Our PublicInvolvementEffort . . .To kick off the public'sinvolvement in the national riverways' newgeneral management planand wilderness studyprocess, we reached outin a number of ways andreceived extensive feedback. In August 2006 wedistributed approximately1,500 copies of ournewsletter and made itavailable through thepark's Web site and theNational Park Service'sPEPC Web site that isavailable for comments onplanning documents. Thenewsletter included amail-back comment formasking about what thepublic found special aboutthe national riverways,activities they enjoyed,any conflicts they havehad with other visitors oractivities, interest inwilderness designationnear Big Spring, and howthey envision the nationalriverways 20 years fromnow.

Dear Friends of Ozark National Scenic Riverways,Late last summer we started the public involvement process for our generalmanagement plan and wilderness study. We sent out a newsletter, postedinformation on our Web site, and held several public meetings. As a result, weheard from hundreds of people. Many expressed very specific ideas and concerns about the national riverways and its future. Thanks to each of youwho took time from your busy schedules to attend a meeting or drop us aline. Your input will be invaluable in helping the National Park Service (NPS)develop a plan that will make a lasting difference in the long-term management of this national park system unit.As you read further, you will discover what a wide range of interests andconcerns people have about the national riverways. Many expressed howmuch they value the scenic beauty of the park, the wonderful clear water,the opportunity for quiet and solitude, and the opportunity to have fun with friends and family. We also heard from many who will no longer bring their families to the national riverways because of alcohol abuse andrelated inappropriate activities. We learned that many avoid the park at certain times of the year because of overcrowding, and we heard a lot of concerns about conflicts between different recreational groups, such asfloaters, motorboaters, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) users, campers, and horseback riders.Hearing your comments has strengthened my resolve to focus even more oninappropriate behaviors, and with your cooperation we will “clean up thenational riverways” in more ways than one! Together we can restore thenational riverways as a place where you will enjoy bringing your family andhaving experiences that can be found nowhere else in the region.Please read this newsletter and find out what people are thinking and sayingabout the national riverways and its future. These issues and concerns provide important insights about what park visitors, neighbors, other agencies and organizations expect from the general management plan. If youhave any comments, contact us at the national riverways’ Web site,<www.nps.gov/ozar>. Remember — respect for the rivers has a ripple effect!Sincerely,Noel R. Poe, Superintendent
Page 2 Ozark National Scenic Riverways / General Management Plan / Wilderness Study

Through the newsletter

and press releases, the

public was invited to five

public meetings that were

held in Van Buren,

Eminence, Poplar Bluff,

Salem, and St. Louis during

the week of September 18,

2006. The 291 people who

attended were able to

speak with National Park

Service and U.S. Forest

Service staff at five topic

tables as well as attend

breakout discussion sessions. Altogether, more

than 1700 individual 

comments were recorded

at these meetings. In 

addition, the national 

riverways staff attended

Chamber of Commerce

meetings in Mt. View,

Ellington, and Doniphan,

providing an opportunity

for attendees in these

other communities to learn

about and comment on

the planning effort. Also,

comment forms were

made available at some

local coffee shops in Van

Buren and Eminence.

In addition to the public

meeting comments, the

national riverways has

received more than 400

responses in the form 

of letters, comment forms,

and electronic messages.

The response from the

public has been overwhelming. There isn't

enough space here to

record all the comments

we received, but hopefully

the following summary

captures many of the 

public's most common

concerns.

What We Heard from You . . .

River Use

A frequent comment was that there are far too many tubing, canoeing, rafting, and

boating parties on the national riverways. Using the existing permit system to further

limit the number of parties on the water was offered as a possible solution. Another

idea proposed was to zone different portions of the rivers for different uses. Another

frequent comment was that the number of vehicle access points (many informally

developed by visitors) should be reduced to minimize visual impacts and manage the

number of craft in the water. Commenters also noted that river users could benefit

from more education on the use of and operation of both motorized and nonmotorized watercraft. Concerns were also expressed about the use of jet boats in the rivers

and off-road vehicles (ORVs) on gravel bars or in the river and banning such uses

were offered as potential solutions. Others did not see these uses as a problem.

Visitor Behavior

A recurrent complaint was disrespectful and lewd visitor behavior. This behavior was

characterized by the use of loud and profane language, consumption of large

amounts of alcohol, and the consumption and trafficking of illegal drugs. Many stated that while they regularly visited the national riverways in the past, they now avoid

using it because the rivers are no longer “family friendly.” There were many suggestions for limiting the availability of alcohol on the river or banning it completely.

Conversely, some stated that having beer on the river was fine. In the middle ground

were people who advocated that alcohol should be allowed, but that abusers should

be dealt with sternly and existing laws and regulations should be more consistently

and forcefully enforced. Repeatedly, responders noted the need for visitors to show

greater respect for other visitors and suggested education, interpretation, and

increased law enforcement as ways to help reduce visitor use conflicts.

Trash and Litter 

A majority of commenters had concerns about litter and trash along the rivers and

surrounding lands. Items most often mentioned were empty beer cans and even the

red trash bags that are distrubuted by concessioners but thrown away by visitors.

Solutions suggested included that the national riverways should better partner with
lop a vision for the

d analyzed before a

 and contrast the

sion-making required

alternatives will be

ys’ legislated purpose,

tly assist us in this next

e family friendly. I

tfitters, etc., we have

e activities. If you

nal riverways' web

d for an undeveloped

become a traditional

purposes include

by visitor activities,

Summary of Public Scoping Comments Newsletter #2 / Summer 2007 Page 3

claimed that more documentation was needed. Several commenters expressed concerns about sewage from local communities or homes along the river finding its wayinto the rivers. Still others thought that jet boats contributed greatly to shoreline erosion and water turbidity and called for a ban on these crafts on the rivers. Thenumerous informal vehicle access points along the shoreline, others said, contributeto shoreline erosion and riverbed disturbance. Many noted that water quality issueswere more acute downstream of Eminence on the lower Jacks Fork River.

Trails and Horse Use

Respondents were divided on horseback riding in the national riverways. Horsebackriders strongly advocated for this activity, citing that it was a traditional use, that itwas a way to enjoy the national riverways’ scenery, that it was an excellent form ofexercise, and that major horse events (e.g., Cross Country Trail Ride and others) hadeconomic benefits for local communities. Horseback riders asserted there was aneed for more designated horse trails, especially ones going north and south throughthe national riverways to reduce the need for river crossings. Many expressed worries about recent trail closures and contended that the National Park Service wasbeing too restrictive. Several suggested that old or unsanctioned roads should beconverted to horse trails. Conversely, other commenters stated that there were toomany horse trails. A few complained about conflicts between equestrians and otherusers, and many complained about horse crossings and manure on gravel bars. Somecommenters wanted current trails to be better maintained. Other park users wantedmore hiking trails. Several commenters expressed the need for improved signs alongtrails (and the river) so visitors knew where they were in the park. One commenterrequested that trail maps be available via the park website. 

Roads and ATV Use

Many commenters complained about the impacts of illegal off-road vehicles and allterrain vehicles (ATVs) on lands surrounding the rivers. Many cited an increasingnumber of unsanctioned roads made by visitors seeking access to river shorelinesand noted that the maze of unsanctioned roads spoiled the feeling of solitude andstrained the capacity of law enforcement rangers to adequately patrol them. Severalsuggested that ATVs should be banned in the national riverways, while others saidthey should be prohibited from entering the rivers, and others stated they should berestricted to certain roads and crossings. ATV users did not support such restrictions. Many commenters asserted that most of these roads should be closed andallowed to revegetate or be converted to horse trails. Others contended that roadsshould remain open and be better maintained, especially those leading to old homesteads and cemeteries. 

ll have opportunities

b site. We look forWilderness

On the topic of wilderness designation for the Big Spring tract, many responders advocated for wilderness designation; conversely, others stated that the designation would

be too restrictive or that the Big Spring tract should remain “roadless” but not be designated as wilderness. A few were unclear about the implications of wilderness designation and stated that hunting should be permitted in wilderness.

Camping

There were differing views on what constitutes appropriate camping in the national

riverways. Comments included wanting unrestricted camping to continue, wanting

more primitive campgrounds with only vault toilets, and wanting designated and formal

campgrounds with additional recreational vehicle (RV) electric hook-ups. Others

claimed that many of the “primitive” campsites often were occupied by RVs with generators, which impacted the sense of solitude. Others contended that the vehicle camping along the shoreline was negatively impacting boat and canoe camping in the same

locations.

Facilities

There was also disagreement about providing visitor facilities. Development of facilities

(e.g., visitor centers, campgrounds, replica historic structures) should be kept to a minimum, some said, so the national riverways would retain a more primitive “feel.” Others

asserted that it is important to maintain historic structures, such as those constructed

by the Civilian Conservation Corps. There were suggestions that the Akers Ferry

Campground and landing should be open and better maintained, and that the

Waymeyer landing and parking, Alley Spring campground and playground, and

Williams landing and access road be improved. A museum for displaying regional artifacts was also suggested.

Resource Management 

Commenters frequently noted how much they value the outstanding scenic beauty of

the national riverways. However, many individuals expressed concerns about how park

resources are being managed. Conservation advocates contended that the national

riverways should have a more hands-on approach to resource management and that

several park practices were leading to wildlife habitat fragmentation. There were comments about the national riverways’ problems with invasive exotic species and declining fish populations. One commenter suggested restocking the rivers with walleye and

trout, but another discouraged restocking the rivers with trout because this species was

not native to the watershed and was an active predator of the dwindling numbers of

hellbender salamanders. A small mouth bass management plan similar to ones developed by the state was among other suggestions.

There also were varying views on songbird populations and managing open fields to

support those populations. A number of birding enthusiasts believed former fields

should be reopened and managed as food plots for songbirds and quail. Another commenter discouraged this practice, stating that it would decrease the overall biodiversity

in the national riverways. 

A few respondents pointed out the value and importance of the national riverways’

caves. One stated that the national riverways' cave management program was a model

that others should follow.

Page 4 Ozark National Scenic Riverways / Wilderness Study
camping to continue, wanting

and wanting designated and formal

V) electric hook-ups. Others

were occupied by RVs with gen

 contended that the vehicle camp

 and canoe camping in the same

facilities. Development of facilities

ructures) should be kept to a mini

ain a more primitive “feel.” Others

tures, such as those constructed

estions that the Akers Ferry

maintained, and that the

ound and playground, and

seum for displaying regional arti

the outstanding scenic beauty of

xpressed concerns about how park

s contended that the national

resource management and that

 fragmentation. There were com

vasive exotic species and declin

cking the rivers with walleye and

with trout because this species was

or of the dwindling numbers of

ment plan similar to ones devel

ns and managing open fields to

usiasts believed former fields

ongbirds and quail. Another com

d decrease the overall biodiversity

ance of the national riverways’

anagement program was a model

Summary of Public Scoping Comments Newsletter #2 / Summer 2007 Page 5

Commenters held divergent views on park management and operations topics, including the following:

National Riverways’ Mission — Many individuals thought the national riverwaysshould stress as its management priority the protection and preservation of resourcesand low-impact recreation with nonmotorized vehicles. However, some stated theNational Park Service was already too restrictive and there should be less governmentpresence.Law Enforcement / Park Management — Many responders stated there was a needfor more law enforcement rangers and that existing laws and regulations needed to bemore consistently enforced, while others complimented the rangers for doing a goodjob and did not see a need for more rangers. A few reported having negative interactions with law enforcement rangers that left them feeling intimidated. Some suggestedit would be more effective to have rangers visible on the river rather than watchingfrom the woods.Scenic Easements — Some commenters thought scenic easements were a good wayto protect the aesthetic qualities of the national riverways, but noted that new construction and utility powerline cuts were visually disfiguring river shorelines. Therewere concerns that the national riverways was not fully enforcing the terms of existingeasements.Community Relations — The value of good communication between the nationalriverways and local communities was noted, and commenters also said that the scoping public open houses had been very beneficial. Many recognized that the nationalriverways had limited funding and staff and encouraged the national riverways toreach out to local businesses, special interest groups, and community leaders for wayslocal individuals could be co-stewards and help the national riverways staff protectthe rivers and other park resources. 

Wilderness is intended specifically for recreational use by people who want toenjoy a primitive, get-away-from-it-all experience — whether for hunting, hiking,or backcountry camping. The Wilderness Act of 1964 states that wilderness "shallbe administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people" and "shall bedevoted to the public for purposes of recreation, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation and historic use" (Sections 2a and 4b).This General Management Plan/Wilderness Study will identify and evaluate alternatives for possible designation of the Big Spring tract, approximately 3,400 acres inthe southeast part of the national riverways, adjacent to the Mark Twain NationalForest. The alternatives will look at ways to protect the tract's primitive qualities andopportunities for solitude. Ultimately, it is up to Congress to enact legislation todesignate an area as wilderness.
What's Next?

The next planning step for the general management plan and wilderness study is to develop a vision for the

national riverways’ future. Several possible visions (called alternatives) are developed and analyzed before a

preferred direction is identified. Evaluating a range of alternatives enables us to compare and contrast the

advantages of one course of action over another, and provides a sound approach to decision-making required

by the National Environmental Policy Act. In the coming months, a preliminary range of alternatives will be

developed. Each alternative will be developed within the context of the national riverways’ legislated purpose,

significance, interpretive themes, and planning issues. What we heard from you will greatly assist us in this next

step.

Page 6 Ozark National Scenic Riverways / General Management Plan / Wilderness Study

We Listened!

For those of you that attended the first round of meetings, the first sign you saw said 

"We are here to listen!"

And we did listen. Many of your concerns were about inappropriate visitor activities and behaviors that diminish the quality of your visit. Although resolving some of these issues will require a

formal planning process, there are others that we can begin to resolve now.

Alcohol Abuse. The number one concern expressed was the inappropriate behaviors related to

the abuse of alcohol. Time and time again, we heard the rivers need to be family friendly. I

agree, and after consulting with park staff, other agencies, the canoe outfitters, etc., we have

placed more restrictions on activities related to alcohol and inappropriate activities. If you

missed the press releases announcing the new rules, please visit the national riverways' website at <www.nps.gov/ozar>.

Flying W. Also, this year we have a site rehabilitation project being planned for an undeveloped

area on the upper Current River, locally known as Flying W. This area has become a traditional

"party" location where many inappropriate activities occur. The project's purposes include

finding ways to rehabilitate the site's resources that have been impacted by visitor activities,

improving the quality of visitor experiences, and better managing river access

and parking. Following announcements

in the local papers, the Flying W

Environmental Assessment was released

to the public for a 30-day review and

comment period that closed July 6. You

can continue to access this document

through the National Park Service Web

site for planning

(http://parkplanning.nps.gov).

Noel R. Poe, Superintendent

Please note that once we have developed the preliminary alternatives, you will have opportunities

to comment and contribute ideas through newsletters, meetings, and our Web site. We look forward to your continued interest and involvement.
ubing, canoeing, rafting, and

isting permit system to further

 a possible solution. Another

ers for different uses. Another

ess points (many informally

visual impacts and manage the

hat river users could benefit

oth motorized and nonmotor

he use of jet boats in the rivers

ver and banning such uses

these uses as a problem.

or behavior. This behavior was

 consumption of large

ng of illegal drugs. Many stat

ays in the past, they now avoid

y.” There were many sugges

 or banning it completely.

was fine. In the middle ground

owed, but that abusers should

should be more consistently

 the need for visitors to show

on, interpretation, and

or use conflicts.

nd trash along the rivers and

empty beer cans and even the

ut thrown away by visitors.

ys should better partner with

g 

The team examines and reaffirms the purpose andsignificance of the unit, and determines the primaryissues and concerns for the General ManagementPlan / Wilderness Study / Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS). Team members collect and analyzerelevant data and public comments.

Develop and Evaluate Alternatives

Using staff and public input from step 2 above, theteam will identify a range of reasonable alternativesfor the future of the national riverways, present preliminary alternatives to the public, analyze publicreactions, and select a preferred alternative.

Prepare and Publish the Draft GeneralManagement Plan/Wilderness Study/EIS

A Draft General Management Plan/WildernessStudy/EIS will be published and distributed to thepublic. The draft document will describe the alternatives and their impacts.

Revise and Publish the Final GeneralManagement Plan/Wilderness Study/EIS

The team will analyze public comments on the draftdocument, prepare responses to substantive comments, and make appropriate revisions to the draftdocument. The final document will then be distributed to the public. A Record of Decision will beissued to adopt the approved management plan.

Implement the Approved Plan

The approved plan will then be implemented asfunding allows. The findings of the WildernessStudy will be transmitted, as appropriate, to theNPS Director, Secretary of the Interior, President,and Congress.

Attend public meetings and voice yourconcerns orally or by using a responseform, mailing a letter, or commentingonline.Read preliminary alternatives newsletterand send us your ideas and comments.Attend public meetings to provide additional input.Read the draft plan and send us your ideasand comments via mail or the Internet.Attend public meetings and the wildernessstudy hearing(s) to provide more input.

Read the final document.

Stay involved throughout the implementation of the approved plan. You will haveopportunities to comment on future implementation projects. 

Fall 2005-

Summer 2006

Fall 2006-

Spring 2008

Summer 2008-

Summer 2009

Fall 2009-

Fall 2010

Winter 2010-

and

Beyond

23456

Summary of Public Scoping Comments Newsletter #2 / Summer 2007 Page 7

We are here
DENVER SERVICE CENTER - A VAN HUIZEN

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

12795 W ALAMEDA PKWY

PO BOX 25287

DENVER, CO 80225-0287

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

PERMIT NO. G-83