Ozark Scenic Riverways Management Plan (Act by Feb 7!)

[Delgado]

The National Park Service is still accepting comments regarding the Draft General Management Plan. The Jacks Fork & Current
Rivers are suffering from over use from jet boaters, ATV 's, drunken canoe'rs ,and horseback riders. There are 3 alternatives , Plan A provides the most protection to provide a wilderness experience. Please check out the plan and submit your comments by February 7th. 2014. The Park Service is going to base their decision on these comments. http://www.nps.gov/ozar/parkmgmt/planning.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
For Comments
http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/ozar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for your attention
Your Brothers & Sisters from above your northern border.

[pblanc]

I am bumping this thread since a week still remains to post public comments on the National Park Service site regarding the draft management plan for the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. After this coming week, the public comment period will be closed.

I suspect that most members of the Arkansas Canoe Club would support some effort by the National Park Service to responsibly regulate and manage the ONSR. My guess is that most members of the club would not be opposed to reserving the upper Current River (above Two Rivers) and the Jack's Fork above West Eminence for non-motorized boating. The action alternatives proposed by the NPS in the draft general management plan would also either eliminate, or restrict to designated sites drive-in gravel bar camping, and would close some unauthorized horse trails and stream crossings.

The most salient features of the different action alternatives have been summarized in two tables, this one detailing the horsepower limits for different sections of the rivers under the proposed alternatives:
http://www.riverhillstraveler.com/DGMP/ ... orized.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and this table which outlines the differences between the several alternatives:
http://www.riverhillstraveler.com/DGMP/ ... ntable.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The National Park Service has already expressed a strong preference for action alternative "B" but has indicated they are open to "tweaking" the details of the plan based on intelligent commentary received from the public. It is likely that any plan approved by the NPS will remain in place for the next 20 years or so. Implementation and enforcement of the various elements of the plan will be dependent on funding by the US Congress, however, so approval of a draft management plan does not necessarily mean it will actually be acted on anytime soon.

For those who have not followed this issue please be aware that there has been considerable local resistance to any attempt by the NPS to regulate the ONSR. Many locals are strongly in favor of the "no action" alternative which would basically be a continuation of the status quo for the foreseeable future. This resistance has extended to, and in fact been inflamed to an extent by local political elements including Jason Smith, US Representative of Missouri's Eighth Congressional District, and Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder. Congressman Smith feels that the entire draft management plan prepared by the NPS or any attempt by the NPS to introduce new regulations of any type is "ridiculous". Lt. Governor Kinder wants the NPS to go away all together and turn the ONSR and its management over to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

Some of the commentary made by local residents on public forums has been reasonable and has addressed valid points but much has represented little more than anti-government rant, painting anyone or any group who expresses support for the NPS as anything from an "eco-terrorist" to "communists" wanting to take away the land. A recurring meme is the notion that those who support any version of the NPS draft GMP are merely armchair conservationists who are completely ignorant of the ONSR, wishing only to deprive local people of their "heritage", and that since local folks "care more" about the rivers they are vastly better stewards of the riverways than outsiders, so locals should have a predominant, if not exclusive say, in how the park is administered and used.

Here is one example of a comment made on the FB page "Stewards of the Ozarks":

"The federal government, ie agenda 21, want to drive us out of this area to the city! Obamacare has nothing to do with health insurance, but control! They have marked our area as a red zone. Some will not believe the plan of our government is to control our land, water, and make it almost impossible for us to survive here in the Ozarks. They want everyone in cities so they can control the masses, we are living in the last days. It seems so surreal, but yes, this is their ultimate goal. They want this area!!!"

This might seem a bit over the top but it is not atypical. I have read many comments that claim that the draft GMP is simply a first step in a plan to exclude everyone from the park, and even claims that the NPS is planning to shut off the water.

Another claim made by Jason Smith and oft repeated by locals is that any restrictions on use of the ONSR is going to threaten the economic viability of the area. This claim conveniently overlooks the fact that between 2006 and 2010 (the last year for which the NPS has data) has shown that between 88 and 93% of total spending in the ONSR has been done by people living outside a 60 mile radius of the park.

I am hoping that anyone who supports the NPS in their attempt to adopt a responsible management plan for the ONSR will take a few moments to make a comment in support of whatever version of the draft GMP you feel is best. Your comments will carry more weight if you can say that you have actually visited the ONSR and can use your personal experience to support your viewpoint.