRUDGHTXDWHSDVWXUHVWRDFFRPPRGDWHWKHKLVWRULF

SRSXODWLRQOHYHORIWKHIUHHURDPLQJKRUVHKHUGZKLFKVKDOOEHQRWOHVVWKDQWKHQXPEHURI

KRUVHVLQH[LVWHQFHRQ1RYHPEHUQRUPRUHWKDQ

(b) Removal of horses 

7KH6HFUHWDU\PD\QRWUHPRYHRUDVVLVWLQRUSHUPLWWKHUHPRYDORIDQ\IUHHURDPLQJKRUVHV

IURP)HGHUDOODQGVZLWKLQWKHERXQGDU\RIWKH2]DUN1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\VXQOHVV2

WKHHQWLW\ZLWKZKRPWKH6HFUHWDU\KDVHQWHUHGLQWRWKHDJUHHPHQWXQGHUVXEVHFWLRQD

RIWKLVVHFWLRQIROORZLQJQRWLFHDQGDGD\UHVSRQVHSHULRGVXEVWDQWLDOO\IDLOVWRPHHWWKH

WHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVRIWKHDJUHHPHQW

WKHQXPEHURIIUHHURDPLQJKRUVHVH[FHHGVRU

LQWKHFDVHRIDQHPHUJHQF\RUWRSURWHFWSXEOLFKHDOWKDQGVDIHW\DVGHILQHGLQWKH

DJUHHPHQW

(c) Construction; liability of United States 

1RWKLQJLQWKLVVHFWLRQVKDOOEHFRQVWUXHGDVFUHDWLQJOLDELOLW\IRUWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVIRUDQ\

GDPDJHVFDXVHGE\WKHIUHHURDPLQJKRUVHVWRSURSHUW\ORFDWHGLQVLGHRURXWVLGHWKHERXQGDULHV

RIWKH2]DUN1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\V

3XE/±$XJ6WDW3XE/±GLY,WLWOH9,,,E

1RY6WDW

CODIFICATION

1RYHPEHUUHIHUUHGWRLQVXEVHFDZDVLQWKHRULJLQDO3HQDFWPHQWRIWKLVVHFWLRQ ́DQG3WKH

GDWHRIWKHHQDFWPHQWRIWKLVVHFWLRQ ́UHVSHFWLYHO\ZKLFKZHUHWUDQVODWHGDVPHDQLQJWKHGDWHRI

HQDFWPHQWRI3XE/±ZKLFKDPHQGHGWKLVVHFWLRQJHQHUDOO\WRUHIOHFWWKHSUREDEOHLQWHQWRI

&RQJUHVV

AMENDMENTS

199623XE/±DPHQGHGVHFWLRQJHQHUDOO\VXEVWLWXWLQJ SURYLVLRQVUHODWLQJWRIUHHURDPLQJ

#RRGPFKZ$'PCDNKPI.GIKUNCVKQP

ƘƋƔ
KRUVHVIRUSURYLVLRQVUHODWLQJWR2]DUN1DWLRQDO6FHQLF5LYHUZD\V&RPPLVVLRQ

§460m–7. Authorization of appropriations

7KHUHDUHKHUHE\DXWKRUL]HGWREHDSSURSULDWHGVXFKVXPVEXWQRWPRUHWKDQIRU

WKHDFTXLVLWLRQRIODQGVRULQWHUHVWVLQODQGVDVDUHQHFHVVDU\WRFDUU\RXWWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLV

VXEFKDSWHU

3XE/±$XJ6WDW3XE/±WLWOH,$SU

6WDW

AMENDMENTS

197223XE/±LQFUHDVHGPD[LPXPDPRXQWDXWKRUL]HGWREHDSSURSULDWHGIRUDFTXLVLWLRQRI

ODQGVRULQWHUHVWVLQODQGVIURPQRWPRUHWKDQWRQRWPRUHWKDQ

#22'0&+:'5

ƘƠƬ
#RRGPFKZ$'PCDNKPI.GIKUNCVKQP

ƘƠƑ
#22'0&+:'5

ƘƠƆ
#RRGPFKZ$'PCDNKPI.GIKUNCVKQP

ƘƠƀ
#22'0&+:'5

ƘƠƘ
#RRGPFKZ$'PCDNKPI.GIKUNCVKQP

ƘƠƝ
NATIONAL RIVERS 541 

2. Ozark National Scenic Riverways

PUBLIC LAW 104–333—NOV. 12, 1996 110 STAT. 4093 

Public Law 104–333 

104th Congress 

An Act 

To provide for the administration of certain Presidio properties at minimal cost 

to the Federal taxpayer, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Omnibus Parks and Public 

Lands Management Act of 1996’’. 

* * * * * * * 

DIVISION I 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VIII—MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE AND 

MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 803. FERAL BURROS AND HORSES. 

* * * * * * * 

(b) OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS.—Section 7 of the Act 

entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the establishment of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways in the State of Missouri, and for other 

purposes’’, approved August 27, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 460m–6), is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 7. (a) The Secretary, in accordance with this section, 

shall allow free-roaming horses in the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. Within 180 days after enactment of this section, the 

Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Missouri Wild 

Horse League or another qualified nonprofit entity to provide for 

management of free-roaming horses. The agreement shall provide 

for cost-effective management of the horses and limit Federal 

expenditures to the costs of monitoring the agreement. The Secretary shall issue permits for adequate pastures to accommodate 

the historic population level of the free-roaming horse herd, which 

shall be not less than the number of horses in existence on the 

date of the enactment of this section nor more than 50. 

‘‘(b) The Secretary may not remove, or assist in, or permit 

the removal of any free-roaming horses from Federal lands within 

the boundary of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways unless— 

‘‘(1) the entity with whom the Secretary has entered into 

the agreement under subsection (a), following notice and a 

90-day response period, substantially fails to meet the terms 

and conditions of the agreement; 

‘‘(2) the number of free-roaming horses exceeds 50; or 

‘‘(3) in the case of an emergency or to protect public health 

and safety, as defined in the agreement. 

‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating 

liability for the United States for any damages caused by the 

110 STAT. 4187 

Contracts. 

110 STAT. 4186 

110 STAT. 4097 

Omnibus Parks 

and Public Lands 

Management Act 

of 1996. 

16 USC 1 note. 

Nov. 12, 1996 

[H.R. 4236] 

dkrause on DSK1YNZS61 with $$_JOB

#22'0&+:'5

ƘƠƅ
542 NATIONAL RIVERS 

—————————————————————— 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4236: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996): 

Sept. 28, considered and passed House. 

Oct. 3, considered and passed Senate. 

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 32 (1996): 

Nov. 12, Presidential remarks and statement. 

Æ 

110 STAT. 4187 PUBLIC LAW 104–333—NOV. 12, 1996 

free-roaming horses to property located inside or outside the boundaries of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways.’’. 

* * * * * * * 

110 STAT. 4281 Approved November 12, 1996. 

ƘƠƋ

dkrause on DSK1YNZS61 with $$_JOB


#RRGPFKZ$'PCDNKPI.GIKUNCVKQP
This page is intentionally left blank
489

APPENDIX C: PARK REGULATIONS
This page is intentionally left blank
roiretnI ,ecivreS kraP lanoitaN 38.7§

discharged or emptied only at designated sanitary pumping stations. 

[34 FR 6524, Apr. 16, 1969, as amended at 34 

FR 15415, Oct. 3, 1969; 49 FR 18451, Apr. 30, 

1984]

§ 7.80 Sleeping Bear Dunes National

Lakeshore. 

(a) Powerless flight. The use of devices 

designed to carry persons through the 

air in powerless flight is allowed at 

times and locations designated by the 

superintendent, pursuant to the terms 

and conditions of a permit. 

(b) Fishing. Unless otherwise designated, fishing in a manner authorized 

under applicable State law is allowed. 

[49 FR 18451, Apr. 30, 1984]

§ 7.81 Point Reyes National Seashore.

(a) Powerless flight. The use of devices 

designed to carry persons through the 

air in powerless flight is allowed at 

times and locations designated by the 

superintendent, pursuant to the terms 

and conditions of a permit. 

[49 FR 18451, Apr. 30, 1984]

§ 7.82 Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. 

Fishing. Unless otherwise designated, 

fishing in a manner authorized under 

applicable State law is allowed. 

[49 FR 18451, Apr. 30, 1984]

§ 7.83 Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. 

(a) Restrictions for motorized vessels. (1) 

On waters situated within the boundaries of Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways, the use of a motorized vessel is limited to a vessel equipped with 

an outboard motor only. 

(2) For the purposes of this section, 

horsepower ratings on a particular 

motor will be based upon the prevailing 

industry standard of power output at 

the propeller shaft as established by 

the manufacturer. 

(3) The use of a motorized vessel is 

allowed as follows: 

(i) Above the Big Spring landing on 

the Current River and below Alley 

Spring on the Jacks Fork River with 

an outboard motor not to exceed 40 

horsepower. 

(ii) Above Round Spring on the Current River and above Alley Spring on 

the Jacks Fork River with an outboard 

motor not to exceed 25 horsepower. 

(iii) Above Akers Ferry on the Current River from May 1 to September 15 

with an outboard motor not to exceed 

10 horsepower. 

(iv) Above Bay Creek on the Jacks 

Fork River from March 1 to the Saturday before Memorial Day with an outboard motor not to exceed 10 horsepower. 

(4) Operating a motorized vessel 

other than as allowed in § 7.83(a) is prohibited. 

(b) Scuba Diving. (1) Scuba diving is 

prohibited within all springs and spring 

branches on federally owned land within the boundaries of Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways without a written 

permit from the superintendent. 

(2) Permits. The superintendent may 

issue written permits for scuba diving 

in springs within the boundaries of the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways; 

Provided,

(i) That the permit applicant will be 

engaged in scientific or educational investigations which will have demonstrable value to the National Park 

Service in its management or understanding of riverways resources. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(c) Commercial Activities. The activities listed herein constitute commercial activities which are prohibited 

within the boundaries of Ozark National Scenic Riverways, except in accordance with the provisions of a permit, contract, or other written agreement with the United States. The National Park Service reserves the right 

to limit the number of such permits, 

contracts or other written agreements, 

when, in the judgment of the Service, 

such limitation is necessary in the interest of visitor enjoyment, public 

safety, or preservation or protection of 

the resources or values of the 

Riverways. 

(1) The sale or rental of any goods or 

equipment to a member or members of 

the public which is undertaken in the 

course of an ongoing or regular commercial enterprise. 

(2) The performance of any service or 

activity for a member or members of 

the public in exchange for monetary or 

other valuable consideration.

Appendix C: Park Regulations

491
§ 7.84 36 CFR Ch. I (7–1–02 Edition)

(3) The delivery or retrieval within

the boundaries of Ozark National Scenic Riverways of watercraft or associated boating equipment which has been 

rented to a member or members of the 

public at a location not within the 

Riverways, when such delivery or retrieval is performed by a principal, employee or agent of the commercial enterprise offering the equipment for 

rental and when these services are performed as an integral part, necessary 

complement, or routine adjunct of or 

to the rental transaction, whether or 

not any charge, either separately or in 

combination with any other charge, is 

made for these services. 

(4) The performance, by a principal, 

employee, or agent of a commercial enterprise, within the boundaries of 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways of 

any other service or activity for which 

a fee, charge or other compensation is 

not collected, but which is an integral 

part, necessary complement, or routine 

adjunct of or to any commercial transaction undertaken by that enterprise 

for which monetary or other valuable 

consideration is charged or collected, 

even though such transaction is initiated, performed, or concluded outside 

the boundaries of the Riverways. 

(5) The solicitation of any business, 

employment, occupation, profession, 

trade, work or undertaking, which is 

engaged in with some continuity, regularity or permanency for any livelihood, gain, benefit, advantage, or profit. 

(d) Fishing. (1) Unless otherwise designated, fishing in a manner authorized 

under applicable State law is allowed. 

(2) The superintendent may designate 

times and locations and establish conditions under which the digging of bait 

for personal use is allowed. 

(e) Frogs, turtles and crayfish. (1) The 

superintendent may designate times 

and locations and establish conditions 

governing the taking of frogs, turtles 

and/or crayfish upon a written determination that the taking of frogs, turtles and/or crayfish: 

(i) Is consistent with the purposes for 

which the area was established; and 

(ii) Will not be detrimental to other 

park wildlife or the reproductive potential of the species to be taken; and 

(iii) Will not have an adverse effect 

on the ecosystem. 

(2) Violation of established conditions or designations is prohibited. 

[38 FR 5851, Mar. 5, 1973, as amended at 41 FR 

23959, June 14, 1976; 49 FR 18451, Apr. 30, 1984; 

50 FR 43388, Oct. 25, 1985; 56 FR 30696, July 5, 

1991; 56 FR 37158, Aug. 5, 1991]

§ 7.84 Channel Islands National Park.

(a) [Reserved] 

(b) Wrecks. No person shall destroy,

molest, remove, deface, displace, or 

tamper with wrecked and abandoned 

water or airborne craft or any cargo 

pertaining thereto. 

(c) Fishing. The taking of any fish, 

crustaceans, mollusk, or other marine 

life shall be in compliance with State 

regulations except that: 

(1) No invertebrates may be taken in 

water less than five (5) feet in depth. 

(2) The taking of abalone and lobsters 

for commercial purposes is prohibited 

in the following areas: 

(i) Anacapa Island. Northside to exterior boundary of the monument between east end of Arch Rock 119 °21 –

34°01 and west end of island, 119 °27 –

34°01 . 

(ii) Santa Barbara Island. Eastside to 

exterior boundary of monument 119 °02 –

33°28 and 119 °02 –33°29 30 . 

(3)(i) The use of all nets is prohibited 

within the outer edge of the kelp line 

surrounding Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands. 

(ii) The use of trammel or gill nets is 

prohibited in less than 20 fathoms of 

water in all areas surrounding Anacapa 

and Santa Barbara Islands. 

(4) The Superintendent shall require 

all persons fishing commercially within Channel Islands National Monument, on waters open for this purpose, 

to obtain an annual permit from him. 

Such permits shall be issued on request 

except that: 

(i) Lobster permits for Anacapa and 

Santa Barbara Islands will be issued 

only to applicants who filed with the 

California State Department of Fish 

and Game fish receipts for lobsters 

caught at Anacapa and Santa Barbara 

Islands during the period July 1, 1968, 

to July 1, 1971. 

(ii) Abalone permits for Anacapa and 

Santa Barbara Islands will be issued 

only to applicants who filed with the

 APPENDIXES

492
493

APPENDIX D: MANAGEMENT ZONES OVERVIEW TABLES
This page is intentionally left blank
Developed Resource-based recreation Natural Primitive

Zone concept Areas support moderate to high levels of development 

and visitor services to accommodate concentrated visitor 

use and diverse recreational, educational, and interpretive 

opportunities. 

Most of the administrative facilities for operations and 

maintenance would be in this zone.

Areas support moderate levels of visitor use to accommodate 

a wide range of recreational, educational, and interpretive 

opportunities. 

Although some resource modifications could occur, natural and 

cultural resources would remain largely intact.

Areas support the broader ecological integrity of the national 

riverways. 

Natural processes would dominate and only low-impact 

recreational activities would be allowed. 

Visitors would be immersed in nature with opportunities to 

enjoy solitude and natural sights and sounds.

Areas retain their wild, natural character. 

Natural resources and processes would be preserved to 

maintain their pristine conditions and ecological integrity. 

Opportunities would be provided for visitors to experience 

backcountry challenges and solitude.

Levels of 

development

Moderate to high levels of development to meet visitor use and 

park administrative needs.

Moderate levels of development for the purpose of directing 

visitor use, enhancing recreational opportunities, and 

protecting resources. 

Developments would be limited to those essential for resource 

protection, research, monitoring, and basic visitor services. 

Minimal development would be allowed for the protection of 

natural resources and to allow for dispersed, low-impact visitor 

use.

– Facilities Facilities could include visitor centers, contact stations, 

museums, exhibits, developed campgrounds, cabins, lodges, 

restaurants, dining halls, restrooms, picnic grounds, pavilions, 

kiosks, research stations, administrative buildings, maintenance 

shops, wastewater treatment plants, and storage areas. 

Facilities could include semi-developed and semi-primitive 

campground and campsites, picnic grounds, restrooms, 

maintenance shops, and storage areas.

Facilities could include semi-primitive and primitive 

campgrounds and campsites, pit toilets, and remote storage 

areas. 

Facilities could include a limited number of primitive campsites 

and trails. Minimal signage would be provided.

–Access Visitor access would be convenient to a wide variety of 

recreational activities. 

Visitor access would be convenient with a low to moderate 

level of difficulty.

Visitor access would require a moderate level of difficulty. Visitor access would require a moderate to high level of skill 

and effort with nonmotorized equipment.

–Density and surface 

of roads, trails, and 

access points

Medium to high density of road and trail networks would 

ensure safe access and circulation for visitors. 

Paved roads, parking areas, viewing areas, trailheads, and foot 

paths would be common.

Low to medium density of road and trail networks would 

ensure safe access, circulation for visitors, and protection of 

resources.

Gravel roads, parking areas, viewing areas, trailheads, and foot 

paths would be common. 

Surfaces of roads, trails, parking areas, and other heavy-use 

areas may be hardened where appropriate.

Low density of road and trail networks would ensure the 

natural setting is maintained and resources are protected.

Roads, parking areas, trails, and trailheads would be gravel or 

unpaved.

Low density of unpaved trails would provide visitor access.

–Removal or 

modification of 

existing developments

Existing developments are consistent with the desired resource 

conditions of these zones.

Same as Developed. Existing developments that are not consistent with the desired 

resource conditions could be removed or modified.

Existing developments that are not consistent with the desired 

resource conditions could be removed.

Visitor experience Visitors would have opportunities to better understand the 

riverways’ significant resources and values through a wide 

range of interpretive facilities and services, interact with other 

visitors and park staff, and recreate in an environment that is 

supported by a variety of visitor services.

Visitors would experience a modified natural environment with 

developed visitor facilities for orientation; day and overnight 

use would concentrate most of the park’s visitors in these 

areas. They also would have a high expectation for quality 

services and facilities.

Visitors would have opportunities to participate in a range of 

recreational, interpretive, and educational opportunities.

Visitors would experience a mostly natural setting where some 

visitor services are available.

Visitors would encounter intact natural resources, features, and 

systems for personal inspiration, education, and recreation. 

Experiences could include opportunities for solitude, 

contemplation, and self-reliance.

Evidence of human use would be limited.

Visitors would be immersed in a primitive, wild setting with 

opportunities to experience backcountry challenges, solitude, 

and self-reliance. 

Visitors would have a sense of remoteness, isolated from the 

sights and sounds of other people. 

– Types of activities See table 5 for a list of recreation opportunities available in 

each zone.

Same as Developed. Same as Developed. Same as Developed. 

–Density of visitor use Moderate to high density of visitor use. Moderate to high density of visitors, especially at key access 

points and along trails during the peak season.

Low to moderate density of visitors, especially during the offpeak season.Low density of visitors year-round. 

– Frequency of 

encounters

Moderate to high encounter rates with other visitors engaging 

in a diversity of recreational activities.

Moderate encounter rates with other visitors engaging in a 

diversity of recreational activities.

Low encounter rates with other visitors, mostly engaging in 

nonmotorized recreational activities. 

Very low encounter rates with other visitors year-round.

– Soundscapes Sounds associated with concentrated visitor use, recreational 

activities, and park operations would frequently supplant the 

sounds of nature, especially during periods of peak use. 

During periods of low visitation, the natural soundscape would 

be more prevalent.

The natural soundscape would often be mixed with the sounds 

of human activity. 

During periods of low visitation, the natural soundscape would 

predominate.

The natural soundscape would be largely intact and would be 

an important part of the visitor experience.

During periods of low visitation, the natural soundscape would 

predominate.

The natural soundscape would be largely intact. 

Natural sounds would predominate and would be an important 

part of the visitor experience.

TABLE D-1: OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS LAND-BASED MANAGEMENT ZONES

495
Developed Resource-based recreation Primitive

Visitor services Moderate to high level of visitor services could include one or 

more of the following: orientation and interpretive programs, 

signs, wayside exhibits, developed campgrounds, contact 

stations, commercial operations, convenience stores, dining, 

and shuttle services.

Moderate levels of visitor services would be provided, such 

as orientation and interpretive programs, signs and wayside 

exhibits, backcountry campgrounds, and commercial services if 

compatible with the desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences.

Natural

Low levels of visitor services would be provided, such 

as informational signs, wayside exhibits, and 

backcountry campgrounds.

Directional signs would be provided at trailheads. 

Limited interpretive materials might be available to promote 

safe and responsible recreation.

–Interpretation and 

education

Orientation, interpretation, and educational opportunities 

would be greatest in this zone. 

A wide array of structured and self-guided interpretive and 

educational programs, including cultural and natural events, 

would be offered. 

Specific, onsite interpretive themes would be presented.

A variety of structured and self-guided interpretive and 

educational programs would be offered.

Specific, onsite interpretive themes would be presented.

Self-guided interpretive and educational opportunities would 

be available. 

Some structured programs would be offered occasionally 

during the peak season.

Minimal onsite interpretation related to management and 

protection of natural and cultural resources would be provided.

Unstructured, self-guided opportunities would exist for visitors 

to discover nature and participate in primitive recreation.

Some structured programs would be offered occasionally. 

Natural resource 

condition

Natural resources would be managed to accommodate facilities 

for NPS operations and concentrated visitor use. 

The effects of developments and visitor use on the natural 

surroundings would be minimized through planning and 

design efforts. 

Resources would be maintained in their natural condition, 

yet modified where necessary to provide distinct visitor 

opportunities and experiences.

Modifications would be aesthetically blended with the 

environment as much as possible.

Ecological integrity would be maintained by preserving 

and restoring natural resources and processes through an 

integrated natural resource management approach.

Emphasis would be placed on protecting and restoring 

outstanding natural features and habitats for rare and 

endangered species.

Natural systems and processes would function independent of 

human intervention.

Natural conditions would be restored when disturbed by 

human activity, but only if degraded sites are not expected to 

recover in a timely manner without human intervention. 

No development would occur.

–Restoration of 

degraded sites

Degraded sites would be evaluated to determine if they should 

be restored or continue to be managed to accommodate visitor 

use.

Same as Developed. Same as Developed. Degraded sites would be evaluated to determine if they should 

be restored.

–Level of modifications Visitors would experience a highly modified environment that 

accommodates visitor use and park operations.

Modifications would be aesthetically blended with the 

environment as much as possible and designed to minimize 

resource impacts.

Natural resources may be modified to ensure resource 

protection, create scenic views, provide appropriate facilities for 

safety and sanitation, and accommodate visitor access and use.

Modifications of natural resources would only occur when 

necessary to achieve resource management objectives or to 

mitigate for human-caused impacts.

Modifications of natural resources would only occur when 

necessary to achieve resource management objectives or to 

mitigate for human-caused impacts.

Evidence of modifications would be unobtrusive.

–Fire suppression Fires would be managed to protect human life and property 

and reduce fuel loading.

Fires would be suppressed when necessary to protect human 

life and property. 

Same as Resource-based Recreation. Fires would be suppressed when necessary to protect human 

life and property. Wildland fires may be allowed to burn to 

maintain natural disturbance regimes and ecological integrity.

–Prescribed fire Prescribed fire may be used. Management-ignited prescribed fire or prescribed natural fire 

may be used to achieve resource management objectives when 

feasible.

Same as Resource-based Recreation. Same as Resource-based Recreation.

–Open fields Selected open fields would be maintained by hay leases, 

prescribed burning, mechanical, and/or approved chemical or 

biological methods. Others would be left unmanaged to revert 

back to nature.

Same as Developed. Same as Developed. Same as Developed.

–Invasive exotic species 

and extirpated species

Invasive exotic species would be eradicated where feasible. 

Extirpated species would be reintroduced where feasible.

Same as Developed. Same as Developed. Same as Developed.

–Scenery Opportunities would be provided for visitors to access and 

experience the scenery of the park from designated overlooks.

Same as Developed. Same as Developed. Same as Developed.

–Maintenance and 

modification of 

designated overlooks

Designated overlooks would be modified to maintain scenic 

vistas and to accommodate public access and moderate to high 

levels of use.

Designated overlooks would be modified to maintain scenic 

vistas and to accommodate public access and moderate levels 

of use.

Designated overlooks would be maintained in a manner that 

would not degrade the natural setting.

Natural resources would be protected to perpetuate the wild 

primitive character of the landscape as viewed from designated 

overlooks of the park.

TABLE D-1: OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS LAND-BASED MANAGEMENT ZONES (continued)

496
Developed Resource-based recreation Natural Primitive

Cultural resource 

condition

Cultural resources eligible for or listed in the National Register 

of Historic Places would be protected and managed consistent 

with NPS policies and the standards published by the secretary 

of the interior. 

All other cultural resources would be evaluated to determine 

if they should be preserved, stabilized, restored, or left 

unmaintained.

Same as Developed. Same as Developed. Same as Developed.

–Cultural resources 

treatments

Appropriate treatments would include preservation, 

stabilization, restoration, and rehabilitation.

Same as Developed. Appropriate treatments would primarily include preservation 

and stabilization consistent with management efforts to 

promote natural processes and ecological integrity.

Same as Natural.

–Visitor use and 

interpretation of 

cultural resources

As appropriate, selected cultural resources would provide 

distinct visitor opportunities and experiences, and would be the 

backdrop for interpretation, visitor use, and services.

As appropriate, selected cultural resources would be preserved 

to reflect their period of significance, allowing people to 

experience these resources first-hand and learn about their 

associated stories and events.

As appropriate, selected cultural resources would be preserved 

or stabilized to provide opportunities for visitor use and 

education.

Same as Natural.

–Historic sites and 

structures

At a minimum, historic structures would be preserved and 

stabilized as feasible to correct unsafe conditions and inhibit 

the adverse impacts of weathering on historic fabric. 

More extensive restoration / rehabilitation treatments would be 

carried out for selected historic structures and sites to enhance 

visitor educational and interpretive opportunities. 

Cemeteries would be documented, protected, and evaluated to 

determine appropriate levels of preservation, maintenance, and 

public or private access.

Same as Developed. Preservation and stabilization of historic structures would be 

carried out as feasible to correct unsafe conditions and inhibit 

the adverse impacts of weathering on historic fabric.

Same as Natural.

–Archeological 

resources

Archeological resources would be preserved in situ, stabilized as 

necessary, and left undisturbed unless identified for approved 

archeological investigations. Sites that cannot be avoided 

by construction activities, or are subject to disturbance by 

visitor use impacts or natural processes, would be adequately 

mitigated in accordance with section 106 compliance and 

consultation requirements.

Same as Developed. Same as Developed. Same as Developed.

–Historic districts and 

cultural landscapes

Historic districts (that is, properties having an array of 

contributing historic structures and/or cultural landscape 

features that evoke the historic setting and spatial extent / 

arrangement of the site) would be protected and managed in 

accordance with NPS polices and the standards published by 

the secretary of the interior. 

Character-defining features of identified cultural landscapes 

(for example, vegetation and other natural features, patterns of 

access and circulation, constructed water features, and smallscale elements such as walls and walkways) would be preserved 

and managed in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards and 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

Selected historic structures within the districts could be 

rehabilitated and adaptively used and/or incorporated 

into opportunities for visitor use and interpretation. New 

construction and other development activities would be limited 

to preserve the historic setting and viewsheds.

Same as Developed. Same as Developed. Same as Developed.

–Ethnographic 

resources

Ethnographic resources would be managed in accordance with 

NPS policies to protect and provide access to resources and 

places that are important for preserving the heritage, identity, 

and values of culturally associated peoples (including American 

Indian tribes and other groups with ancestral ties to the area).

Same as Developed. Same as Developed. Same as Developed.

497

TABLE D-1: OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS LAND-BASED MANAGEMENT ZONES (continued)
TABLE D-2: OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS RIVER-BASED MANAGEMENT ZONES (INCLUDES RIVERS UP TO THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK)

Mixed-use Seasonal mixed-use Nonmotorized

Zone concept The river supports a mix of motorized and nonmotorized boating opportunities.

The natural setting would predominate, but the sights and sounds of human activity

would be prevalent.

The river supports a mix of nonmotorized and lower-horsepower motorized boating

during the off-peak season, which is defined as the day after trapping season through 

the day before the start of gigging season, as established by the Missouri Department 

of Conservation. Currently those dates would be April 1-September 14. The rest of 

the year, only nonmotorized boating would be allowed. 

The natural setting would predominate, but the social setting would vary seasonally with

the types of allowable activities and levels of use.

The river supports year-round, nonmotorized boating opportunities.

Visitors would experience an unaltered river system where natural sights and sounds

would predominate, except during peak use when recreational activity would be

more apparent.

Levels of development Low to moderate levels of development would be provided to accommodate

launching and retrieving motorized and nonmotorized watercraft on the river.

Locating new developments or improvements in the floodplain would be avoided

where possible.

Same as Mixed-use. Low levels of development could be provided to accommodate launching and

retrieving only nonmotorized watercraft on the river.

Locating new development or improvements in the floodplain would be avoided.

– Facilities Facilities could include: developed watercraft launches, restrooms, picnic tables, and

trash receptacles at designated river access points.

Same as Mixed-use. Facilities could include: semi-developed watercraft launches, restrooms, picnic

tables, and trash receptacles at designated river access points.

– Access There would be a low to moderate density of designated river access points.

A low density of designated river fords would be provided.

Same as Mixed-use. There would be a low density of designated river access points.

No river fords would be designated.

– Commercial shuttle services Commercial shuttle services would be available to boat launch areas. Same as Mixed-use. Same as Mixed-use.

Visitor experience Visitors would have opportunities to engage in a diverse mix of motorized and

nonmotorized boating experiences.

Visitors would have the opportunity to float the river without the presence of 

motorized boats during the peak season, which is defined as the day after trapping 

season through the day before the start of gigging season, as established by the 

Missouri Department of Conservation. Currently those dates would be April 1-

September 14. 

During the off-season, visitors would have opportunities to engage in a mix of lowerhorsepower motorized and nonmotorized boating experiences.

Visitors would have the opportunity to float the river without the presence of

motorized boats year-round.

– Types of activities See table 5 for a list of recreation opportunities available in each zone. Same as Mixed-use. Same as Mixed-use.

– Motorized boating Motorboats would be allowed year-round.

Horsepower restrictions would vary among the alternatives from 25 horsepower

maximum to 60/40 horsepower maximum to no horsepower restrictions. See table 4

for motorboat horsepower restrictions by alternative.

Motorboats would only be allowed during the off-peak season. Horsepower restrictions

would vary among the alternatives from 10 horsepower maximum to 25 horsepower

maximum during the off-peak season. See table 4 for motorboat horsepower restrictions

by alternative.

No motorized boats would be allowed.

– Density of visitor use A moderate density of boaters would occur during most of the year.

Periodically, there would be higher densities of motorized and nonmotorized boaters

along popular stretches of the river during the peak season.

A low to moderate density of boaters would occur during most of the year.

Periodically, there would be higher densities of nonmotorized boaters along popular

stretches of the river during the peak season.

A low to moderate density of boaters would occur during most of the year.

Periodically, there would be higher densities of nonmotorized boaters along popular

stretches of the river during the peak season.

– Frequency of encounters Visitor encounters would typically be moderate to high, especially during peak use.

During the peak season, some sections of the river would be managed for dispersed 

visitor use with low encounter rates.

Visitor encounters would typically be moderate to high, especially during peak use.

During the peak season, some sections of the river would be managed for dispersed 

visitor use with low encounter rates.

Visitor encounters would typically be low to moderate, especially during peak use.

During the peak season, some sections of the river would be managed for dispersed 

visitor use with low encounter rates.

– Soundscapes Sounds of recreational activities would be prevalent, with limited opportunities

to experience natural sounds, especially during the peak season. The natural

soundscape would often be mixed with the sounds of human activity and motorized 

boats.

During the motorized boating season, the natural soundscape would often be mixed 

with the sounds of human activity and motorized boats.

During the nonmotorized boating season, natural sounds would be more prevalent.

Natural sounds would predominate and would be an important part of the visitor

experience.

Rivers and riverbanks would be free from the sounds of motorized boats and

vehicles.

During periods of peak use, the sounds of visitors would be apparent.

– Presence of vehicles Visitors may encounter vehicles at designated campgrounds and access point along

the riverways.

Same as Mixed-use. Same as Mixed-use.

– Orientation / interpretive

signs

Orientation and interpretive signs and informational bulletin boards would be

available.

Same as Mixed-use. Same as Mixed-use.

498
TABLE D-2: OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS RIVER-BASED MANAGEMENT ZONES (INCLUDES RIVERS UP TO THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK) (continued)

Mixed-use Seasonal mixed-use Nonmotorized

– Likelihood of encountering

NPS staff

Visitors would have a moderate to high likelihood of encountering NPS staff. Same as Mixed-use. Same as Mixed-use.

– Frequency of NPS patrols On the river, there would be moderate to high frequency of NPS patrols, particularly 

during the peak season.

Same as Mixed-use. On the river, there would be a low to moderate frequency of NPS patrols, except 

during the peak season when patrols would be more frequent.

Natural resource

condition

The natural resource conditions in the river corridor would be managed to ensure

that the free-flowing clear, clean water of the river was not degraded.

Same as Mixed-use. Same as Mixed-use.

– Enhancement Resource conditions would be enhanced by regulating motorboat horsepower. Resource conditions would be seasonally enhanced by limiting these sections of the river

to nonmotorized boating only.

Resource conditions would be enhanced year-round by limiting these sections of the

river to nonmotorized use.

Cultural resource

condition

Cultural resources eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places

would be protected and managed consistent with NPS policies and the standards

published by the secretary of the interior.

All other cultural resources would be evaluated to determine if they should be

preserved, stabilized, restored, or left unmaintained.

Cultural resources that are subject to bank erosion, slumping, subsidence, or other

natural deterioration would be stabilized using best management practices.

Same as Mixed-use. Same as Mixed-use.

499

501

APPENDIX E: CONSULTATION LETTERS
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 503
APPENDIXES 504
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 505
APPENDIXES 506
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 507
APPENDIXES 508
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 509
APPENDIXES 510
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 511
APPENDIXES 512
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 513
APPENDIXES 514
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 515
OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

TRIBAL CONSULTATION TRIP TO OKLAHOMA FOR MEETINGS WITH 

EIGHT NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES 

Compiled By James E. Price, Archeologist, ONSR 

Representatives of ONSR: 

1. Noel Poe, Superintendent, ONSR

2. Russ Runge, Deputy Superintendent, ONSR

3. James E. Price, Ph.D., Cultural Resources Manager/Anthropologist/Archeologist

Dates of Trip: October 16 through October 20, 2006. 

This was a followup visit to the trip made in the Summer of 2003 to the Affiliated Tribes. 

This trip we were able to make arrangements to visit all 8 Native American Tribes. 

Approximately 1300 miles were put on the odometer to complete these visits. 

 Poe, Runge, and Price departed ONSR Headquarters at 8:45 a.m. on October 16, 2006, 

stopping for lunch in Springfield, Missouri. On the way Poe discovered that only one 

complete copy of the GMP newsletter was available and that more were needed, one for 

each tribe consulted. The consultation team arrived in Miami, Oklahoma approximately 

1:45 p.m. and located the tribal headquarters of The Shawnee Tribe. The team entered 

the headquarters building at 2:25 p.m. 

Consultation With The Shawnee Tribe: 

 ONSR representatives met with Rebecca Hawkins in the conference room of the tribal 

headquarters. Noel Poe opened the meeting with a description of Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways and an explanation of the General Management Plan process. This was 

accomplished by showing the contents of a notebook containing descriptive text, photos, 

and maps. Poe also presented a DVD containing imagery of ONSR. Poe asked for any 

input by the Shawnees into the GMP process. J. Price described the archeological and 

historical evidence for Shawnee occupation of lands now within Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. Rebecca Hawkins gave an oral presentation on history of the Shawnee Tribe 

and gave Poe, Runge, & Price each a brief written history of the tribe. Poe and Hawkins 

discussed ways that ONSR and the Shawnee Tribe could work together for public 

education. Rebecca Hawkins presented Poe, Runge, and Price with tribal pins, depictions 

of the tribal seal, a turkey feather, and an eagle feather. After leaving the meeting, Poe 

directed Runge to call Patty Dorris and have Rebecca Hawkins’ name added to the 

ONSR-GMP mailing list, per Hawkins request. 

APPENDIXES 516
 The ONSR tribal consultation team departed Miami, Oklahoma and drove to Tulsa to 

spend the night. J. Price used his cell phone to locate addresses for Office Depot stores in 

Tulsa. Upon arrival in Tulsa in the late afternoon, the team went to an Office Depot store 

and had facsimile copies of the GMP newsletter made. Plastic sleeves were purchased at 

the store also. The team took lodging in the LaQuinta Inn in Tulsa. 

 On the morning of Tuesday, October 17, 2006, the consultation team drove to 

Tahlequah, Oklahoma for two meetings, the first with The Cherokee Nation and the 

second with the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee. 

Consultation With The Cherokee Nation 

 At 1:30 p.m. on October 17, 2006, the consultation team met in a meeting room in 

Tribal Headquarters with Principal Chief Chad Smith. Noel Poe opened the meeting with 

a description of Ozark National Scenic Riverways and an explanation of the General 

Management Plan process. This was accomplished by showing the contents of a 

notebook containing descriptive text, photos, and maps. Poe also presented a DVD 

containing imagery of ONSR. He invited the Principal Chief Chad Smith to visit Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. Principal Chief Smith presented Poe with DVD on 

anniversary of Cherokee Constitution. Chief Smith expressed willingness for ONSR to 

provide a link to the tribal website, www.cherokee.com. The meeting lasted 

approximately 20 minutes. 

Consultation With The Keetoowah Band Of Cherokee 

 The consultation team then went to the headquarters of The Keetoowah Band of 

Cherokee located in another area of Tahlequah, Oklahoma. At approximately 3:20 p.m. 

On October 17, 2006, the group entered the administrative office building and waited for 

tribal contact person, Lisa Stopp to arrive. She was not immediately available and was 

on a return trip from giving a tour of Cherokee cemeteries near the Arkansas/Oklahoma 

line. When she arrived, she explained she had been escorting a scholar who was studying 

Cherokee graves with little wooden structures on top representing central place and a 

holdover when Cherokee burials were made in house floors. 

The meeting took place in a room in the administrative office building. The Keetoowah 

Band of Cherokee more closely follows the traditional practices than the Cherokee 

Nation. Noel Poe opened the meeting with a description of Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways and an explanation of the General Management Plan process. This was 

accomplished by showing the contents of a notebook containing descriptive text, photos, 

and maps. Poe also presented a DVD containing imagery of ONSR. J. Price described 

known Shawnee archeological sites in Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Price 

described the Broadfoot Cemetery on ONSR and Stopp stated an interest in entering into 

an agreement with NPS concerning a reburial ground for NAGPRA interments of all 

tribes. Stopp was interested in this possibility because often times when human Indian 

remains are discovered they are in a developed area where it is difficult for a proper 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters 517
burial in the immediate vicinity. In her opinion having a site inside a national park area 

would protect the re-burial graves and provide a sense of peace. We did not know the 

NPS policies on such an action but expressed interest because there are over 30 

cemeteries within the park, such as the one existing at Broadfoot, and some of these are 

still active. 

 Superintendent Poe invited Stopp and other representatives of the Keetoowah Band to 

ONSR. There was an in-depth discussion concerning Cherokee involvement in the GMP 

process. A discussion followed of having Keetoowah Cherokee at the Haunting In The 

Hills Event at Alley Mill in October, 2007. It was suggested that if Stopp could bring 

some Tribal cultural demonstrators that she could visit the Broadfoot Cemetery. The 

Broadfoot family of Shannon County trace part of their ancestry to Cherokee origins. 

Stopp mentioned once more her desire to explore the potential of using part of the 

Broadfoot Tract as a NAGPRA burial ground. Lisa Stopp told story of role of the spider 

in delivering the first fire to the Cherokee. Superintendent Noel Poe requested 

permission to provide a link on the ONSR website to the website of The Keetoowah 

Band Of Cherokee and permission was granted. This meeting was much more cordial 

than the 2003 meeting. 

 The consultation team departed Tahlequah at 4:10 p.m. and drove to Muskogee, 

Oklahoma where they visited the Gift Shop in The Five Civilized Tribes Museum. Gifts 

were purchased for staff members who assisted in compiling the notebooks presented to 

each tribe by Noel Poe. 

 The consultation team spent the night in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The next 

morning they departed and drove to Anadarko for a meeting with a representative of The 

Delaware Nation. 

Tribal Consultation With The Delaware Nation 

 The consultation team arrived at the headquarters building of The Delaware Nation 

and at approximately 10:30 a.m. conducted a meeting with Tamara Francis, Director of 

NAGPRA/Cultural Preservation for the tribe. Also present were three other individuals 

including Summer Harris, Tamara’s assistant. Noel Poe opened the meeting with a 

description of Ozark National Scenic Riverways and an explanation of the General 

Management Plan process. This was accomplished by showing the contents of a 

notebook containing descriptive text, photos, and maps. Poe also presented a DVD 

containing imagery of ONSR. Tamara Francis asked numerous questions about ARPA 

and NAGPRA which J. Price addressed. Noel Poe requested permission to provide a link 

on the ONSR website to the website of The Delaware Nation. J. Price described 

archeological and historical evidence of the presence of Delaware Indians within the 

present bounds of Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Noel Poe invited Tamara Francis to 

ONSR. She then took Poe, Runge, and Price on a tour of the tribal museum followed by 

an invitation to view a Delaware Nation Big House under construction on a hill slope a 

short distance from the headquarters building. The group was driven in a van to the 

APPENDIXES 518
ceremonial grounds to examine the Big House. The carpenter/craftsman, Mike Watkins, 

was introduced and a tour was given of the ceremonial structure which was constructed 

on very large cedar posts. Each post was carved with the effigy of a human face on one 

side. Modern construction materials were employed in the frame, sheathing, and roof. 

Tamara then took the consultation team to their Tribal Museum and to view graphic 

panels depicting history of The Delaware Nation. Tamara explained that Chief Edgar 

French was ill and undergoing surgery with several members of the Tribal Council at the 

hospital with him. 

 The consultation team then drove to Shawnee, Oklahoma for consultation with The 

Absentee Shawnee Tribe. The consultation team arrived early and spent some time in the 

tribal gift shop and library. On October 18, 2006 at approximately 3:00 p.m. the meeting 

began. 

Tribal Consultation With The Absentee Shawnee Tribe 

 The consultation team met with Scott Miller, Lt. Governor. The meeting was in 

Building 1 of the tribal complex. Noel Poe opened the meeting with a description of 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways and an explanation of the General Management Plan 

process. This was accomplished by showing the contents of a notebook containing 

descriptive text, photos, and maps. Mr. Miller stated that he had attended college and 

Joplin, Missouri and on sports trips had been in Rolla indicating he was familiar with the 

Missouri Ozark Highland. He commented on the beauty of the Ozarks. He and his uncle 

had also visited Old Appleton on Apple Creek north of Cape Girardeau to view the 

homeland of the Absentee Shawnee peoples. They had also been in Cape Girardeau. 

Miller expressed concern concerning NAGPRA issues and J. Price explained how ONSR 

complied with the regulations by working with Judith Deel of DNR-HPP and the 

Missouri NAGPRA coordinator. He also gave business cards of Karen Kaniatobe to the 

consultation team members as she is the Tribe’s Historic Preservation Officer. 

Permission was granted by Mr. Miller to provide a link on the ONSR website to the 

Absentee Shawnee website. 

 The consultation team departed Shawnee, Oklahoma at 3:45 p.m. and drove to Tulsa, 

Oklahoma to spend the night in the same LaQuinta Inn the team occupied on Monday 

night. 

 On the morning of October 19 the team departed for Pawhuska, Oklahoma for 

consultation with The Osage Nation. The team arrived early and toured the Osage Nation 

Tribal Museum and gift shop. 

Consultation with The Osage Nation 

 At 11:00 a.m. the consultation team met with a group of six representatives of The 

Osage Nation. Those present representing the Osage Nation were: 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters 519
1. Johnny Red Eagle, Assistant Chief

2. Eddy Red Eagle, Osage Native Congress Congressman, Chair of Cultural

Committee

3. Faren Revard Anderson, Representative in Congress, Chair of Natural Resources

Committee

4. Diane Daniels, Director of Osage Environmental and Natural Resources

Department

5. David Conrad, Governmental Relations Specialist for The Osage Nation

6. Jim Gray, Principal Chief (Entered briefly to meet the consultation team from

ONSR).

Following introductions, Noel Poe opened the meeting with a description of Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways and an explanation of the General Management Plan 

process. This was accomplished by showing the contents of a notebook containing 

descriptive text, photos, and maps. David Conrad expressed NAGPRA concerns both 

he and Eddy Red Eagle cited some dissatisfaction with the Missouri DNR-Historic 

Preservation Program. Conrad mentioned lawsuits between Native American Tribes 

and DNR-HPP and that a new office had been opened to deal with relations with 

Native Americans. Conrad requested a copy of Maria Zedeno’s scholarly study in 

establishing the affiliated tribes of Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Eddy Red 

Eagle presented a detailed discourse on the history of the Osage Nation and stressed 

its dominance in the 18th Century from the Mississippi River westward to the Rocky 

Mountains. He explained that when the survivors of the Osage Tribe left Fort Osage, 

tribal elders instructed their people to forget their history and traditional practices. 

Mr. Red Eagle said he is leading a movement to reconstruct Osage history and is 

working with The University of Arkansas-Fayetteville and University of MissouriColumbia. He also stated that historic Osage medicine bundles are curated at The 

Gilcrease Foundation in Tulsa. J. Price and Mr. Red Eagle discussed the scholarly 

work of the late Dr. Carl H. Chapman of the University of Missouri-Columbia and 

that Price, at the onset of his career as an archeologist, has first worked for Chapman 

on the Vernon County, Missouri Osage sites. Noel Poe invited representatives of The 

Osage Nation to visit Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Permission was sought and 

granted to provide a link on the ONSR website to the website of The Osage Nation. 

The park learned that the Osage Nation had just re-organized its form of government 

and established a one-house Congress with the Principal Chief and Ass’t Chief 

leading the Congress. This was a very productive meeting as evidenced by the 

number of ranking officials in attendance. It is expected that some members of this 

meeting will visit ONSR. 

 The ONSR tribal consultation team departed Pawhuska and drove to Bartlesville to 

meet with representatives of The Delaware Tribe of Indians. 

APPENDIXES 520
Consultation With The Delaware Tribe Of Indians 

 The tribal consultation team entered into a meeting with The Delaware Tribe of 

Indians at approximately 1:45 p.m. on 10-19-06. The meeting was in a new building 

of the health services complex. Those present at the meeting were Chief Jerry 

Douglas, Vicki Sousa, Tribal Attorney, and a tribal member, Ernest Tiger. Noel Poe 

opened the meeting with a description of Ozark National Scenic Riverways and an 

explanation of the General Management Plan process. This was accomplished by 

showing the contents of a notebook containing descriptive text, photos, and maps. 

Chief Douglas related that because of a lawsuit and District Judge’s opinion, the 

Delaware Tribe Of Indians no longer has Federal tribal status and had been removed 

from the Register. The Oklahoma Congressional Delegation has introduced 

legislation into the U.S. Congress to give Federal recognition to Delaware Tribe of 

Indians at Bartlesville. Whether or not this legislation passes Congress may depend 

on the heated Tribal election on November 16, 2006. A phone call was placed to 

Judith Deel of Missouri DNR-Historic Preservation Program by J. Price to inquire if 

that agency has continued to recognize The Delaware Tribe of Indians as an ethnic 

entity. Judith Deel stated that Missouri DNR-HPP no longer recognizes The 

Delaware Tribe of Indians as a tribe affiliated with Missouri. Therefore, it is 

recommended that The Delaware Tribe of Indians at Bartlesville, Oklahoma no 

longer be considered an Affiliated Tribe of Ozark National Scenic Riverways. 

The Chief also told the consultation team that the tribe had to sell its headquarters 

building in Bartlesville because of excessive utility bills. Mr. Douglas requested a 

copy of Maria Zedeno’s scholarly study establishing the affiliated tribes of Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. Permission was sought and was granted for providing a 

link on the ONSR website to The Delaware Tribe Of Indians website. 

 The consultation team departed Bartlesville and drove to Joplin, Missouri for the 

night, arriving there at 5:15 p.m. On the morning of 10-20-06 the team drove from 

Joplin and arrived at Seneca, Missouri at 7:45 a.m. 

Consultation with The Eastern Shawnee Tribe 

 Poe, Runge, and Price met with Robin Dushane in the Eastern Shawnee 

Administrative Headquarters Building in Oklahoma, a few hundred yards west of the 

Missouri-Oklahoma line. Ms. Dushane relayed that Chief Gray was at the hospital 

with his wife and had called to apologize for missing our meeting. Noel Poe opened 

the meeting with a description of Ozark National Scenic Riverways and an 

explanation of the General Management Plan process. This was accomplished by 

showing the contents of a notebook containing descriptive text, photos, and maps. 

Robin Dushane asked numerous questions throughout the meeting and these were 

addressed by members of the consultation team. Both ARPA and NAGPRA issues 

were discussed. These as well as Section 106 Compliance procedures at Ozark 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters 521
Scenic Riverways were addressed. Robin Dushane expressed her wish to address two 

major issues: 

1. The first was a move to better educate the visiting public at ONSR about Native

American history and heritage.

2. The second point was that she wants signage or other media available to discuss

the illegal nature of digging for artifacts on public lands...

After the meeting Robin Dushane escorted the consultation team to the tribal library 

and small museum in a separate building for a brief tour. During that tour the 

librarian was introduced to the consultation team. Robin Dushane then invited the 

consulting team to a tour of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe’s land and infrastructure on a 

400-acre tract of land. At the headquarters building the consulting team was 

introduced to Larry Dushane, Robin’s husband who is a residential repair contractor 

for the tribe. The tour group entered a van and Robin drove around the reservation 

pointing out infrastructure improvements including a second casino, a filling station, 

a bank, and other businesses owned by the tribe. The team viewed the social services 

building as well as housing for tribal members. The site of a proposed library, 

museum and visitor center was pointed out. The tour group returned to tribal 

headquarters and took lunch together at the tribal “AOA” nutrition center. During 

lunch Robin Dushane described her trip to Chattanooga, Tennessee to a meeting 

concerning a large archeological site at Moccasin Bend. She also described her role 

in organizing the Native American Tribes of Oklahoma through tribal resolutions to 

oppose the proposed sale of USDA-Forest Service lands. 

 The consultation team departed Seneca, Missouri at 12:45 p.m. and drove to 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways Headquarters in Van Buren, Missouri, arriving 

there at 4:30 p.m. 

Noel Poe 

cc: MWRO-Cultural Resources 

 MWRO-Planning 

DSC-A.Van Huizen 

APPENDIXES 522
Appendix E: Consultation Letters 523
APPENDIXES 524
#RRGPFKZ'%QPUWNVCVKQP.GVVGTU

ƝƆƝ
526

APPENDIXES
OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS 

FEDERAL- AND STATE- LISTED SPECIES 

Federal- and State-listed Species Present within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways

Common ame Scientific ame 

Federal 

tatus 

State 

tatus 

State 

ank 

Mammals

American Badger Taxidea taxus SU

Black bear Ursus americanus S3

Golden mouse Ochrotomys nuttalli S3

Gray bat Myotis grisescens E E S3

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E E S1

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata S2

Marsh Rice Rat Oryzomys palustris SU

Plains spotted skunk Spilogale putorius interrupta E S1

Swamp rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus S2

Birds

Bald Eagle Haliaeeatus leucocephalus E S3

Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea SC S2S3

Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii SC

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus E S2

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus S3

Swainson’s warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii E S2

Amphibians 

Four-toed salamander Hemidactylium scutatum S4

Grotto salamander Eurycea spelaeus S2S3

Ozark hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis 

bishopi C E S1

Ringed Salamander Ambystoma annulatum S3

Reptiles 

Alligator snapping turtle Macrochelys temminckii S2

Eastern Collared Lizard Crotaphytus collaris S4

Fish 

American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix S2

Arkansas saddled darter 

Etheostoma euzonum 

euzonum 

S2

Current River saddled darter 

Etheostoma euzonum 

erizonum S3

Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus S3

Checkered madtom Noturus flavater S3S4

Ozark shiner Notropis ozarcanus S2

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula S3

Southern brook lamprey Ichthyomyzon gagei S2S3

Southern cavefish Typhlichthys subterraneus S2S3

Weed shiner Notropis texanus S3

Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer S2

527

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
Common name Scientific name 

Federal 

status 

State 

status 

State 

rank 

Flier Centrarchus macropterus S3

Lake Chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta S2

Mooneye Hiodon tergisus S3

Stargazing Darter Percina uranidea S2

Crustaceans 

Cave isopod Caecidotea antricola S4

Salem cave crayfish Cambarus hubrichti S3

Salem cave isopod Caecidotea salemensis S2

Serrated cave isopod Caecidotea serrata S1

Mollusks 

Black sandshell Ligumia recta S2

Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata S2

Ouachita kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis S3

Ozark springsnail Fontigens aldrichi S4

Purple lilliput Toxolasma lividus S2

Slippershell mussel Alasmidonta viridis S2

Insects 

A heptageniid mayfly Stenonema bednariki S3

A net-spinning caddisfly Ceratopsyche piatrix S4

Clarus cave springtail Arrhopalites clarus S3

Comet darner Anax longipes S3

Gray petaltail Tachopteryx thoreyi S3

Pygmy snowfly Allocapnia pygmaea S3

Westfall's snaketail Ophiogomphus westfalli S3

Vascular plants 

A brome Bromus latiglumis S3

A false loosestrife Ludwigia microcarpa S2

A sedge Carex flaccosperma var. 

glaucodea S2

American barberry Berberis canadensis S2

Barren strawberry Waldsteinia fragarioides ssp. S2

Big-leaved aster Eurybia macrophylla S2

Carolina phlox Phlox carolina ssp. carolina S1

Dense-flowered smartweed Polygonum densiflorum S1S2

False bugbane Trautvetteria caroliniensis S2

Forked aster Eurybia furcata S2

Grass pink orchid Calopogon tuberosus S2

Harebell Campanula rotundifolia S1

Heart-leaved noseburn Tragia cordata S2

Horned pondweed 

Zannichellia palustris var. 

major S3

Large-leaved phlox Phlox amplifolia S3

Loesel's twayblade Liparis loeselii S2

Northern bedstraw Galium boreale ssp. S2

528

APPENDIXES
Common name Scientific name 

Federal 

status 

State 

status 

State 

rank 

septentrionale 

Oferhollow reed grass Calamagrostis porteri ssp. S3

Pale avens Geum virginianum S1

Riddell's goldenrod Solidago riddellii S3

Rigid sedge Carex tetanica S3

Showy lady-slipper Cypripedium reginae S2S3

Southern monkshood Aconitum uncinatum S1

Spreading sedge Carex laxiculmis S2

Star duckweed Lemna trisulca S2

Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum S2

Thread-like naiad Najas gracillima S2

Tussock sedge Carex stricta S3

White camas Zigadenus elegans ssp. glaucus S2

Wild Sweet William Phlox maculata var. 

pyramidalis S2

Lichens, mosses, liverworts 

A lichen Rimelia subisidiosa S1

A liverwort Riccardia multifida S1

A moss Hypnum cupressiforme var. S1

A moss Myurella sibirica S?

Golden glade-moss Rhytidium rugosum S1

Sharp's homaliadelphus Homaliadelphus sharpii S1

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service use the following categories to determine the federal status of species 

that are included in above table. 

E—Endangered: A species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. 

T—Threatened: A species which is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. 

C—Candidate: A species which the USFWS is reviewing for possible addition to the list of endangered 

and threatened species. 

SC—Species of Concern: A species which the USFWS believes might be in need of concentrated 

conservation actions. 

The Missouri Department of Conservation uses the following categories to determine the state status 

and rank of species that are included in above table. For those species with multiple state rankings, 

there is uncertainty about the exact status of their condition. 

E—Endangered: A species which is in danger of extinction within the State of Missouri. 

529

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
S1—Critically Imperiled: Critically imperiled in the nation or state because of extreme rarity or because 

of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. Typically 5 or fewer 

occurrences or very few remaining individuals (<1,000). 

S2—Imperiled: Imperiled in the nation or state because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it 

very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state. Typically 6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining 

individuals (1,000-3,000). 

S3—Vulnerable: Vulnerable in the nation or state either because rare and uncommon, or found only in a 

restricted range (even if abundant at some locations), or because of other factors making it vulnerable 

to extirpation. Typically 21 to 100 occurrences or between 3,000 and 10,000 individuals. 

S4—Apparently Secure: Uncommon but not rare, and usually widespread in the nation or state. Possibly 

cause of long-term concern. Usually more than 100 occurrences and more than 10,000 individuals 

remaining. 

SU—Unrankable: Currently Unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting 

information about status or trends. 

530

APPENDIXES
531

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
532

APPENDIXES
#RRGPFKZ'%QPUWNVCVKQP.GVVGTU

Ɲƀƀ
#22'0&+:'5

ƝƀƘ
#RRGPFKZ'%QPUWNVCVKQP.GVVGTU

ƝƀƝ
#22'0&+:'5

Ɲƀƅ
#RRGPFKZ'%QPUWNVCVKQP.GVVGTU

ƝƀƋ
#22'0&+:'5

ƝƀƠ
ƝƀƔ

#RRGPFKZ'%QPUWNVCVKQP.GVVGTU
ƝƘƬ

#22'0&+:'5
Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 1 of 23

Missouri Department of Conservation

Heritage Review Report

January 25, 2011 -- Page 1 of 23

Policy Coordination Unit

P. O. Box 180

Jefferson City, MO 65102

heritage.review@mdc.mo.gov

573-522-4115 X 3367

Mr. Reed E. Detring, SuperintendentOzark National Scenic RiverwaysP. O. Box 490Van Buren, MO 63956

Project type: General Management Plan

Location/Scope: Ozark National Scenic Riverways

County: Dent, Texas, Shannon, Carter

Query reference: Ozark National Scenic Riverways long-term management planning

Query received: January 12, 2010

This NATURAL HERITAGE REVIEW is not a site clearance letter. Rather, it identifies public lands and sensitive resources known to have been located close to and/or potentially affected by the proposed project. On-site verification is the responsibility of the project.Heritage records were identified at some date and location. This report considers records near but not necessarily at the project site. Animals move and, over time, so do plant communities. To say “there is a record” does not mean the species/habitat is still there. To say that “there is no record” does not mean a protected species will not be encountered. These records only provide one reference and other information (e.g. wetland or soils maps, on-site inspections or surveys) should be considered. Look for additional information about the biological and habitat needs of records listed in order to avoid or minimize impacts. More information may be found at http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/places-go/natural-areas andmdc4.mdc.mo.gov/applications/mofwis/mofwis_search1.aspx. Contact information for the department’s Natural History Biologist is online at http://mdc.mo.gov/contact-us.The appended tables show current listings and classifications for communities and species of concern 

within one-half mile of Ozark National Scenic Riverways .

Level 3 issues: Records of federal-listed (these are also state-listed) species or critical habitats near the project site: Gray bats (Myotis grisescens, federally and state listed “endangered”) are likely to occur in the project area, as they forage over 

streams, rivers, and reservoirs in this part of Missouri. Avoid entry or disturbance of any cave inhabited by gray bats and when possible retain forest vegetation along the stream and from the gray bat cave opening to the stream. See http://mdc.mo.gov/104

for best management recommendations. 

Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis, federally and state listed “endangered”) may occur in this area. These mammals hibernate during 

winter months in caves, in Missouri primarily in the southern half of the state. They are found in summer months, primarily north of 

the Missouri River, roosting and raising young under the bark of trees in riparian forests and upland forests near perennial streams. During project activities, avoid degrading stream quality and where possible leave snags standing and preserve mature forest canopy. If large trees with nesting cavities or loose bark need to be removed by your project, that should be done between November and March. Additional information to incorporate in planning documents is available at http://mdc.mo.gov/110.

The proposed project occurs near a stream known to include or to provide habitat suitable for Ozark hellbenders (cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis bishopi, state-listed endangered and candidates for federal listing) or eastern hellbenders (cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis alleganiensis, state-listed endangered). Hellbenders are strictly aquatic salamanders whose well-being is dependent on high-quality water systems with constant levels of dissolved oxygen, temperature, and flow. These unusual animals are in serious decline, and information about best-management is available at http://www.mdc.mo.gov/documents/nathis/endangered/hellbender.pdf. Activities that change physical characteristics of rivers and 

streams (especially introducing silt loads or destabilizing gravel bars) or alter the flow of water should be avoided.

Prepared by: Shannon Cave

541

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 2 of 23

FEDERAL LIST species/habitats are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 101 Park Deville Drive Suite A, Columbia, Missouri 65203-0007; 573-234-

2132

Level 2 issues: Records of state-listed (but not federal-listed) species or critical habitats near the project site:Best Management Recommendations for state endangered species should be followed. They are available for all State 

endangered list species at http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/applications/MDCLibrary/MDCLibrary2.aspx?NodeID=374.

STATE ENDANGERED species are listed in and protected under the Wildlife Code of Missouri (3CSR10-4.111).

Level 1 recommendations: Unlisted species/habitats tracked due to their rarity, but not listed as endangered or threatened or subject to special regulations. A variety of public lands and natural areas fall in or near ONSR. MDC areas include Angeline, Barn Hollow, Current River, Montauk Hatchery, Rocky Creek and Sunklands Conservation Areas.Natural Areas are designated by an interagency committee and the Missouri Conservation Commission, and may be on public or 

private land. Designated natural areas in or near ONSR include the following: Alley Spring, Barn Hollow, Big Spring, Big Spring Pines, Cardareva Bluff, Jacks Fork, Mill Mountain, Pioneer, Poser Mill Cave, Prairie Hollow Gorge, Stegall Mountain, Sunklands, and Tunnel Bluff Woods Natural Areas. Special care is in order not to jeopardize the integrity or diversity of these areas.

The state tracks many species not listed as endangered, but sufficiently rare or challenged that special efforts to conserve them may be important to their survival and to avoid future listing.

We encourage conservation of them if encountered. The Missouri Wildlife Code protects all wildlife species and it includes no special regulatory requirements for these.

General recommendations related to this project or site, or based on information about the historic range of species

(unrelated to any specific heritage records):Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) may nest near streams or water bodies in the project area. Nests are large and fairly easy 

to identify. While no longer listed as endangered by either state or federal agencies, eagles continue to be protected by the federal 

government under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Work managers should be alert for nesting areas within 1500 metersof project activities, and follow federal guidelines at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf if eagle nests are seen. See 

also MDC’s best management recommendations at http://mdc.mo.gov/87.

The Current and Jack’s Fork Rivers are bothe outstanding national or state waters, and among 138 state-designated spawning 

stream segments. Activities that alter, destabilize or destroy stream bottoms or banks should be avoided from March 15 to June 15 in order not to disrupt spawning (laying and fertilizing fish eggs). At all times, avoid habitat destruction or introducing heavy sediment loads, chemical or organic pollutants. 

Streams in the area should be protected from soil erosion, water pollution and in-stream activities that modify or diminish aquatic 

habitats. Best management recommendations relating to streams and rivers may be found at http://mdc.mo.gov/79.

This area has many known karst geologic features (e.g. caves, springs, and sinkholes, all characterized by subterranean water 

movement). Few karst features are recorded in heritage records, and ones not noted here may be encountered at the project siteor affected by the project. Cave fauna (many of which are species of conservation concern) are influenced by changes to waterquality, so check your project site for any karst features and make every effort to protect groundwater in the project area. See 

542

APPENDIXES
Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 3 of 23

http://mdc.mo.gov/nathis/caves/manag_construc.htm for best management information.

Invasive exotic species are a significant issue for fish, wildlife and agriculture in Missouri. Seeds, eggs, and larvae may be moved 

to new sites on boats or construction equipment, so inspect and clean equipment thoroughly before moving between project sites. Remove any mud, soil, trash, plants or animals from equipment before leaving any water body or work area. Drain water from boats and machinery that has operated in water, checking motor cavities, live-well, bilge and transom wells, 

tracks, buckets, and any other water reservoirs. 

 When possible, wash and rinse equipment thoroughly with hard spray or HOT water (

104° F, typically available at do-ityourself carwash sites), and dry in the hot sun before using again. 

These recommendations are ones project managers might prudently consider based on a general understanding of species needs and landscape conditions. Heritage records largely reflect only sites visited by 

specialists in the last 30 years. This means that many privately owned tracts could host unknown remnants of species once but no longer common.

Pre-screen heritage review requests at http://tinyurl.com/heritagereview. A “Level 1 response” will make further submission to MDC or USFWS unnecessary.

543

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 4 of 23

Natural Communities of Concern Near ONSR

Community State Rank Global Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Ozark - Special communities - Oxbow and slough S? GNR Shannon Eminence T29N R04W 1 1987Ozark - Special communities - Oxbow and slough S? GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 8 1998Ozark - Special communities - Oxbow and slough S? GNR Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 6 2002Ozark - Special communities - Oxbow and slough S? GNR Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 24 2002Ozark - Special communities - Oxbow and slough S? GNR Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 9 2002Ozark - Special communities - Oxbow and slough S? GNR Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 33Ozark - Special communities - Spring and spring branch S? GNR Shannon Round Spring T31N R05W 33 1987Ozark - Special communities - Spring and spring branch S? GNR Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 9 2002Ozark - Special communities - Spring and spring branch S? GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 7 2001Ozark - Special communities - Spring and spring branch S? GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21 1999Ozark - Special communities - Spring and spring branch S? GNR Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 25Ozark - Warmwater - Small river

S? GNR Shannon Bartlett T28N R05W 9

Mesic bottomland forest S2 GNR Shannon Cedargrove T31N R06W 14 1986Mesic bottomland forest S2 GNR Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 5 1998Ozark fen S2 GNR Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 3 2003Ozark fen S2 GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 31 1999Ozark fen S2 GNR Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 21 2000Ozark fen S2 GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 19Dolomite glade S3 GNR Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 7 2003Dolomite glade S3 GNR Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 3 1987Dolomite glade S3 GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 15 2003Dolomite glade S3 GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 22 1989Dolomite glade S3 GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 19 1987Dolomite glade S3 GNR Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1987Dolomite glade S3 GNR Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 18 1986Dolomite glade S3 GNR Shannon Gladden T31N R05W 16 1987Dolomite glade S3 GNR Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 19 2004Dolomite glade S3 GNR Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 6 1995Dolomite glade S3 GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 31

544

APPENDIXES
Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 5 of 23

Dolomite glade S3 GNR Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 25Dolomite glade S3 GNR Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 26Gravel wash S3 GNR Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 35 2002Igneous glade S3 GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T28N R02W 5 2003Igneous glade S3 GNR Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 5 2001Igneous glade S3 GNR Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 5 1998Igneous glade S3 GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 31 1987Igneous glade S3 GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 32 1997Igneous glade S3 GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 32 1999Igneous glade S3 GNR Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 8 1999Mesic limestone/dolomite forest S3 GNR Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1987Mesic limestone/dolomite forest S3 GNR Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 10Cave S4 GNR Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 7 2000Cave S4 GNR Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 1 1997Cave spring S4 GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 9 1999Cave spring S4 GNR Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 24Cave spring S4 GNR Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 21Dry chert woodland S4 GNR Carter Grandin SW T25N R01E 15 1993Dry chert woodland S4 GNR Carter Van Buren South T26N R01W 12 2000Dry chert woodland S4 GNR Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 25Dry igneous cliff S4 GNR Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 15 1999Dry igneous woodland S4 GNR Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 15 1999Dry-mesic chert forest S4 GNR Carter Van Buren South T26N R01W 12 2000Dry-mesic chert woodland S4 GNR Carter Big Spring T27N R01E 32 2002Dry-mesic chert woodland S4 GNR Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 7 1998Dry-mesic chert woodland S4 GNR Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 25Dry-mesic igneous woodland S4 GNR Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 18 1999Dry-mesic igneous woodland S4 GNR Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 5 1987Moist limestone/dolomite cliff S4 GNR Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 20 2004Moist limestone/dolomite cliff S4 GNR Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 29 1987Moist limestone/dolomite cliff S4 GNR Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 35 1990Moist limestone/dolomite cliff S4 GNR Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 6 2006Moist limestone/dolomite cliff S4 GNR Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 17 1987Moist limestone/dolomite cliff S4 GNR Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 5 1987

545

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 6 of 23

Moist limestone/dolomite cliff S4 GNR Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 30 1992Riverfront forest S4 GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 35 1989Riverfront forest S4 GNR Shannon Exchange T28N R01W 4 1997Dry limestone/dolomite cliff S5 GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 9 1999Dry limestone/dolomite cliff S5 GNR Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 3 1995Dry limestone/dolomite cliff S5 GNR Shannon Exchange T28N R01W 4 1983Dry limestone/dolomite cliff S5 GNR Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1987Dry limestone/dolomite cliff S5 GNR Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 2000Mdc cave GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 7 2001Mdc cave GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 7Mdc cave GNR Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 26 2000Mdc cave GNR Shannon Van Buren North T28N R01W 9 1999Mdc cave GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 7 2001Mdc cave GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21 2000Mdc cave GNR Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21 2000Mdc cave GNR Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 26

546

APPENDIXES
Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 7 of 23

Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat

E E S1 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 19 1996

Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat

E E S1 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 9 2009

Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat

E E S1 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 7 2001

Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat

E E S1 Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 1 2001

Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat

E E S1 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 9

Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat

E E S1 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R03W 13

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Cedargrove T31N R06W 10 2009

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Eminence T30N R03W 31 1977

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Van Buren North T28N R01W 9 1999

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 5 1994

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 7 2006

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 24 2001

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 9 2009

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 1 2007

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Carter Grandin SW T26N R01E 34

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 19

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 26

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Dent Cedargrove T32N R06W 32

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Round Spring T31N R05W 33

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Cedargrove T31N R06W 3

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 16

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R06W 35

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Pine Crest T28N R06W 32

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Cedargrove T31N R06W 10

547

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 8 of 23

Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T28N R02W 5

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T28N R02W 5

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 14

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Carter Grandin SW T25N R01E 15

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Carter Big Spring T26N R02E 19

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat

E E S3 Carter Grandin SW T26N R01E 34

Spilogale putorius interrupta Plains Spotted Skunk E S1 Shannon Eminence T30N R04W 36 1982Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon The Sinks T30N R04W 22 2001Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 19 2001Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 10 1992Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 4 1992Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 21 1992Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 9 1992Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 6 1992Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 15 2001Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler

E S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R03W 14 2002

Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 10 1992Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 6 1992Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 5 2000Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 12 2000Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 27 1992Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 35 2002Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 30 2002Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler

E S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 17 2004

Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler

E S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 16 2004

548

APPENDIXES
Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 9 of 23

Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Carter Big Spring T27N R01E 32Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon The Sinks T30N R04W 26Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Eminence T30N R04W 36Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon The Sinks T30N R04W 35Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon The Sinks T30N R03W 32Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Eminence T30N R03W 32Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Eminence T29N R04W 2Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 16Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 29Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 28Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 28Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler E S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 28Bryum cyclophyllum A Moss S? Shannon Cedargrove T31N R06W 14 1962Grimmia olneyi A Moss S? Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 18 1973Grimmia olneyi A Moss S? Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T28N R02W 5 1962Imshaugia aleurites A Lichen S? Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 15 1985Metzgeria furcata A Liverwort S? Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 6 1990Nowellia curvifolia A Liverwort S? Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 6 1990Aconitum uncinatum Southern Monkshood S1 Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 11 2000Aconitum uncinatum Southern Monkshood S1 Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 1 1998Aconitum uncinatum Southern Monkshood S1 Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 3Caecidotea serrata Serrated Cave Isopod S1 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 26

549

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 10 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Campanula rotundifolia Harebell S1 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1992Campanula rotundifolia Harebell S1 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1992Campanula rotundifolia Harebell S1 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 30 1992Campanula rotundifolia Harebell S1 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 5 2003Geum virginianum Pale Avens S1 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 30 1992Homaliadelphus sharpii Sharp's Homaliadelphus S1 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 4 1973Hypnum cupressiforme var. filiforme A Moss S1 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 15 1985Phlox carolina ssp. carolina Carolina Phlox S1 Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 4Riccardia multifida A Liverwort S1 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 6 1990Rimelia subisidiosa A Lichen S1 Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 1 1985Alasmidonta marginata Elktoe S2 Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 34Berberis canadensis American Barberry S2 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 36 1999Berberis canadensis American Barberry S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1984Berberis canadensis American Barberry S2 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 5 1985Berberis canadensis American Barberry S2 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 5 1986Berberis canadensis American Barberry S2 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 5 1985Berberis canadensis American Barberry S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 3 1987Berberis canadensis American Barberry S2 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 6 1985Berberis canadensis American Barberry S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1992Berberis canadensis American Barberry S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 30 1987Berberis canadensis American Barberry S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1987Caecidotea salemensis Salem Cave Isopod S2 Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 1Caecidotea salemensis Salem Cave Isopod S2 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 26Calopogon tuberosus Grass Pink Orchid S2 Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 4 2005Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur S2 Shannon Cedargrove T31N R06W 14 1986

550

APPENDIXES
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 11 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur S2 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 20 1984Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 4 1985Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur S2 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 30 1999Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur S2 Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 4 2006Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur S2 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 19 1999Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur S2 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 20 1984Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur S2 Shannon Alley Spring T28N R05W 3 1985Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 36 1990Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 35 2006Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 20 1985Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 30 1986Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 6 2006Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Cedargrove T31N R06W 14 1988Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 17 1985Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 30 1980Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 17 1986Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 29 1985Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 5 1988Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 19 2000Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1992Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Alley Spring T28N R05W 2 1985Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 8 1985Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 30 1986Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Pine Crest T28N R06W 32 1985Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 8 1985

551

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 12 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 30 1992Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1986Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 36 2006Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 36 2005Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 20 1985Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 5 1989Eurybia furcata Forked Aster S2 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 15 1990Eurybia macrophylla Big-leaved Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 4 1989Eurybia macrophylla Big-leaved Aster S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1992Eurybia macrophylla Big-leaved Aster S2 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 36 2006Eurybia macrophylla Big-leaved Aster S2 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 35 1990Eurybia macrophylla Big-leaved Aster S2 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 34 2006Eurybia macrophylla Big-leaved Aster S2 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 6 2003Galium boreale ssp. septentrionale Northern Bedstraw S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1992Galium boreale ssp. septentrionale Northern Bedstraw S2 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 6 2006Galium boreale ssp. septentrionale Northern Bedstraw S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 30 1987Galium boreale ssp. septentrionale Northern Bedstraw S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 3 1987Galium boreale ssp. septentrionale Northern Bedstraw S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 5 1987Galium boreale ssp. septentrionale Northern Bedstraw S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1987Lampetra appendix American Brook Lamprey S2 Carter Grandin SW T25N R01E 2Lampetra appendix American Brook Lamprey S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 28Lampetra appendix American Brook Lamprey S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 35Lemna trisulca Star Duckweed S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21 2007Lemna trisulca Star Duckweed S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 6 1990Lemna trisulca Star Duckweed S2 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 25 1987

552

APPENDIXES
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 13 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Lemna trisulca Star Duckweed S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 4 1987Ligumia recta Black Sandshell S2 Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 27Liparis loeselii Loesel's Twayblade S2 Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 21 1983Ludwigia microcarpa A False Loosestrife

S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 31 1987

Macrochelys temminckii Alligator Snapping Turtle S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 29 2004Notropis ozarcanus Ozark Shiner S2 Carter Van Buren North T27N R01W 4 1992Notropis ozarcanus Ozark Shiner S2 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 36Notropis ozarcanus Ozark Shiner S2 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 7Notropis ozarcanus Ozark Shiner S2 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 21Notropis ozarcanus Ozark Shiner S2 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 9Notropis ozarcanus Ozark Shiner S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 16Notropis ozarcanus Ozark Shiner S2 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 20Notropis ozarcanus Ozark Shiner S2 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 25Notropis ozarcanus Ozark Shiner S2 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 33Notropis ozarcanus Ozark Shiner S2 Shannon Bartlett T28N R05W 9Notropis ozarcanus Ozark Shiner S2 Shannon Pine Crest T28N R06W 31Notropis ozarcanus Ozark Shiner S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 6Notropis ozarcanus Ozark Shiner S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 13Sylvilagus aquaticus Swamp Rabbit S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 11 1990Sylvilagus aquaticus Swamp Rabbit S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 24Sylvilagus aquaticus Swamp Rabbit S2 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 25Toxolasma lividus Purple Lilliput S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R06W 36Toxolasma lividus Purple Lilliput S2 Shannon Exchange T28N R01W 4Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 5 1985Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Alley Spring T28N R05W 2 1990

553

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 14 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 25 1985Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 20 2004Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 30 1992Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 8 1985Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 17 1985Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 19 1985Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 29 1985Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 2000Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 30 1985Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 17 1985Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 20 1985Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 15 1988Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 20 1985Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 8 1985Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 17 1984Trautvetteria caroliniensis False Bugbane S2 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 5 1988Waldsteinia fragarioides ssp. fragarioides Barren Strawberry S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 4 1984Waldsteinia fragarioides ssp. fragarioides Barren Strawberry S2 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 6 2003Zigadenus elegans ssp. glaucus White Camas S2 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 6 1985Zigadenus elegans ssp. glaucus White Camas S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 30 1985Zigadenus elegans ssp. glaucus White Camas S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1992Zigadenus elegans ssp. glaucus White Camas S2 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4 1987Zigadenus elegans ssp. glaucus White Camas S2 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 5 2003Cypripedium reginae Showy Lady-slipper

S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R03W 13

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 7 1998

554

APPENDIXES
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 15 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 20

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 6

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 17Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 17Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 16Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 16Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 16Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 16Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 16Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 16Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 16Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 19Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 20Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 20Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 20Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 20Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 29

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 29

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 29

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 29

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 29

555

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 16 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 25

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 30Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 30

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 30

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 28Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 28Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 35

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 35

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 35

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 35

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 33Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 34Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 34Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Bartlett T28N R05W 4Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Bartlett T28N R05W 4Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T28N R05W 3

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Alley Spring T28N R05W 3

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 4

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T28N R02W 3Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 3

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T28N R02W 2Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 2

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 2

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 2

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 8

556

APPENDIXES
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 17 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 8Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 8Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 9

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 9Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Bartlett T28N R05W 10Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Van Buren North T28N R02W 12Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Van Buren North T28N R02W 12Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 17Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 20Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R06W 25

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 30Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R06W 36Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R06W 36Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R06W 36Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R06W 36Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R06W 35Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 4Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T27N R06W 3Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 33Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler

S2S3 Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 33

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 33Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler S2S3 Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 27Eurycea spelaea Grotto Salamander S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 9 1998Eurycea spelaea Grotto Salamander S2S3 Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 21 1999Eurycea spelaea Grotto Salamander S2S3 Shannon Van Buren North T28N R01W 9

557

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 18 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Ichthyomyzon gagei Southern Brook Lamprey S2S3 Carter Big Spring T27N R01E 32Ichthyomyzon gagei Southern Brook Lamprey S2S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 28Ichthyomyzon gagei Southern Brook Lamprey S2S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 2Ichthyomyzon gagei Southern Brook Lamprey S2S3 Carter Grandin SW T25N R01E 2Ichthyomyzon gagei Southern Brook Lamprey S2S3 Shannon Cedargrove T31N R06W 4Typhlichthys subterraneus Southern Cavefish S2S3 Dent Cedargrove T32N R06W 20 1991Typhlichthys subterraneus Southern Cavefish S2S3 Shannon Cedargrove T31N R06W 11 2008Typhlichthys subterraneus Southern Cavefish S2S3 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 24Allocapnia pygmaea Pygmy Snowfly S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 7 1987Ambystoma annulatum Ringed Salamander S3 Shannon Cedargrove T31N R06W 13Arrhopalites clarus Clarus Cave Springtail S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R03W 13Arrhopalites clarus Clarus Cave Springtail S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 26Bromus latiglumis A Brome S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21 1994Bromus latiglumis A Brome S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 1 2002Calamagrostis porteri ssp. insperata Oferhollow Reed Grass S3 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 35 2006Calamagrostis porteri ssp. insperata Oferhollow Reed Grass S3 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 36 2006Calamagrostis porteri ssp. insperata Oferhollow Reed Grass S3 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 26 1990Calamagrostis porteri ssp. insperata Oferhollow Reed Grass S3 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 35Cambarus hubrichti Salem Cave Crayfish S3 Shannon Cedargrove T31N R06W 10 1989Cambarus hubrichti Salem Cave Crayfish S3 Shannon Gladden T31N R05W 21 No DCambarus hubrichti Salem Cave Crayfish S3 Shannon Cedargrove T31N R06W 11 1977Cambarus hubrichti Salem Cave Crayfish S3 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 6 1977Carex tetanica Rigid Sedge S3 Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 4 2005Carex tetanica Rigid Sedge S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 30Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 28

558

APPENDIXES
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 19 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Bartlett T28N R05W 9Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Pine Crest T28N R06W 31Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 2Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 33Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 35Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R06W 35Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Carter Grandin SW T25N R01E 2Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 36Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 7Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 20Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 21Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 17Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Pine Crest T28N R06W 31Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 7Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 9Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 16Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 6Etheostoma euzonum erizonum Current Saddled Darter S3 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 13Hiodon tergisus Mooneye S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 9Notropis texanus Weed Shiner S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 2Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 25Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 25Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 36Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 18Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 5

559

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 20 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Carter Grandin SW T26N R01E 35Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 23Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 26Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 26Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 26Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 26Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 26Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 26Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 14Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 14Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 14Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 14Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 14Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 14Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 14Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden Mouse S3 Shannon Exchange T28N R01W 4Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 4 2002Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 36Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 16Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 16Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 28Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 33Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 33Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 4

560

APPENDIXES
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 21 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 2Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Shannon Van Buren North T28N R02W 12Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R06W 36Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Shannon Exchange T28N R01W 4Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Shannon Van Buren North T28N R01W 16Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 34Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Carter Big Spring T27N R01E 30Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 6Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 25Ptychobranchus occidentalis Ouachita Kidneyshell S3 Carter Van Buren North T28N R01W 27Solidago riddellii Riddell's Goldenrod S3 Shannon Stegall Mountain T28N R02W 7 1990Stenonema bednariki A Heptageniid Mayfly S3 Shannon Cedargrove T31N R06W 4 1999Stenonema bednariki A Heptageniid Mayfly S3 Shannon Pine Crest T28N R06W 31 1999Stenonema bednariki A Heptageniid Mayfly S3 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 36Stenonema bednariki A Heptageniid Mayfly S3 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 7Stenonema bednariki A Heptageniid Mayfly S3 Shannon Eminence T29N R03W 20Stenonema bednariki A Heptageniid Mayfly S3 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R04W 30Stenonema bednariki A Heptageniid Mayfly S3 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R05W 4Stenonema bednariki A Heptageniid Mayfly S3 Carter Van Buren North T27N R01W 4Phlox amplifolia Large-leaved Phlox S3? Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 26Zannichellia palustris var. major Horned Pondweed S3? Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 16 1997Noturus flavater Checkered Madtom S3S4 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 36 2007Noturus flavater Checkered Madtom S3S4 Carter Big Spring T27N R01E 32Noturus flavater Checkered Madtom S3S4 Shannon Pine Crest T27N R06W 6Noturus flavater Checkered Madtom S3S4 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 25

561

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 22 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Noturus flavater Checkered Madtom S3S4 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 28Noturus flavater Checkered Madtom S3S4 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 35Noturus flavater Checkered Madtom S3S4 Shannon Bartlett T28N R05W 9Noturus flavater Checkered Madtom S3S4 Shannon Bartlett T28N R05W 9Noturus flavater Checkered Madtom S3S4 Shannon Jam Up Cave T28N R06W 35Noturus flavater Checkered Madtom S3S4 Shannon Pine Crest T28N R06W 31Noturus flavater Checkered Madtom S3S4 Carter Grandin SW T25N R01E 2Caecidotea antricola Cave Isopod S4 Shannon Round Spring T31N R05W 34Caecidotea antricola Cave Isopod S4 Shannon Round Spring T30N R05W 1Caecidotea antricola Cave Isopod S4 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 7Caecidotea antricola Cave Isopod S4 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 19Caecidotea antricola Cave Isopod S4 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 9Caecidotea antricola Cave Isopod S4 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 18Caecidotea antricola Cave Isopod S4 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21Ceratopsyche piatrix A Net-spinning Caddisfly S4 Shannon Round Spring T30N R04W 19 2003Ceratopsyche piatrix A Net-spinning Caddisfly S4 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 25Ceratopsyche piatrix A Net-spinning Caddisfly S4 Shannon Alley Spring T29N R05W 25Fontigens aldrichi Ozark Springsnail S4 Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 35Fontigens aldrichi Ozark Springsnail S4 Shannon Eminence T30N R03W 31Fontigens aldrichi Ozark Springsnail S4 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 21Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander S4 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 29 1990Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander S4 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 14 1992Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander S4 Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 23 1997Elodea canadensis Broad Waterweed SU Shannon Round Spring T31N R05W 33 2000Elodea canadensis Broad Waterweed SU Carter Big Spring T26N R01E 6 1990

562

APPENDIXES
Species of Concern, listing of all records within 0.5 miles of ONSR

Prepared by Shannon Cave, January 25, 2011, Detring_ONSR_Multiple_EISsupport.doc, page 23 of 23

Federal status is coded E (Endangered), T (Threatened) or C (Candidate), regulated by the Endangered Species Act 

State Status is either E (endangered) or blank. Use and taking of all wildlife species are regulated in the Missouri Wildlife Code with endangered species subject to special restrictions. 

State Rank codes: S1 (Critically imperiled); S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable). These are tracked due to their rarity and subject to general regulations in the Wildlife Code.

Species Common Name Federal Status State Status State Rank County Quadrangle Twp/Rng Section Last seen

Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired Bat SU Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 14Necturus maculosus louisianensis Red River Mudpuppy SU Shannon Powder Mill Ferry T29N R02W 35 2005Necturus maculosus louisianensis Red River Mudpuppy SU Texas Pine Crest T28N R07W 35Xenochalepus potomaca A Leaf Beetle SU Shannon Exchange T28N R01W 4 1994

563

Appendix E: Consultation Letters
564
565
PEPC Project ID: 15793, DocumentID: 56208

Correspondence: 2974

Author Information

Keep Private: No

Name: Darrell Skiles

Organization: Dent County Commission Official Rep.

Organization Type: T - Town or City Government 

Address: 400 N Main Street

Salem, MO 65560

USA 

E-mail:

Correspondence Information

Status: Reviewed Park Correspondence Log:

Date Sent: 02/03/2014 Date Received: 02/03/2014 

Number of Signatures: 1 Form Letter: No

Contains Request(s): No Type: Letter 

Notes:

Correspondence Text

Superintendent Ozark National Scenic Riverways,

We the Dent County Commission, in regards to the Draft General Management Plan for the Ozark

National Scenic Riverways, would like to submit the following comments.

The Dent County Commission supports the "No Action Alternative." We feel the "No Action 

Alternative" allows the Park Service to continue management of the Riverways in accordance with the 

current management plan which provides the National Park Service more than enough authority to meet 

the needs and concerns of all of us who use and love our Current and Jacks Fork Rivers.

The Dent County Commission is strongly opposed to Alternatives A, B, and C, as all the proposals call for 

increased restrictions on motorboat uses that in some instances would only serve to end gigging and

trapping on these rivers, particularly on the upper reaches. The history of gigging and trapping on the 

Current and Jacks Fork Rivers using boats with small motors pre-dates the early 1960's establishment of 

the Riverways by many, many years and poses no threat or conflict what-so-ever to any other users of the 

Riverways or to the health of the Riverways themselves.

The Dent County Commission also strongly opposes the goals of Alternatives A, B, and C to close or

eliminate several miles of roads, trails and accesses to the Riverways, which only serves to further

restrict local historical uses of the rivers and will result in forcing more and more people to congregate

on smaller and more crowded access points.

We also would like to state our opposition to the Wilderness Area Designation.

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 1 of 2 

APPENDIXES

566
Further, the Dent County Commission would like to express our overall extreme disappointment in the

Draft General Management Plan produced by the Park Service and our anger over the National Park

Service conduct at the 4 public meetings held by the Park Service to discuss it.

It is clear the National Park Service totally ignored local input and concerns about the Riverways when 

constructing this Draft Plan and Park Service staff openly and blatantly attempted to influence those in 

attendance at all of the public meetings to support the restrictive Alternatives A, B, or C by telling 

attendees the "No Action Alternative" was really not an alternative at all.

It is readiliy apparent the National park Service has skewed this entire process and proposal.

How unfortunate!

Sincerely,

Presiding Commissioner, Darrell Skiles

Associate Commissioner Dist. #1 Dennis Purcell

Associate Commissioner Dist #2 Gary Larson

"> 

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 2 of 2 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters

567
PEPC Project ID: 15793, DocumentID: 56208

Correspondence: 2912

Author Information

Keep Private: No

Name: Christy Roberts

Organization: Ellington Chamber of Commerce Official Rep.

Organization Type: T - Town or City Government 

Address: PO Box 515

Ellington, MO 63638

USA 

E-mail:

Correspondence Information

Status: Reviewed Park Correspondence Log:

Date Sent: Date Received: 01/29/2014 

Number of Signatures: 1 Form Letter: No 

Contains Request(s): No Type: Letter 

Notes:

Correspondence Text

Dear Superintendent Black:

We are deeply concerned by the Draft General Management Plan and the preferred "Alternative B" 

chosen by the National Park Service. We feel the NPS is attempting to unreasonably restrict public use by 

closing roads, river access, campgrounds, boat usage and trails and do not think the heritage of the local 

people or the possible economic impact on the area have been given sufficient consideration. The 

following highlights are a few areas that we feel have not been given proper consideration by the NPS:

Road Closure within the ONSR:

1. Every road within the ONSR was once a county road built and maintained with state and local funds.

Those roads connected homes, farms and small communities that were built on fertile ground on or near 

these important rivers. Such old "home places" were home to many current residents of the area or their 

ancestors, and that land, even though the houses or communities no longer exist, still has strong 

sentimental value to the descendants of those original owners. It was customary in those early days to 

bury family members just outside the yard fence or on the highest point of the family farm. We are aware 

of many unmarked grave sites that belong to families who still make their homes in Reynolds and 

Shannon counties. If roads are closed, then living family members of the deceased will be unable to travel 

to those grave sites to pay respect and to show their children and grandchildren that valuable part of their 

heritage.

2. The Draft GMP Plan B does not state which roads shall be closed. If a road is closed, the same

procedure should be followed as is done for current county road closings. The proposed road closure 

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 1 of 3 

APPENDIXES

568
should be posted for three consecutive weeks in the local newspaper where the road exists and posted in 

the local post office. Any known family member should be afforded a letter informing them of the NPS's 

intention to close such road. Every effort should be made by the NPS to notify affected families of 

proposed road closures. 

River Access Closure:

1. Every access is considered valuable to the local people. Memories are an important part of raising a

family, and sharing a favorite fishing or swimming spot with younger family members may become a thing 

of the past if all river accesses are not kept open.

2. River accesses are natural and caused by the rise and fall of the river. Mother Nature has actually

created almost every river access currently used.

3. River accesses being considered for closure should be listed in the GMP so the affected community has

the option to raise questions as to the value of each specific access.

Campgrounds:

1. Primitive camping is a favorite pastime of the local communities. Many of the favorite spots are used

primarily by locals only. Campers at these spots are afforded no services for the camping locales even 

though they are required to pay a fee. If you were to visit a primitive campground you might find a family 

deep frying the days catch for supper, kids gathering firewood for the evening fire or family members 

playing a friendly game of washers or horse shoes. On any given night at the Cardareva Primitive camping 

area you will find a group of locals - young and old - with their instruments, pickin' favorite old tunes and 

singing old camp songs and river songs. This is a part of the heritage of these people, a tradition that they 

have the right to pass down to their children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, etc.

2. People currently camping in primitive campgrounds must pay a fee to camp. Canoeists are allowed to

camp at those same spots without having to pay a fee to camp. Most would call this discrimination.

3. The campgrounds being considered for closure would remain open for canoeists, kayakers, etc. This

seems once again like the NPS is showing unreasonable favoritism for one group over another.

4. We request that the NPS identify the proposed campgrounds to be closed in the GMP.

Boating:

1. Boating is a favorite pastime of the locals. Rarely does a visitor show up to operate a boat on either the

Current or Jack Fork rivers. For this reason the local boat owners feel unwarranted preference is being 

given once again to the canoeist and kayakers.

2. Boat owners do not mind, and understand, the importance of sharing the river with visitors; however,

rarely do boat owners feel the affection returned. Floaters do not understand the jet boat and so 

educating floaters as to how a boat operates, etc., would be helpful and could curtail confrontations 

almost always caused by a floater not understanding a boat.

3. Closing off the northern 40 miles of the river to boat use restricts the use of the local people. If boating

is allowed during the winter months for gigging, then what reasoning does the NPS have for stopping boat 

use during summer months?

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 2 of 3 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters

569
4. Boat taxes, application fees, licensing, etc., all contribute to the state economy. Fuel, parts, accessories,

supplies, etc., all contribute to the local economies.

5. Boaters have saved the lives of many floaters and boaters and on a regular basis pick up the trash left

behind by floaters.

Enforcement of regulations:

1. The NPS needs to enforce the current regulations already in effect before increasing the regulations

proposed in Alternative B.

2. As a community and an organization how can we trust that the proposed new rules/regulations would

be enforced. 

Since the creation of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways in 1964, this area has become a premiere 

destination for visitors and tourists wishing to experience the "wild Ozarks" and the rivers that flow here. 

This designated area was created with the intent ofthe park being utilized as recreation for the people. 

The Interior and Insular Affairs Committee who formed the ONSR felt so strongly that recreation be kept 

as a primary purpose that the committee emphasized "to make clear that recreation is a purpose" of the 

creation of the Ozark Scenic Riverways. The love of the river truly is the life blood of many, many local 

families!

To service those visitors taking advantage of the recreational opportunities afforded by open and 

accessible rivers, an economy has developed providing lodging, food, supplies and entertainment - 

including camping, canoeing, boating, hiking and horseback riding. This economy provides thousands of 

jobs for our local people and those people depend on this service industry to provide for their families. 

For this reason, we fear that our economy will be in jeopardy with the proposed changes in "Alternative 

B."

As an organization of nearly 65 businesses and members, we have resolved to support the "No Action" 

alternative. We would be willing to discuss further With the NPS our thoughts on why we support this 

action as well as listening to your reasoning for "Alternative B."

Many of our members will be attending the upcoming meetings and have sent in personal comments and 

letters.

Respectfully Submitted,

Christy Roberts

President Ellington Chamber of Commerce

"> 

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 3 of 3 

APPENDIXES

570
PEPC Project ID: 15793, DocumentID: 56208

Correspondence: 3075

Author Information

Keep Private: No

Name: Mark Brewer

Organization: Eminence Area Chamber of Commerce BoD and Supporters Official 

Rep.

Organization Type: T - Town or City Government 

Address: N/A

Eminence, MO N/A

USA 

E-mail:

Correspondence Information

Status: Reviewed Park Correspondence Log:

Date Sent: Date Received: 01/28/2014 

Number of Signatures: 26 Form Letter: No 

Contains Request(s): No Type: Fax 

Notes:

Correspondence Text

It is the belief of the Eminence Area Chamber of Commerce, our members, our associates, and our 

community (based on facts by people who actually use the river ways), the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverwavs management does need change, but the vague, often-contradicting alternatives as presented 

are not the solution needed. The "No Action" Alternative use, as it currently applies to the ONSR 

management, should be extended until it is clear more of the advice, information, and commentary from 

the local and regional population are used in the plan alternatives. It is our opinion that rather than 

request "No Action" because we do not want e:xperiences within the beautiful boundaries of the ONSR 

limited, that we, in-fact, propose changes to further the visitor experience one may have in the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverwavs, in and along the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers, and throughout the south 

central Missouri region. some contained in the proposed plans and others not.

The basic idea behind any of the necessity of implementing any of the suggestions for change to the 

management of the ONSR is to create an experience akin to the core concept entailed with the inception 

and design of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The thought processes behind these suggestions 

propose a set of changes not harking back to a time of better management, as when the Missouri State 

Parks managed the major springs in the area, nor to a time when the Federal Government owned no land 

in this region, but to offer a glimpse at what an experience in this region of unparalleled natural beauty 

should realty be.

There are preservationists, whom want to limit access to this area whether because of strict beliefs, 

jealousy of accessibility, or because of a particular movement to make the ecology, environment, and life 

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 1 of 14 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters

571
systems exist as they did before European explorers encountered this unique locale. This is based on a 

belief that humans had no interaction with the environment in this region, which 15 a falsehood. Land 

and water throughout the entire planet have had living inhabitants which have made some sort of impact 

on the environment. In this region, Native Americans lived here, both prior to 2nd during the westward 

expansion of the Americas. So to restrict access and use of this place because humans never impacted the 

land, simply put, just does not make sense.

Understanding the land and making sound decisions in regards to its management is the best method to 

follow. Just as the Ozark National Scenic Riverways W2S founded in such a unique manner, so should it 

be managed.

Flagship NPS managed property. The Ozark National Scenic Riverways should be managed as a National 

Park Service flagship river ways. Rather than forcing a relatively small park such as the ONSR to comply 

with federal standards for parks and river ways and monuments with very different purposes, needs, and 

resources, this Scenic Riverways should be managed as a flagship program-one that is a leader and 

innovator in programs for the Federal government. Changes include tailoring staff, resource use and 

management, cultural and heritage programs, visitor experience enhancement, as well as recreational 

opportunities to those actual visitors to the ONSR need and desire. The desires and needs of people who 

actually visit the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers is what was used to establish the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways and these concepts should still be used in the management of it. 

Stars Upstream and Its author, why he argued for a recreational park. Although Leonard Ha11 was not a

resident of the Eminence area, nor was he originally from this area, Leonard visited the Current and the

Jacks Fork River watersheds quite often. It was documented through the local boat and canoe liveries

that he came quite often and had a sincere interest in providing for the recreational experience of such

a beautiful place as this. His book did argue through propaganda the area needed to be purchased by

the government rather than owned by locals, using a few stock photos from area farms not near the

rivers, but he used this propaganda for the reason that this area should be open to the public to enjoy,

not shut off by a few, whether by mismanagement of the resource, by shutting down the public access

by the wealthy elite, nor by placing a lake over this Ozark terrain.

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways, in the arguments of proponents of a park. as opposed to the

proponents of a lake. was to be an open recreational adventure. ready for the taking of anyone whom

might choose to use it. It is not the purpose of the government nor those making rules to discriminate

against any group when deciding public policy.

In an excerpt from attorney, Chris Yarbro, the following fairly describes the creation of

The ONSR. 

Recreational use was a material consideration du ring the creation of the Ozark National

Scenic Riverways (ONSR). The broad coalition that formed to preserve the Riverways

from damming, split due to concerns surrounding intended uses of the Riverways. The

initial proposal. the "'Ozark National Monument". was unsuccessful in part for want of

protection for recreational users. After its defeat. a second proposal, the "Ozark Scenic

Riverways" proposal, was given consideration.

In the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee's initial report on the Ozark Scenic

Riverways proposal. the committee emphasized the Importance of creating Federal

recreational areas" and noted the Riverways' geographic location was uniquely situated

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 2 of 14 

APPENDIXES

572
for the same. Additionally, the Secretary of the Interior. Stewart L Udall, reassured the

committee and federal law makers that "recreation is a purpose" of the Ozark Scenic

Riverways proposal.

With the committee's support, and Secretary Udall's reassurance, the Ozark Scenic

Riverways was passed into law with the new title "Ozark National Scenic Riverways."

The stated purpose of the newly created ONSR was:

For the purpose of con5eTVation and interpreting unique scenic and

other natural values and objects of historic interest, including

preservation of portions of the Current River and the Jacks Fork River in

Missouri as free flowing streams, preservation of springs and caves,

management of wildlife, and provisions for use and enjoyment of the

outdoor recreation resources t hereof by the people of the United

States...

Significantly, the ONSR's enabling act places recreational use on equal footing with the other stated 

purposes. 

ONSR enabling legislation. The enabling legislation establishing the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, 

rather than simply the Ozark National Monument or a lake in this region, plans for a park which allows 

the public to enjoy the beautiful natural wonders near and along the Jacks Fork and Current Rivers. Each 

sentence of the enabling legislation describes a venture between the Federal, State, County, and

City Governments as well as organizations from the region near the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. It

In fact states such a fact so clearly that the blatant ignorance for opinions for the local and regional

populace in the current plans for the ONSR makes such a process for drafting plans one-sided and

should be reconsidered. It is the intent of the enabling legislation to give the population residing in and

around the Ozark National Scenic Riverways input in the management of such an integral part of the

economy and lifestyle of the south central Missouri Ozarks. Preservation for the sake of preservation

and the ideal of a select few should not dictate what the visitors in the ONSR encounter when pursuing 

recreational activities. 

Advisory Commission. An advisory commission, such as the one that was created for the Ozark National

Scenic Riverways during the formative years of the park, should be reinstated to provide much-needed

oversight for the National Park 5ervke's management of the ONSR.

It is the belief that we should have an advisory board of people in similar fashion as the one for the

Ozark National Scenic Riverwavs that was set up in the enabling legislation of the ONSR in 88-492, which

also expired 10 years after the formation of the park, that has been prevalent for many years. It is not

unusual for a Federal government agency or entity to have an oversight committee and it is very

apparent, especially with the federal tax dollars spent on the General Management Plan draft process,

that the ONSR needs exactly that, an advisory and oversight committee. The advisory and oversight

committee should be set up in similar fashion to the original advisory committee that was created with

the ONSR enabling legislation, but it should have the capabilities to carry out and suggest

implementation of policies regardless of the request of the Secretary of the Interior. This should be an

ongoing and continuing committee of people to a id in the management of the National Park System

management of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways-in so doing. the management process would

already take into consideration the opinion of the stakeholders for the Current and Jacks Fork River

watersheds. This would not only be a time saver, but would save immeasurable dollars spent on the

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 3 of 14 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters

573
GMP d rafting process.

As formed during the creation of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, there was one member

appointed from each of the county commissions in which the ONSR is located, Shannon, Dent.. Carter,

and Texas, as well as two appointed by the Governor of Missouri and one appointee from the Secretary

of the Interior. The one issue with the legislation forming this advisory committee was the Secretary of

the Interior was allowed to use them at his or her discretion and realty an oversight committee should

not be used at the leisure of the agency, it should be the oversight committee that reviews policy,

practices, and management procedures of such an agency as the NPS and ONSR continually and

regularly. It is also our understanding that other agencies of the us government have oversight and 

advisory committees with real power to suggest policies and help enforce them in the management of

the agency.

Campsite Reservation System. Campsite reservations are a common complaint and factor requiring the

chamber to make a statement specifically about the disorganization of the present system. It is

understood that the NPS presumably pursued using the current campsite reservation system to save

money and resources for other ventures within the park. However, the current campsite reservation

system saves no money, in fact the current system, shuns away visitors. Since there a~ no way to make

reservations locally nor to track: reservations on a local level, campsites remain vacant and are not filled.

for example, if a visitor reserves a campsite and does not arrive at the agreed-upon time to maintain the

reservation, that campsite is not filled and that campsite is not able to be filled because the system does

not account for such actions. When one arrives at a campsite where there a~ no cell phone towers, no

public telephones, nor access to the internet, the local ranger station cannot even help with this venture

because the Omaha office must be called and directed through a prompt system that not only confuses,

but deters visitors. This is a prime example of visitor deterrent policies.

In fact, some services for the smaller campgrounds have been removed, yet fees are still charged,

despite tne lack of a trash pick-up service. If it is necessary to raise fees for camping to provide services

for the campsites and to maintain the unique visitor experience, then fees should be raised to

accommodate visitors for the campsites they wish to use rather than simply eliminating the services for 

one campsite [ineligible text]. This is a general trend for the National Park Service management of the 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways and this management style should cease and desist as it currently exists.

In fact the campsite reservation system should not be held by a Canadian company for the ONSR,

specifically, and move to a local position in order to fund a job, and use the $9.00 surcharge for making a

camping reservation to fund that position. Last minute reservations should be allowed for every

campsite, without respect to any 7 day advance reservation policy. Campsites should be allowed to be

in place for more than 2 weeks at a time, due to the nature of traditional camping activities. In fact, the

ONSR camping system should be modelled after the system at some of Missouri's State Parks, where

reservations abound throughout the year and tourists and locals alike are waiting in line for

reservations. By creating a system similar to that of the one at some of Missouri's State Parks, the

reservation position within the ONSR will pay for itself. The campsite system should be tailored to the

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, rather than tailoring the needs and wants of a much smaller park to

those of the giant parks like Yellowstone. The size of this comparatively smaller riverways park system is

one that prompts a camping plan which allows for the type of camping that visitors desire and need,

rather than complying with and adhering to the policies of larger parks.

Large Boulders and other pieces of obstructive objects, 80ulders and travel-restrictive objects placed

In and clang stream beds, creeks, and riverways are actually detrimental to the ecosystem of the rivers

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 4 of 14 

APPENDIXES

574
and encourage erosion. Such environmentally detrimental obstructions change the flow of the rivers

and streams around which they are placed worse than the supposed activities which they were meant

to prohibit. The best plan possible would be to partner with other agencies tie. the Army Corps of 

Engineers) to secure river banks and stream banks with protective materials and native plants so that

erosion is minimized. This would protect not only the visitor experience, but also the wildlife and plants

from erosive effects.

Gravel bar camping. An activity which is a traditional use pattern with no substantiated claims of

environmental degradation is vehicular accessed gravel bar camping. This form of camping also helps to

alleviate camping at less primitive campsites with more services. In fact, to increase some of the drive-in

camping spots at current locations and to improve those sites would enhance the visitor experience

and provide for more and different forms of camping that have very little impact on the environment.

Basically, drive-in camping is a local and regional resident tradition for many families for generations.

Prior to the establishment of the ONSR, extended friends and relatives would come visit this area and

stay for weeks at a time to enjoy the pleasures of vacationing in and along the Current and Jacks Fork

Rivers. Prior to European settlement, even the Osage used various spots along whit is now the ONSR as

hunting camps to refuel and recharge while gathering food for their tribe. Although the Osage did not

drive-in to camping locations, it would be assumed that not every one of them arrived to their spot by

watercraft.

Canoes, Tubes, Rafts, Horseback Riding. and Jet Boats. It is integral to the economy of the area that access 

is kept for our canoe outfitters, our horset:.2ck riders, and our outboard motor visitors. The

experience the groups have should be enhanced, improved, and considered when drafting the

management plan, rather than placing limits and restrictions on the recreation they enjoy. It is illegal to

double charge horseback trailriders to use the horse trails. Campsites and services for our campers, who

prefer public campgrounds, whether large or small, should be improved. Today, people are mobile.

Everyone has access to vehicular transportation, so if a tourist does not have a good experience here in

the ONSR, they can choose to go elsewhere.

Position on "zoning" of rivers and lands. In the enabling legislation, it is cited that zoning is allowed for

the management of wildlife and hunting, in relation to the enjoyment of visitors, public safety,

administration and must consult the Missouri Conservation Commission for such topics of discussion.

Zoning for the sake of copying urban-planning models is not described in the parks founding documents.

Conservation Commission's comment from 2009. There are a few basic concepts that will be

exemplified by excerpts from this letter. First, in paragraph 3, page 1, "'The Department recommends

hunting, fishing, and trapping continue to be allowed throughout the ONSR" This statement clearly

should alert the National Park Service to the necessity of keeping access available to the public for the

purpose of wildlife management-in fact, this might be a good reason to expand upon the current

access points, campsites, and roads along the riverways for that express purpose.

On page 2, in paragraph 1, they state, "Any discussion of boat motor horsepower limits would be

incomplete without consideration of the impacts of proposed changes on angler access and fish

communities. Zoning based on horsepower dictates where certain boats can gig or fish. Some areas of

the river will receive more or less harvest pressure and a corresponding shift in fish community". The

thought that there will be fish not ever touched or encountered by a jet boat or even by a fisherman is a 

nice thought to some who wish for no one to enjoy the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, but from a

practical standpoint of Resource Management, the rivers should be fished and gigged to help maintain

proper fish populations. It is the express concern of the Missouri Department of Conservation to

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 5 of 14 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters

575
manage the state's wildlife, fish, and forest resources, so their experience and professional opinion should 

be used for management purposes. As far as the fishing and gigging are concerned with

completely zoning out jet•boat transportation along the riverways, this same management tactic would

apply. The river needs to have fishing and gigging in order to manage fish species.

Further in the letter the Commission states to, "upgrade the existing camping facilities and day-use

facilities to attract and encourage families and children to experience nature in the great outdoors."

This coincides with the notion the NPS should improve current accesses, campsites, and facilities to

enhance the visitor experience, rather than shut•down, close, and block access to resources. In the

letter they also state they support tile "No Action plan with a few minor provisions-it is quite evident

the National Park: Service has ignored official comment from the Missouri Department of Conservation

in the current draft plan (an agency to which the QNSR is bound to cooperate with by the enabling

legislation) as well as local comments.

Access for the purpose of Wildfire management. It is imperative that because the National Park Service

makes no attempts at forest management that every road, trail, and transportation avenue be left open

within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways for wildfire prevention and management. Although we have

not had wildfires in this region for a number of years, that is thanks in part to the preventative efforts of

management agencies such as the Missouri Department of Conservation and the US Forest Service. The

roads as they presently exist represent years of travel as established presumably by some of the Native

Americans and later travelled by the European settlers and pioneers. Eventually the roads and trails

that are left. today represent a cultural and historical lesson to the student and to the visitor. however,

the important lesson to be learned Is to allow for proper wildfire management.so the entire stand of

forest does not bum down. Additionally, such libelous behavior endangers the residents of the region

with the likelihood of a wildfire reaching homes and more populated areas due to the unmanaged

forest. Roads and trails provide more than leisure activity, they provide a lifeline to wildfire

management

Access for Emergency personnel and management. Closing access points along the riverways is a

counterproductive notion when considering the needs of emergency management. If people are

injured, have an accident, encounter an issue and need help, it is very important that emergency

management personnel are able to access the creeks, livers, and lands in and along the ONSR.

Access for elderly, the very young, and the disabled. It is a common theme among the federal

government at this time that access to federally owned properties (ie. Courthouses, agency offices,

public works buildings, public monuments in urban areas, property held in trust for public use), no

matter what a person's age, creed, nationality, sex, color. ability, disability, and other descriptive devices

used to categorize people and prevent them from accessing what should be available to an people. It is

a basic ideal that is embedded in policy, legislation, regulations, and practices carried out by the Federal 

government-the idea that discrimination toward a segment of society, especially if that segment of

society is underprivileged, under-represented, and lacks resources.

It should be noted that by limiting access to campsites only to those who can travel on the river is

discriminating against those who cannot ride in a watercraft. Access to gravel bar camping should be

allowable by those who can travel by a land operated vehicle-which allows access to the elderly, the

very young, and the disabled.

By limiting motorized boat access on certain points of the river, it is not only a discriminatory act against

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 6 of 14 

APPENDIXES

576
the above-mentioned groups, it is also a self-regulating zoning conversation. Jet boats will not travel on

stretches of water where there is insufficient water to travel. During seasons when there is sufficient

water in the river to allow jet boat t ravel, there should be no restrictions. There should be no

restrictions in order to allow for the travel of the elderly, the very young. and the disabled to spots of

historic, cultural, and natural beauty interest just like anyone else who wants to visit the spot that can

travel by foot or a method that is non-restrictive to those in the minority groups aforementioned.

Additionally, tile National Park Service has questionable jurisdiction over navigable rivers, no matter

whether they fall onto the lands owned by the Federal government. So any limitations placed on jet

boats or watercrafts have an equally questionable ability to be enforced.

Access for graveyards and cemeteries. This issue pertains to that of road and trail closures. In a group

meeting held in Rolla, Missouri, the Missouri Coalition for the Environment proposed that 64 "illegal"

roads and trails be dosed due to the fact that these roads and trails contribute to the presence of gravel,

through environmental erosion, in the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers, which lie within the ONSR. There

are three arguments which discount this claim which cites these roads and trails should be closed. First,

these roads and trails are not illegal, nor are they flew; every road and trail that exists that is claimed to

be illegal is a road or trail based from use patterns that exist since European settlement of this

area. This information is based on a road and trail study performed in the 19805 which stated these

roads and trails are illegal because the National Park Service did not account for them when the ONSR

was being formed. This is in fact a fallacy. The NPS, simply put, did not desire for these roads and trails

to be accounted for, so they left them out of the original documents describing county roads. This was

furthered by the roads and trails study performed in the 1980s. Once this was created, the roads and

trails that are now being said to be illegal, some of which are slated to be closed, have actually been in

existence prior to the formation of the ONSR.

Additionally, the Missouri Coalition for the Environment and the National Park Service are basing the

decisions to dose roads and trails on data gathered from studies which is skewed, and non-existent in

some cases. There is no proven point of entry into the water system for the gravel which appears in the

riverbeds today. There are many theories about this subject, however, none are accepted as being the

authoritative theory for where the gravel in the rivers originate. The roads and trails are desired to be

closed simply because there is a belief among some environmental groups that access to natural

resources such as those that exist in the ONSR should be dosed off, exclusive only to use patterns

approved by them-a privilege, in a sense. This is why they push to close these roads and

trans. Furthermore, they wish to close off access at the ends of county roads which allow the public to 

access the river. which is problematic for many reasons, including access for the handicapped. the very

young. and the elderly. in addition to emergency management, wildfire management, traditional use

patterns, and access to the cultural, natural, and historic locations as set forth in the enabling

legislation.

Another point to be considered for the argument to keep the roads open is access to cemeteries,

graveyards, and gravesites. Most of the roads and trails within the ONSR lead to a burial site of a local

family which resided at that location prior to the establishment of the ONSR. It is very important to the

residents of our communities that they be able to access and to visit their family burial plots located at

their old homeplaces along the Jacks Fork and Current Rivers. It is cited in the "Management Policies

2006: The Guide to Managing the National Park System- (produced by the National Park Services in

section 8.6.10, that burials will be allowed to be visited by family members or designees. It is important

to not cut off the heritage and culture of people from visiting their ancestors at their old homeplaces.

Graveyards and grave sites should be given the respect to allow descendants to visit the resting places

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 7 of 14 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters

577
of loved ones and ancestors, regardless of policy or regulations.

Timber management. Simply stated, a timber management policy of selective cutting, even highly

selective cutting would be a wildfire-prevention method. a stimulus to the local and regional economy,

as well as provide for safety management for visitors. The NPS could partner with government agency,

for example the Missouri Department of Conservation, to actively manage the timber and wildlife

resources. Just as it is important to have existing and longstanding forests for anim;31 habitat, it is

equally as important to have different stages of the forest to encourage various wildlife populations to

flourish and inhabit these managed forests. We do not desire to have visitors of the ONSR to encounter

stages of the forest which are cleared or unattractive, which was the sentiment of ONSR proponents and

congressional officials at the time of inception and is why the original purchase of land included a

corridor of land nestled only next to the Current and lacks Fork Rivers in most places. This was to

control the visitor experience and allow them to see natural beauty from their t rip on the rivers. But it is

imperative to have forest and resource management for the purpose of wildfire prevention. wildlife

proliferation, stable environment conditions, and an enhanced visitor experience.

The basic concepts behind timber management include wildfire prevent, traditional fire patterns the

Native Americans applied to the region (which was the environment documented by Henry Rowe

Schoolcraft). ecological (meaning ecosystem degradation and regeneration is part of the natural forest

and fauna life cycle), as well as economic.

Gravel removal. According to the plan on page 241, "Gravel mining operations can adversely affect the

geology of adjacent tributaries by altering flow patterns. changing channel structure. increasing stream

gradient, relocating channels, and causing scouring and bank erosion." This notation does not take into

account the necessity for the gravel to be removed as part of a cyclical process. There are no reports,

studies, tests, nor hypotheses which prove where the gravel in the river comes from. Frank Hughes, a

local scientist and resident. once stated, "that it is very likely the gravel is a cyclical trend and in order to

manage it, the gravel must be mined to protect the wildlife and fish, so the streams do not fill up and 

choke out all the wildlife." Although this alters what the present state is of the river.;. it is a process

which the local residents have operated since settlement. These patterns help protect the fish and

wildlife to ensure there is a future for them. as opposed to a dry creek bed filled with gravel.

It is very clear, the management of this pane should be proactive, rather than laissez faire. The lack of

interest by the NPS management of the ONSA extends beyond the gravel, but encompasses tourist

information, assistance, and general visitor experiences. Meaning, the NPS does very little to assist the

tourist or visitor, except in the form of inspecting and writing tickets..

System of computerized paperwork for park rangers so they may be visible, rather than combative

toward visitors. Combative and harassing park rangers is the number one deterrent to recreational

experiences in the ONSR, second only to the negative publicity from the ONSR. It is integral in

management of this riverways system to have park service employees and rangers to be visible for

assistance, information, and to provide a positive presence within the system as far as visitor

experiences is concerned. It is not intended for the National Park Service to employ more rangers, more

employees, nor additional staff in any form to provide these services, but it is intended to shift the NPS

from spying activities on visitors and trying to "'catch them in the act'" of performing illegal or citationworthy

activities. It is meant to provide a regulatory presence. The purpose of NPS staff is to provide

help to visitors within the riverways and to enhance the visitor experience. In so-doing, the employees

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 8 of 14 

APPENDIXES

578
Will not prohibit activities by citations. but encourage good behavior of visitors by appearing in uniform

throughout the system in a capacity design to assist visitors.

Local cultural and heritage aspects-discrimination and degradation. When the United States

government purchased our river frontage, springs. and significant cultural structures, which is the most

valuable land and resources in the immediate area, they promised to protect the history, heritage and

culture of our river communities. Through a process that negated that promise, the Ozark National

Scenic Riverways destroyed homes, barns, outbuildings and other structures of highly significant value,

both worthy to keep for posterity and for the sake of our culture and heli1age. Fields, most of which 

were promised to be cared for in the same manner the-y were left, in order to show what working farms

were of the current time and those of the past, to grow over. The experience: of people to view life as it

was in river communities of the day was severely altered and detrimentally impacted. These concepts

were as much a part of the visitor experience as the purely natural beauty in and along the Current and

Jacks Fork Rivers.

It is peculiar that once again the National Park Service seeks to protect our culture and heritage,

interpret and catalog the society that once was and further push our culture to the break of collapse.

This form of discrimination is the ultimate detriment to the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. It is one

that, under the guise of protecting the environment, they close off access, further discourage people to

visit their ancestral homeplaces, and limit the ability of all people, regardless of race, creed. color,

culture, access to resources, and ability to fight this cultural slaughter, to truly enjoy what the unique

experience is of going to and becoming one with the waters and lands in and along the Ozark National

Scenic Riverways.

Necessity of management during government shutdown. It became glaringly apparent during the

government shutdown of 2013, the Ozark National Scenic Riverways needs to have legislation passed to

protect the resource and to protect the rights of the people to access public property, which is owned

by the people. There should be no citations issued, no scary signs prohibiting access place-the park

should have legislation in place to allow people to access and to use the resource, if not managed by the

Federal government employees during the shutdown, then most certainly managed by employees of the

State of Missouri. whether by the Missouri Department of Conservation, the Missouri Department of

Natural RC5QUrces, or by a joint venture between the two. There are examples of similar legislation to

keep the park open such as the Washington monument in Washington, DC, and examples from the State

of Utah where state employees managed federally owned lands during the shutdown. Similar legislation

should be passed, not only to protect the rights of the people, but so that the economy of our region is

not further diminished by the actions of the Federal government.

Legislation to protect activities in and along the ONSR. If it were the intention of those who lobbied to

create the Ozark National Scenic Riverways to establish a park where there are no recreational activities

allowed, then it would have been set forth to create a park designed to limit visitor activities, focus only

on wildlife and fish and plants and other living inhabitants of the ONSR, besides humans, and create a

park. for the knowledge that someone in St. Louis can strong-arm the National Park Service into shutting

down access to this region so they fee' comfort in the solitude of the plants and animals he re. However,

they did not. It was meant, by Secretary Udall, Congressman Ichord, and author Leonard Hall, to have a

recreational area-one where people can enjoy the resources, both historical from human habitation as

well as natural.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. In accordance with the following statement taken directly from

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 9 of 14 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters

579
rivers.gov, the government interpretation encourages use of input from the visitors and resource users

from the area near the ONSR and encourages the general management plan to more greatly consider

the enabling legislation:

Regardless of classification, each river in the National System is administered with the

goal of protecting and enhancing the values that caused it to be designated, Designation

neither prohibits development nor gives the federal government control over private

property. Recreation, agricultural practices, residential development, and other uses

may continue. Protection of the river is provided through voluntary stewardship by

landowners and river users and through regulation and programs of federal, state, local.

or tribal governments.

Points from the Plan Draft:

Management of "degradation of water resources in the National Riverways from land-based recreation

would continue to be managed on a site-by-site, case-by-case basis."

It is clearly stated on page 242 of the GMP, "When the likely effects of the no-action alternative are

added to the effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, there would be a

lone-term, moderate, adverse, regional cumulative impact on soils and geologic resources. The "no-action 

alternative would contribute to an appreciable, long-term, adverse increment to the cumulative

effect." In summary, by managing in the present status, the natural resources would be detrimentally

affected, which could impact the region for a fairly long time. This statement is based on skewed data,

used only by the NPS to shut-off access and use of the resource to make the management of this park

closer to the idea of preservationist propaganda. Based on the fact that data gathered and used for the

park service studies and results are skewed, thus, null and void the premise that these resources need to be 

shut-off is also null and void.

Equestrian pursuits mentioned on pages 252, 253. Studies that have tried to prove adverse effects to

the environment from equestrian pursuits have been both skewed and shown to be invalid.

Municipal wastewater discharges on page 253. The City of Eminence is currently in compliance with

State and Federal agencies. They have recently completed a community public water project. The city is

proactively pursuing keeping the river clean through proper management of the city water and sewer

system. ""Keeping our rivers clean" is part of the motto of the city water projects.

Vegetation on page 263- -264. Vegetation along undesignated roads and trails is not trampled in such a

manner as to disturb the plant life in any significant way. It is clear by visiting a road or a trail to see

these recreational activities taking place on them do not, in any way, shape, or form, disturb the ecology

nor cause detrimental environmental impact so as to substantiate placing it in this document.

Wildlife & Fish on page 276. Some claims are made in this section which related river crossings, jet-boats, 

undesignated roads and trails, and "motorboat-based petroleum pollutants" as causing "water

quality degradation and having adverse effects on aquatic habitat. As discussed earlier, studies and data

related to pollution have been proven to be skewed and incorrect as far as land-based recreation is 

concerned. In relation to jet boats "California Standards" apply to the jet boats, which places minute parts 

per million of pollutants into the water. There were no studies proving that the jet boats had a

detrimental effect on the rivers nor the fish nor wildlife. Erosion does not happen from boats, but from

the floods that occur naturally. So if it were proven that detrimental effects to the water quality does

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 10 of 14 

APPENDIXES

580
not happen due to these activities, it should be safe to say that recreational activities within the ONSR

do not degrade the aquatic habitat.

Ozark Hellbender. As discussed by a National Geographic study recently published online through the

Smithsonian Institute, "Snot Otters Slipping Away", ambient temperature of the water affects

reproductive cycle of the Hellbender. This should be attributed to the increase in the ambient

temperature of the air and the importance of environmental factors from other parts of the country, as

the water and lands in this part of the Ozarks are well cared for. Another attributable factor is the

increased number of bass in the river eating the young Hellbenders, which substantiates furthering the

unregulated use of jet boat on the riverways, which would allow continued traditional fishing patterns.

280 1st paragraph, discussion on human interaction with plants and animals. The impact of humans to

the ONSR is negligible in this discussion as humans have, for at least a few thousand years, been

involved in the environment of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers, and should continue to be allowed to

be a part of the resources here.

Cultural Resources discussion on page 307. Interestingly enough, cultural resources, as it relates to

those with long-time connections to the land and water, in addition to those whom have acquired a

connection to the land and water through their interest in History, Anthropology, the Sciences, or SocioEnvironmental studies, refer to any number of old homeplaces, remnants of structures, former

community hubs, schoolhouses, campsites, name-places on the rivers and streams - even when

someone has an unique experience at one of these locations without a prior knowledge of the location

can inspire this connection - and natural wonders associated with the culture. It is tradition through

Native American and European cultures to visit ancestrally connected locations, in fact it appears in

several cultures besides the two mention (but these two are relevant for this discussion). The simplest

notion of visiting the location where a baby in the family died and was buried on an old farm can

represent this connection to the land.

It has been said that this dirt and these waters run through the veins of the people with this connection

to the water and land, and so it is impossible to truly separate them from this area. Which, in the

process of limiting access and use to any point through the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, it is in fact

degrading, discounting, and providing a detrimental effect to the local and regional culture. Although it

may also be said that people come from every state in the United States to visit their ancestral

homelands here in the ONSR.

To select areas to shut off access and use, to limit regardless of handicap, ability, age, socio•economic

level. or connection to influential public officials, is to commit the highest form of an act of

discrimination - essentially, this is denial of access to one's heritage and culture.

Historic Buildings and Structures discussion on pages 313- 316. It should be the duty of the National

Park Service to maintain, catalog, interpret, and provide public Information about the culture, history,

historic structures, and other parts of life in the past and present in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways.

Historic structures should not be limited to those whom are not disabled, very young, or elderly.

Present accommodations for travel to historic structures and locations should, in fact, be increased and

accessibility be better maintained, it is impossible to consider making changes to the current

management patterns of the historic structures as it is proposed in the General Management plan when

it is purported by ONSR staff that there is not sufficient funding to sustain the existing structures,

interpretive programs, and cultural activities that are currently needed.

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 11 of 14 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters

581
Ethnographic Impact on pages 322-324. It is presumed that when stating Ethnography, it is not

necessarily referring to the culture, biology, social branches of anthropological study of a group in the

past -tense. In fact, in the case of the study, understanding, and interpretation of ethnography for the

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, the ethnography of the group about which they study and promote, is

the same group it has sought for many years to dose off cultural, social, and literally biologically

connected sites along the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. In fact, it should be taken into consideration

when mentioning protecting the rights of Native Americans to access and to use their tribal lands, that

most of the families which settled and lived along the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers had Native American

ancestry, many times very recent. Most of the residents were of the Cherokee Tribe, however there

were many other tribes represented in that group -as prevalent as this topic is, it should be noted that 

ancestral access to the regions Native American population should not be shut off, bottled up, and held

for only a few to view, study, and ponder.

Wilderness designation recommendation - fiscal responsibility. It is a travesty that the National Park

Service has actually spent the insurmountable amount of money they have on the General Management

Plan process when this could have been so easily addressed with the Advisory/Oversight Committee as

mentioned above, in this case, specifically in relation to the Wilderness Study. It is prevalent, even from

the presentation provided by the ONSR during the comment period public forum discussions, that it is

not and will not be foreseeably possible for a Wilderness designation to be obtained for any section of

the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers watersheds due to the process involved to establish such a

designation. Considering the budgetary cuts to providing services and offering proper number of staff

for recreational activities within the: ONSR, this money should have been more responsibly managed.

Chambers take on the economy and how the ONSR impacts it. The Ozark National Scenic Riverways

has had a mixed review of impact on the counties it is located in. Rather than bringing up historical

impacts the NPS had on the resident population of these counties, let's discuss current impact in

relation to the impact from recent history. Shannon County, the second largest in acreage in the State

of Missouri, is the poorest county per-capita in the entire state. Shannon County is traditionally the

county in the state with the fewest resources and is highly isolated, in terms of economics, travel

patterns, communication, representation in the government, and education. The county has a majority

of the land owned by the LAD Foundation, the State of Missouri, and the US Government. This

negatively impacts education, public services, government re presentation, resident population, job

opportunities, and the economy. In-lieu-of-tax payments are substandard and are in no way

comparable to what should be paid to the Shannon County government and to our schools. Jobs, that

upon the establishment of the ONSR, were explained would be given to locals have been outsourced.

whether to Canada for camping reservations, residents of other counties in order to substantiate an

impact on a region for payroll, rather than the counties in which the ONSR resides, or that locals are not

to be hired because of the idea th.at Federal employees should not work in career jobs for a Park Service

managed property. In being a community member, the Ozark National Scenic Riverways is lacking in

several aspects, including consideration for publicity and now negative public statements affect the

economy negatively, how giving unwarranted citations to park visitors sends tourist dollars away from

this area, dollars th.at are vital to the economy, or when rules and regulations are whimsically applied to

appease the section of environmentalists from St. Louis County that have the ear of the Park Service

administration in Van Buren and Omaha.

Positive impacts upon the local population are created when visitors helve a good experience in the

ONSR and do not have to battle superfluous regulations, combative government employees, and ease of

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 12 of 14 

APPENDIXES

582
access to the resources, both natural and cultural, and use of the resource as traditionally experienced.

This process does happen, but we can make the experience even more productive and fruitful for the

visitors of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers' watersheds by truly enhancing the visitor experience. The 

tourist economy is vital to Shannon County, since the land for which productive use for economic

activities is owned by the aforementioned entities. Tourism is vital to the economy for many reasons, it

not only brings income into the county, but also helps to increase the services of the residents of the 

county as the tourist need access to those various services as wen. Tourists are not only from

throughout the nation, but we have local and regional residents that we might consider in the tourist

category, this is a definite impact on the economy.

It cannot be overstated how important tourism is to the economy of Shannon County and it should be

the duty of the National Park Service to work with our county to improve tourism in this region, rather

than to squash and starve the resident population with superfluous rules and regulations.

Plan B Commentary. On page ii of the NPS Summary of Key Concepts for the ONSR General

Management plan, Alternative B (which is the Park Service preferred plan) is described that it will

"enhance opportunities for visitors to discover and learn about the natural wonders and Ozark heritage

of the National riverways, while maintaining a mix of traditional recreational and commercial activities,"

We beg to differ on the idea this plan will enhance activities and provide for traditional recreational 

experiences in many ways. To begin with, there is nothing to be gained from zoning areas and closing

off use and limiting use for the traveler, except to enhance the notion that a limited number of people

can access the riverways. Additionally, the concept of traditional use is obviously a vision the National

Park Service does not share with those whom participate in the traditional recreational activities,

because the agency has continually seeked to limit access, use, and participation in the riverways,

whether because of preservationist doctrine, lack of funding, appeal to particular interest groups, or to

make it easier for them to manage fewer people with fewer resources. It is however, not the purpose of

the National Park Service management of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways to limit access and use to

cultural and natural resources, nor should it be their goal to limit the economic resources available to

the resident population,

People, after reading, reviewing. attending public comment forums, and speaking with NPS personnel

about the GMP draft, Question how the NPS can afford to build and maintain a new learning center and

other costly proposals in the plan which would require expenditures above what is publicized cannot be

afford to be spent to pay for current staff and maintenance.

Summary and Conclusion.

Through the discussion of the benefits of using more public input from the actual users, visitors, 0100

residents of the neighboring area, it should be plain to understand the ONSR should make changes, but

in a much different manner than is proposed in any of the GMP Alternatives. Even the plan of "No

Action" does not address the proper concerns enough; it is however, recommended the National Park

Service mandate the use of the "No Action'" plan alterative until it is evident more practical and useful

changes are made to the alternatives as present ed. One way to best understand a method that would

steer the organization in the right direction is the establishment of an Advisory/Oversight Committee

spelled out above. This could certainly alleviate some of the concerns all stakeholders have.

One very peculiar topic of concern ls that of overcrowding along the rivers. To establish a blanket policy

across the ONSR to limit activities, access, recreation, and the desire to return to this riverways because

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 13 of 14 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters

583
of overcrowding along the rivers that occurs a few days a year is utterly and unmistakably a point that

proves an oversight committee needs to be established. There are many points along the riverways where 

people can travel even when there is overcrowding in certain sections of the river where solitude

and serenity may be found. Similar to the management of the roads and highways of this nation, it is

not their policy to close down sections of the sections of roads most highly used, it is their practice to

improve access, resources, and availability for those who wish to travel to be unimpeded. We are in no

way suggesting support for environmental degradation due to an overabundance of humans, but at this

time there are no worries of this happening. The basic concept to comprehend here is that through a

little better management of resources, improved access points, additional bathrooms, better services,

many of these concerns can be addressed.

Addressing concerns should, additionally, not be just those concerns of particular interest groups with

money, ready access to education and to other resources, such as those environmental groups which

desire to shut off access to our cultural heritage-concerns should be addressed for those that actually

use the riverwavs, quite literally assist in the cleanup of the system, protect the environment by

individual actions and group actions, and have a year-long interest in the subject, not just those who

find interest in this when an email is sent out from an organization with paid staff, lawyers on retainer,

and a desire to further limit an entire group of people's rights.

Each topic of discussion here should lead the reader to better understand the necessity of a flagship

management program to enhance visitor experiences. Expansion of access and use to create a positive

visitor experience is integral to the economy of this region, but commerce is also how the government

receives their funding. To limit and to chain commerce to a point where it is not possible by the

government is a self-defeating purpose. We request the Secretary of Interior to cease and desist

discriminatory practices against the people in and around the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. And we

ask to have more and better access to the resources, more reasonable local input placed into the

management of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, assistance with legislation to protect the true needs 

of the users of the ONSR, to follow the intended use of the ONSR in accordance with the enabling 

legislation, to implement a plan to keep the park open during another government shutdown, and to

institute an Advisory/Oversight Committee formed in similar fashion as the enabling legislation entails

but with more powers to ensure decisions by the committee make an impact.

Eminence Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and undersigned supporters.

January 27, 2014

"> 

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 14 of 14 

APPENDIXES

584
Salem Area Chamber of Commerce

200 South Main Street

Salem, MO 65560

Phone: 573-729-6900

Fax: 573-729-6741

Email: chamber@salemmo.com

www.salemmo.com

www.facebook.com/salemareachamber

December 18, 2013

The Salem Area Chamber of Commerce requests the comment period for the Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways General Management Plan Draft be extended an additional 90 days beyond 

the February 7, 2014 deadline.

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways provides tourism experiences that have a significant 

impact to our economic bottom line similar to Eminence and Shannon Counties. The combined 

impact of the ONSR on this region is significant. The Current and Jacks Fork rivers have 

provided jobs and recreational opportunities for our community. We are concerned with 

unemployment and poverty in our community and are looking at ways to continue and expand 

opportunities for local employment. 

The Salem Chamber appreciates opportunities for our area citizens to comment through the 

public information and comment meeting scheduled for January 8th and asks you consider 

providing a similar opportunity to citizens in or near Shannon County. Our natural resources are 

an important feature in our community and we understand the National Park Service has 

extended significant effort to develop resource plans to sustain the park system. Our board 

hopes you look forward with patience and understanding as our local communities attempt to 

understand and return viable comments on your Draft Plan regarding our future water assets.

Most Sincerely,

Salem Chamber Board

The Salem Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors

Appendix E: Consultation Letters

585
PEPC Project ID: 15793, DocumentID: 56208

Correspondence: 2799

Author Information

Keep Private: No

Name: Jeff Cowen

Organization: Shannon County Commission Official Rep.

Organization Type: C - County Government 

Address: PO Box 187

Eminence, MT 65466

USA 

E-mail:

Correspondence Information

Status: Reviewed Park Correspondence Log:

Date Sent: Date Received: 12/09/2013 

Number of Signatures: 1 Form Letter: No 

Contains Request(s): No Type: Letter 

Notes:

Correspondence Text

Dear Mr. Reynolds:

We, the Commission of Shannon County, would like to ask you to consider going with a

No Action Plan on the basis of the economic impact study completed for our area. Our

county is one of the poorest counties in the state of Missouri and we are very

economically deprived. The tourism industry is our major source of income for our

county government and the citizens of this county. The above mentioned plan would add

to the difficult situation the county government is currently experiencing in trying to

provide necessary services for our citizens. Our county does not have the resources

available to supplement a loss of revenues in the tourism industry that we rely upon. The

county real estate property taxes are very limited due to the ownership of over fifty

percent of our land by the state and federal government. We feel this General

Management Plan would greatly reduce the tourism industry as well as be a financial

hardship to the local concessionaires, citizens and area businesses of Shannon County.

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways was originally designated for recreational

purposes. According to the Alternative B, there will only be 8.8 percent of the land the

park owns as resource based recreation and 72 percent of it designated as natural, out of

88 thousand total acres. When the recreational area is greatly reduced, there is no way

that will not have a significant impact on the economy of Shannon County. We feel this

will also affect all tourists across the United States from being able to come and enjoy our

parks.

We feel the Alternative C would have been a lesser impact on the economy of Shannon

County, as it has 59.6 percent being resources based recreation and only 28.2 percent

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 1 of 2 

APPENDIXES

586
natural. We respectively urge you to reconsider any plan that has the potential to

erode our tourism industry and economic base of the county.

Sincerely,

Jeff Cowen, Presiding Commissioner

Dale Counts, Northern Commissioner

Herman Kelly, Southern Commissioner 

"> 

Correspondences - General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Environmental Impact Statement - 

PEPC ID: 15793 

Page 2 of 2 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters

587
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 7 

Mr. Bill Black, Superintendent 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways 

P.O. Box490 

Van Buren, MO 63965 

Dear Mr. Black: 

11201 Renner Boulevard 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219 

FEB 7 2014 

RE: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan for Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways, Missouri 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement/General Management Plan for Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Our review is provided 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4231 , Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508, and Section 309 ofthe Clean Air Act. The DEIS was assigned 

the Council on Environmental Quality number 20130325. 

Based on our overall review and the level of our comments, the EPA has rated the DEIS for this project 

LO (Lack of Objections). A copy of EPA's rating descriptions is provided as an enclosure to this letter. 

The DEIS adequately outlines the purpose, need, and general management plan for this project. The 

preferred Alternative (B) seems to address and provide a good balance of the various uses and resources 

of ONSR. We commend your coordination efforts with various other agencies and entities throughout the 

development of this project. We would encourage continued coordination with local, state, and federal 

agencies to ensure that all laws, ordinances, and regulations are followed and all necessary permits acquired. 

We also would like to thank you for prominently addressing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

of each potential environmental consequence. 

Though environmental impacts included in the DEIS were overall minimal, EPA offers the following 

comments for additional considerations of potential environmental impacts and a focus on minimization 

and mitigation of these impacts and provide additional information related to the project. 

While it is understood that the proposed management process would allow for site-dependent flexibility 

in management and mitigation practices, it would be useful in instances such as these to include at least 

a few specific examples of practices and procedures that may be used to meet these directives and how 

health and condition will be measured. EPA continues to support avoiding and minimizing adverse 

impacts to air, land, and water quality, including wildlife and their habitat. We would like to suggest that 

any potential effects or disturbance of fish and wildlife species be minimized to the extent possible 

through the use ofBMPs for such activity. 

In the event that there are jurisdictional wetlands impacted by the proposed action, we recommend that 

any mitigation should occur in the same HUC 8 or smaller watershed as the location of the project 

impacts. If changes occur in the project purpose, need, alternatives, or impacts between now and the 

Printed on Recycled Paper 

APPENDIXES

588
time of issuance of Public Notice, EPA's 404 program reserves the ability to comment further on this 

project. Information may be generated through the 404 public interest review process that was not 

documented during the EIS process and should be considered in the final decision. This could include 

changes in regulation or processes, advances in the knowledge of the resources to be impacted, 

discovery of populations of threatened or endangered species, new best management practices, and/or 

improvement in stream or wetland restoration science. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments regarding this project. If you have any 

questions, please contact Amber Tucker, NEPA Reviewer, at 913-551-7565 or via email at 

tucker.amber@epa.gov. 

effery Robichaud 

/' ?eputy Director 

Environmental Services Division 

Enclosure 

2 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters

589
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Rating Definitions 

Environmental Impact of the Action 

"LO" (Lack of Objections) 

The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to 

the proposal. The review may have opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be 

accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. 

"EC" (Environmental Concerns) 

The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect 

the environment. Corrective measures require changes to the preferred alternative or application of 

mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the lead 

agency to reduce these impacts. 

"EO" (Environmental Objections) 

The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to 

provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes 

to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action 

alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. 

"EU" (Environmentally Unsatisfactory) 

The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they 

are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends 

to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not 

corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ. 

Adequacy of the Impact Statement 

"Category 1" (Adequate) 

EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative 

and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data 

collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. 

"Category 2" (Insufficient Information) 

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that 

should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new 

reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, 

which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, 

analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS. 

APPENDIXES

590
"Category 3" (Inadequate) 

EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental 

impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are 

outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to 

reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional 

information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public 

review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEP A 

and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment 

in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this 

proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. 

Appendix E: Consultation Letters

591
This page is intentionally left blank
593

APPENDIX F: FEDERALLY AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix F: Federal and State-listed Species

595

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service use the following categories to determine the federal status of 

species that are included in appendix F, tables F-1 and F-2.

E: Endangered: A species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range.

PE: Proposed Endangered: A species officially proposed for listing as endangered. USFWS has 

not yet issued final rule on determination. 

T: Threatened: A species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.

C: Candidate: A species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reviewing for possible 

addition to the list of endangered and threatened species.

SC: Species of Concern: A species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes might be in 

need of concentrated conservation actions.

The Missouri Department of Conservation uses the following categories to determine the state 

status and rank of species that are included in appendix F, tables F-1 and F-2. For those species 

with multiple state rankings, there is uncertainty about the exact status of their condition.

E: Endangered: A species that is in danger of extinction within the State of Missouri.

S1: Critically Imperiled: Critically imperiled in the nation or state because of extreme rarity or 

because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. Typically 

5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals (<1,000).

S2: Imperiled: Imperiled in the nation or state because of rarity or because of some factor(s) 

making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state. Typically 6 to 20 occurrences 

or few remaining individuals (1,000 to 3,000).

S3: Vulnerable: Vulnerable in the nation or state either because rare and uncommon, or found 

only in a restricted range (even if abundant at some locations), or because of other factors 

making it vulnerable to extirpation. Typically 21 to 100 occurrences or between 3,000 and 

10,000 individuals.

S4: Apparently Secure: Uncommon but not rare, and usually widespread in the nation or state. 

Possibly cause of long-term concern. Usually more than 100 occurrences and more than 10,000 

individuals remaining.

SH: Historic: The species occurred historically in the state (with the expectation that it may be 

rediscovered). Perhaps having not been verified in the past 20 years, and suspected to be still 

extant.

SU: Unrankable: Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially 

conflicting information about status or trends.

SX: Extirpated: The species is believed to be extirpated from the state.

S? : Unranked: Species is not yet ranked in the state.
APPENDIXES

596

TABLE F-1. FEDERALLY AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES 

KNOWN TO BE PRESENT WITHIN THE OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS

Common name Scientific name Federal 

status

State 

status State rank

Mammals

American badger Taxidea taxus SU

Eastern wood rat Neuroma floridana S3S4

Golden mouse Ochrotomys nuttalli S3

Gray bat Myotis grisescens E E S3

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E E S1

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata S3

Marsh rice rat Oryzomys palustris SU

Mountain lion1 Puma concolor SX

Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis PE n/a S3

Plains spotted skunk Spilogale putorius interrupta E S1

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans SU

Swamp rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus S2

Birds

Bald eagle Haliaeeatus leucocephalus S3

Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea S2S3

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus E S2

Osprey Pandion haliaetus S2 

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus S2

Swainson’s warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii E S2

Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator S1 

Amphibians

Grotto salamander Eurycea spelaeus S2S3

Ozark hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis 

bishopi E E S1

Red River mudpuppy Necturus maculosus louisianensis SU

Ringed salamander Ambystoma annulatum S3

Reptiles

Alligator snapping turtle Macrochelys temminckii S2

Fish

American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix S2

Current River saddled darter Etheostoma euzonum erizonum S3

Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus S3S4 

Checkered madtom Noturus flavater S3S4

Mississippi silvery minnow Hybognathus nuchalis S3S4

Ozark shiner Notropis ozarcanus S2

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula S3

Southern brook lamprey Ichthyomyzon gagei S2S3

Southern cavefish Typhlichthys subterraneus S2S3

Weed shiner Notropis texanus S3
Appendix F: Federal and State-listed Species

597

TABLE F-1. FEDERALLY AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES 

PRESENT WITHIN THE OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS (CONTINUED)

Common name Scientific name Federal 

status

State 

status State rank

Highfin carpsucker Carpiodes velifer S2

Flier Centrarchus macropterus S3

Lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta S2

Stargazing darter Percina uranidea S2

Crustaceans

Salem cave crayfish Cambarus hubrichti S3

Salem cave isopod Caecidotea salemensis S2

Serrated cave isopod Caecidotea serrata S1

Mollusks

Black sandshell Ligumia recta S2

Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata S2

Ouachita kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis S3

Purple lilliput Toxolasma lividus S2

Slippershell mussel Alasmidonta viridis S2

Insects

A heptageniid mayfly Stenonema bednariki S3

A leaf beetle Xenochalepus potomaca SU

A panorpid scorpionfly Panorpa braueri S1

A water boatman Sigara mathesoni S3?

Clarus cave springtail Arrhopalites clarus S3

Pygmy snowfly Allocapnia pygmaea S3

Swamp metalmark Calephelis muticum S3

Vascular plants

A blazing star Liatris scariosa var. nieuwlandii S2

A brome Bromus latiglumis S3

A false loosestrife Ludwigia microcarpa S2

A sedge Carex flaccosperma var. glaucodea S2

A sedge Carex texensis S3

A sedge Carex molestiformis S2

American barberry Berberis canadensis S2

Barren strawberry Waldsteinia fragarioides ssp. 

fragarioides S2

Bashful bulrush Trichophorum planifolium S3S4 

Big-leaved aster Eurybia macrophylla S2

Broad waterweed Elodea canadensis SU

Buffalo clover Trifolium reflexum S3S4 

Butternut Juglans cinerea S2

Carolina phlox Phlox carolina ssp. carolina S1

Dense-flowered smartweed Polygonum densiflorum S1S2
APPENDIXES

598

TABLE F-1. FEDERALLY AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES 

PRESENT WITHIN THE OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS (CONTINUED)

Common name Scientific name Federal 

status

State 

status State rank

False bugbane Trautvetteria caroliniensis S2

Forked aster Eurybia furcata S2

Golden currant Ribes odoratum S3

Grass pink orchid Calopogon tuberosus S2

Harebell Campanula rotundifolia S1

Heart-leaved noseburn Tragia cordata S2

Heart-leaved plantain Plantago cordata S3S4

Horned pondweed Zannichellia palustris var. major S3? 

Lance-like spike rush Eleocharis lanceolata S1

Large-leaved phlox Phlox amplifolia S3? 

Leafy bulrush Scirpus polyphyllus S3

Loesel's twayblade Liparis loeselii S2

Low nut-rush Scleria verticillata S3

Marsh blue violet Viola cucullata S3

Mountain honeysuckle Lonicera dioica S3

Northern bedstraw Galium boreale ssp. septentrionale S2

Oferhollow reed grass Calamagrostis porteri ssp. insperata S3

Pale avens Geum virginianum S1

Poison oak Toxicodendron pubescens S3

Rein orchid Platanthera flava S2

Riddell's goldenrod Solidago riddellii S3

Rigid sedge Carex tetanica S3

Royal catchfly Silene regia S3

Satin brome Bromus nottowayanus S3

Shining ladies' tresses Spiranthes lucida S3

Showy lady-slipper Cypripedium reginae S2S3

Snow trillium Trillium nivale S3?

Southern monkshood Aconitum uncinatum S1

Spotted pondweed Potamogeton pulcher S2S3

Spreading sedge Carex laxiculmis S3 

Star duckweed Lemna trisulca S2

Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum S2

Thread-like naiad Najas gracillima S2

Tradescant aster Symphyotrichum dumosum var. 

strictior S2

Tussock sedge Carex stricta S3

White camas Zigadenus elegans ssp. glaucus S2

Whitlow grass Draba aprica S3

Wild leek Allium burdickii S2

Wild sweet William Phlox maculata var. pyramidalis S2
Appendix F: Federal and State-listed Species

599

TABLE F-1. FEDERALLY AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES 

PRESENT WITHIN THE OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS (CONTINUED)

Common name Scientific name Federal 

status

State 

status State rank

Lichens, mosses, liverworts

A lichen Imshaugia aleurites S?

A lichen Rimelia subisidiosa S1

A liverwort Metzgeria furcata S?

A liverwort Nowellia curvifolia S?

A lierwort Riccardia multifida S1

A liverwort Aneura pinguis S3S4

A moss Plagiomnium rostratum SU

A moss Didymodon revolutus S1

A moss Bryum cyclophyllum S?

A moss Grimmia olneyi S?

A moss Hypnum cupressiforme var. filiforme S1

Shaggy moss Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus S3

Sharp’s homaliadelphus Homaliadelphus sharpii S1

Yellow starry fen moss Campylium stellatum var. stellatum S3 1 Species occurrence has been documented within the boundary of Ozark National Scenic Riverways

TABLE F-2. FEDERALLY AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES 

HISTORICALLY PRESENT WITHIN THE OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS

Common name Scientific name Federal 

status

State 

status State rank

Mammals

Gray wolf1 Canis lupus E SX

Red wolf 1 Canis rufus E SX

Birds

Red-cockaded woodpecker1 Picoides borealis E SX 1 No longer found in Missouri
This page is intentionally left blank
601

REFERENCES

Anderssen, S.H., R.B. Nicolaisen, and G.W.

Gabrielsen 

1993 “Autonomic Response to 

Auditory Stimulation.” Acta 

Paediatrica 82:913–918.

Bailiff, John

2011 Carter County 

Commissioner. Interview 

with John Bailiff by Lisa 

McDonald on February 23, 

2011. 

Barber, J.R., K.R. Crooks, and K.M.

Fristrup 

2010 “The Costs of Chronic Noise 

Exposure for Terrestrial 

Organisms.” Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution 25(3) 

180–189.

Baron, Jill. et al.

2008 Some Guidelines for Helping 

Natural Resources Adapt to 

Climate Change. International 

Human Dimensions 

Programme (IHDP). 2008. 

Available on the Internet at

<http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pu

bs_other/rmrs_2008_baron_j

001.pdf>.

Bayne, E.M. et al. 

2008 “Impacts of Chronic 

Anthropogenic Noise from 

Energy-sector Activity on 

Abundance of Songbirds in 

the Boreal Forest.” Conserv. 

Biol. 22, 1186–1193.

Brown, Greg and Ken Chilman

1999 River Use Monitoring 1998: 

Lower Current River Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. 

Prepared by Southern Illinois 

University for the National 

Park Service, Van Buren, 

Missouri.

2002 River Use Monitoring 2001: 

Lower Current River, Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. 

Prepared by Southern Illinois 

University for the National 

Park Service, Van Buren, 

Missouri.

Brumm, H. and H. Slabbekoorn 

2005 “Acoustic Communication in 

Noise.” Adv. Stud. Behav. 35, 

151–209.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

2011a Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, REIS. Department 

of Commerce. Historic 

Population Table CA02. 

1969–2008. State of Missouri, 

Carter County, and Shannon 

County. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://www.bea.gov/regiona

l/reis/drill.cfm>.

2011b Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, REIS. Department 

of Commerce. Personal 

Income and Detailed 

Earnings by Industry CA05. 

2001–2008. State of Missouri, 

Carter County and Shannon 

County. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://www.bea.gov/regiona

l/reis/drill.cfm>.

2011c Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, REIS. Department 

of Commerce. Total 

Employment by Industry 

Table CA25N. 2001–2008. 

State of Missouri, Carter 

County and Shannon 

County. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://www.bea.gov/regiona

l/reis/drill.cfm>.
REFERENCES

602

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

2011 Consumer Price Index—All 

Urban Consumers. Area: 

Midwest urban. Not 

Seasonally Adjusted. Series 

ID: 

CUUR0200SA0,CUUS0200S

A0. Available on the Internet 

at 

<http://data.bls.gov/pdq/Sur

veyOutputServlet?data_tool=

dropmap&series_id=CUUR0

200SA0,CUUS0200SA0>.

2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Local Area Unemployment 

Statistics (LAUS), accessed 

September 2012.

Chilman, Kenneth and James Vogel

2001 Research Report: Trail Rider 

Counts and Surveys Lower 

Jacks Fork River Area Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. 

Van Buren, MO: report 

prepared for the National 

Park Service Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways.

Clanton, Ryan

2011 Van Buren Police 

Department. Personal 

communication phone 

conversation with Officer 

Ryan Clanton by Chris Dixon 

on March 15, 2011 regarding 

description of police 

department.

Clough, G. 

1982 “Environmental Effects on 

Animals Used in Biomedical 

Research.” Biological Reviews

57:487–523.

Crider, S.

2011 Shannon County Assessor’s 

Office. Phone conversation 

with Summer Crider by Chris 

Dixon. Interviewed on: 

March 18, 2011 at 12:00 p.m. 

MT. Regarding: Description 

of Land Ownership in 

Shannon County.

Dechant, J., M. Sondreal, D. Johnson, L. 

Igl, C. Goldade, M. Nenneman, and B. 

Euliss 

2002 Effects of Management 

Practices on Grassland birds: 

Northern Harrier. (Revision

of 1998 original) Jamestown, 

ND: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov

/resource/literatr/grasbird/d

ownload/noha.pdf>

Fenneman, N.

1938 Physiography of the Eastern 

United States. New York, NY: 

McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.

Finney, Fred A.

2006 An Archeological Overview 

and Assessment of the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways, 

Missouri. Prepared for the 

National Park Service, 

Midwest Archeological 

Center, Lincoln, Nebraska by 

Upper Midwest Archaeology, 

St. Paul, Minnesota and St. 

Joseph, Illinois.

Gillam, E.H. and G.F. McCracken 

2007 “Variability in the 

Echolocation of Tadarida 

brasiliensis: Effects of 

Geography and Local 

Acoustic Environment.”

Anim. Behav. 74, 277–286.

Haas, G. and T. Wakefield 

1998 National Parks and the 

American Public: a National 

Public Opinion Survey on the 

National Park System.

Washington D.C. and Fort 

Collins, CO: National Parks 

and Conservation 

Association and Colorado 

State University.
References

603

Haas, G.E. and T. Wakefield

1998 National Parks and the 

American Public. 

Washington, D.C: National 

Parks and Conservation 

Association.

Habib, L. et al. 

2007 “Chronic Industrial Noise 

Affects Pairing Success and 

Age Structure of Ovenbirds 

Seiurus aurocapilla.” J. Appl. 

Ecol. 44, 176–184.

Harris, C. M. 

1998 Handbook of Acoustical 

Measurements and Noise 

Control, 3rd ed. New York 

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC)

2007 Climate Change 2007: The 

Physical Science Basis. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press.

Jackson, Dan

2012 Memorandum from Dan 

Jackson (landscape historian, 

NPS Midwest Region, 

Omaha, NE) to Steve 

Whissen (cultural resources 

specialist, NPS Denver 

Service Center). National 

Park Service. June 20, 2012. 

Lengagne, T. 

2008 “Traffic Noise Affects 

Communication Behaviour in 

a Breeding Anuran, Hyla 

arborea.” Biol. Conserv. 141, 

2023–2031.

Leonard, M.L. and A.G. Horn 

2008 “Does Ambient Noise Affect 

Growth and Begging Call 

Structure in Nestling birds?”

Behav. Ecol. 19, 502–507.

Mace, B.L., P.A. Bell, R.J. Loomis, and G.E. 

Haas 

2003 “Source Attribution of 

Helicopter Noise in Pristine 

National Park Landscapes.” 

Journal of Park and 

Recreation Administration

21(3), 97–119.

Martin, David

2011 Ernie’s Sales and Service. 

Personal communication 

involving an in-person 

interview Lisa McDonald on 

February 22, 2011 regarding 

in boating activity at Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways.

McDonald, C. D., R. M. Baumgartner, and 

R. Iachan 

1995 National Park Service Aircraft 

Management Studies. U.S.

Department of Interior Rep. 

No. 94-2. Denver, CO: 

National Park Service.

Meanley, B.

1971 Natural History of the 

Swainson’s Warbler. 

Washington, D.C.: North 

American Fauna Number 69. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA323

160&Location=U2&doc=Get

TRDoc.pdf>.

Meyer, Stephanie. 

2011 Carter County Assessor’s 

Office. Personal 

communication with Chris 

Dixon on: March 22, 2011 at 

12:45 p.m. MT. Regarding: 

Land Ownership in Carter 

County.

Michigan IMPLAN Group

2008 Data for Carter and Shannon 

Counties, MO. 2008. National 

Agricultural Statistics Service.
REFERENCES

604

Missouri Department of Conservation 

(MDC)

2000a Best Management Practices: 

Plains Spotted Skunk. 

Missouri Department of 

Conservation. June 2000. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://mdc.mo.gov/sites/def

ault/files/resources/2010/08/

9541_6481.pdf>.

2000b Best Management Practices: 

Swainson’s Warbler. Missouri 

Department of Conservation. 

June 2000. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://mdc.mo.gov/sites/def

ault/files/resources/2010/08/

9525_6460.pdf>.

2000c “Best Management Practices: 

Hellbender”. Missouri 

Department of Conservation. 

June 2000. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://mdc.mo.gov/sites/def

ault/files/resources/2010/08/

9482_6424.pdf.

2003 Abundance, Distribution, and 

Characteristics of Gravel 

Mining Sites in Streams of the 

Salem Plateau, Missouri, 

Missouri Department of 

Conservation. December 

2003. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env

/lrp/docs/SalemMOReport.p

df>.

2009a Missouri Species and 

Communities of Conservation 

Concern Checklist, January 

2009. St. Louis, MO.

2009b Information extracted from 

the Missouri Department of 

Conservation website. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://mdc.mo.gov/fish/spo

rt/trout/areas.htm>.

2011a Information on the Jacks 

Fork watershed extracted 

from the Missouri 

Department of Conservation 

website. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://extra.mdc.mo.gov/fis

h/watershed/current/habitat/

> and 

<http://extra.mdc.mo.gov/fis

h/watershed/jcksfork/habitat

/>.

2011b Information on the northern 

harrier extracted from the 

Missouri Department of 

Conservation website in May 

2011. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://mdc.mo.gov/conmag/

2007/11/plants-andanimals>.

2011c Information on Swainson’s

warbler species extracted 

from Missouri Department 

of Conservation website. 

Available on the internet at 

<http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/ap

plications/mofwis/Mofwis_D

etail.aspx?id=0400340>.

2012a Big Spring. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://mdc.mo.gov/node/23

65>. 

2012b Elk Reintroduction Plan

FAQ. Available on the 

Internet at

<http://mdc.mo.gov/node/10

141>.

2011d Information on the Current 

River watershed extracted 

from the Missouri 

Department of Conservation 

website in September 2012. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://extra.mdc.mo.gov/fis

h/watershed/current/watqual

/>.

2011e Information on MDC elk 

restoration efforts extracted 

from the Missouri 

Department of Conservation

website in September 2012.

Available on the Internet at

<http://mdc.mo.gov/discover
References

605

-nature/outdoorrecreation/natureviewing/mammals/elkrestoration/elk-restorationbackgroun->.

Missouri Department of Conservation

(MDC)

1982 Missouri Water Atlas by M. 

Schroeder. Columbia, MO.

2001 Incidents of Mines, 

Occurrences, and Prospects 

(IMOP) Database. Missouri 

Department of Conservation, 

Jefferson City, Missouri.

Missouri, State of

2008a Missouri Population Trends. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://oa.mo.gov/bp/project

ions/trends.htm>.

2011a Financial and Statistical 

Report for Fiscal Year Ended 

June 30, 2009. Missouri Dept. 

of Revenue. Accessed on 

March 17, 2011. Available on 

the Internet at

<http://dor.mo.gov/pdf/finan

cialstatreport09.pdf>.

Missouri Victims Assistance Network

2011a Shannon County Law 

Enforcement Description. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://mova.missouri.org/co

unties/shannon.htm>.

2011b Carter County Law 

Enforcement Description. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://mova.missouri.org/co

unties/carter.htm>.

Morfey, Christopher L.

2001 Dictionary of Acoustics. 

Academic Press.

Morgan, Mark

2007 Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways Visitor Use Study.

Report prepared for the 

National Park, Service Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. 

Van Buren, Missouri.

Mugel, D. N., J. M. Richards, and J. G. 

Schumacher

2009 Geohydrologic Investigations 

and Landscape 

Characteristics of Areas 

Contributing Water to Springs, 

the Current River and Jacks 

Fork River, Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways, Missouri. 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations 

Report 2009-5138.

National Park Service (NPS)

1979 Assessment of Alternatives, 

Natural Resources 

Management, Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways. Van Buren, 

MO.

1989 Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways: River Use 

Management Plan. Prepared 

by Dean C. Einwalter, David 

I. Foster, David Given, Tom 

Graham, Jim Simpson, and 

Arthur E. Sullivan.

1991a A Homeland and A 

Hinterland—The Current and 

Jacks Fork Riverways, 

Historic Resource Study, 

Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways, by Donald L. 

Stevens, Jr., NPS Midwest 

Region, Omaha, Nebraska. 

1991b Road and Trails Study and 

Environmental Assessment, 

Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. Van Buren, MO.

1992 Statement for Management;

Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways.

1993 Guiding Principles of 

Sustainable Design. Denver 

Service Center.

1994 Report to Congress, Report on 

Effects of Aircraft Overflights

on the National Park System.
REFERENCES

606

1996 Museum Collection 

Management Plan, Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. 

Omaha, NE: Prepared by 

Abby Sue Fisher, Carolyn 

Wallingford and Jeff Kroke, 

NPS Midwest Region.

2000 Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways, Business Plan 

2000.

2001 Women of the Riverways:

Special Emphasis 

Ethnographic Study for the 

Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways by Karen Gaul and 

Corey Lashlee. Assistance 

provided by students of 

Hendrix College, Conway, 

Arkansas. Prepared for the 

National Park Service, 

Midwest Region, Omaha, 

Nebraska. 

2004a Director’s Order 28A: 

Archeology. Available on the 

Internet at

<http://www.nps.gov/policy/

DOrders/DOrder28A.html>.

2004b Fire Management Plan: Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways.

2005 “Rural Ozark Women and 

Traditional Associations to 

the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways,” by Karen Gaul, 

Hendrix College and Corey 

Lashlee. Included in 

Traditionally Associated 

Peoples and Ethnographic 

Resources, NPS Ethnography 

Program. 

2006a Management Policies 2006.

U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Washington, D.C.

2006b Midwest Region Museum 

Collection Storage Plan. NPS 

Midwest Region, Omaha, 

Nebraska.

2006c “Natural Features and 

Ecosystems, Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways.” Available 

on the Internet at 

<http://www.nps.gov/ozar/n

aturescience/naturalfeaturesa

ndecosystems.htm>.

2007 Water Resources Foundation 

Report, Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways, by David L. VanaMiller. Fort Collins, CO: 

Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NRWRD/NRR: 

2007/363.

2009a Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways NPS Species 

Certified List. Integration of 

Resource Management 

Applications program.

2009b Air Quality in National Parks: 

2009 Annual Progress & 

Performance Report. Denver, 

CO: Natural Resource 

Program Center.

2010 National Park Service Climate 

Change Response Strategy. 

National Park Service 

Climate Change Response 

Program, Fort Collins, CO.

2011a Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways Visitor Use 

Statistics. Public Use Statistics 

Office. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://www.nature.nps.gov/

stats/>.

2011b Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. Draft Acoustical 

Monitoring Report. Fort 

Collins, CO: Natural 

Resource Report

NPS/NRPC/NRTR: 

2011/001. 

2011c Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways, Draft Boat Noise 

Measurement Summary 

Report. Fort Collins, CO.

2011d Results of a Pedestrian 

Archeological Survey on Horse 

Trails in the Two Rivers Area, 
References

607

Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways by Erin Dempsey 

and Lindsey Morrison. 

Lincoln, NE: NPS Midwest 

Archeological Center.

2012 Memorandum from Dan 

Jackson (landscape historian, 

NPS Midwest Region, 

Omaha, NE) to Steve 

Whissen (cultural resources 

specialist, NPS Denver 

Service Center). June 20, 

2012.

2013 Report on Historic and 

Projected Climate Trends and 

Implications for Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways by 

Nicholas Fisichelli, PhD, 

NPS Climate Change 

Response Program. Prepared 

for the National Park Service, 

Midwest Region, Omaha, 

Nebraska.

n.d.a “Alley Mill,” park website

article by Cindy Von Halle. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.nps.gov/ozar/hi

storyculture/alley-mill.htm>.

n.d.b “Klepzig Mill,” park website 

article by Alex Outlaw. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.nps.gov/ozar/hi

storyculture/klepzigmill.htm>.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRCS)

2003 Rapid Watershed Assessment, 

Current River Sub-basin. 

Columbia, MO: 

HUC#11010008.

Nature Conservancy, The

2003 Ozarks Ecoregional 

Conservation Assessment. 

Minneapolis, MN.

Newman, P., E. Pilcher, and R. Manning 

2005 Muir Woods National 

Monument: Phase I 

Soundscape Report. Prepared 

by Colorado State University 

and University of Vermont 

for the National Park Service 

Natural Sounds Program.

Outlaw, Alex

1989 “Interpreting the Ordinary.” 

OzarksWatch, Vol. II, No. 4, 

Spring 1989.

Ozark Foothills Region

2011a About Ozark Foothills 

Region. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://www.ofrpc.org/about

.html>.

2011b City of Van Buren, MO. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.ofrpc.org/cities

/vanburen.html>.

2011c Carter County, MO. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.ofrpc.org/count

y/carter.html>.

Park, Logan 

2011 Assessment of Visitor-Related 

Impacts and Potential 

Management Strategies at 

Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways. Denver, CO: 

Report prepared for the 

National Park Service. On file 

at Denver Service Center.

Parris, K. M. et al. 

2009 “Frogs Call at a Higher Pitch 

in Traffic Noise.” Ecol. Soc. 

14, 25. Available on the 

Internet at

<http://www.ecologyandsoci

ety.org/vol14/iss1/art25>.

Patricelli, G. L. and J. L. Blickley

2006 “Avian Communication in 

Urban Noise: Causes and 

Consequences of Vocal 

Adjustment.” Auk 123, 639–

649.
REFERENCES

608

Pilcher, E. and F. Turina

2006 Visitor Experience and 

Soundscapes: Annotated 

Bibliography, NPS. Available 

on the Internet at 

<http://nature.nps.gov/sound

/assets/docs/VisitorExperien

ce_Soundscapes_AnnotatedB

iblio_17Aug10.pdf>.

Rabin, L. A. et al.

2006 “The effects of wind turbines 

on antipredator behavior in 

California ground squirrels”. 

Biological Conservation. 131, 

410–420. 

Searcy, Robert

2011 Missouri Water Patrol 

Division, State Patrol. 

Personal communication 

phone conversation with 

Captain Robert Searcy by 

Chris Dixon on March 18, 

2011 regarding description of 

Water Patrol Division and 

relationship with Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways.

Selye, H.

1956 The Stress of Life. New York, 

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Shannon County, MO GenWeb

2011 Shannon County Offices. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.rootsweb.ances

try.com/~moshanno/Offices.

htm>.

Slabbekoorn, H. and E.A. Ripmeester 

2008 “Birdsong and 

Anthropogenic Noise: 

Implications and 

Applications for 

Conservation.” Mol. Ecol. 17, 

72–83.

Stynes, Daniel J.

2011 Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities from National 

Park Visitation and Payroll, 

2009. Department of 

Community, Agriculture, 

Recreation and Resource 

Studies, Michigan State 

University. Prepared for 

NPS, Natural Resource 

Program Center.

Swaddle, J. P. and L. C. Page 

2007 “High Levels of 

Environmental Noise Erode 

Pair Preferences in Zebra 

Finches: Implications for 

Noise Pollution.” Anim. 

Behav. 74, 363–368.

Swigert, Terry

2011 Carter County Sheriff’s 

Department. Phone 

conversation with Terry 

Swigert by Chris Dixon on 

March 15, 2011 regarding 

description of sheriff’s 

department.

Templeton, D. and P. Sacre

1997 Acoustics in the Built 

Environment: Advice for the 

Design Team. Architectural 

Press.

Terril, Kelly

2011 Shannon County Sheriff’s 

Office. Phone conversation 

with Kelly Terril by Chris 

Dixon on March 18, 2011 

regarding: relationship 

between Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways and 

Shannon County Sheriff’s 

Department.

U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census)

2000 Census 2000 Summary File 1:

100 Percent Data. Table P8: 

Hispanic or Latino by Race: 

Total Population. For 

Geographies: United States, 

state of Missouri, Carter 

County and Shannon 

County, MO and Eminence 

Township, MO.

2009a American Community Survey 

2005–2009. Table B01001: 
References

609

Sex by Age: Total Population. 

For Geographies: United 

States, state of Missouri, 

Carter County and Shannon 

County, MO and Eminence 

Township, MO.

2009b American Community Survey 

2005–2009. Table B25075: 

Housing Value Ranges. For 

Geographies: United States, 

state of Missouri, Carter 

County and Shannon 

County, MO and Eminence 

Township, MO.

2009c American Community Survey 

2005–2009. Table B25077: 

Median Housing Value. For 

Geographies: United States, 

state of Missouri, Carter 

County and Shannon 

County, MO and Eminence 

Township, MO.

2009d American Community Survey 

2005–2009. Table B25003: 

Tenure—Occupied Housing 

Units. For Geographies: 

United States, state of 

Missouri, Carter County and 

Shannon County, MO and 

Eminence Township, MO.

2009e American Community Survey 

2005–2009. Table B25002: 

Occupancy Status—Housing 

Units. For Geographies: 

United States, state of 

Missouri, Carter County and 

Shannon County, MO and 

Eminence Township, MO.

2010a Census 2010 Summary File 1

Table DP1. 

2010b Census 2010 Summary File 1, 

Table DP 1. 

2010c Census 2006–2010 ACS 

5year, Table 51701, Table 

51903.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

2009 Summary Report: 2007 

National Resources Inventory. 

Natural Resources 

Conservation Services. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/I

nternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS

/stelprdb1041379.pdf>

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)

1983 The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic 

Preservation, Effective 

September 29, 1983, as 

Amended. Washington, D.C.

1995a The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for Preserving, 

Rehabilitating, Restoring, and 

Reconstructing Historic 

Buildings, 1995. By Kay D. 

Weeks and Anne E Grimmer. 

Washington, D.C.

1995b The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment 

of Cultural Landscapes, 

Effective August 11, 1995. 

Washington, D.C.

2011 Payments in Lieu of Taxes 

(PILT): County Payments 

and Acres: State of Missouri. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.nbc.gov/pilt/pil

t/search.cfm#search>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

1998 Final Guidance for 

Incorporating Environmental 

Justice Concerns in EPA's 

NEPA Compliance Analyses. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/compli

ance/resources/policies/ej/in

dex.html>.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S 

Department of Agriculture

1992 Report to Congress. Potential 

Impacts of Aircraft Overflights 
REFERENCES

610

of National Forest System 

Wildernesses.

2003 “Conservation Assessment 

for Ozark hellbender 

(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis 

bishopi Grobman).” Rolla, 

MO: Information compiled 

by Larry L. Furniss. Mark 

Twain National Forest.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

2011 Ozark Hellbender Fact Sheet 

(Cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis bishop). 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.fws.gov/midwe

st/endangered>.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS and 

NMFS)

1998 Endangered Species 

Consultation Handbook:

Procedures for Conducting 

Consultations and Conference 

Activities Under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act. 

March 1998.

U.S. Geological Survey and Missouri 

Department of Conservation (USGS and 

MDC)

2000 Ecological Classification of 

Riparian Areas in the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways, by 

Cindy Buck, Keith Grabner, 

and Tim Nigh. Jamestown, 

ND: Prepared in cooperation 

with the National Park 

Service.

Voyles, Elizabeth 

2011 Shannon County Sheriff’s 

Department. Personal 

communication with 

Elizabeth Voyles by Chris 

Dixon on March 15, 2011 

regarding: description of 

sheriff’s department.

Warren, P. S. et al. 

2006 “Urban Bioacoustics: It’s not 

Just Noise.” Anim. Behav. 71, 

491–502.

Zedeno, Maria Nieves and Robert 

Christopher Basaldu

2003 Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways, Missouri—

Cultural Affiliation Study 

(Final Report). Tucson, AZ: 

Bureau of Applied Research 

in Anthropology, University 

of Arizona, Tucson. Prepared 

for the National Park Service, 

Midwest Region, Omaha, 

Nebraska.

2010 National Park Service 

Climate Change Response 

Strategy. National Park 

Service Climate Change 

Response Program, Fort 

Collins, Colorado.

2012 National Park Service Green 

Parks Plan: Advancing our 

Mission through Sustainable 

Operations. Available online: 

http://www.nps.gov/greenpa

rksplan Accessed July 27, 

2012.
611

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

PREPARERS

National Park Service,

Denver Service Center

Chris Church, Project Manager / Natural 

Resources Specialist. 17 years’ 

experience, 7 years with the National 

Park Service; B.S. Wildlife and 

Fisheries Science.

Scott Babcock, Project Manager /

Community Planner, 15 years 

experience, 1 year with the National 

Park Service; B.S. Biology; B.S. 

Environmental Studies; M.E.M., 

Resource Economics and Policy.

Ann Van Huizen, (retired). Project 

Manager (2001–2010), 33 years with 

the National Park Service; B.A. Liberal 

Arts (Forest Resource Management, 

Biology, and Communications).

Eric Thuerk, Project Manager Associate. 21 

years of experience, 3 years with the 

National Park Service; B.S. in 

Landscape Architecture; Masters in 

Architecture.

Merritt Malin, Landscape Architect (2006–

2008, retired). 3 years with the 

National Park Service.

Don Wojcik, Natural Resources Specialist 

(2010–present). 18 years’ experience, 3 

years with the National Park Service. 

B.S. Civil & Environmental 

Engineering; M.P.A. Natural Resource 

Management and Environmental 

Policy.

Steve Whissen, Historian / Cultural 

Resource Specialist. 22 years with the 

National Park Service. B.A. History; 

M.A. Historic Preservation.

Ryan Sharp, Visitor Use Specialist. (2009–

2011). 5 years’ experience, 2 years with 

the National Park Service; Ph.D. 

Recreation Resource Management.

Justin Henderson, Cultural Resources 

Specialist. 9 years’ experience, 1.5 

years with the National Park Service; 

B.A. Anthropology; M.A. Urban and 

Regional Planning; M.A. 

Anthropology; M.A. Historic 

Preservation.

Nell J. Blodgett. GIS Specialist. 6 years with 

the National Park Service; B.A.

Geography; M.S. GIS Science.

Jennifer Stein, Visitor Use Management 

Specialist. 1 year with the National 

Park Service; B.A. Environmental 

Studies; M.A.S. Environmental Policy 

and Management.

Chris Colvin, Natural Resources Specialist. 

6 years' experience, 1 year with the 

National Park Service; B.A. Integrative 

Biology

Charles Notzon, Project Specialist

(Economics). 9 years' experience, 2 

years with the National Park Service, 

B.A. Economics, M.A., International 

Affairs.

Frank Turina, PhD, Program Manager, 

Policy Planning and Compliance, NPS 

Natural Sounds and Night Skies 

Division. 20 years’ experience, 8 years 

with the National Park Service; PhD 

Public Affairs/Policy, Masters of 

Environmental Policy and 

Management; B.S. Parks and 

Recreation Management.

Mary McVeigh, Community Planner 

(2001–2009, retired). 22 years with the 

National Park Service; B.A. Technical 

Communications.
PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

612

Midwest Regional Office

Sharon Miles, Planner/Regional Liaison

Chris Holbeck, Natural Resource Program 

Manager

The Louis Berger Group

Lisa McDonald, Senior Economist

Jeff Guittierez, Environmental Planner

CONSULTANTS

Midwest Regional Office

Sändra Washington, Associate Regional 

Director, Planning and Compliance

Ruth Heikkinen, Chief, Planning and 

Compliance

Nicholas Chevance, Regional 

Environmental Coordinator

Dan Jackson, Landscape Historian, 

Cultural Resources Division

Don Stevens, Chief Historian, Cultural 

Resources Division

National Park Service, Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways

Bill Black, Superintendent

Reed Detring, Superintendent (retired)

Noel Poe, Superintendent (retired)

Russell Runge, Deputy Superintendent

Dena Matteson, Management Assistant 

and Fire Communications and 

Education Specialist

Clara Wooden, Acting Superintendent 

(temporary)

Bill O’Donnell, Supervisory Interpretation 

Ranger

Bill Terry, District Ranger (retired)

Jim Price, Chief of Resources Management

(retired)

Roger Dillard, Chief of Maintenance 

(retired)

Rusty Rawson, Chief of Maintenance

Kevin Atkins, Facility Management 

Systems Specialist

Eric Daniels, Chief of Resource 

Management

Victoria Grant, Natural Resources 

Specialist

Carl Fry, Roads and Trails

Debbie Wisdom, Chief of Administration

Dan Swanson, Fire Ecologist

Bobby Bloodworth, Fire Ecologist

Greg Moss, Chief Ranger (retired)

Dennis Weiland, Chief Ranger (2010–

present)

Mike Gossett, Biological Technician

Angela Smith, Fire Education and 

Prevention Specialist

Rick Drummond, District Law 

Enforcement Ranger

Bryan Culpepper, Interpretation Specialist 

(2006–2011)

Elisa Kunz, Chief of Interpretation and 

Public Information Officer (2006–

2010)
Preparers and Consultants

613

Faye Walmsley, Chief of Interpretation and 

Public Information Officer (2010–

present)

Patty Dorris, Superintendent’s Secretary

Peggy Tarrence, Concession Management 

Specialist 

Kimberly Houf, Terrestrial Ecologist
This page is intentionally left blank
615

INDEX

Access and Circulation, iii, ii, 8, 9, 19, 20, 24, 

25, 27, 40, 41, 42, 43, 60, 61, 62, 67, 68, 69, 

70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 84, 95, 96, 

99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 106, 110, 113, 121, 

122, 123, 125, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 

143, 147, 150, 151, 152, 157, 163, 170, 187, 

201, 204, 209, 210, 215, 216, 217, 219, 222, 

223, 237, 238, 243, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 

252, 253, 255, 256, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263, 

264, 265, 266, 267, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, 

275, 276, 277, 278, 282, 283, 287, 288, 289, 

290, 291, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 

300, 301, 302, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 

315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 321, 322, 323, 324, 

325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 336, 337, 338, 339, 

340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 

349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 359, 

361, 362, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 374, 375, 

376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 394, 399, 400, 403, 

406, 407, 408, 410, 411, 412, 414, 415, 416, 

417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 424, 426, 427, 

428, 433, 434, 435, 437, 440, 442, 444, 445, 

455, 456, 457, 459, 462, 466, 467, 472

Affected Environment, xv, 29, 159, 241

Akers, 24, 41, 52, 61, 74, 76, 78, 82, 103, 105,

116, 123, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 175, 187, 

188, 196, 202, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 251, 

254, 263, 266, 274, 277, 292, 298, 299, 310, 

311, 349, 353, 354, 359, 366, 367, 377, 379, 

423, 437

Alley Spring, 7, 39, 51, 52, 61, 75, 105, 116, 

132, 133, 187, 190, 193, 194, 196, 199, 210, 

212, 215, 216, 220, 221, 222, 223, 226, 332, 

339, 340, 343, 400, 433

Alternative A, iii, i, ii, ix, x, xii, xiv, 39, 40, 41, 

42, 43, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 67, 69, 70, 119, 

120, 122, 123, 125, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 

138, 150, 151, 248, 250, 260, 262, 271, 273, 

287, 289, 290, 291, 292, 307, 308, 316, 317, 

322, 323, 324, 330, 331, 334, 341, 342, 343, 

344, 345, 354, 362, 364, 372, 374, 375, 376, 

385, 400

Alternative B (NPS preferred), iii, i, ii, iii, ix, x, 

xii, xiv, xv, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 51, 52, 54, 

56, 58, 73, 76, 77, 78, 120, 121, 122, 123, 

125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 138, 151, 

158, 251, 253, 254, 263, 265, 273, 274, 276, 

292, 295, 296, 297, 298, 308, 310, 317, 318, 

324, 325, 326, 331, 334, 335, 345, 346, 347, 

348, 349, 350, 351, 364, 365, 367, 376, 377, 

378, 379, 384, 386, 391, 400, 401, 402, 403, 

404, 407, 410, 414, 415, 416, 418, 420, 424, 

426, 429, 430, 431, 433, 434, 435, 438, 442, 

443

Alternative C, iii, i, iii, v, ix, x, xii, xiv, 39, 40, 

41, 42, 43, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 59, 81, 82, 83, 

84, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 131, 

132, 133, 138, 151, 152, 254, 256, 266, 268, 

277, 279, 298, 300, 301, 302, 303, 310, 311, 

312, 318, 319, 326, 327, 332, 335, 351, 352, 

353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 367, 368, 369, 370, 

378, 379, 380, 401

American Indian, x, 5, 11, 14, 19, 21, 29, 30, 

94, 95, 187, 189, 191, 203, 204, 228, 329, 

330, 331, 332, 383, 387, 389, 445, 455, 456, 

465, 466, 618

Backcountry, 43, 46, 61, 68, 74, 75, 82, 83, 

133, 134, 209, 215, 222, 223, 288, 293, 299, 

308, 309, 339, 343, 348, 349, 354, 360, 362, 

363, 366, 367, 368, 370, 375, 408

Bay Creek, 52, 210, 266, 298, 311, 353, 402, 

404, 413, 433

Big Spring, iii, ii, iii, vii, xiv, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 

23, 24, 27, 39, 40, 42, 51, 52, 61, 63, 70, 77, 

84, 105, 116, 123, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 

136, 137, 141, 142, 143, 146, 147, 148, 150, 

151, 152, 156, 158, 167, 184, 193, 194, 195, 

200, 201, 205, 206, 210, 211, 212, 215, 216, 

219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 250, 253, 256, 262, 

265, 268, 273, 276, 279, 289, 295, 300, 308, 

309, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 332, 

333, 339, 343, 347, 348, 354, 359, 361, 364, 

367, 370, 372, 375, 376, 378, 379, 380, 391, 

400, 401, 402, 424, 433, 437, 438, 439, 440, 

467, 604

Blue Spring, 61, 74, 82, 132, 133, 251, 254, 

263, 274, 277, 292, 299, 310, 311, 349, 354, 

377, 405, 406, 407, 408

Campgrounds, iii, 27, 42, 61, 68, 74, 75, 81, 82, 

83, 100, 103, 114, 116, 118, 121, 122, 132, 

133, 134, 194, 198, 209, 215, 216, 220, 221, 

222, 223, 251, 253, 254, 256, 263, 265, 267, 

274, 275, 277, 292, 294, 299, 310, 311, 315, 

329, 339, 342, 343, 347, 348, 349, 353, 354, 

360, 365, 367, 368, 370, 377, 379, 389, 405, 

406, 407, 408, 414, 428

Carbon Footprint, 28, 32, 113, 115, 471, 473
INDEX

616

Climate Change, ii, 25, 28, 32, 37, 112, 113, 

114, 115, 116, 124, 161, 162, 163, 167, 180, 

181, 263, 274, 292, 400, 438, 472, 473

Concessions, 38, 43, 61, 68, 75, 82, 102, 105, 

117, 133, 134, 135, 150, 217, 221, 222, 234, 

274, 293, 305, 307, 309, 311, 339, 346, 352, 

359, 363, 367, 370, 374, 377, 394, 432, 433, 

434

Cultural Resources, iii, ii, iii, xv, 5, 8, 9, 12, 19, 

23, 26, 27, 30, 38, 40, 41, 46, 58, 59, 69, 73, 

76, 83, 89, 94, 96, 97, 101, 106, 108, 109, 

112, 113, 114, 116, 121, 125, 127, 128, 130, 

131, 134, 135, 138, 148, 158, 161, 163, 195, 

202, 216, 219, 220, 222, 223, 241, 308, 313, 

314, 315, 319, 323, 325, 327, 329, 351, 355, 

359, 360, 363, 366, 369, 371, 376, 400, 422, 

431, 440, 442, 446, 457, 459, 462, 465, 466, 

468, 473, 603, 607

Environmental Justice, xv, 9, 32, 33, 161, 225, 

241, 371, 372, 375, 376, 378, 380, 394, 398, 

443, 457, 609

Environmentally Preferable Alternative, xv, 

37, 125

Ethnographic Resources, viii, x, 14, 95, 202, 

220, 313, 314, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 

466, 606

Floating, ii, 7, 25, 73, 101, 131, 132, 193, 207, 

209, 210, 283, 286, 290, 296, 301, 338, 339, 

362, 368, 372, 374, 376, 378, 404, 414, 433

Gooseneck, 61, 105, 133, 189, 195, 196, 223, 

402

Horse Trail(s), xiii, 42, 61, 68, 74, 81, 109, 132, 

196, 198, 209, 214, 217, 223, 249, 252, 255, 

261, 264, 267, 272, 278, 288, 294, 300, 307, 

309, 311, 316, 318, 319, 343, 348, 354, 362, 

365, 368, 373, 375, 377, 407, 408, 409, 410, 

411, 413, 428, 436, 441, 443, 606

Horseback Riding, ii, 5, 25, 60, 62, 73, 82, 131, 

133, 212, 214, 222, 244, 315, 316, 317, 318, 

319, 328, 339, 348, 372, 375, 377, 379, 407, 

410, 411, 415, 427, 440, 442, 468

Horsepower, v, xiii, 25, 33, 38, 39, 42, 47, 51, 

52, 53, 60, 67, 73, 81, 102, 131, 248, 251, 

254, 257, 261, 263, 266, 282, 287, 290, 292, 

295, 296, 305, 307, 309, 311, 338, 339, 341, 

342, 345, 346, 347, 351, 353, 356, 359, 362, 

365, 368, 372, 374, 376, 379, 380, 400, 401, 

402, 403, 404, 405

Indian Trust Resources, 29, 30

Interpretation and Visitor Services, vi, 20, 24, 

25, 26, 27, 39, 40, 45, 51, 58, 61, 62, 69, 75, 

76, 83, 96, 100, 105, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 

121, 123, 125, 126, 127, 130, 133, 134, 135, 

147, 204, 216, 219, 220, 283, 284, 285, 320, 

322, 324, 326, 330, 331, 332, 333, 340, 342, 

347, 348, 349, 355, 360, 363, 364, 366, 367, 

369, 370, 372, 377, 411, 424, 444, 459, 466, 

467, 468, 469, 612, 613

Invasive Species, 22, 27, 90, 91, 94, 108, 109, 

115, 163, 220, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 

275, 276, 277, 278, 285, 286, 360, 408, 426, 

439, 457, 460, 462, 470

Jerktail Landing, 187, 210

Motorboat Zones, 26, 32, 38, 42, 52, 53, 60, 

67, 73, 81, 102, 103, 105, 125, 131, 171, 184, 

185, 207, 211, 217, 244, 245, 246, 251, 257, 

261, 263, 266, 282, 284, 286, 287, 292, 296, 

298, 309, 338, 340, 342, 343, 345, 347, 351, 

353, 356, 359, 372, 374, 376, 380, 384, 

402,땼404, 405, 421

Museum Collections, viii, x, 14, 30, 41, 62, 63, 

69, 76, 84, 89, 94, 95, 96, 116, 125, 135, 136, 

138, 203, 205, 206, 220, 313, 333, 334, 335, 

360, 423, 467

Native American, 19, 21, 94, 203, 387, 422

Natural Resources, iii, ii, iii, vi, xv, 4, 13, 15, 

26, 27, 31, 32, 40, 41, 42, 58, 62, 68, 70, 75, 

76, 78, 82, 83, 84, 89, 90, 101, 102, 109, 114, 

115, 118, 120, 121, 125, 126, 128, 130, 135, 

137, 164, 176, 183, 202, 216, 220, 241, 244, 

248, 251, 254, 257, 260, 263, 266, 271, 273, 

277, 284, 285, 287, 290, 291, 292, 295, 296, 

297, 298, 302, 337, 338, 343, 348, 354, 360, 

362, 363, 366, 389, 398, 399, 406, 407, 409, 

412, 415, 416, 417, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 

431, 438, 440, 444, 445, 457, 460, 463, 471, 

601, 605, 607, 609, 611, 612, 618

No-action, i, ix, x, xiv, 52, 58, 60, 119, 120, 

122, 131, 132, 133, 138, 150, 151, 246, 257, 

269, 282, 304, 315, 320, 328, 333, 338, 359, 

371, 394

NPS Organic Act, 12, 89, 304, 421, 468, 473

Partnerships, vi, 63, 70, 78, 84, 117, 135, 137, 

445, 455, 457, 471

Powder Mill, ii, 42, 61, 75, 105, 116, 123, 

132, 133, 134, 187, 206, 212, 215, 219, 221, 

223, 332, 339, 343, 349, 350, 423, 424
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use 

of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving 

the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historic places; and providing for 

the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral 

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by 

encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island 

territories under U.S. administration.

NPS/OZAR/614/120459B DECEMBER 2014 

Printed on recycled paper
Ozark National Scenic Riverways

Missouri